Judith's Modest Proposal
So there I was on my way to Blockbuster to return 101 Dalmations yesterday when I got an idea about how to handle Iran. It's a little bananas, but at least it's different -- a change of pace from the highly undesirable option of an Israeli strike. I'm not explicitly advocating this plan, and there are lots of reasons why it probably wouldn't get very far even if it were tried, but some useful ideas might shake out from a discussion of its virtues, if it has any. Here goes.
Some preliminary points:
- Much of the region is deeply worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions, as evidenced by public Arab support for a pre-emptive strike and the Saudi agreement to allow the Israelis to fly over their territory on their way to and from Iran.
- Unless Iran is wiped out, which neither Israel nor the U.S. nor anyone else wants, any forcible disruption of its nuclear program will only delay its nuclear capability, not prevent it.
- Israel has not signed, and has no intention of signing, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Okay. So here's my idea.
- We bail on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The nuclear cat is pretty much out of the bag.
- We all stop wringing our hands over the Iranian nuclear program. They want nukes; they're going to build nukes. Let it happen.
- Israel offers to assist Arab states in building their own nuclear weapons to guard against the Iranian threat.
- In exchange for that assistance, Israel will receive the following:
- Full diplomatic recognition, complete with genuine normalization efforts (new curricula in schools designed to teach a more balanced history of Israel in the region, academic exchanges, exchange of ambassadors, the whole nine yards).
- Clear, unequivocal, regularly reiterated statements by Arab leaders to their populations, in Arabic, to the effect that Israel is not only no longer an enemy; she is a friend.
- An immediate end to the economic boycott, and clear public statements, in both English and Arabic, stating Arab rejection of the assorted European academic boycotts of Israelis.
- Full economic cooperation, including incentives to promote Israeli-Arab joint ventures.
- Consortia in which Muslim, Jewish and Christian religious leaders come together respectfully and publicly.
- And the piece de resistance: mutual defense treaties. If Iran tries to hit Riyadh, say, the IDF will be in there to help; if Iranian-backed Hezbollah attacks Haifa again, the Jordanians will have the IDF's back.
So there you have it. This is basically a fantasy -- for Israel to help anybody build nukes, she has to admit she already knows how, for one thing; and for another, this does not address the Palestinian problem (it's been used more as a convenient excuse than anything else by most of the Arab nations, but they wouldn't be able to get away with just dismissing it overnight). And the current signatories to the NNPT would probably have a thing or two to say about all that proliferation (which would indeed be unnerving, to say the least). Still, the thought of this region banding together to pursue a common strategic interest gives me a warm glow, as does -- of course -- the image of Israel being welcomed, if a little belatedly, into the neighborhood.
Just a thought.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
Deals or no deals, a nation like Saudi Arabia becoming a nuclear power could actually make their government less stable, rather than more stable. The Saudi royals have a cap on their own radical Islamists kind of like BP has a cap on the oil gusher in the Gulf, and nuclear weapons may give their radicals even more reason to rise up and try to take power.
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
The thing I like about this proposal is this: It's perhaps true that Iran is going to nuke up no matter what we do. Even a pre-emptive strike, as you say, only delays this. And this proposal has the virtue of at least trying to make something good come out of it.
My first questions would be:
1) Which Arab governments, precisely?
2) Who would supervise these nukes, and what safeguards would be in place to ensure they didn't get into the wrong hands? These are not, after all, the most stable countries in the world.
Jun '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
Good morning, Judith.
You are being practical where the situation calls for moral rectitude. It's bad enough that the mullahs are so odious and full of hate. Do you really want to allow them the means to wipe out millions of innocents? A second holocaust? The answer is regime change. Unfortunately, American leadership lacks the aforementioned moral rectitude. I hope Israeli leadership is more stalwart.
May '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
The cynical view: Israel would be arming a bunch of bad guys in exchange for promises that they would no longer be bad. It requires way too much trust, I'm afraid.
May '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
It'll never happen, although it is an elegant solution to current troubles. I mention "current" because the real weakness in the proposal is what could happen ten years from now. For example, imagine that nine years from now Iran crumbles from within as we hoped would happen last summer. A new, less antagonistic regime replaces the mullahs. All of a sudden, the glue that sustained the pact - enmity with Iran - melts away and you are left with a region that has a booming population, ingrained hatred of Israel that won't go away anytime soon, and holsters full of atomic six-shooters. No thanks.
May '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
Enough of this silly reality stuff.
The reason this is impossible is that His Peaceness, for one, would never, never, in 500 million years "bail on the" NPT.
It is that most effective of devices, hallowed since Kellogg-Briand for its own peace-guaranteeing virtue, a piece of paper used by Lilliputian scoundrels to tie up honorable Gullivers in knots and nudge the good guys toward unilateral disarmament as a Show Of Good Faith.
May '10
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
The main problem with that is that nuclear armament can be done once and is ever a threat thereafter, whereas everything you request in return requires constant renewal and can easily be reneged by each successive leadership. Israel would be at their mercy after the intial trade.
The general concept is good: make them an offer they can't refuse... an offer that forces interaction between peoples. The main change that needs to happen to secure Israel is more face-to-face interaction between the everyday non-politicians of Israel and its neighbors in cooperative endeavors, like business. But that's a long term strategy. The fundamental problem is a cultural one. The Arab cultures are too insulated.
In the short term, the main threat is the leadership of Iran. The Arabs are tolerable (by Middle East standards) because the royals care more about money and comfort than the destruction of Israel. If Saudi Arabia had nukes, Israel wouldn't be in imminent danger. Ahmadenijad and Khamenei must be removed from power.
Re: Judith's Modest Proposal
I like this mischievous solution. It has elegance and also a certain diabolical realism. Because just by making the offer, Israel will turn the world upside down. And the world -- especially that part of the world -- needs a little shaking up.
It also clarifies what everybody knows anyway: Israel has the bomb. And it clarifies -- or would, by extension -- one more thing: Israel will use the bomb to defend itself.
The presence of the state of Israel in that part of the world has been an 80 year distraction -- no time at all, really, in the sweep of history -- from what the region has always tended towards: bloody, protracted conflict among Arabs, and between Arabs and Persians punctuated by simmering, suspicious standoffs.
Might be useful to get back to that. Or, correction: it might be in American interests to get back to that.