RSS

Over two-thirds of Atlantic Community members who voted in our 2012 topics poll listed Iran as a major issue, the top vote-getter. Certainly, the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons is of grave concern to the international community. But imagine an American explaining to your average Iranian why. Is the Iranian government too hostile to be trusted with such weaponry? "We aren’t the ones who’ve actually used the things," they might respond. Is Iran not following the international treaties governing such weapons? "The US flaunts international treaties every day, including well accepted agreements in the International Criminal Court and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child," says the Iranian. "I won’t even mention your little Iraq adventure," he adds. Have we realized that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to hold? "The US and Russia still have thousands of them," they reply.

At every turn there is a hypocrisy and contradiction when dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, that Western nations are allowed to have them and others are not. While the US might hold the rhetorical and moral high ground on human rights in comparison to the repressive Iranian regime, this breaks down when nuclear weapons come into the equation. Perhaps this is why there is notable support for the Iranian nuclear program among the Iranian people, even those who oppose the Islamic government and actively campaign for political change. There is an inherent unfairness amongst the current international nuclear regimes that cannot be ignored forever.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the ultimate example of shutting the door to the castle once you are safely inside. While the provisions of the treaty that bar new states from proliferating are strictly enforced, disarmament is neglected, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology is easily swept aside by suspicion. (And not without reason, as studies have shown that peaceful nuclear cooperation increases the chance of weaponization) What has resulted from this and other agreements is a perverse moral hazard, where rogue states are essentially bribed into giving up their nuclear programs, which of course means they are a great way to cash in on foreign aid, diplomatic concessions, and a host of other enviable things.

North Korea has been particularly adept at this gambit. They have halted their program a number of times, negotiating to obtain concessions such as desperately needed food supplies, only to restart the provocations and do the whole thing over again. Mohammar Gaddafi also pulled this trick, ironically in part to reopen relations with Western countries. In both situations, and numerous others, nothing was achieved in the long term except some helpful support to dictators.

So what is the alternative? Fortuitously, this dovetails with another foreign policy issue for the US and its allies: building a relationship with Russia. Russia (along with China) has been reluctant to back sanctions against Iran partly because it does not want to buy into an international regime that rewards Western hypocrisy. But it has a nuclear arsenal problem of its own, and it also has reached an impasse over operation of the NATO missile defense shield.

The alternative is disarmament. As explored in a 2010 study on the eve of the New START treaty, the US could reduce its nuclear arsenal to approximately 300 without a commensurate loss of deterrence ability, and the recent Defense Strategic Guidance document released in January hints that "deterrence goals could be achieved with a smaller nuclear force." This means they could implement a disarmament program that would speak volumes to the international community, save considerable money, and without losing a measurable degree of security.

In addition, the NATO missile defense shield is a good step on the road to countering the coercive power of nuclear weapons by providing a credible defense beyond deterrence. Conceding to Russia's requests that there be a joint operation of the shield could come tied to requirements of a similar reduction on their part.

This arrangement would not get us all the way there, but it would be a major step on the road to zero, and go far in restoring some sanity to the debate over Iran.

Bluffing on a nuclear arsenal is a dangerous and uncertain business, and Iran is only the latest player. Sooner or later, someone will play the game disastrously wrong. There are many good arguments for disarmament. The Iran situation is a good argument for doing it now.

Jason Naselli is Managing Editor of atlantic-community.org and a recent MSc graduate in International Relations from the University of Essex.