Iran and the Bomb

Yesterday's New York Times published an Op-Ed entitled "There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran" by a foreign policy analyst specializing in nuclear proliferation, Alan J. Kuperman. Unlike most people I've read who urge action against Iran, he put forward a very reasonable and convincing analysis.

Kuperman begins by outlining the evidence that Iran is quickly headed, politically and logistically, towards a nuclear weapon. I believe the facts are very much on his side here. Even a writer at the leftist New York Review of Books estimates that Iran could have a bomb in as soon as 6 months.

Kuperman then argues that the best way to prevent an Iranian bomb is through an airstrike, as opposed to the full-scale invasion desired by some neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz. I'm in full agreement that an invasion is a bad idea. If Iraq has shown us anything, it's that you can't invade a Middle Eastern country thinking you can create stability and peace, let alone a liberal democracy.

This all begs the question, though, of whether an Iranian bomb is truly a threat to Israel and Middle East peace at-large. Critics of intervention against Iran argue that it would be completely crazy of Iran to ever use a nuke, because of the massive retaliation that would ensue against it. I emailed Kuperman for his thoughts on this argument, and he told me:

I think there are powerful elements in Iran who would do so, especially if they thought it could not be traced back to Iran. Given Iran's opaque, unstable, and non-unitary political apparatus, it cannot be ruled out that such elements would some day be in a position to do so.

No one can say precisely what are the odds that a nuclear weapon would be transferred, but to me they seem non-trivial.

Again, Kuperman seems to be staking out pretty solid ground. If you want to tell me that concern over Iran is alarmism, you also have to show me that there is no reasonably possible scenario where an Iranian bomb would be used against Israel.