George cries Wolf Again

- Meghan Lenchyshyn

The international system of our time is becoming increasingly anarchic and chaotic and at the forefront of this chaos lies nuclear proliferation and the arms race. North Korea is the most recent inductee into the global nuclear family, however there are many more powers vying for membership. Nuclear technology as an offensive weapon is a thing of the past, however the deterrence factor possessed by these weapons is still very much in the present.

In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he outlined what he referred to as the “axis of evil”. Within this, he declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea members of this axis, stating these nations sponsor and support terrorism, and that they seek weapons of mass destruction. Currently, the United States has targeted Iran as its latest recipient of criticism and unfounded accusations. The United States is preparing the world for a future American invasion of Iran, and attempting to legitimize its actions under false pretenses.

Iran is hugely inconvenient to the United States and the West not only because of their potential acquisition of nuclear arms, but also because of the threat they pose to winning the “War on Terror.” Iran clearly plays an enormous role in the outcome of the war in Iraq. This makes them a convenient next target for the US in their plans to pacify the Middle East.

What this boils down to is that while it is indeed undeniable that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, finances anti-establishmentarian organizations in order to promote their agenda, however the accusation that Iran poses a threat to international peace is an exaggeration set to serve the purpose the anti-terror agenda put forth by the United States.

Hypothetically, were Iran to develop the means to endanger worldwide human security (which it is still years away from) it seems unlikely that it would use it. Iran, like many other nations that possess or wish to possess nuclear arms, would do so as a means of deterring Israeli or American intervention. To think Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel is shortsighted at best. Retaliation would be inevitable, and it may even risk one of its allies getting caught in the fallout. It is more likely that the idea of a nuclear Iran merely makes imposing one’s agenda in the Middle East that much more difficult. While not defending the actions of Iran, nowhere does it say that a nation must seek to act in a way deemed convenient for those with which it must relate.

If Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon, it would merely be acting within its sphere of influence. If its neighbours are armed (i.e. Pakistan, Russia, as well as Israel), one could hypothesize that Iran would be more comfortable dealing with those armed nations if it was armed itself. Threats made by Ahmedinejad are not to be taken seriously. Granted he would probably love to acquire nuclear weapons, and is more than likely thinking of ways to get them, it is doubtful however that this is his primary agenda, due to the difficulty of achieving these plans. Ahmedinejad is merely seeking to play the US at its own game; that is, to polarize the citizens of the world, and force them into placing themselves into one camp. By using the famed Bush administration tactic of absolutist politics and rhetoric, Iran are at once garnering support for all those that do not see themselves in line with the US vision of the world. Nuclear arms simply serve as an insurance policy and deliver greater clout to their voice.

The fact of the matter remains that non-proliferation attempts on the part of the United States has actually provoked nuclear proliferation. The United States and other Security Council members have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan, and India (non-security council members) has them as well. Why should Iran not be allowed to have them? They, as citizens of the world, can apparently not be trusted with them.

One could very easily make the claim that the US is the worlds greatest threat to peace (a claim which has been supported in recent times by media polls). The inconsistency and double standards it has shown in regards to its close ally Israel and strategic partner Saudi Arabia, have served to show that they pick and choose who will be a “threat to peace” at any particular time. Unipolarity is the order of the day, and it is oft said that once you’re at the top, it’s hard to stay there. Finding someone to blame for instability is an excellent way of diverting attention from your aims. I believe that it is very clear that this is what is happening in regards to Iran.

In reality, despite all the accusations, Iran has done nothing illegal. Their actions remain within the allowances of the confines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Certainly, their intent may be different, but when it comes to international relations, intent is not a crime. Is it simply that the US is looking for a scapegoat following the outright failure in Iraq? Currently, the US is trying to garner support for actions against Iran from the international community however, after the Iraqi misadventure, the American government should perhaps concern itself more with its own legitimacy.

Background & Research