logo
The bombing of Iran may teach an unwelcome lesson on nuclear weapons

The bombing of Iran may teach an unwelcome lesson on nuclear weapons

Boston Globe9 hours ago

'The risks of Iran acquiring a small nuclear arsenal are now higher than they were before the events of last week,' said Robert J. Einhorn, an arms control expert who negotiated with Iran during the Obama administration. 'We can assume there are a number of hard-liners who are arguing that they should cross that nuclear threshold.'
Advertisement
Iran would face formidable hurdles to producing a bomb even if it made a concerted dash for one, Einhorn said, not least the knowledge that if the United States and Israel detect such a move, they will strike again. It is far from clear that Iran's leaders, isolated, weakened and in disarray, want to provoke him.
Advertisement
Yet the logic of proliferation looms large in a world where the nuclear-armed great powers -- the United States, Russia and China -- are viewed as increasingly unreliable and even predatory toward their neighbors. From the Persian Gulf and Central Europe to East Asia, analysts said, non-nuclear countries are watching Iran's plight and calculating lessons they should learn from it.
'Certainly, North Korea doesn't rue the day it acquired nuclear weapons,' said Christopher R. Hill, who led lengthy, ultimately unsuccessful, talks with Pyongyang in 2007 and 2008 to try to persuade it to dismantle its nuclear program.
The lure of the bomb, Hill said, has become stronger for America's allies in the Middle East and Asia. Since World War II, they have sheltered under a U.S. security umbrella. But they now confront a president, in Trump, who views alliances as incompatible with his vision of 'America first.'
'I'd be very careful with the assumption that there is a U.S. nuclear umbrella,' said Hill, who served as ambassador to South Korea, Iraq, Poland, and Serbia under Democratic and Republican presidents. 'Countries like Japan and South Korea are wondering whether they can rely on the U.S.'
Support for developing nuclear weapons has risen in South Korea, though its newly elected president, Lee Jae-myung, has vowed to improve relations with North Korea. In 2023, President Joe Biden signed a deal with Seoul to involve it more in nuclear planning with the United States, in part to head off a push by South Korean politicians and scientists to develop their own nuclear weapons capability.
Advertisement
In Japan, the public has long favored disarmament, a legacy of the U.S. atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But it has begun debating whether to store nuclear weapons from the United States on its soil, as some members of NATO do. Shinzo Abe, a former prime minister, said that if Ukraine had kept some of its Soviet-era bombs, it might have avoided a Russian invasion.
President Vladimir Putin's threats to use tactical nuclear weapons early in that conflict gave pause to the Biden administration about how aggressively to arm the Ukrainian military. It also deepened fears that other revisionist powers could use nuclear blackmail to intimidate their neighbors.
The lesson of Ukraine could end up being, 'If you have nuclear weapons, keep them. If you don't have them yet, get them, especially if you lack a strong defender like the U.S. as your ally and if you have a beef with a big country that could plausibly lead to war,' wrote Bruce Riedel and Michael E. O'Hanlon, analysts at the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, in 2022.
Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States and archrival of Iran, has watched Tehran's nuclear ambitions with alarm. Experts say it would feel huge pressure to develop its own weapon if Iran ever obtained one. The United States has tried to reassure the Saudis by dangling assistance to a civil nuclear program, but those negotiations were interrupted by Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
And yet, for all the predictions of a regional arms race, it has yet to occur. Experts say that is a testament to the success of nonproliferation policies, as well as to the checkered history of countries that pursued weapons.
Advertisement
The Middle East is a messy landscape of dashed nuclear dreams. Iraq, Syria and Libya all had their programs dismantled by diplomacy, sanctions or military force. In the category of cautionary tales, Libya's is perhaps the most vivid: Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Eight years later, after a NATO-backed military operation toppled his government, he crawled out of a drainpipe to face a brutal death at the hands of his own people.
Iran's strategy of aggressively enriching uranium, while stopping short of a bomb, did not ultimately protect it either.
'To the extent that people are looking at Iran as a test case, Trump has shown that its strategy is not a guarantee that you will prevent a military attack,' said Gary Samore, a professor at Brandeis University who worked on arms control negotiations in the Obama and Clinton administrations.
Samore said it was too soon to say how the Israeli and American strikes on Iran would affect the calculus of other countries. 'How does this end?' he said. 'Does it end with a deal? Or is Iran left to pursue a nuclear weapon?'
Experts on proliferation are, by nature, wary. But some are trying to find a silver lining in the events of the last week. Einhorn said that in delivering on his threat to bomb a nuclear-minded Iran, Trump had sent a reassuring message to U.S. allies facing their own nuclear insecurities.
'In Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing,' Einhorn said, 'they've taken notice not just of the reach and capacity of the U.S. military, but the willingness of this president to use that capability.'
Advertisement
This article originally appeared in

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NATO commits to higher spending sought by Trump and mutual defense
NATO commits to higher spending sought by Trump and mutual defense

USA Today

time24 minutes ago

  • USA Today

NATO commits to higher spending sought by Trump and mutual defense

While Trump got what he wanted at the brief NATO summit, his allies will be relieved he committed to the fundamental principle of collective defense. THE HAGUE, June 25 (Reuters) - NATO leaders on June 25 backed the big increase in defense spending that President Donald Trump had demanded, and restated their commitment to defend each other from attack. While Trump got what he wanted at the brief summit, tailor-made for him, his NATO allies will be relieved that he committed to the fundamental principle of collective defense after less clear-cut language on June 24. In a five-point statement, NATO endorsed a higher defence spending goal of 5% of GDP by 2035 - a response not only to Trump but also to Europeans' fears that Russia poses a growing threat to their security following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. More: Israel-Iran ceasefire seems to hold as Trump lands in Europe for NATO summit The 32 allies' brief communique added: "We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all." Asked to clarify his own stance on Article 5, Trump said: "I stand with it. That's why I'm here. If I didn't stand with it, I wouldn't be here." Macron brings up trade war at NATO summit Trump had long demanded in no uncertain terms that for other countries step up their spending on defense to reduce NATO's heavy reliance on the U.S. Despite an appearance of general agreement, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the issue of the steep import tariffs threatened by Trump, and the damage they may do to transatlantic trade, as a barrier to increased defense spending. More: Can Trump pull off peace plans, trade deals at the G7? What to know about the summit "You cannot come to us as allies and ask that we spend more, tell us we will spend more at NATO - and do a trade war. It's an aberration," he told reporters. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who hosted the summit in his home city of The Hague, said NATO would emerge as a 'stronger, fairer and more lethal' alliance. He had earlier acknowledged that it was not easy for European countries and Canada to find the extra money, but said it was vital to do so. "There is absolute conviction with my colleagues at the table that, given this threat from the Russians, given the international security situation, there is no alternative," the former Dutch prime minister told reporters in his home city of The Hague. The new spending target - to be achieved over the next 10 years - is a jump worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the current goal of 2% of GDP, although it will be measured differently. Countries would spend 3.5% of GDP on core defence - such as troops and weapons - and 1.5% on broader defence-related measures such as cyber security, protecting pipelines and adapting roads and bridges to handle heavy military vehicles. All NATO members have backed a statement enshrining the target, although Spain declared it does not need to meet the goal and can meet its commitments by spending much less. More: Trump says US strike impaired Iran's nukes. What does Pentagon say? Live updates Rutte disputes that but accepted a diplomatic fudge with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez as part of his efforts to give Trump a diplomatic victory and make the summit go smoothly. Spain said on June 25 that it did not expect its stance to have any repercussions. Trump meets Zelenskyy after summit Rutte kept the summit and its final statement short and focused on the spending pledge to try to avert any friction with Trump. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had to settle for attending the pre-summit June 24 dinner rather than the main meeting on June 25, although he met Trump separately after the conference ended. The Kremlin on June 24 accused NATO of being on a path of rampant militarization and portraying Russia as a "fiend of hell" in order to justify its big increase in defense spending.

Mushy Wording Lets NATO Commit to Trump's Military Spending Demand
Mushy Wording Lets NATO Commit to Trump's Military Spending Demand

New York Times

time25 minutes ago

  • New York Times

Mushy Wording Lets NATO Commit to Trump's Military Spending Demand

NATO leaders agreed on Wednesday to a goal of spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. But that doesn't mean each member nation will actually spend that much. The difference lies in a bit of mushy diplomatic language that lets the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, claim that he delivered on a spending demand issued by President Trump. The brief and unanimously approved communiqué that NATO issued after leaders wrapped up their annual summit says that 'allies' — not 'all allies' — had agreed to the 5 percent figure. Mr. Trump floated that target, up from the current 2 percent, early this year in a push to have Europe and Canada spend more on their militaries instead of relying on the United States for security. At the time, few believed it was realistic, given that nine of NATO's 32 member countries still had not reached the 2 percent spending pledge that was set in 2014. Several were balking at the 5 percent commitment as recently as Wednesday, emboldened by an assertion last weekend by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez of Spain that 'we're not going to do it.' Mr. Sanchez said Spain would spend 2.1 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, 'no more, no less,' because that was all his country needed to meet military capability targets set by NATO. Spain currently spends about 1.28 percent of G.D.P. on defense, according to the most recent official figures available. The language compromise, struck between Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Rutte last weekend, let both sides claim victory. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store