Revisiting the nuclear elephant in the room
So now Syria joins Iran on the hit parade of Middle Eastern countries we must smite lest they get the bomb. In truth, the recent news reports about Syria’s supposed efforts to obtain nuclear weapons appear to be little more than speculation: but then, since when have we allowed the absence of hard evidence to keep us from rushing head first into a quagmire?
After all, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud from an Iraqi . . . ah, I mean Iranian . . . ah, I mean Syrian nuclear bomb.
But let’s be honest -- in truth, the neocons are actually probably right about one thing (hey, everyone gets lucky once in awhile): many (probably most) Middle Eastern regimes almost certainly do, at least at some level, harbor nuclear ambitions, even if they’re not actively pursuing acquisition of the bomb at this time. And barring a willingness by the United States to start thinking outside of the box of what’s currently regarded as “serious” foreign policy debate, they will almost certainly continue to have such ambitions until, inevitably, they meet with success.
There are undoubtedly numerous factors that motivate Arab and Persian nations to lust after shiny new atomic bombs of their very own, ranging from issues of national pride and internal politics all the way to regional power struggles with other Islamic nations: but one has to be purposefully blind not to recognize that the granddaddy of all motivations is the fact that Israel is already a member of the nuclear club (illegally, by the way, but we’re not supposed to mention that lest someone get the idea we’re being hypocritical in bombing and invading certain nations for trying to do the exact same thing another nation -- one we provide billions and billions of dollars of aid to -- has been doing for years).
And this, of course, is where we meet the nuclear elephant in the room: could the outlines of a possible solution to the danger of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East be any more obvious?
Here’s something I wrote on the subject, specifically related to Iran, almost a year and a half ago:
The Israelis are believed to have over 100 nuclear weapons stockpiled. As a regional superpower backed by the only remaining world superpower, it clearly doesn’t need these nukes to defend itself.
Before we jump militarily into yet another Middle Eastern swamp isn’t that an issue we should take a look at? Can anyone doubt that as long as Israel has nuclear weapons, Islamic nations in the region will feel a strong compulsion to try to match it? Unless something changes, this is a crisis we’ll replay again and again.
From time to time, various Arab leaders have floated the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East, mostly as a way of taking a poke at Israel. Maybe it’s time to call them on it. The broad outlines of such a proposal are easy to conceive. Israel (with some strong encouragement from its number one friend) would offer to give up its nuclear weapons, an action that wouldn’t harm its national security position one iota; in exchange, all other nations in the region would have to agree not to pursue such weapons. And here, of course, is the key: Every state in the region, including Iran and Israel, would have to agree to permit unfettered international inspections.
Meanwhile, the United States would formally declare the obvious: That any nation that attacks Israel with weapons of mass destruction will face a military response from the United States and the leaders of such nation will be subject to prosecution for war crimes. That combined with the fact that Israel itself, even without nukes, has the military capacity to knockout the combined armed forces of every other nation in the region, meets all reasonable Israeli security concerns. Even if Iran or one of the Arab states cheated (unlikely under a strong inspection system), Israel would be no less secure than it would have been if it hadn’t given up its nuclear arsenal.
Would Israel agree to such a proposal? Probably not, but it should. Its biggest security threat isn’t that a nation like Iran will launch a nuclear attack against it; the real fear is that terrorists will sneak a bomb into the country and then explode it. Absent a deal of the sort proposed here, Israel faces an unpalatable choice between a nuclear Iran and a possible military clash between the United States and Iran that will fuel terrorism. Israel’s only chance for real security is calm in the Middle East.
Would Iran accept such an offer? It might. My guess is that being the ones who “faced down” Israel on nuclear weapons would be very attractive to the mullahs.
But wouldn’t that just empower the radical mullahs in Iran? Maybe for a week or two. But then people, no longer distracted by anger at the United States, would go back to resenting the power the mullahs exercise in their lives.
What is desperately needed in the Middle East today is a new brand of American boldness -- one based principally on diplomacy rather than blind militarism. Support for a truly nuclear-free Middle East (including Israel) could be its centerpiece. What better way to demonstrate to the Islamic world that we’re prepared, once again, to work as a true neutral arbiter (as opposed to merely an Israeli sponsor), while at the same time dong nothing that would in any way damage Israel’s true national security interests?
Like in so many other cases of an elephant in a room, once you finally take a good hard look at it the truth becomes so obvious you can’t believe anyone could ever have missed it in the first place.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Steve, your problem is you have good old fashioned common sense. Common sense is no longer valued in Washington,D.C. It is to be avoided at all costs, and has been. Add to that the fact that the current inhabitant of the White House is addicted to the rush that having power and being aggressive gives to him. His second-in-command, Cheney, is, if possible, even more addicted to having power and being aggressive. These are MACHO MEN! They have to show the entire world that they can destroy any country for any reason and have. They thrive on dealing death and destruction. It doesnt matter if a country tries to defend itself with fly swatters, Bush/Cheney will call them WMDs and bomb the bejesus out of them. A nuclear race in the Middle East is a somber thing to contemplate. However, Bush/Cheney firmly believe that bullying, threatening, and arrogance will save the day. Macho Men dont do diplomacy.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:35 am
That’s a great idea, Steve.
Are there any Jewish bloggers in here that would care to comment?
I’d like to know if this idea could be well-received.
September 16th, 2007 at 2:07 am
(1) Why Jewish bloggers, Alwayshope? I mean, I am Jewish, but I think anyone with some idea of what’s going on in the world would be able to speak about the idea? Being Jewish doesn’t make me uniquely qualified to speak in support or against Steve’s idea. I am a Jewish American, not a citizen of Israel. So my take on the problem is not as a Jew but as an informed American citizen.
(2) I see two problems with the idea of a nuclear free region. The first, of course, was mentioned by Steve. “Every state in the region, including Iran and Israel, would have to agree to permit unfettered international inspections.” What happens when one or several nations decide to stop inspections? The enforcement must have teeth. Iran backed by one of its biggest customers, China, and backed by Russia (who is pushing to re achieve super power status with their renewed world wide bomber flights) can thumb their nose at the international community. (Of course, from everything I’ve read Iran hasn’t broken a single agreement as signatories of the nonproliferation treaty they are allowed to develop peaceful civilian nuclear power.) But the whole world has to agree that even the smallest reluctance to inspections is to be greeted by the strongest possible methods apart from war. As long as countries like China, India, and Russia have glittering visions of super powerdom dancing like sugar plums in their eyes, or simply a desire to humble the US, a promise is worth less than a signed treaty on toilet paper by President George W. Bush.
(3) The second problem concerns what happens when we are no longer a Super Power and Israel’s special friend? Yes, we here in the U.S. of A. are Israel’s friend. A better description for the real relationship is actually “Israel is our client state.” Throughout the cold war, Israel fought our proxy wars with the Soviet Union. They tested our newest weapons like good little lap dogs, just as Syria, Jordan, Egypt and others served as heavily armed good little lap dogs for the Soviets. This special relationship only extends as long as the U.S. remains a super power. As I read the fiasco in Iraq, it is America’s last toot of the Super Power trumpet. We have borrowed to the hilt, so that our credit is no good. President Bush has destroyed our credibility with most of the other nations of the Earth, so few of them could be convinced to do anything for us. (That credibility will not return with a new President, as Bush has proven we can’t be trusted.) Our military is broken so that even in relative peace with a half functioning economy it would take a decade or more to rebuild and with no ability to get loans we simply won’t have the money to maintain the largest military in the world. The three aspects of Super Power are economic supremacy, International Influence, and military power. As we emerge from Iraq, we leave behind our Super Power Status. India, China, and a resurgent Russia will take the crown. Without a protector who will guarantee a regional alliance of the various Islamic states won’t overwhelm an Israel that can only rely on conventional military power it is not in their interest to negotiate away the bomb. (For some time Israel has been forging strong trade ties with India and China, so they may find a new best friend, but that is not guaranteed because neither nation has a large Christian population that believes Israel will lead the last battle against Satan.)
There are some demographic points that should be made.
Israel’s current population is estimated at 7,150,000 where 5,415,000 are Jews (76 percent) while 1,425,000 million (20 percent) are Arabs and 310,000 others.
Saudi Arabia is estimated to have a population of over 20 million.
Jordan is estimated to have a population of 6,053,193.
The population of Syria is estimated at 18,448,752.
The population of Lebanon is estimated at 3,925,502.
The population of Egypt is estimated at 80,335,036.
The population of Iran is estimated at 65,397,521.
Palestinian Population statistics:
There are an estimated 11 million Palestinians world wide, most of them are stateless, as the Arab nations they live in refuse to allow them citizenship rights, forcing them to live as refugees.
Gaza Strip – 1,482,405
West Bank – 2,535,927
Elsewhere in the middle east approximately 9 million.
Israel is surrounded and grossly outnumbered. At some point, if they don’t make peace, they will cease to exist. This is a beautiful quote based on 1997 population statistics. “Forecasts from the United States’ Population Reference Bureau show Israel’s population doubling in 45 years, that of the West Bank in 21 years and that of Gaza in 15 years. In other words, Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and Israeli Arabs will outnumber the Jewish population by 2020.”
What Israel should do is to use their nuclear weapons as a point of negotiation. Make a firm and policable peace with surrounding states, create a contiguous Palestinian state, by 2020. If they don’t, then Israel as a state will cease to exist by 2030, as Israeli Arabs peacefully take over the political process in Israel, or the surrounding states realize that Israel is without friends and drown every Jew in the Sea as they have repeatedly promised to do.
However, as an American citizen, I don’t get a say about what is in Israel’s national interest. They are fully aware of the above demographic statistics. Considering that they live in a region where they are universally reviled because of the belief taught in Islamic schools that they are an outpost of European Imperialism, what do you think is in their national interest. Should they give up the bomb and face extinction without any guarantees, and who makes the guarantees?
This has been a long post. The problem is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Each of these states have differing national interests. Syria desperately needs water, and wants to get the Golan heights and access to the Sea of Galilee. Jordan is landlocked and would love to have a port, not to mention fresh water. Lebanon barely functions as a country and would like to have some relief from their own Palestinian problem and would love it if Syria stayed out of their politics. The House of Saud uses Israel as a convenient enemy so their people will never notice that they are ruled by fabulously wealthy tyrants. Egypt is a dictatorship fighting against a growing right wing religious rebellion. The Palestinians are treated like convenient tools by everyone.
Without some power willing to police a peace, surrendering their nuclear weapons is not in Israel’s interest. I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I think that this retired Lt. Col. says it pretty well.
I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran,
you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.” (Robert M. Bowman, PhD, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.)
Duty, Honor, Country 2007
An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation
By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots
Dear Comrades in Arms,
You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I’m just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam , F-4 Phantom, Phu Cat, 1969-1970) who’s now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange. Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. We are Republicans and Democrats, Greens and Libertarians, Constitutionists and Reformers, and a good many Independents. What unites us is our desire for a government that (1) follows the Constitution, (2) honors the truth, and (3) serves the people.
We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.
We see the current Iraq War as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange. The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies, and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.
But you know all this. I’m sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran , possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the number one rogue nation on earth. The effect on our long-term national security would be devastating.
Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran , perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few (like Congressman Jack Murtha) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail.
This is where you come in.
We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn’t have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.
Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I’ve gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).
Our oath of office is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.†Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were “only carrying out their orders.â€
The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the “highest law of the land,†equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.
Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.
I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to “nuke Russia .†In effect they took the (non-existent) “button†out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, “Why, sir?†Unless there was (in their words) a “damn good answer,†nothing was going to happen.
I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it’s too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive “shock and awe†attack on Baghdad . Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again.
Also in hindsight, President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as Commander-in-Chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as Acting Commander-in-Chief in the White House bunker the morning of September 11, 2001 .
We in the U.S. military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles, and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup. If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the Constitutional succession take place. This is what we are sworn to. This is protecting the Constitution, our highest obligation. In 2007, this is what is meant by “Duty, Honor, Country.â€
Thank you all for your service to this nation. May God bless America , and sustain us in this difficult time. And thanks for listening to the musings of an old junior officer.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Bowman, PhD, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
September 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
The above letter is beautiful. However, as the military has no power under the Constitution, the UCMJ, or Federal law to detain or charge executive branch officials, (Only the House and the Senate have the power to stop the executive) should the military detain executive branch officials, they have acted against the Constitution, and destroyed it. Under the UCMJ, they must refuse orders not initiate an illegal action outside the Constitution.
The following two sentences is a definition of a coup and doing such violates the Constitution, because the military has no Constitutional power to perform those actions.
“If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the Constitutional succession take place.”
Should they act that way, they have assumed police powers not granted them, and the United States has ceased to exist and become a military dictatorship.
The answer is for Congress to remove its head from its behind and perform the responsibility the Constitution requires of them.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., is advocating treason through the violent overthrow of the government. It is the exact moral equivalent of destroying the village to save it, an act that fails to perform either of its intended results. I suggest he contact Congress and inform them that they have a job to do and they had better do it, rather than advocate the destruction of the nation.
Dr. Bowman is correct to say that any military person given orders to use Nuclear weapons against Iran in absence of a massive military attack imperiling the nation is required by military law to refuse the order. He should have stated that those same officers should, at that time, appeal to the Congress concerning the illegal orders originating from the executive.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Once again, I don’t agree with you fdarbe. The retired Lt. Col. has every right.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
The Lt. Col. is calling for and stands on his oath:
“protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.†Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president?
Congress has refused to even try to enact impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. The Democrats who were voted in last time said they would make a difference. They haven’t. Senator Webb is about the only one voted in who has guts. And by the way, he is ex-military and would like to see this executive branch charged criminally, but the other yellow bellied Democrats won’t take a stand. Congressman Ron Paul, also ex-military, has called for impeachment proceedings in the US House, but I haven’t heard of the Dems standing with him there either. The Dems keep saying they don’t have any Republicans standing with them. Well, that is a lie, because Congressman Ron Paul votes against this war every time.
When your government fails the people, the people have a right to throw off that government. If our government is attempting to drag us into a nuclear war, Yes we have a right to stop them. Most of the Dems running for President won’t take the nuclear card off the table. Depleted uranium has already been used over in Iraq by our military. Our soldiers are getting sick and dieing. Go check it out on the internet. There are many stories of soldiers contracting cancers and dying from the depleted uranium. Go read these stories as examples:
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/198240.php
Here is another where Kucinich is spreading the word:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1954.cfm
Here is another giving the numbers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan with cancers:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6731
Then go and put depleted uranium and US soldiers into Google and see what you get. The numbers are already quite staggering.
So we are already using nuclear weapons that are small. If we nuke innocent civilians, these people will never forget. You think Japan did. Nuclear fallout doesn’t stayed contained either. The surrounding areas will get the fallout just depending upon the wind.
The US citizens are already viewed with contempt around the world because of our aggressive stands. If we use nuclear power on another country, we uncork the bottle and let the Genie out. The world will stand against us. We will have no friends except Israel.