By: Seán Kreyling
Joseph Cirincione, the director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress and Uri Leventer, a graduate student at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, have written an op-ed for the International Herald Tribune on the growing “nuclear renaissance” in the Middle East. They conclude that the unprecedented demand for nuclear programs by Arab states is not about energy, but a nuclear hedge against Iran.
King Adbdullah of Jordan admitted as much in a January 2007 interview when he said: “The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. . . . After this summer everybody’s going for nuclear programs.” He was referring to the war in Lebanon last year between Israel and Hezbollah, perceived in the region as evidence of Iran’s growing clout. Other leaders are not as frank in public, but confide similar sentiments in private conversations.
In a related story, both WAPO and the NYT cover the U.S.’s latest moves against the business interests of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in hope of curtailing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Apparently the Guards have become increasingly involved in Iran’s vital commercial affairs, with interests in oil, nuclear infrastructure and construction - as well as funneling weapons and money to Shiite militants in Iraq.
…by targeting the Guards specifically, the U.S. might be trying to symbolically separate the military force from Iran’s political establishment.
By labeling the Guards as a terrorist entity, and not Iran itself, the policy could allow the U.S. to specifically target the worst actors, while avoiding over-generalizing rhetoric that seems to fan the flames of Iranian nationalism and nurture the general population’s desire for a nuclear deterrent. Even more interesting is how this new approach actually might be supportive of a soft kill via economic connectivity and increased trade with Iran at the sub-national level.
In other news, Eric Hundman, contributor to FP’s Passport, writes about the U.S. - India nuclear deal. He notes the changing nature of the deal, the appearance that the U.S. has caved in to all of India’s demands, caution in the U.S. Congress, and Pakistan’s extreme displeasure with the deal. Additionally, Hundman asks the question:
So why is this tortured agreement still moving forward?
Aside from the oft-mentioned strategic concerns (grand alliance of democracies, counterbalance China, etc), the business communities in both countries have been lobbying hard for the deal. According to the U.S.-India Business Council, the planned expansion of India’s civilian nuclear industry could generate $150 billion in commercial opportunities for U.S. companies. And India’s third-biggest electric provider, Tata Power, has already lined up “major nuclear equipment suppliers and is ready to go.”
Remember Ike’s famous warning about the danger posed by the military-industrial complex? Perhaps he was on to something.
Post a Comment