Who Wants War?: Is War Against States Seeking Nuclear Weapons Inevitable?

Since its use during the Cold War, the policy of deterrence has brought to mind images of huge arrays of conventional military force backed by nuclear weapons. Although this seems logical when we discuss deterrence today, it is crucial to alter this perception in the mind and also to understand the importance of such a change. While the United States and Soviet Union did have physical displays of both conventional and unconventional weapons, an example seen in the image to the left, a policy of deterrence has two parts of equal importance: the first is physical display of force, shown above as proof of capabilities and the second is clear statement of deterrence directed towards those being deterred. To deter another, one must openly show the means and willingness of retaliation to make clear that the intention behind the physical force buildup and stern diplomacy are purely actions of defense through deterrence.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the United States retains military power great enough that any and all nations should respect such power and be deterred from taking actions against the will of the global hegemonic power, the United States. However, since the 1990s, states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Syria have seen the military force meant to deter them from the quest to acquire nuclear weapons and yet have continued in the same direction. Even multilateral efforts such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty seem unable to halt further proliferation. How is it that the United States could deter the Soviet Union, the largest conventional and unconventional force in the world, but not have the ability to stop Iran in its pursuit of nuclear capability? With only two pieces to the puzzle of the policy of deterrence it is clear that a breakdown has occurred in the perception of the United States, its opponents, or both of relative capabilities or intentions. Although it may well be argued that even the United States cannot fully appreciate its military might, there is an overwhelming amount of data to suggest that the problem in utilizing deterrence is the lack of a clear intention of the United States (global military spending seen in image to the right).

The last couple of weeks have seen both President Bush and Vice President Cheney giving speeches which harshly critiqued Iran’s current policy of pursuing nuclear weapons (Vice President Cheney seen in image to the left). The vice president said “We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons,” reiterating a statement which is by no means an anomaly isolated to the United States. Many western nations have shared similar viewpoints through speeches, such as the French President Sarkozy. Last week President Bush said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon,” he went on saying “The whole strategy is that, you know, at some point in time leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, ‘This isn’t worth it,’ and to me it’s worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.”

Although at first glance this rhetoric may appear to just be the Bush administration rattling its saber at Iran (or the other way around), such provocative statements must be examined individually rather than assuming that action or resolve will not follow. It is vital to bear in mind that the words spoken by a nation’s leader are heard by a larger audience than the state. Such statements delivered by world leaders are examined by all listeners in an attempt to grasp the state’s intentions. But here is the dreadful chance; no two people have identical perceptions of the world and certainly not of volatile statements. Thus, just as democrats and republicans are likely to disagree on President Bush’s intentions, which fueled the remarks quoted above, people around the world will have different perceptions which shape their views of such statements. It may well be that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hears Western leaders clearly threatening war if demands are not met, but does not believe that they are anything more than politicians being tough.

The study of war, within the field of international relations has given rise to viewing misperception as a possible cause of war between nation-states. With the exponential growth in global communications and relative ease with which words now travel, it is vital to understand how perceptions are different around the globe. This variance of perception affects a state’s ability to perceive other states’ intentions and capabilities. As such, theory dictates that states which do not trust or feel a close bond with the United States may overestimate or underestimate its capabilities, but even if they correctly perceive the United States capabilities, there is still a high risk that they will misperceive the intentions of the United States. I offer no conclusion on whether such misperception is a cause, fuel, or trigger of controversies surrounding nuclear proliferation. Instead I bring this into light so that others may realize the weight of words. The old saying that actions speak louder than words may well be proven false if words alone ignite actions. It would be prudent for all states to evaluate other states’ perception of them, its capabilities and intentions, while also reevaluating their own perception.

Fission or Fusion: Will the Western Powers Come Together to End Iran's Nuclear Ambitions?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran (seen in the image to the left) seems to have taken on an aggressive and possibly overly confident posture towards the international community. Despite sanctions from the United Nations Security Council, Iran has resisted calls for the halting of its uranium enrichment program, the critical element of its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has downplayed Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel, stating its belief that Iran is currently only running around 2,000 centrifuges and that expansion of the program has slowed in the last few months. However, President Ahmadinejad contradicted this most recent report by declaring that "The West thought the Iranian nation would give in after just a resolution, but now we have taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines, installing a new cascade every week.” It would seem that either Ahmadinejad is attempting to place Iran in line for a war with concerned Western states, or he and his government have faith that international diplomacy will favor Iran.

Despite Iran’s best efforts to put forth the view that its nuclear research is benign, the vast majority of the international community remains suspicious of Iran’s intentions and is in agreement that a nuclear Iran would be a security threat that would serve to destabilize the Middle East. Some states, such as the United States and France view an Iran that is developing weapons grade nuclear material and possibly a nuclear device as a ticking time bomb. These differences in perspective among the Western powers are resulting in a dramatic shift in alliance positions. The coalition of the willing will be the phrase that defines the war in Iraq; however, as war appears to become an ever-increasing possibility against Iran, the ranks of the willing are adding some new and surprising faces. Perhaps the most unlikely or unforeseen of these is France.

In the last month French government officials, namely President Nicolas Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Berndard Kouchner, have sided with the United States by asserting that the international community must increase sanctions and other measures to ensure Iran does not acquire enough nuclear material to create an atomic bomb. Sarkozy said in a speech on the 27th of August, that without greater effort by the world powers to halt the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy, there will only be the choice of “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” This statement was strengthened and reiterated by the French Foreign Minister on September 16th when Kouchner said that France must be prepared for war against Iran. In reaction to the French saber rattling Iranian parliament member Alaeddin Boroujerdi announced: "Parliament will take stronger actions if the French government continues its illogical positions towards the Islamic Republic of Iran." Boroujerdi further implied that if France continues in this direction that "there is no reason to have billions of Euros of economic ties with France." Austria also condemned France's statement.

The United States and France are not alone in their insistence on a speedier resolution to the Iranian situation. On September 21st the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany are set to meet in Washington to discuss further sanctions to put pressure on Iran to comply. Germany has been included because of its vital role within the European Union and also its status as a world power. If this meeting is successful in bringing all six nations together in agreeing upon additional sanctions for Iran, then diplomacy may yet have a chance. Thus, the meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany may very well determine the future of diplomacy towards Iran.

It would appear that General Director of the IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (seen in the image on the right) has already damaged the credibility of the UN sanctions by opining “that it is pointless trying to end all enrichment work in Iran.” If this is true, then perhaps Dr. ElBaradei is sending a message with only one conclusion; the UN cannot function on a level required to hold Iran to the requests of the Security Council. The deal which the IAEA made with Iran at the end of August, to bring Iranian research and work into the open, has already sparked controversy throughout the world. The United States and France, as well as other states, conclude that this will yield few answers and will in turn afford Iran valuable time. Both the IAEA and Iran have issued warnings to the Western powers to allow the opportunity for current diplomacy agreements to blossom. Iran has threatened that “If the Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran, then in the future our cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency will come to a halt."

With the United States and France both advancing a policy that an Iran with nuclear weapons is “unacceptable,” it appears that time for diplomacy is rapidly running out as Iran draws closer to nuclear capability every day. In this case, it seems clear that if the UN is unwilling or unable to act with firm resolve against Iran, then the United States, France, and other states with similar positions may well calculate that time is against them in this matter and could move toward open conflict to prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons or weapons grade material. If Iran is willing to cooperate with the UN and honor the resolutions from the Security Council, then diplomacy could prevail. However, if Iran will not honor the resolutions set forth, then it is likely that the Security Council will be split and action will not be possible because of the veto power each permanent member retains. It is quite possible that without decisive action from the UN it will be necessary for a new collation of the willing to permanently end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This time, unlike the coalition building leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is likely that both Europe and the United States will stand together.