Nuclear Armed Iran Is a Road to Middle East Peace

March 13th, 2012
in GEAB reposting

Editor’s Note: This article is republished with permission of LEAP/E2020. See end of article for credits.

- from Political Anticipation Magazine (MAP) issue #5

by Marie-Hélène Caillol (translation: Ian Shaw)

Can one seriously think that the day when Iran has a nuclear weapon, its first concern will be to launch it at Israel and be devastated in its turn in the following minutes? However it’s on this implicit (nobody dares to express it for fear of revealing the nonsense of it) but pervasive idea that the gigantic national and economic interests at work in the Middle East establish their destabilizing politics with Western public opinion.

Now, let’s ask the following question: Why does Iran want the bomb? The answer is obviously the same as for France, England, the United States, etc…: To live in peace! Which is to say: the day when Iran has the bomb, the conditions for peace in the Middle East are met.

Follow up:

What would happen in practice?

First of all in Iran: Iranians’ paranoia, and oh how justified, disappears instantaneously to make way for responsibility, an essential premise for the resumption of the democratic process partially suspended in 2001 (following the enormous renewal of Western aggressiveness in the region) which led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, succeeding the moderate Islamist government of Mohammad Khatami.

In the neighbouring countries, except Israel: Iran is once again taking the path of democracy providing a successful model for the application of moderate Islam to political life which is the only possible alternative to the corrupt autocratic regimes to which the people decided to put an end despite the absence of other solutions. In addition, Sunni-Shiite animosity, on which the West has poured a great deal of oil lately, will decrease as soon as Iran provides an attractive model applicable to Sunni Islam (carrot) and has the nuclear weapon (stick).

In Turkey: The pressure will obviously be enormous so that the other democratic power in the region, this one Sunnite, also arms itself with the nuclear weapon, which it won’t be long in doing, completing the region’s strategic balance, each religious group (Jews, Sunnites, Shiites) having its own defence.

In Israel, where opinion is very divided over the Iranian question (half of the population being fully aware that attacking Iran to prevent it from arming itself is certainly not the way towards a glowing future for their country in this part of the world), the extremist government currently in office having failed and clearly becoming a public danger will be replaced by moderate governments favourable to solving the Palestinian question and to cooperate with the rest of the region, in short to restart the process interrupted by Rabin’s assassination in 1995 and intended to put Israel on the path to its lasting integration in the region. And if its neighbours don’t feel threatened by Israel any more, they will be much easier to convince to cooperate themselves and put over 70 years of hatred behind them.

Western oil interests, not longer being able to use the Israeli question to justify the mobilization of Western military forces, are stopping their ceaseless sabotage and manipulation and starting to work on an equal footing with strong states, as they are doing with Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Norway, etc… No one will cry over this collateral damage, especially if it’s thought that the policies led by these interests are no longer even able to guarantee cheap oil... quite the contrary (obliging Iran to block the Straits of Hormuz is certainly not the way towards cheap petrol…). Russia and China no longer need to show their teeth and to plan to rearm themselves as Putin recently stated. The tension is dropping between the West and the BRICS.

Some will consider this scenario simplistic and optimistic but we ask ourselves what their scenario is leading to - that which is on the table unfortunately: to attack Iran to prevent it arming itself with a nuclear weapon (knowing that henceforth the country is putting all its efforts into getting it and that the more it’s attacked the less choice it has), exploding the already very high tensions in the region, contributing to push Israel to the limit (in particular, with the departure of the most moderate fringe of Israelis) as well as the rest of the region (while driving to despair people of the Arab springs), creating a geopolitical polarization between a West grasping onto its old privileges and exclusive turf on the one hand and the emerging powers with the BRICS to the forefront, on the other - with resumption of a race to be armed with the key…

Of course, even if Iran arms itself with a nuclear weapon (and I repeat: no matter what one does, they will get there), there would have been a way to really limit the risks, but for that we would have needed political leaders with vision which we haven’t had: it would have needed the creation of an official system of accession to nuclear power status at UNO level, implying a process of democratic, technical and diplomatic upgrade for the applicant countries, etc…

Other GEAB Reports

Editor’s Note: This article is from Political Anticipation Magazine (MAP) Issue #5 which is published by the European Laboratory of Political Anticipation (LEAP) with the collaboration of NewropMag.  Econintersect republishes these articles as it represents views from a European perspective.  To download the entire Political Anticipation Magazine (MAP) issue #5 - click here.

Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.


  1. Frank Li (Member) Email says :

    This is excellent article!

  2. Miles Hoffman says :

    You did an excellent job framing your opening paragraph in what I believe is misleading and typical of most modern (read: Liberal) journalism: "Do I really think the first thing Iran will do is launch a nuke at Israel when it gets one?"

    Of course not. I'm not an idiot and I don't think there are many (sane) people who believe your "assertion". So it seems to be misleading "yellow journalism".

    But similarly, do I think the first thing that's going to happen is Iran is going to lose its paranoia and that this will allow Iran to move to a more democratic process, which you infer?

    I'm not crazy either!

    So why does Iran really want "the bomb"?

    Obviously, first and foremost it's a defensive move, being that Iran is "the" (dominant) Shiite in a Sunni-lead Muslim world and feels that not ONLY is Israel it's sworn enemy (and by inference, America), but most of the Sunni lead Arabian countries (such as the Saudis who want America to "cut the head off the snake", courtesy wiki-leaks).

    But the bigger question is, besides being a defensive move, why else would Iran want nukes? One word: POWER.

    Isn't it obvious that when Iran looks around the world, it sees America intervening extensively, especially in its own backyard? That is, except in North Korea. Why? The POWER of the bomb (ergo, have a bomb and we won't bother you)! (Besides, it's Iran's prerogative to "play in its own backyard", not ours, right?)

    So why should we be scared of Iran having a bomb if it won't use it ("immediately to attack Israel")?

    Well, the "biggest" worry is it gives Iran POWER!

    I think it would be hard for anyone to deny that Iran sponsors terrorism, and that alone should be enough to scare us.

    But what scares me more is the political situation in Iran.

    Do you really think Iran was moving "democratic" before the 2005 elections, or having a nuke would allow them to do so? Perhaps Iran in 2005 did vote in a hardliner, but was it really "due to Western aggressiveness"?

    More importantly, was it a "free and fair election"?

    Sure, as long as the Guardian council FIRST approved you as a candidate. Iranian students protested this process, so should we believe it was "fair" or "free"? (Similarly, Putin just "won" - stole? - the Russian election).

    But what really scares me is how good a job will Iran do in safeguarding a nukes? Who's to know if "the two men in the silo" are hardliners too and decide to launch? More realistic, and more worrisome, would Iran arm terrorists with nukes?

    Sadly, Saudi Sunnis brought down the twin towers, but the Sunnis are suppose to be our friends! Why would we even consider letting our Shiite "enemies" obtain a nuke?

    Ultimately, all politics and debate aside, there is a very simple way to answer this question. What's the risk/reward?

    You believe the reward "might" be peace. Let's say that's a 99.999% probability (a real stretch given that "Christianity is about Love, but Islam is about Justice." This is a quote from an Egyptian Imam turned Christian preacher and is the most succinct description of Christianity and Islam that I have ever heard/read).

    So, do you really think the 0.001% risk of them setting off a nuke is worth it?

    I don't, even if taking out their nuke capability is only a delaying tactic, it leaves time for our further military advancement. More importantly, delaying their capability provides more time for the rise of the TRUE voice of the Iranian people, which I believe is MUCH LESS radical than their religious leadership.

    It's not an easy decision, but to me, the "small" risk (someone gets nuked) outweighs the reward (peace), especially when that reward is in much doubt.

    btw: I think it is too extreme to consider, but God help us if the Iranian religious leaders truly believe that the 2nd coming of Mohammed is one of "rising through the ashes"... (nuke ashes!).

  3. ECB-Watch says :

    @ Miles Hoffman

    If I were you I'd do a fact check of

    "The Sunnis are suppose[d] to be our friends!"

    Hint: Taliban.

    @ Jamie Kirkell

    "This statement makes my entire body shutter and makes me nauseous."

    That's for us to say. I think you meant "nauseated".

    PS: You'll find an earlier criticism of LEAP by clicking on ECB-Watch.



Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day


Asia / Pacific
Middle East / Africa
USA Government

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution



  Top Economics Site Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved