I am personally opposed to weapons of mass destruction; nuclear arms are morally indefensible and purely catastrophic. However, global geopolitics is driven by the cold calculus of power rather than moral frameworks.
When analyzing Middle Eastern dynamics and the strategic ambitions regarding a "Greater Israel," one harsh reality emerges: nuclear capability is the ultimate deterrent against foreign intervention. Consider the historical trajectories of Libya, Syria, or Iraq. Had these nations possessed a nuclear shield, would they have faced invasion? Or would they still exist as functioning societies, pursuing socio-economic growth like their peers?
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was publicly justified by the search for weapons of mass destruction. In my view, Iraq was invaded precisely because it lacked a credible nuclear deterrent. The WMD claim was the pretext; had Iraq actually possessed such weapons, the risk of invasion would have been prohibitive.
History confirms that power enforces restraint. The United States deployed nuclear weapons in WWII even against a fading Japan. Since then, the international community has treated nuclear-armed states with unique caution - North Korea being a primary example. In the geopolitical arena, strength preempts encroachment.
Deterrence dictates behavior far more effectively than diplomacy or international law.
Regarding Iran, the conclusion is uncomfortable but logical: to end the persistent threats of attack from the U.S. and Israel, they should rapidly achieve a nuclear deterrent to stabilize their sovereignty – and peace in the Middle East.
Peace, anas
No comments:
Post a Comment