Since 1970, Iran has been a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which forbids the use of nuclear energy for a military purpose but allows it for civil purposes. However, for 30 years, it seems clear that Iran has been looking for a possible military use for nuclear energy. In the West, we believe that this poses a real danger to the entire world, or, at least, we believe it is the crazy whim of a “madman” (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

The purpose of this short paper is to review the different thoughts on this issue. Thus, we first have to understand that, for Iran, having weapons of mass destruction is not such an illegitimate demand. Second, it may not pose a great danger if the country had them.

The nuclear weapon in Iran

By Clémence Flusin

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the position of CIDT

Since 1970, Iran has been a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which forbids the use of nuclear energy for a military purpose but allows it for civil purposes. However, for 30 years, it seems clear that Iran has been looking for a possible military use for nuclear energy. In the West, we believe that this poses a real danger to the entire world, or, at least, we believe it is the crazy whim of a “madman” (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

The purpose of this short paper is to review the different thoughts on this issue. Thus, we first have to understand that, for Iran, having weapons of mass destruction is not such an illegitimate demand. Second, it may not pose a great danger if the country had them.

*

The international community clearly penalizes Iran. Indeed, this country is surrounded by signs of American power, which is everywhere in the region (through military bases, economic influences…): in Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Moreover, two of those countries already have the nuclear weapon! And yet, the United States has already threatened to attack Iran, a state which is considered a member of the “axis of Evil[i]” (North Korea, Iraq, Iran) if it builds a nuclear weapon. Thus, it seems legitimate for the Iranian government to look for a way of defending their country. In this respect, it is hard to find a better deterrence than the atomic bomb, despite the NPT. Indeed, even if the non-nuclear countries have signed the treaty, for them, it remains arbitrary and unequal. It has been made by the countries which already have nuclear capabilities. How can countries easily accept such an inequality? How can countries which call for equality and democracy, expect others to accept such an unequal organization that was created by the world's strongest powers?

*

We usually hear that if the number of countries with the atomic bomb increased, the danger would simultaneously increase. However, other thinkers, such as Kenneth Waltz, argue that it could also increase the dissuasive power of the nuclear weapon. Nonetheless, Western thinkers tend to question whether Iran is capable of using a weapon of mass destruction only as a dissuasive weapon…

But why would Iran be more likely to use it than other countries? Why would it be more likely to than Pakistan or India or Israel? Is it because it is a religious country? Is it because it is not a democracy? Is it because his (crazy, I admit it) president declared that Israel should be erased from the world map?

First, “the fact that a state bases its leaders’ legitimacy on religion does not mean it is suicidal[ii]”. Indeed, as the former president of France Jacques Chirac declared, if a country dared use the nuclear weapon against another, it would immediately be punished by the nuclear weapon. Thus, even if Iran wanted to attack Israel, it would not have the time to launch an attack before the Americans attacked and destroyed Tehran. Second, is it vital to remember that the only time atomic bombs have been used was by “the king of the democracy” Is it necessary to remember that it is the United States which used nuclear weapons for the first (and I hope the last) time against Japan

*

To conclude, it is undoubtedly true that it would be better if Iran did not have nuclear weapons, but if it does, it would certainly not be as dangerous as we usually fear in the West. Moreover, Iran's will is no more irrational or illegitimate than that of other countries. Finally, the easiest solution would be that no country in the world has the atomic bomb. Thus, to be in a position to stop Iran from having it, the countries which already have it, should also give up this power!

[i] Cf: The former president of the USA, George W. Bush.

[ii] Christoph Bertram, Rethinking Iran: from confrontation to cooperation, in Chaillot Paper, August 2008.