As tensions mount surrounding the imminent nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S., on the other side of the Islamic world, a more troubling conflict is occurring between Islamist jihadis and a coalition of French and Malian forces. Despite the apparent priorities of the U.S. national security apparatus, the conflict in Mali may actually represent a more troublesome trend for U.S. national security interest than the Iranian nuclear program.
The first assumption, key to this conclusion, is that, rather than making countries less secure, mutual nuclear armament actually increases the stability and reduces the probability of direct conflict. There is a great consensus among academics and policy-makers that Cold War bipolarity represented a relatively stable balance of power in which the threat of total nuclear war and mutually assured destruction effectively deterred any direct conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
When India and Pakistan both held nuclear tests in the mid 2000’s, spectators feared that the long history of tension between the two countries would erupt in all out war. This however, has not occurred and action between the two nations continues to be conducted by non-state, proxy actors.
The Middle East, similar to the Asian sub-continent, is a powder keg that seems ready to explode. The friction between Israel, an epicenter for conflict in the region within the region, and Iran, which has vowed to “push Israel into the sea,” is especially fraught with a tension that many spectators fear will erupt in all out conflict if Iran is able to attain nuclear capability. In fact, however, a nuclear Iran might be capable of balancing Israel’s regional hegemony, which currently allows it to act unilaterally within the region without fear of repercussions. Thus, a nuclear Iran might actually decrease overall conflict in the Middle East.
A nuclear Iran might lead to more stable relations with Israel because escalation represents a greater threat to both nations. A nuclear Iran that poses a greater threat to its neighbors, mainly Israel, would not be able to conduct any aggressive actions without harsh repercussions. Thus, any attempts by Iran to expand its power within the region would face harsh resistance from Israel, resulting in a freeze in the status quo as both powers would be unable to expand their influence without threatening the other.
U.S. policy-makers’ anxieties surrounding Iran’s nuclear program seems to be based on a fear that the domination of Iran’s government by the religious power structure and the Shi’a clerics makes Iran an unpredictable actor. Because of the uncompromising religious mission of the Ayatollahs, Iran cannot be expected to act rationally in the traditional sense, but rather will seek to impose Sharia law and fight the ‘infidels’ no matter the consequences.
Obviously the U.S. and even Israel have vastly superior nuclear capabilities and thus, rational Iran would never risk a direct nuclear strike against either nation for fear of retaliation; however, if these weapons were to be transferred to or fall into the hands of extremist, terror groups, they could pose an immense and imminent threat to American citizens.
Non-state actors, such as international terrorist organizations now pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security, and in this paradigm it is not the strong states such as Iran that pose the greatest threat but the weak states, in which terrorist groups can recruit, train and base their operations. These organizations are amorphous and adaptive and cannot be deterred by traditional military force.
In Mali, Islamist militants, affiliated with Al-Qaeda, have clashed with government forces in the city of Gao in Northern Mali, after Malian and French forces retook the city from the militants at the end of January. Although most of the militant forces have retreated back into the mountains, the conflict in Mali is a representation of a growing disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the status quo among poor, rural populations throughout the Islamic world. In turn, young men with few other options turn to Islamic fundamentalism as an expression of their frustration and desperation.
The unfortunate lesson of the Arab Spring and most other political liberation movements is that political rights are meaningless in the absence of basic economic rights, the ability to sustain one’s own life with dignity.
Populism in the post-Arab spring Middle East continues to be increasingly anti-western and fundamentalist, and in order to deal with this, the U.S. needs to employ new and innovative strategies that go beyond the political and military strong-arming and economic sanctions of the past. These strategies have proven to contribute more to crippling a people—driving them to extremism and radicalism—forcing them to latch on to the only clear articulation of the rage that they live with everyday, a rage against the West.
The first assumption, key to this conclusion, is that, rather than making countries less secure, mutual nuclear armament actually increases the stability and reduces the probability of direct conflict. There is a great consensus among academics and policy-makers that Cold War bipolarity represented a relatively stable balance of power in which the threat of total nuclear war and mutually assured destruction effectively deterred any direct conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
When India and Pakistan both held nuclear tests in the mid 2000’s, spectators feared that the long history of tension between the two countries would erupt in all out war. This however, has not occurred and action between the two nations continues to be conducted by non-state, proxy actors.
The Middle East, similar to the Asian sub-continent, is a powder keg that seems ready to explode. The friction between Israel, an epicenter for conflict in the region within the region, and Iran, which has vowed to “push Israel into the sea,” is especially fraught with a tension that many spectators fear will erupt in all out conflict if Iran is able to attain nuclear capability. In fact, however, a nuclear Iran might be capable of balancing Israel’s regional hegemony, which currently allows it to act unilaterally within the region without fear of repercussions. Thus, a nuclear Iran might actually decrease overall conflict in the Middle East.
A nuclear Iran might lead to more stable relations with Israel because escalation represents a greater threat to both nations. A nuclear Iran that poses a greater threat to its neighbors, mainly Israel, would not be able to conduct any aggressive actions without harsh repercussions. Thus, any attempts by Iran to expand its power within the region would face harsh resistance from Israel, resulting in a freeze in the status quo as both powers would be unable to expand their influence without threatening the other.
U.S. policy-makers’ anxieties surrounding Iran’s nuclear program seems to be based on a fear that the domination of Iran’s government by the religious power structure and the Shi’a clerics makes Iran an unpredictable actor. Because of the uncompromising religious mission of the Ayatollahs, Iran cannot be expected to act rationally in the traditional sense, but rather will seek to impose Sharia law and fight the ‘infidels’ no matter the consequences.
Obviously the U.S. and even Israel have vastly superior nuclear capabilities and thus, rational Iran would never risk a direct nuclear strike against either nation for fear of retaliation; however, if these weapons were to be transferred to or fall into the hands of extremist, terror groups, they could pose an immense and imminent threat to American citizens.
Non-state actors, such as international terrorist organizations now pose the greatest threat to U.S. national security, and in this paradigm it is not the strong states such as Iran that pose the greatest threat but the weak states, in which terrorist groups can recruit, train and base their operations. These organizations are amorphous and adaptive and cannot be deterred by traditional military force.
In Mali, Islamist militants, affiliated with Al-Qaeda, have clashed with government forces in the city of Gao in Northern Mali, after Malian and French forces retook the city from the militants at the end of January. Although most of the militant forces have retreated back into the mountains, the conflict in Mali is a representation of a growing disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the status quo among poor, rural populations throughout the Islamic world. In turn, young men with few other options turn to Islamic fundamentalism as an expression of their frustration and desperation.
The unfortunate lesson of the Arab Spring and most other political liberation movements is that political rights are meaningless in the absence of basic economic rights, the ability to sustain one’s own life with dignity.
Populism in the post-Arab spring Middle East continues to be increasingly anti-western and fundamentalist, and in order to deal with this, the U.S. needs to employ new and innovative strategies that go beyond the political and military strong-arming and economic sanctions of the past. These strategies have proven to contribute more to crippling a people—driving them to extremism and radicalism—forcing them to latch on to the only clear articulation of the rage that they live with everyday, a rage against the West.