How I learned Not To Be Afraid of the Bomb

Yes, I haven't posted in forever. Sue me.

Christopher Hitchens offers some of the weakest arguments I have seen for bombing Iran: consequences of Iran developing a bomb. He leads into these consequences thusly,

If the Iranian dictatorship succeeds in "breaking out" and becoming a nuclear power, the following things will have happened:

This statement should immediately warn you that a bunch of baseless predictions are coming your way. Here's the first:

1) International law and the stewardship of the United Nations will have been irretrievably ruined. The mullahs will have broken every solemn undertaking that they ever gave: to the International Atomic Energy Agency; to the European Union, which has been their main negotiating interlocutor up until now; and to the United Nations. (Tehran specifically rejects the right of the U.N. Security Council to have any say in this question.) Those who usually fetishize the role of the United Nations and of the international nuclear inspectors have a special responsibility to notice this appalling outcome.

Why? Israel, the nation everyone is worried will be wiped off the map, has violated dozens of UN resolutions and continues to violate others. Why hasn't the system of international law and the august organization known as the UN not fallen to pieces from those violations? To make a better analogy: what about North Korea? The UN and the US demanded that North Korea not build a bomb and not test missiles. North Korea did both of these and, last I checked, we're still talking about the UN like it matters and the US is still treated seriously internationally. So, why when Iran, not the first nation to violate a UN resolution and not the first country to develop a bomb in opposition to the US, develops a bomb will international law and US power mean nothing?

2) The "Revolutionary Guards," who last year shot and raped their way to near-absolute power in Iran, are also the guardians of the underground weapons program. A successful consummation of that program would be an immeasurable enhancement of the most aggressive faction of the current dictatorship.

Why? The worst nuclear theorists always trot out this notion of prestige enhanced by nuclear weapons. If someone could explain it to me and give an example in history of when any nation has ever gained "prestige" by developing a bomb, I'd appreciate that. But, Hitchens isn't talking about a nation per se, he's talking about a "faction" within the government of a nation. Therefore we have to ask compared to whom, to what degree, and how would the revolutionary guard be enhanced? Will they be enhanced compared to other factions within the Iranian government? Will we only be negotiating with the guard from now on or will it be a Pakistan situation where the military controls the bombs (hopefully, in Pakistan's case) and yet we try to work with other leadership? And, how will they be enhanced? By what magic will this happen?

3) The power of the guards to project violence outside Iran's borders would likewise be increased. Any Hezbollah subversion of Lebanese democracy or missile attack on Israel; any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter in that it would involve a confrontation with a nuclear godfather.

Why? By the same reasoning, Iran will be afraid to attack US and Israeli proxies because it might lead to a nuclear confrontation with either nation. I'm always amazed by how Iran becomes a special nation in the minds of those who fear it. So special in fact that the normal logic of international behavior no longer applies. This is how the reasoning always goes:

"Iran and its allies won't be afraid to attack us because we'll be scared of their bomb."

"Why won't Iran and its allies be afraid of our thousands of bombs?"

"Because it's Iran."

This is obviously nonsensical.

4) The same powerful strategic ambiguity would apply in the case of any Iranian move on a neighboring Sunni Arab Gulf state, such as Bahrain. The more extreme of Iran's theocratic newspapers already gloat at such a prospect, which is why so many Arab regimes hope—sometimes publicly—that this "existential" threat to them also be removed.

Why? When has this ever happened? These Arab nations that are so afraid of Iran will one of two things once they develop a bomb: try to develop their own bomb or, and far more likely, choose to fall in line with either Israel or Iran.

5) There will never be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute, because the rejectionist Palestinians will be even more a proxy of a regime that calls for Israel's elimination, and the rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions are a waste of time, if not worse.

Why? Furthermore, why the assumption there will ever be a settlement?

6) The concept of "nonproliferation," so dear to the heart of the right-thinking, will go straight into the history books along with the League of Nations.

Why? And why should we care? We should care only so far as we want to maintain the West's, really the US's, ability to bomb/invade any country it wants. 'Cause there is only one prediction I can make, and pay attention because there's really no getting around this: if and when Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the United States will never bomb or invade one square foot of Iranian territory. And, I bet that it's for this purpose that Iran wants a nuclear weapon and not some nihilist hope of obliterating its enemies. The US and Israel, since at least 2003 have labeled Iran has a nation to be attacked, to be bombed, to brought into the West's fold. Look how well it turned out for Iraq and Afghanistan, two non-nuclear nations. Look how well it turned out for North Korea's leadership, who are still in power and still horrifically abusing that nation's people. Of course Iran wants a bomb; it always will.

Are there reasons to bomb Iran? Maybe, but these are not them. I recall a time when the United States was concerned about actual nuclear weapons instead of possible nuclear weapons. Would someone please explain why I should worry about a nation with the most paltry of armed forces and no nuclear weapons and no means to deliver them.