Editorial 8.4, April 2006, by Deirdre Helfferich The Unthinkable Will Sink Us The Bush Administration, after having demonstrated their integrity, reliability, honor, and sober forethought in the war on Iraq, is targeting Iran—and this time talking using nuclear armaments. Seymour Hersch, in an article for The New Yorker magazine (“The Iran Plans: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?”April 8, 2006), details the administration’s plans and rationale for war. “The lack of reliable intelligence,” he writes, “leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the [Iranian target] sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.” Hersch mentions a few of the problems that would result, such as a guaranteed upsurge in terrorism against the United States. Indeed, pledges to retaliate if Iran is attacked are already being made, reports the Arab News (“US Plan to Invade Iran is Updated, Says Top Intelligence Analyst,” Barbara Ferguson, April 17, 2006). Ostensibly the purpose of attacking Iran is to prevent it from gaining nuclear capability, but there is indication that the real purpose is a) regime change and b) control over the economics of oil and Iran’s reserves of hydrocarbons (See Michael T. Klare’s article, “Oil, Geopolitics, and the Coming War with Iran,”April 11, 2005, TomDispatch). The economic and environmental repercussions of a nuclear attack on Iran, as well as the military reaction by terrorist groups, concern me—and the horrendous ethical failing that engaging in nuclear war would be. Oil is currently valued in dollars, which keeps our economy running. But the dollar is generally on the decline. Iraq had declared that it would value oil in euros, not dollars, in the year before we invaded; each oil-producing nation that does this brings the day closer when all our debts are called in. Since we are now a debtor nation, this could bring about our economic collapse. Hence, Iran’s declared intention to set up a petroleum bourse, and its likely valuation of its oil and gas in euros, is a real threat to our economy—but not to other countries, such as the up-and-coming economic giants India and China. (See “Killing the Dollar in Iran,” by Toni Straka, Asia Times, August 26, 2005, and “The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse,” by Krassimir Petrov, Energy Bulletin, January 18, 2006”) John Quiggin points out on his blog (johnquiggin.com) that “overt decisions to switch [to valuing oil in euros] are usually the result of bad relations with the US, not the cause. Still, this is part of a general pattern of incidents...where aggressive US policy is exacerbating conflict over economic issues, and thereby weakening the US economy.” A nuclear attack on Iran would have serious economic effects on the US. Waging war on Iraq has been bad for us: our budget is strained and our international image has plummeted. And we remain obscenely dependent on oil. But this is essentially a conventional war, despite the liberal use of depleted uranium in bullets and armour. The reaction to a nuclear war would be much stronger. We are still the only nation to have used nuclear bombs in war, but the situation then, in the Pacific theatre of World War II, was much different than this. The world would react with moral shock if we used tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Even if nations did nothing formally to retaliate, their citizens would. American goods would be seen as stained with the nuclear bombardment of a nation. American tourists would be unwelcome. American allies would be viewed as colluding with an amoral aggressor, and would likewise suffer from our moral taint. Anything and anyone American would be shunned. There would be attendant environmental and health problems for everyone downwind and downstream of the strikes. Hersch’s sources indicated that approximately 400 or more sites would need to be bombed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear research facilities, using conventional and nuclear weapons. This would have a devastating effect on nearby populations—mostly civilians, naturally, and some of them in other countries. The wind does not respect political borders. Radioactive fallout would have economic, political, and environmental fallout, and the public perception of the United States would be affected for decades. The reaction would likely be worldwide (certainly quite strongly within the Middle East, with the possible exception of Israel). Muslims around the world, along with most other people, I assume, would be aghast (See also the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, “A Preemptive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences,” by Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, August 12, 2004). People would divest from American stocks, cease to buy American goods or services, no longer come to the US to visit. The consequences for our economy and our political relations would be dire. We would be known as those who committed the unthinkable crime, the gross violation of human decency that no country was willing to do even during the Cold War. And once used in this fashion, nuclear vengeance would no longer be an abstraction. I doubt our country could survive the backlash. | ||
 | | |
