Iran Nuclear Watch: France Introduces United Nations Security Council Chapter 7 Resolution that Demands Iran Suspend Uranium Enrichment by August 31

One Comment

• 

  john Carey

  July 28, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  Flap: The situation in Lebanon isn’t good and it could yet “go south” (deteriorate)…..

  Some musings….

  Just a week or so ago, we wrote for a paper what we were realy thinking: We are living in a new strategic environment that we do not yet fully understand. … Some of our adversaries, once viewed as of no or lesser importance, are undeniably at work developing ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This ushers in an entirely new age of threat, terrorism, intelligence and defense.

  In the Cold War, everyone understood the rules. The United States and the Soviet Union were at odds. Smaller nations chose sides: and they understood whose side they were on. The little guys had little weapons. Only the big guys had missiles and such.

  If smaller, regional wars flared, the big superpowers let them play out or they encouraged conduct that would not irreparably alter the strategic balance.

  Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the two superpowers at odds yet cautious; ever wary of overstepping bounds with the other. The concept that either superpower could unleash hell on earth upon the other; but only with the full and complete knowledge that it would reap the same hell after a short, almost imperceptible delay; supposedly kept the world “safe.”

  Deterrence; the notion that the fear of MAD could guide men toward right decisions guided our lives for decades.

  That the very existence of MAD meant the world was a few seconds or minutes away from total immolation at all times made for some sleepless nights, especially during a crisis like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

  I grew up in the military during the Cold War, and, although not assigned to strategic forces, served as caretaker for tactical nuclear weapons more than once. It was a heavy burden.

  And we knew plenty of men (they were all men then) that served in strategic submarines or missile silos or B-52 wings. These were the men on watch at all times. The men that made sure that MAD was valid, reliable and “safe.”

  Many, most of us, are delighted, I expect, that MAD no longer exists. It seemed a terribly immoral policy; a total abrogation of the idea that peace could be assured through diplomacy and dialogue. Peace was maintained, some said, by the nuclear power of the two superpowers. The fear of nuclear weapons in fact.

  And then this system melted away with the end of the Soviet Union.

  The situation we have today, and we see the ugly evolution of the former strategic balance in the situation between Hezbollah and Israel, is something like this. A democracy, relying upon the superpower for arms, assistance and sometimes advice, is engaged with an enemy. That enemy, not a state at all but something greater than an armed militia and smaller than a duchy, is governed by religious zealots who are not elected. But the enemy leaders also rely upon third parties for arms, training and the like. The enemy and the third parties are all sworn enemies of the democracy, and perhaps every democracy; or every Christian democracy. They want to wipe the regional democracy off the map. They want to rule “from Spain to Iraq.”

  The democracy and its mentor have nuclear weapons. The third parties, at least one of them in support of the enemy, may have nuclear weapons. Certainly they could get nuclear weapons if left to shop freely.

  The enemy, even in the face of a democracy and its mentor armed with nuclear weapons seems undeterred. In fact, some learned sages practically guarantee that the enemy is not deterred. Israel’s Dr. Boaz Ganor, the deputy dean of the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy and the founder of the Institute for Counter Terrorism in Israel said, “The Hizbullah has succeeded in creating a situation in which it deters Israel more than Israel deters it. It is unprecedented for a terrorist organization to deter a state and not vice versa.”

  Without elections to keep its leaders in check with some accountability; and with a weak, some might say powerless government (Lebanon) overseeing (loosely) its territory; for the enemy the normal strictures of treaties, good conduct, diplomacy and proper international behavior may have gone away. Add the fact that no international organization has stepped forward to demonstrate impartiality or the ability, desire and requisite influence or power to enforce proper conduct, much less a peace. So what do we have?

  We have a very dangerous situation. “A new strategic environment that we do not yet fully understand.” It includes, undeniably, the existence of ballistic missiles with even longer ranges than those used thus far in the conflict; and perhaps weapons of mass destruction.

  Israel and the United States and their allies, need to exert some control and establish some bounds by which a way forward without war may be found now. A cease fire is needed to stop the loss of innocent lives and to establish an environment for the discussion leading to a more lasting agreement. We agree, for a change, with Warren Christopher, who wrote last Friday, “Especially disappointing is the fact that she [Secretary of State Rice] resisted all suggestions that the first order of business should be negotiation of an immediate cease-fire between the warring parties.”

  It seems that the enemy, in this case, and its vocal and seemingly irresponsible mentor nations, left to map the direction forward without proper dialogue from the democracies, could lead the world into an even more perilous situation.

  And no rational man can want that.

  John