Why do nations acquire nukes? Decoding Iran’s dilemma – Firstpost

Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, tweeted during the Iran-Israel conflict, ‘Iran must never acquire the bomb.’ She subsequently welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire by Trump and added, ‘We call on Iran to engage seriously in a credible diplomatic process. Because the negotiating table remains the only viable path forward.’ Evidently the West appears to believe that they possess the power to determine who can develop nuclear weapons and who should not.

They have also taken it upon themselves to remove regimes which they assume are acting against their interests. To achieve their aims, they occasionally exploit global bodies such as the United Nations to legalise their actions. In recent times, they have begun ignoring the UN and acting on their own.

Wherever the West has interfered, they have left behind a mess or were forced to withdraw in defeat. The only nations which are secure are those who possess a deterrent in terms of nuclear weapons. It has hence become an unwritten rule that a nation with political systems at odds with the West must possess nuclear weapons or bow to Western supremacy to ensure its security, as many monarchies in West Asia have done.

In March 2003, Nato invaded Iraq, claiming it possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The sole intent was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was overthrown, captured, tried and hanged, but no WMDs were discovered, a fact known well even before the invasion was considered. Evidently, the intent was not WMDs but possibly oil. Since then, US forces have remained deployed in Iraq’s oil fields, whose operations are controlled by US companies.

Almost five thousand US troops and over a hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed and millions displaced since Saddam Hussein’s removal. ISIS rose in the vacuum created by Saddam’s ouster. It needed years and thousands of casualties before they were finally subdued. Iraq remains politically unstable, with multiple insurgent groups backed by Iran continuing to operate.

Libya had pursued a nuclear weapons program once Gaddafi assumed power in 1969. Post the Cold War, Gaddafi attempted to enhance relations with the West and sought the lifting of sanctions. It was compelled to surrender its nuclear weapons program and finally signed an agreement on it in December 2003. Without nuclear weapons, Libya was vulnerable to Western manipulation.

Following the Arab Spring, which commenced at the end of 2010 and spread to Libya in 2011, the US pushed a resolution in the UNSC authorising the use of force to protect civilians in Libya. It launched airstrikes and supported anti-Gaddafi forces. Gaddafi was overthrown. Over a decade later, Libya remains divided and violence continues unabated, with thousands of civilians killed.

Libya, once the most thriving economy in North Africa, is now struggling to survive. Once again, the reason for Gaddafi’s removal was Libya’s oil resources. When questioned on what was his biggest mistake as president, Barack Obama stated, ‘Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.’

Twenty years in Afghanistan, and the US could show nothing. It handed over the country to the same Taliban which it overthrew. Pak was the only nation which gained by playing both sides. As per reports, the US suffered over 2500 dead and 20,000 wounded, while almost forty-five thousand Afghans lost their lives. Currently Afghanistan is no better than what it was in 2001. Osama Bin Laden, whom the US hunted for the 26/9 attacks, was finally eliminated in Abbottabad in Pakistan.

On obtaining independence from the USSR in 1991, Ukraine possessed the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, including almost 2000 strategic warheads, 170 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and strategic bombers. In December 1994, the US, UK and Russia signed the ‘Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances’ with Ukraine.

The agreement provided security assurance against the use of force against Ukraine. It also promised to respect its sovereignty and existing borders. Based on this agreement, Ukraine surrendered all its nuclear weapons to Russia and signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Today it faces loss of territory and attacks by Russia. Would it have happened if it had held onto its nuclear weapons? Agreements and promises mean nothing with the passage of time.

The Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea is secure only because it possesses nuclear weapons. The nation may be isolated and amongst the world’s most sanctioned, but no major power has ever attempted to push a regime change or destroy its nuclear stockpiles. It is reported to have sold nuclear weapon technology to nations including Pakistan but has yet to be acted against.

North Korea has, over the years, developed missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Europe and the US, imposing further caution. All that the West can do is impose sanctions and threats, which are meaningless against the authoritarian state.

Iran was attacked on June 13 because Israel felt threatened by it developing nuclear weapons. On the contrary, because it is a US ally, Israel’s holding of nuclear weapons is acceptable. Tehran remains amongst the world’s most sanctioned regimes. It was in talks with the US on its nuclear program; however, Israel, with the backing of the US, decided to act unilaterally.

The US joined in the attack intending to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Rather than criticise Israel’s and the US’s unilateral actions, the EU President commented that Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. The action was a manifestation of partiality towards particular countries.

The trigger for attacking Iran was the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution in its board meeting on June 12 claiming Tehran was ‘breaching its non-proliferation obligations’. The IAEA Director-General, Rafael Grossi, in a subsequent interview with al-Jazeera on June 19, mentioned, ‘Iran’s alleged violations of its assurances had not led this agency to conclude that Tehran was building bombs.’

Both Trump and Netanyahu, in their desperation to attack Iran, ignored the statement by the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who had mentioned, ‘(US intelligence) continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.’ Trump rebuked her on her statement.

Nations which are traditionally against Western views and concepts will always remain at risk of being subjected to regime change unless they possess a reliable deterrent in the form of nuclear weapons. It is, in reality, a dominating West which encourages nuclear proliferation. But the world, as always, remains silent.

The author is a former Indian Army officer, strategic analyst and columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.