The international standoff over Iran's civilian nuclear program follows months of futile talks led by Britain, Germany and France to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency voted last week to refer Iran to the Security Council and accused the state of violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The United States and Russia have both intervened in the diplomatic negotiation process, but members of the Bush administration reiterated that they have not ruled out military intervention in the face of a nuclear threat.
PL: What implications do you think these recent and potential nuclear states - Iran, Pakistan, India, North Korea - have on global politics?
MS: The first thing to say is that Iran and North Korea do not yet have nuclear weapons. However...this situation produces a new set of problems centered on nuclear weapons. These are problems shared by every major nation, including China. The central issue of the first nuclear age was the USA-USSR nuclear arms race. The central issue of the second [post-Cold War] nuclear age is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I doubt that the USA, Israel or even European nations will permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. A nuclear-armed Iran would have too much leverage in the Middle East.
PL: In terms of the Iranian nuclear situation, how significant is it that the US is, for the time being, 'cooperating' with traditional allies - including France, Germany and Russia - who were slighted in the run-up to the Iraq war?
MS: The alliance is one of necessity, and it is highly significant. In the first instance, it indicates that the USA and Russia are both concerned about an Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Secondly, international stability is enhanced when the U.S. and Russia work together. The eventual goal for a stable western world is to integrate Russia into a new Atlantic alliance. So we might say, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that Iran is contributing to a more stable western world.
PL: The argument for preemptive intervention in Iran appears similar to that used for the Iraq war. The argument is to prevent the Iranians from developing weapons technologies that might be used on future attacks against America and its allies. Is there any reason now for the US to be more receptive to working with the Security Council and the IAEA in trying to stop Iran than they were prior to invading Iraq?
MS: The Bush administration lied to the country into the war with Iraq. The administration saddled itself with a global credibility gap. It also has stretched U.S. military capability to the limit (despite its disclaimers). If we take any military action against Iran it will have to be in cooperation with other nations. The incompetence of those who planned how to fight the war - and the duplicity of those who took us to war - have made us a dangerous floundering giant. PL: How can the US reconcile its initial commitment to diplomatic and economic measures, but still keep up its tough military rhetoric, when you claim that its resources are spread so thin?
MS: Good question. Ask Rumsfeld for an answer.
PL: The US has maintained good relations with other new nuclear states - even adopting Pakistan as a key ally in the War on Terror - using more diplomatic means. Is it simply a question of Iranian hostility to western states? Could preemptive military intervention possibly be justified? Or is it a last resort, only after extensive weapons negotiations by weapons inspectors?
MS: Everyone will make up his or her own mind about the justification of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if it occurs. The majority of Americans seem to accept almost anything their government does as justified, which is one reason our government behaves so irresponsibly so often. My own view will depend upon the circumstances at the time and the diplomacy (or lack of it) that precedes any military action. Military action must be unambiguously the last resort. At the moment, I believe there is a consensus that Iran must not be allowed to create nuclear weapons.
PL: Is Iran...breaking any international law conventions by developing nuclear arms?
MS: [Iran is] violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty if [it] develops nuclear weapons. But there is a larger point. The U.S. has consistently violated its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. We (and the Soviet Union during the Cold War) were obligated to decrease our nuclear weapons arsenals in exchange for the commitment of other nations not to build nuclear weapons. That was the bargain underpinning the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Instead, we consistently either increased the size of our arsenals or upgraded the capabilities of our nuclear weapons. The United States, more than any other nation, is responsible for the nuclear threat the United States currently confronts. We need an administration with the courage to commit this country to traveling down the long road to nuclear abolition. That may seem like an impossible achievement today. But 50 years ago the idea of a European Union seemed impossible. It is a matter of education. It is a matter of convincing the public that the United States and the rest of the world is safer if nuclear weapons are eliminated. We desperately need a serious public debate on this issue.
