Iran's Nonaligned Nuclear Movement?

[Omnion 59]

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerrey's apocalyptic nightmare about Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment program, and how Iran is supposedly a sponsor of terrorism, smacks of John Foster Dulles's blunt declaration during the Cold War that, "Neutralism is immoral." Like Kerrey, Dulles, also a former U.S. secretary of state, detested the idea of nations neither aligning with the U.S. or Soviet Union. And yet, it was the Nonaligned Movement consisting of a number of nations that did far more in economically assisting developing nations, promoting national self-determination, and in preventing major conflicts, than either the Soviet Union or U.S.

At a joint news conference and in regards to Tehran's nuclear program, Kerrey proclaimed: "Every month that goes by gets more dangerous." Political and historical evidence contradicts Kerrey's alarmist and over exaggerated claim. Not only does Iran have low-grade uranium incapable of producing a nuclear weapon, but it lacks technologies for an effective delivery system. Iran has also consistently maintained that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, let alone using one. And even if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it remains under the oversight of Iran's supreme religious leader, who insists that nuclear war is inconsistent with Islamic rules.

Still, and if Iran does develop a nuclear war head, it will use it for prestige and deterrence, mainly against Israel's already existing nuclear arsenal. And like other government with nuclear weaponry have learned but kept secret from its people, maintaining and modernizing nuclear arsenals are extremely expensive. At this point in its economic history, Iran cannot afford to house a costly nuclear munitions store. It is more than likely, then, that Tehran is being honest when it claims that its nuclear enrichment program is for civilian purposes. On the ground evidence reveals that Iran merely wants to power hospitals and universities, eventually expanding to residential and commercial sectors.

Iran's civilian Nuclear Nonaligned Movement could benefit the world. Along with developing new and enhanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, Iran could improve "clean" nuclear energies while sharing containment and waste disposal know how. It could also aid in "meltdown" responses. Iran's ethical considerations about nuclear capabilities would invigorate the debate over destroying all nuclear weapons and establishing nuclear free zones. And would not Iran's anathema towards nuclear weapons challenge the U.S.'s Brinkmanship, Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine, and Carter and Eisenhower Doctrines that threaten the use of nuclear war to protect Persian Gulf oil?

The real crux of Kerry's hysterical warnings is fear of the U.S. losing its monopoly on nuclear weapons and technologies. As Iran expands its nuclear enrichment capabilities and shares nuclear technologies with other nonaligned nuclear nations, expect more grandiose and "end of the world" scenarios. Such fear not only subjugates people by making them reason incoherently, but it represses nuclear weaponry dissent. It allows, even excuses, governments to maintain massive nuclear missile stockpiles. It also lulls civilians into believing their government is justified in striking a nation with nuclear missiles, if and when the time comes to do so.

Nations living under nuclear time are swayed with vivid, dramatic, and unforgettable impressions left by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities utterly destroyed by the U.S. atomic weaponry. Nuclear fears have escalated to the point that when one mentions "atomic weaponry" everybody immediately thinks it is the end of the world.(1) Are U.S. leaders projecting their own deadly creation, their own guilt of using nuclear weaponry and killing hundreds of thousands of people, onto Iran? Nuclear time always leads to nuclear history imprisonment, which can have the affect of annihilating alternatives or new possibilities. It can also be a grave danger to Iran's hopeful nuclear nonalignment.

The U.S. must realize it cannot dominate the world. Neither does it have everything to teach and nothing to learn. Richard N. Haass writes, "U.S. foreign policy should focus not so much on what other countries are in their borders but more on what they do outside their borders."(1) Accepting Iran's are (Islamic Republic) would help the U.S. distinguish between the desirable and the vital as well as between the feasible and the impossible. The impossible being, that is, to remake the Middle East and Iran after the U.S.'s own likeness. And instead of an outdated Cold War policy of dualism, the U.S. might want to attempt a policy of integration. Such a realignment would benefit both Iran and the U.S.