|
A nuclear Iran would instigate Shia-Sunni conflict
Subrahmanyam 5(K., Prominent Strategic Affairs Analyst@Indian Express, October 5, “If Iran Went Nuclear…”, http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/79396/, accessed 7/9/10)jn
Therefore there are two kinds of concerns among the international community arising out of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. The first is that Iran may become an Islamic proliferator. Second is that nuclear weapon acquisition by Shia Iran will unleash a Sunni Arab backlash, particularly from Saudi Arabia. A nuclear Iran, if it ever manages to become one, will have a totally destabilising effect over West Asia. Already the US worries about the effect of a second Shia state emerging in Iraq and the impact of Iran on that state. Eastern Saudi Arabia, where the oil fields are located, and many of the Gulf States have a majority Shia population, although they all have Sunni rulers. The Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have kept a tight control over resentful Shia populations. They have depended upon the Gulf Cooperation Council and the US military presence in the Gulf area to keep the Shia populations under control. A resource poor, nuclear Pakistan could only challenge the American and Western powers through jihadi terrorism. It would be a different story in the case of a nuclear Iran which is resource rich, especially in terms of hydrocarbons. Therefore the US and Middle East rulers have real concerns about the authority and influence which the Ayatollahs from Tehran could exercise over the entire Gulf area. Whether this is a real or imaginary fear, it is hard to tell. During Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran, even the Shias of Iran fought loyally on Saddam Hussein’s side and the Shias in the Gulf states did not stage any uprising — not even when Saddam Hussein brutally suppressed the Shias in Southern Iraq.
Iranian Prolif Turns Heg
Iranian prolif undermines heg
Lind 7(Michael, Director of the Economic Growth Program@The New America Foundation, June, “Beyond American Hegemony”, http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/beyond_american_hegemony_5381, accessed 7/9/10)jn
American military hegemony in Europe, Asia and the Middle East depends on the ability of the U.S. military to threaten and, if necessary, to use military force to defeat any regional challenge-but at a relatively low cost. This is because the American public is not prepared to pay the costs necessary if the United States is to be a "hyperpower." Given this premise, the obsession with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) makes perfect sense. WMD are defensive weapons that offer poor states a possible defensive shield against the sword of unexcelled U.S. conventional military superiority. The success of the United States in using superior conventional force to defeat Serbia and Iraq (twice) may have accelerated the efforts of India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to obtain nuclear deterrents. As an Indian admiral observed after the Gulf War, "The lesson is that you should not go to war with the United States unless you have nuclear weapons." Moreover, it is clear that the United States treats countries that possess WMD quite differently from those that do not. So proliferation undermines American regional hegemony in two ways. First, it forces the U.S. military to adopt costly and awkward strategies in wartime. Second, it discourages intimidated neighbors of the nuclear state from allowing American bases and military build-ups on its soil.
Iranian Prolif Turns Econ/Saudi Relations
Iranian proliferation allies Saudi Arabia with Iran, collapsing the U.S. economy
Scoblete 10(Greg, Real Clear World Staff Writer, April 30, “Joining Iran's Camp”, http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2010/04/joining_irans_camp.html, accessed 7/9/10)jn
One of the very legitimate concerns about Iran acquiring nuclear capability is that it would spur other states in the region to acquire their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. There's some reason to doubt this would happen - Israel fought actual wars with many Arab states and acquired a nuclear arsenal decades ago without causing a cascade of proliferation. But nevertheless non-proliferation experts think it's a very real possibility (and indeed some believe an arms race has more or less already begun). But now Evelyn Gordon raises the opposite worry: that Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, will jump into Iran's orbit: The prospect of a shift in Saudi Arabia’s allegiance ought to alarm even the Obama administration. Saudi Arabia is not only one of America’s main oil suppliers; it’s also the country Washington relies on to keep world oil markets stable — both by restraining fellow OPEC members from radical production cuts and by upping its own production to compensate for temporary shortfalls elsewhere. Granted, Riyadh is motivated partly by self-interest: unlike some of its OPEC colleagues, it understands that keeping oil prices too high for too long would do more to spur alternative-energy development than any amount of global-warming hysteria. And since its economy depends on oil exports, encouraging alternative energy is the last thing it wants to do. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia has been generally effective as stabilizer-in-chief of world oil markets and has no plausible replacement in this role. And since the U.S. economy remains highly oil-dependent, a Saudi shift into Iran’s camp would effectively put America’s economy at the mercy of the mullahs in Tehran.
Iranian Prolif Turns Terrorism
Iranian prolif increases the chance of nuclear terrorism
McInnis 5(Kathleen, Director, NATO ISAF Operations in the Office fo the the Secretary of Defense, The Washington Quarterly, Summer, pg. 182)jn
Unlike in Asia, where the U.S. deterrent umbrella is more credible, in the Middle East the Iranian proliferation problem presents a different set of challenges. Not only do Iranian connections with terrorist organizations significantly raise fears of nuclear terrorism, but state-based proliferation is more dangerous in this already volatile region. Both concerns present significant, long-term challenges to U.S. security and involvement in the region, especially as extended deterrence may not succeed in assuring regional allies.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
