Inevitability of nuclear deterrence for the Middle East security
The balance of power and collective security have been used as the two important principles for maintaining global peace and security despite debate among scholars with regard to their theoretical underpinnings and operational intricacies. The collective security system may have brought temporary peace in the world immediately after the two World Wars. However, it failed to establish long-lasting or ever-lasting global stability and security. For example, the League of Nations established after World War I succumbed into failure as the collective peace effort, which pulled the world to get involved into World War II, the most destructive and devastating event in the annals of history mankind had ever experienced. Some writers, thus, consider the twenty years between the two World Wars as the intermission or interim period. At the end of World War II, a second collective step towards peace was taken through the formation of the United Nations. Unfortunately, the UN, over the years, has lost credibility of the peace loving people to the extent that the structuralists started labeling it as the vehicle of exploitation. The struggle for global supremacy between the US and the erstwhile USSR, the two super powers could not be diminished by the United Nations. The super powers implanted the seeds of discords, conflicts and war everywhere in the post-war world. Notwithstanding the failure of the UN, the then existing balance of power between the super powers served as restraint and succeeded in stopping them from initiating dangerous wars. The resultant effects of this power balance have been reflected at the individual, domestic, regional and global levels. For instances, some people, families or groups have been maintaining imposed stability in a number of countries by achieving high esteemed power at their individual state levels. Understandably, however, their insurmountable power structure crushed into pieces at some critical juncture of their domestic political turmoil. In spite of the domestic "super power image" enjoyed by the Arab dictators, such as, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Ben Ali of Tunisia and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, they had to step down during the mayhem, when their power was challenged by the opposing forces and balanced by their power. That means, the inter-individual or inter-group struggle at individual-state levels intensified until their power had been balanced contributing to a deterrent situation. Thus the flaming fire of many drastic wars along the Afro-Asian Arab countries has finally been extinguished with the emergence of the balance of power at different levels of these countries. Another important example of preventing hostility and war by deterrent strategy is the nuclear power balance between India and Pakistan. The regional peace in South Asia has been maintained by the balance of nuclear power between the two nuclear countries of the region. The most glaring example of preserving international peace and security through nuclear deterrence has been set by the US and ex-USSR. Their dreadful nuclear weapons enabled them to deter each other from triggering military assault on the other. Over the years since the end of World War II, the sophistication of their nuclear weapons reached the zenith of development and restrained them from engaging into the first strike. They have been able to keep each other away from dismantling each other's world-wide interests and goals only with their balanced nuclear stronghold. In another word, their nuclear balance of power could avert total war between them. The reciprocal sense of security grown out of their balance of power allowed them uninterrupted opportunity not to intervene in such affairs that might lead them to war. The creation of IAEA was a measure to obstruct other countries to stretch their security umbrella. The deviation of IAEA from maintaining universal equal rights for all countries, limits it being justified as the valid, lawful and legal organization. That might make some countries vulnerable to the unjust treatment by such international treaties and obligations and compel them to install their own means of self-defense, which may not exclude the development of nuclear energy, nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Viewed from a realist perspective, Iran may be noted as such a country. Being frustrated and dissatisfied with the role of IAEA and the Western countries with regard to its nuclear projects, Iran may rush to develop its nuclear installations for the cause of its self-defense. Looked upon the issue from a regional security point of view, international recognition may be accorded for the peaceful nuclear ambition of Iran. A nuclear Iran can deter a nuclear Israel, prevent escalation of war and, and can contribute to regional peace and stability through nuclear deterrence. The Middle East region has been used as the hot zone of the flashpoints of cold war between the capitalist imperialism and communist expansionism. Israel has been a "pushed in state" in Middle East since the UN was established. Israel has been continuing persecution on neighbouring Arab countries and extending its boundaries unlawfully and unjustly by dint of its regional superpower status which has been achieved by its possession of sophisticated WMD and undeclared nuclear stockpiles. The erstwhile USSR failed to craft a cold war counter-structure in the region by nurturing a countervailing regional superpower equal to Israel. Equipped with the dangerous WMD and supposedly nuclear weapons, Israel has been instrumental in the implementation of the grand strategy of the imperialists in the Middle East region and elsewhere of the world. Against this backdrop, revolutionary Iran threw blatant blow to the unchallenged power of Israel psychologically, politically and strategically. The news of Iran's nuclear involvement came to the Western imperialists as the blue from the belt. Despite Iran's repeated iterations that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes and are quite in line with IAEA provisions, the West as well as Israel have pulled their pants up to deprive Iran of its nuclear rights. Iran has been continuously threatened with series of economic embargo, trade sanctions and military aggressions, such as, Christmas attack, spring attack, winter attack, surgical operation and preemptive air strike and so on. Paid no heed to international pressures, Iran has continued its nuclear programs either overtly or covertly. We don't know whether Iran has, by now, acquired nuclear bombs or come close to manufacturing nuclear weapons or cherished intentions to possess nuclear stockpiles. In view of the Middle Eastern political reconfiguration in the post-Arab Spring era, the nuclear deterrent strategy should not be kept aside. The West needs to understand the inextricability of the rivalry at the inimical psyche of the newly emerged regional great powers of Middle East like Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Tunisia vis-à-vis Israel. The newly-achieved strength of these countries can't be contained easily by the military efficiency of Israel. Renewed efforts are required for rebuilding the declining credibility of the West so that new leaders may find the Western interests in the region in conformity and coexistence with theirs. It may take a few years for the Middle Eastern countries to tighten a concerted regional power base and by that time, Iran may achieve nuclear sufficiency. The changed reality of the regional politics demands international recognition for regional nuclear power balance. It may replace regional enmity with regional rivalry and competition and prevent any prospective regional war laying far-reaching consequences for the third World War. Known that no threat has so far been effective in stopping Iran's nuclear projects, West needs to adopt alternative conflict resolution strategies. Any harder policy may instigate Iran to turn much more aggressive. The present Iranian government under the liberal Islamic President may be easier to handle than any conservative government. A policy of appeasement may also be adopted in order not to allow the extremists coming to power. In fine it can be said that efforts need to be taken to ensure Iran's peaceful nuclear programs. The plan for attacking Iran is not a viable solution. Any step to destabilize the flourishing environment of the balance of power between Israel and Iran will not bring any good result for the international community.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments