Massive Retaliation

by CKR

Hillary Clinton, answering a question that contained two hypotheticals—that Iran had its own nuclear weapons and that it attacked Israel with them—threatened to “obliterate” Iran with “massive retaliation.” Not once, but five times (one, two, three, four, five), mostly under direct questioning. So we may presume that she means it, that it wasn’t too late at night, and she didn’t misspeak.

Gary Sick gives us some background on “dual containment,” which may be what is behind Clinton’s pairing of nuclear threats with her concept of a nuclear umbrella for the non-Iran states of the Middle East.

The idea presumably would be to prevent the sort of nuclear proliferation that Joby Warrick writes about in today’s Washington Post. Forty or more developing countries have signaled interest in starting nuclear power programs, and of them, a half dozen have said that they are planning to enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear fuel. Those capabilities, in particular, make a weapons program possible. Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Egypt, and Turkey are all interested in nuclear power. United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have vowed never to pursue uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing, but they are interested in nuclear power.

The price of oil is one of the motivators to own the nuclear fuel cycle, but regional stability may be more important to the Middle Eastern states, along with the prestige of having nuclear weapons, a way of signaling to the world that they have arrived militarily.

It’s easy and convenient to blame this on Iran, but let’s step back a bit.

In and around the area of those states wanting nuclear power, we have Israel, Pakistan, India, and, further away but still in the neighborhood, Russia and China. All have nuclear weapons now. Israel is the most problematic for the Gulf states, since it has frequently been at war with its neighbors and is willing to attack without notice, as recently demonstrated in Syria. Its nuclear weapons are said to be set up for second-strike capability, in case those two hypotheticals developed in the case of Iran, for example. The alliance of the United States with Israel, reinforced by statements like Clinton’s, suggest to non-nuclear states that may have poor relations with Israel that a nuclear deterrent might be useful to fend off the attack of the type that seems constantly to be in the planning stage against Iran.

The United States has further destabilized the region with its demolition of the Iraqi government and continued involvement in Iraq’s internal battles. This has empowered Iran, of which many of the Gulf states are suspicious.

Clinton, in some of her statements, has loosely tied her “massive retaliation” and “nuclear umbrella” to the use of nuclear deterrence in the Cold War. However, massive retaliation, first enunciated by John Foster Dulles in 1954, was a highly unstable gambit in nuclear strategy. It was replaced by the more stable mutually assured destruction (MAD). Wikipedia and NuclearFiles offer complementary explanations.

In any case, the situation between Iran and the United States is quite different from the Cold War standoff. Israel, the hypothetically attacked, could retaliate on its own. The United States has conventional power to obliterate Iran; nukes are not necessary. If those in power in Iran not rational, they cannot be expected to respond to deterrence. If they are, they already realizes that Israel’s hundreds of nuclear weapons can obliterate their country. So Clinton’s threat is quite superfluous.

Seven years of the Bush administration has made it too easy to leap to the use of force. If we want to prevent proliferation as more countries acquire nuclear technology, there are a number of approaches short of force. Regional security means more than having enough military power to bash one’s neighbors. It is woven of numerous treaties to provide for equitable resource distribution, for trade, and for mutual assurance against military attacks. Argentina and Brazil began to develop nuclear weapons programs in the 1970s because they did not trust each other. Treaties and mutual inspections led to a calmer interaction. This is a more relevant model in the Gulf than the nuclear umbrella over Europe.

With regard to the prestige of nuclear weapons, we might consider how the United States’ position is seen by the rest of the world. We were upset when the Chinese blew up one of their satellites, but not so much when we destroy one of our own. President Bush walks out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and that’s just fine with us. Although I believe the evidence of numbers is otherwise, many outside the United States believe that we have not lived up to our obligations to Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which obligates us to work toward nuclear disarmament. Certainly the rhetoric of this administration and now of Hillary Clinton could give the impression that nuclear weapons are very important to us.

It’s not like we need nuclear weapons. We have enough conventional weaponry to do whatever we need to do. This administration has jumped too quickly to their use. We don’t need to extend that error to nuclear weapons as well.

Comments

[Courtenay Barnett]

There is a certain crude lack of logic, and inherent manifest inconsistencies if Clinton’s expressed policy were to be projected as an aggressive expression of US foreign policy. Clinton said “obliterate”, in circumstances where the statement must be heard to be provocative and un-diplomatic in an already tense Middle East environment. There also is little logic in what she has expressed if the statement is taken literally and played out globally, which quite crudely might be demonstrated as follows:-

China invades Taiwan (so “obliterate” China)

But:-

Israel invades the West Bank ( don’t “obliterate” Israel)

For there is undeniably (whether the state actor is a US friend or enemy) in such situations, a role for diplomacy, trade incentives, and processes of cultural exchanges to promote engagement, negotiation and on-going dialogue ( with military hardware as the ultimate back up - not the first tool) for viable US global diplomacy to work. Since the United States did not obliterate Germany, Italy or Japan ( qualify here – partially obliterated Japan) during World War 11 – the crassness and stupidity of Clinton’s statement should be roundly condemned by all peace loving people. However, for all the reasons inherent in advocating diplomacy – reason simply does not play out in the electoral processes as appealing to certain constituents when a “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” ( McCain tune) or a Hillary “obliterate Iran” rallying call becomes foreign policy mantra. The words of Mrs. Clinton are in actuality a last ditch, desperate vote-catching remark at the tail end of a failed and lost electoral campaign. Sad – so sad!

[CKR]

To be fair to Clinton, her comment was in response to a question about a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel. But that question contains two hypotheticals: that Iran might have nuclear weapons and that it might attack Israel with them. She should have refused to answer the question or answer with the standard "all options are on the table." That would have left the question of nuclear retaliation open but would have been much less inflammatory.