Highlights

 
Quotable
Our modern states are preparing for war without even knowing the future enemy.
Alfred Adler
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
May 1, 2008

Need a (Nuclear) Umbrella? Call Hillary


by Leon Hadar

One of the central tenets of the US containment strategy during the Cold War was the belief in Moscow as well as in the capitals of America's allies across the Atlantic and the Pacific that in a crisis with the Communist powers, Americans would risk New York, Chicago and Los Angeles for London and Bonn, Tokyo and Seoul.

Indeed, US strategy of "extended deterrence" – encapsulated in the metaphor of a "nuclear umbrella" – worked since the Soviet Union was presented with a credible threat of two-front war if they decided to launch nuclear attacks against America's allies whose security was considered to be a core US national interest.

The extension of America's nuclear umbrella into Western Europe and East Asia became an integral part of formal agreements with the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Japan and South Korea that had been approved by Congress following an extensive debate in Washington.

This commitment to risk New York for other world capitals reflected the recognition that US interests and those of its allies were compatible as part of a global conflict with a Soviet-led Communist bloc armed with conventional and nuclear arms, posing a direct threat to the US-led Western alliance.

Now, a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, a leading presidential candidate is proposing that the United States provide a similar nuclear umbrella to Israel and other pro-American governments in the Middle East as part of a strategy of containing Iran.

To apply the terminology of the Cold War, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton is suggesting that in a crisis with Iran, Americans would indeed risk New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, for Tel-Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi and perhaps even Cairo and Baghdad.

The idea of extending a US "umbrella of deterrence" into the Middle East – originally an intellectual brainchild of armchair strategists in Washington – was raised by Mrs. Clinton during the recent presidential debate in Philadelphia.

"An attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation from the United States," she declared. "So would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions," she added, pointing to Saudi Arabia and the UAE as states that had concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"We've got to deter other countries from feeling they have to acquire nuclear weapons," she stressed. Later during an interview with ABC News Mrs. Clinton threatened that if the Iranians launched a nuclear attack on Israel, the Americans "would be able to totally obliterate them."

It was astonishing that one of America's top public figures who has a better than even chance to become the next occupant of the White House proposed such a major security commitment to states that are not formal military allies of Washington against a midsize regional power that doesn't pose a direct security threat to the United States.

That Mrs. Clinton's plan has failed to ignite a serious debate in Washington is equally mind-boggling.

In fact, last year's famous National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in the fall of 2003, that it doesn't have nuclear weapons and that it won't have the technical capability to process plutonium in order to develop a bomb before 2015.

Yet Mrs. Clinton in her comments seemed to be dismissing the NIE conclusions and taking the side of the hawks in the Bush Administration by assuming that Iran has both the intentions and the capacity to go nuclear. And she is calling for what amounts to a preemptive military action against Iran by extending the "umbrella of deterrence" into the Middle East.

Moreover, Mrs. Clinton seems to disregard some of the major differences between the strategic reality of the Cold War – the threat of a global superpower to the members of the Western alliance, and the current situation in the Middle East, dominated by a multitude of national, ethnic and religious conflicts where Iran doesn't pose a direct and immediate threat – and certainly not the only threat – to those who supposedly seek America's nuclear umbrella.

Hence Israel is still in a state of war with Saudi Arabia that continues to back the Palestinians in their struggle against the Israelis. In fact, from the perspective of the Saudis and other pro-American Arab states, it is the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and not Iranian ambitions – that poses the main threat to their interests and long-term stability.

At the same time, the Arabs insist that Israel renounce its own nuclear military capability with which the Jewish state could deter the potential threat of a nuclearized Iran, not unlike the way the two nuclear powers of South Asia, India and Pakistan, deter each other.

In any case, the next US president will be in a position to negotiate a grand diplomatic bargain with Iran that will create even less incentives for the Iranians to go nuclear and that could even open the door for some sort of détente between Iran and Israel.

Extending the US nuclear umbrella into the Middle East will only drive the Iranians to acquire nuclear military power and draw the United States deeply into the Middle East cauldron, ensuring that Washington will continue investing much of their diplomatic energy in that region to the exclusion of the rest of the world.

Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

comments on this article?
 
Archives

  • The Pillorying of Charles Freeman and America's Loss
    3/20/2009

  • The Return of Realist Interventionism
    2/2/2009

  • Islam and the West:
    The Myth of the Green Peril
    11/5/2008

  • Israel's Not-So-Future Perfect
    10/24/2008

  • Beware of Big Ideas
    10/15/2008

  • Peace Not Near on Middle East's 'Time Horizon'
    7/31/2008

  • Who Lost the Middle East?
    5/28/2008

  • Military Humanitarianism Won't Help Myanmar
    5/21/2008

  • Need a (Nuclear) Umbrella? Call Hillary
    5/1/2008

  • Futile Surges and Bailouts
    3/19/2008

  • The Pitfalls of Forecasting Foreign Policy
    3/14/2008

  • Balance of Power Is Continuing to Shift From the US
    12/29/2007

  • Bye, Bye Tora Bora; Hello Subprime Mortgages
    12/22/2007

  • Neocons Won't Let Facts Stand in the Way of Iran 'Threat'
    12/19/2007

  • The Mideast Strategic- Consensus Fantasy
    12/8/2007

  • Look Who's Downplaying Iran's Nuclear Threat
    11/22/2007

  • US Cannot Force Regime Change in Pakistan
    11/16/2007

  • The Tunnel at the
    End of the Light
    11/7/2007

  • When Reel Tales Rewrite
    Real History
    10/30/2007

  • The Costs of Isolating Myanmar
    10/3/2007

  • The Surge Scam: Getting Rid of the Goat
    9/14/2007

  • Dangerous Delusions
    8/23/2007

  • Hayek's Insights Apply to Iraq War as Well
    7/26/2007

  • Time to Ignore the Middle East?
    6/9/2007

  • The Wolfowitz Touch – or How to Lose US Credibility
    5/18/2007

  • Iraq War May End With an Isolationist US
    5/4/2007

  • The Bush Legacy:
    Headed for Hisses?
    4/26/2007

  • Another Victim of the Anti-Neocon Revolution?
    4/18/2007

  • Is Washington Being Sidelined on the Middle East?
    2/22/2007

  • The Axis of Evil: And Then There Was One
    2/20/2007

  • Listen to the Foxes, Not Hedgehogs, on Iraq
    2/8/2007

  • Expanding the War to Iran: Another 'Urban Legend'?
    1/27/2007

  • A Military 'Surge' to a
    Political Nowhere
    1/17/2007

  • Brace Yourself for 2007
    1/3/2007

  • The Right Men, the Wrong President
    12/21/2006

  • The Baker-Hamilton Recommendations: Too Little, Too Late?
    12/13/2006

  • A Losing War, a Failed President, a Weak Dollar: We've Been Here Before
    12/7/2006

  • Rumors of Neoconservatism's Death Exaggerated
    11/16/2006

  • Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword
    11/11/2006

  • Can Jim Baker Save the American Establishment?
    11/9/2006

  • The Humbling of the Hegemon
    10/21/2006

  • A New Kind of Neocon?
    10/12/2006

  • US-Iran Shootout Is Inevitable
    9/23/2006

  • Has the Hegemon Been Humbled in Lebanon?
    8/30/2006

  • And the Loser Is... Everyone
    8/24/2006

  • Playing Cowboy – and Falling Off the Horse
    8/22/2006

  • Baghdad, Beirut, Doha
    8/7/2006

  • The US Can't Run the Show in the Middle East
    8/2/2006

  • 'Birth Pangs of a
    New Middle East'?
    7/27/2006

  • All Hell Breaks Loose in the Middle East
    7/21/2006

  • Is Anyone Still Listening to the Flaming Bush?
    7/19/2006

  • Israel's Failed Strategy: The Writing Is on the Wall
    7/14/2006

  • Nationalism: The Last Refuge of the Political Loser
    7/5/2006

  • The Ever Elusive 'Tipping Point' in Iraq
    6/17/2006

  • US Stumbles Onto Road to Diplomacy With Iran
    6/10/2006

  • Iraq Like Water Off a Duck's Back to Bush, Blair
    6/2/2006

  • Why Can't the US Apply Its New North Korea Policy to Iran?
    5/25/2006

  • US-Iran Ties: Is the Pen Mightier Than the Sword?
    5/17/2006

  • Bush's Slow Race
    in the Last Lap
    5/11/2006

  • If Only Bill Gates
    Made Foreign Policy
    4/28/2006

  • The War on Terror Is Over,
    and China Won
    4/21/2006

  • From the China Lobby to the Israel Lobby
    4/13/2006

  • 'Democratizing' Iran:
    A Case of Déjà Vu
    3/30/2006

  • Muddling Through
    3/23/2006

  • Saying Good Bye to Dubai; Bidding Adieu to Globalization?
    3/17/2006
  • Leon Hadar is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East (Palgrave Macmillan). He is the former United Nations bureau chief for the Jerusalem Post and is currently the Washington correspondent for the Singapore Business Times. Visit his blog.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2014 Antiwar.com