Joel Sharples interrogates who really started the Middle Eastern arms race and where Iran's place in it lies

Over the last two weeks, Britain, America and Israel have been turning up the pressure on Iran over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons in a manner eerily reminiscent of the build-up to the Iraq War. Just two and a half years after Britain’s withdrawal from Iraq, it seems we have already forgotten the lessons that should be etched into our national consciousness.

The Ministry of Defence’s release on November 2 of a contingency plan for an air and sea assault on Iran was swiftly followed by a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It claimed that Iran was working on an advanced nuclear warhead, prompting a resurgence of the debate over how best to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

For anyone concerned about global peace and security, a nuclear-armed Iran would be highly undesirable. However, it is a practically inevitable consequence of the West’s belligerence in the region. As one of the only countries to regularly stand up to American interests in the Middle East, Iran is in a spectacularly vulnerable position. It is now surrounded by bastions of American power in Israel, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Both Israel and Pakistan have large nuclear arsenals and, unlike Iran, neither are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In addition, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the assisted overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya have simply reiterated to Iran the necessity of a nuclear deterrent. Gaddafi was persuaded to give up on his plans for a nuclear arsenal in 2003 and faced the consequences. A US military report to Congress in April 2010 was surprisingly candid in this regard. The report suggested that “Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external or ‘hard’ threats from the United States and Israel,” and that “its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” An Iranian nuclear arsenal would clearly be little more than a deterrent to Western aggression.

The debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions also reveals many of the hypocrisies inherent in the foreign policies of Britain and the US. The idea that Iran cannot be trusted with a small nuclear deterrent is one of the greatest PR stunts of this century; Iran has only ever used its military in self-defence and its military spending is on a par with Poland’s. America, by contrast, has been waging foreign wars of aggression for two years out of three since 1989. Who is more deserving of trust when it comes to a nuclear stockpile?

Another oft-asserted argument is that a nuclear-armed Iran would spark an arms race in the region, a concern that has allowed the US to provide Israel with around $1.8 billion of military aid each year since 1987, rising to $2.4 billion in 2001. In fact, Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear deterrent can be seen as the consequence, not the cause, of a Middle Eastern arms race instigated primarily by the US.

Of course I am not advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, in this case the alternatives could be far worse. A pre-emptive strike on Iran would certainly be illegal, as well as a violation of the UN charter and Security Council Resolution 1887 of September 2009 which calls on states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully without recourse to threat or force. It would also be extremely difficult to pinpoint the weapons sites as the intense scrutiny of the IAEA means that any weapons-related nuclear activity is being carried on in secret. Any military intervention would almost certainly aim at regime change as a one-off bombing campaign would only delay the development of nuclear weapons. Iranian analysts, who are both supporters and opponents of Ahmadinejad’s regime, are unanimous in saying that a Western military campaign would only serve to unite the Iranian people behind the president. A long and extremely bloody war would probably follow which would throw the entire region into turmoil.

Fortunately, this scenario is far from inevitable. Currently, there is no hard evidence of Iran actually possessing nuclear weapons and President Obama would be reluctant to initiate a costly new war during an election year. Nevertheless, the recent developments show that an escalation of the conflict might not be too far off. We must remember that any military intervention would be illegal, immoral and impractical, just as it was in Iraq.