The upheaval continues in the Middle East. Last night’s speech by President Obama feel short of a complete explanation and strategy for the intervention in Libya’s current civil war.
Michael Oren asks in today’s Wall Street Journal, “What if Gadhafi Had Gone Nuclear?” In 2004 the Libyan dictator turned his back on development of nuclear weapons. He feared what might happen from America should he develop the ultimate weapon. Remember this was a year after America led an intervention in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein. Ghadafi feared the same would happen to him.
Had he proceeded with his plans and developed the bomb would he be tempted to use it on his own people in the present uprising? Probably. There is a reason the dictator has remained in power for more than forty years.
The hesitant nature of this present intervention by the United States and Europe has not dispelled the calculus of the region’s nations as they figure the risk and consequences of their actions.
Iran has proceeded forward with with their nuclear plans. In the wake of Egypt’s crisis and what is now happening in Syria they are moving ships and arms through the Suez Canal and into positions for future use. Should they sense that America will not act they could be emboldened to actions that could tip the region into further upheaval.
Oren writes, “The Iranian regime is the pre- eminent sponsor of terror in the world, a danger to pro-Western states, and the enemy of its own people who strive for democracy. It poses all of these hazards without nuclear weapons. Imagine the catastrophes it could inflict with them.”
When Iran develops the bomb it will spur other countries to acquire the same. When a future Arab leader feels his position or his countries existence is threatened what would prevent him from pushing the button? If America’s influence in the region has been diminished from where will arise the moral force to dissuade an action that could ignite a fire larger than anyone can imagine?
It is a scary thought.
