The idea of a “Middle Eastern Cold War” has the adverse effect of throwing a complex region with many political factions into two boxes. Nevertheless, it is probably fair to say that much of the region’s conflicts come from American interference, actively supported by their most important ally Israel, and the Iranian desire to get rid of it. Barring exceptions like Russia and Ukraine, it is rare to see countries settle disputes in direct war in this era.
Rather, countries tend to engage in “proxy war’, sponsoring militias in weak yet strategically important countries in order to gain the upper hand. This development has been a negative one for much of the Middle East. Citizens of countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are forced to suffer due to the disputes of various regional and international powers.
We can argue that Israel is the source of much regional conflict, but within the region, Iran probably has the biggest record of internal meddling. Its international paramilitary network holds a death grip over Lebanon and Iraq, while the efforts of its army and proxies helped save the Assad regime from a popular revolution. Iran does not seem to be stopping here. Recently, Colonel Mustafa Hiyari revealed Iran helps fund drug smugglers that conduct large, frequent and organized attacks on Jordanian borders.
The Iranian regime craves regional instability. Iran’s supporters, who are dwindling in number, justify this by saying that it is a necessary defence against Western imperialism, yet it seems that Syrian rebels and Iraqi democracy advocates seem to be the victims of Iran’s boot, rather than America and Israel. To much of the Arab Street, Iranian domination will be replacing one type of imperialism with another.
What is the origin of Iran’s incessant intervention? Probably ideological. After all, Ayatollah Khomeini called for the toppling of monarchical and secular governments in the Middle East right after his success in Iran. Exporting the Islamic Revolution is actually enshrined in Iran’s constitution (article 10). Yet ideology is not why the Iranian regime maintains this policy. Realpolitik necessitates practicality over ideology, and Iran threw “ideology” out of the window when it bought Israeli arms during its war with Iraq, followed by trading for American arms in the infamous Iran-Contra scandal.
The fact of the matter is America litters every allied country in the Middle East with its military bases in order to trap Iran, so Iran goes to great lengths to ensure its neighbours are subservient to them instead. It is self preservation, what we might call “defence in depth.” Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is another disadvantage Iran has to deal with, further incentivizing them to even out the playing field via proxy wars.
There is one other way for Iran to feel secure without impeding on the security of the region: nuclear weaponry. Take the example of North Korea. It experiences hostility and a heavy embargo from America and co, similar to Iran. Yet it does not go around attempting to install puppet governments throughout East Asia. Why? Its nuclear arsenal is enough of a deterrent to the Americans.
If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would most likely roll back its “projects” in the rest of the Middle East. They are expensive and provide excuses for further Western sanctions and regional isolation. Though enemy countries may still try to undermine Iran, it is guaranteed that no external effort would remove the Iranian regime, thereby allowing the countries of the Fertile Crescent to develop properly.
Of course there are major risks in allowing the Iranian regime to have nuclear weapons. They are not the “smart devils” we are used to, and often make gross and dangerous miscalculations, most notably shooting down a commercial airliner during the height of tensions with America in 2020, killing 176. Aside from the fact that Iran’s government has terrorist tendencies, in an ideal world, no one would have such destructive weapons, and we would not have to debate the matter at all. But as it stands, Israel has a batch of nuclear weapons laying in the Negev Desert that brings the question of nuclear weapons in the Middle East up in the first place.
We are then given two choices. We allow Iran to play “the game” and equilibrize the balance of power, or we work towards nuclear disarmament as a whole. If we allow some states to maintain nuclear weapons and block others, you create a toxic situation where a few countries may subjugate many (see, Russia and Ukraine). But if you create a nuclear free for all, you put the entire globe at great risk in a scary game of Texas Hold ‘Em, a prospect especially worrying with rogue states like Iran and Israel.
Some say that the fear of launching nuclear weapons means that nuclear states may not go to war at all, a concrete example being India and Pakistan fighting three wars before they obtained nuclear bombs, but never going to war since. However, we do not know how long this state will last, for nuclear weapons are a relatively new phenomenon. Recall that many thought international war would never happen again after the First World War, only to be disproved two decades later.
The proxy wars that plague the Middle East stem from the regional and international imbalance of power, a status heavily enforced by Israeli possession of nuclear weapons. The fact that we are at the point where Iran having nuclear weapons may seem like a good idea is quite telling of the general state of the Middle East, and highlights the urgency of dismantling nuclear weaponry as a whole, with special focus on Israel.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of 9awtak.com, its staff, or other contributors.
