The Nuclear Solution?

In my first article for Conservative Home's platform I argued that we conservatives need to ensure that the possibility of military action being utilised to resolve the current Iranian crisis remain in play. If we accept this charge then I submit there is a further question that we must resolve ourselves to answer: if we believe that the use of armed force may be necessary, are we prepared to countenance the possibility that the level of force so required may extend to nuclear action?

We are after all facing a potential nuclear threat; that being so surely the possibility of nuclear action on our part, or our allies part, would not prima facie seem de facto disproportionate. Accordingly I contend that a case may be made for the use of nuclear force against Iran.
However one hard truth must be faced about such action. Any nuclear strike(s) against Iran would have to take place before nuclear weapons, developed by Iran, were handed over to terrorists, and accordingly may even have to take place before any such weapons have been manufactured. This being so we must be mindful that the basis for our use of nuclear force would be intelligence indicating the possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons of its own that may in turn be handed over to said terrorists.

Just as I argued in my previous article that we must not let the failures with regard to Iraq preclude our advocacy for the use of force against Iran so too do I submit that we must not allow past intelligence failures in general to prevent us ab initio from advocating the potential need to use nuclear force. Our action in the future must not be dictated by mistakes in the past; we must learn from those mistakes but not be subjugated by them. Instead we must be driven by our overriding desire to protect our nation and its allies.

The US has already indicated that nuclear force would provide the only 100% guarantee that Iran would be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, and by extension prevented from handing over such weapons to terrorists for use against the West. Of course just because nuclear weapons provide such a guarantee does not mean we should use them. To draw an analogy if Mr X believes Mr Y is planning to assault him he could, by murdering Mr Y, guarantee that that assault never takes place. Obviously any reasonable person would point out that such an extreme response should not be used given that Mr X can also prevent the assault through the use of any number of other less excessive means. Likewise it goes without saying that if less destructive measures can resolve the situation in Iran then they must be used. My point is simply that given the high stakes game being played by Iran we should not dismiss any military option out of hand. The nuclear option may not be palatable, but its effects are certain and if we face a situation where nothing else can ensure our complete protection then it should be used.

On a related note it is of fundamental importance that we do not allow the current crisis in the Middle East, which has prompted Israel to defend itself, to distract us from the potential nuclear threat posed by Iran, indeed as Israel has pointed out that is exactly what Iran wants. Moreover the Hizbullah attacks against Israel should serve to reinforce our understanding of the potential threat Iran poses. The rocket attacks (well over 1000 of them) serve as a constant reminder of Iran’s willingness to supply terrorists with weapons to attack the West and its allies. It is precisely this possibility, in the nuclear theatre, that we wish to prevent.