An Iranian Alternative
When confronted with a crisis, people are prone to grandiose statements of purpose; that holds particularly true for people without a shred of power like – oh, say, bloggers. It’s all well and good for me to fulminate about how Iran MUST NOT be allowed to get nukes, but that won’t make that statement a fact. One thing seems clear; without a military strike (and a successful one, at that), Iran will possess nuclear weapons in the very near term.
The possibility of failure must be considered, whether it is a failure of will (no strikes) or execution (failed strikes). What will we do if, God forbid, a nuclear Iran comes to pass? One possibility is discussed by Ronald Asmus in the Washington Post:
The choice of how to respond to Iran’s growing threat to the West in general and Israel in particular is not an easy one. One option is to try to stop Iran’s nuclear program via an air and missile strike — but such a step is unlikely to work militarily and could have disastrous consequences. The other is to shift to a longer-term strategy of containment while working for peaceful regime change. While that might work over time, it is unlikely to stop Iran from going nuclear in the short term if it is determined to do so. While working to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the West must think now about what to do if we fail.
…[T]he country most threatened by a future Iranian nuclear capability is, of course, Israel. It would be a mistake to dismiss Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s rantings about Israel as mere posturing or a bluff. One lesson from Sept. 11 is that we should not limit our strategic imagination or underestimate our enemies in the Middle East. When someone says he wants to wipe you off the map, he might just might mean it.
…The best way to provide Israel with that additional security is to upgrade its relationship with the collective defense arm of the West: NATO. Whether that upgraded relationship culminates in membership for Israel or simply a much closer strategic and operational defense relationship can be debated.
How realistic is the prospect for a NATO with Israel? Read the rest for the answer…
There was a similar editorial over at the WSJ a few weeks ago. I think that the inclusion of Israel in NATO would be a great idea. However, I think that Asmus (and the author of the Journal’s Op-Ed piece) is underestimating the anti-Semitism in Europe. Sure, the US, the UK, Germany, and the Scandinavian and Eastern European states would be glad to bring Israel into the fold. France is, and always has been, pro-Arab, and even if they could be convinced that Israel deserves a place in the organization, remember that Turkey is also a NATO member state, and while it may be one of the few Muslim countries with normal relations with the state of Israel, the Turks would be quite reluctant to ally with them.
There is also the matter of geography. NATO’s charter requires that it come to the defense of states when they are attacked north of the Tropic of Capricorn (or is it Cancer — I can’t keep them straight) or in North America or Europe. Thus to have any meaning for Israel, it would have to be amended, as if Israel’s inclusion alone would not be hard enough.
I’m all for letting Israel fend for itself. We sell them plenty of weapons already they don’t need anything else.
Aaron-
A quick google search gives me 31 degrees North Latitude for Jerusalem. That’s well north of the Tropic of Cancer (23.5 degrees North Latitude).
As to your points about France and Turkey — I suspect France might just be ready to make such a move (in response to the recent riots, the cartoon kerfuffle, and frustration over Iran’s recent snubbing of their diplomatic efforts), but you are probably correct about Turkey. And that makes membership a nonstarter. Some sort of voluntary cooperation, and increased joint exercises might be possible, though.