(HOST) The next President of the United States may very well have to deal with Iran as a nuclear power. This afternoon, commentator Barrie Dunsmore, who for more than three decades covered war and diplomacy for ABC News, looks at how that might play out.
(DUNSMORE) According to informed sources whose opinions I respect, the chances the Bush Administration will attack Iran between now and next January are remote. That means the new President may be faced with the choice of either going to war with Iran – or accepting the possibility that it will become a nuclear power in the next few years.
Based upon what they have said publicly on the subject, the three remaining candidates for President have significantly differing views.
Senator John McCain takes the hardest line. He says the consequences of the Iranians going nuclear would be more dire than the costs of militarily attacking Iran to prevent that from happening.
Senator Hillary Clinton appeared to raise the ante last month when she said that if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons the United States’ reaction would be massive retaliation. She said the Iranians must have absolutely no doubt that if they "…foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Senator Barack Obama was quick to jump on Clinton for using the inflammatory language of President George W. Bush. And many of her critics were appalled by Clinton’s threat. The Boston Globe called her "Hillary Strangelove."
I strongly disagree with Senator McCain that this country should go to war to prevent Iran from going nuclear. And, after last week’s setback in North Carolina and Indiana, it now seems very unlikely that Senator Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. So the question is – how will Obama deal with Iran?
So far, Senator Obama has talked about seriously engaging Iran diplomatically, and that is all to the good. As I have said repeatedly, the U.S. should drop all threats of regime change in Iran, as well as its preconditions that Iran’s nuclear program be suspended before there can be talks. The nuclear issue, and what’s happening in Iraq, cry out for serious negotiations. Eventually I would hope that after proper preparations there could be a meeting at the highest level between the President of the United States and Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But we have to be realistic. Given the decades of hostility between Iran and the U.S. – not to mention each country’s very different objectives in the Middle East – that might not happen for quite some time. And in the meantime, Iran could develop nuclear weapons. If so, rather than going to war, which could be a catastrophe greater than the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton’s threat to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel with nuclear weapons actually makes strategic sense. I doubt that top Iranian clerics are suicidal and can’t imagine they would want to see thousands of years of Persian history disappear in a mushroom cloud.
Over five decades, the threat of nuclear annihilation prevented the Cold War from becoming World War III. And as long as there are nuclear weapons, those who have them are forced to think the unthinkable.