French Thinking on the Iranian Nuclear Program

"[Iran] Having one [atomic bomb], maybe a second one a little later, well, that's not very dangerous..." French President Jacques Chirac stated last Monday.

At first, I was infuriated by this statement, because I consider it absurd (and frightening) for several reasons. But the more I think about it, I am a bit relieved. At least we know where the French government stands on this matter. They are not our ally in this pursuit, despite the fact that they have endorsed UN resolutions condemning the Iranian action and, along with Britain and Germany, led the supposed diplomatic offensive to stop it.

Chirac's reasoning was apparently based on the belief that the Iranian leadership would never be foolish enough to use such a weapon. "[An Iranian nuclear bomb] would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground," he says.

And he would be right, if Iran was foolish enough to launch one on a missile or drop one from a bomber. But these are certainly not the only ways to deliver a nuclear weapon. Terrorism relies entirely on surprise, stealth and shadowy networks. We have decades of experience that demonstrate this reality. Thousands, if not millions of tons of illegal drugs are smuggled into this country every year from countries all over the world. If this is possible, why couldn't one nuclear weapon be as well? The answer is that it could.

There are other reasons Chirac's statement is nonsensical. Does he think that Iran would only build "one, maybe a second one, a little later"? Is he comfortable assuming that the Iranian leadership is a rational entity - one that can be deterred by mutual assured destruction as the Soviet Union was in the Cold War? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's public rhetoric strongly suggests otherwise - not to mention the fact that we really have no idea what the real power players in Iran (the Ayatollahs) intend. Does Chirac believe that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan would allow an Iranian nuclear arsenal to exist without developing their own? Does he believe that it is even worth the risk? Apparently so.

America should pursue diplomacy as genuinely and as vigorously as possible on this matter - something we are not doing today. But we should realize that if it fails, it probably will not be the Bush Administration's fault. When those that are supposed to be among our closest allies publicly dissent (as is admittedly their right to do), it weakens the chances of diplomacy having a meaningful effect - and makes a military conflict more likely.