A nuclear Iran may be good for U.S. defense industry

Published 9 February 2010

A defense expert says that the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran will lead to growth in exports of American weapons systems, training, and advice to U.S. Middle Eastern allies; this would give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm; Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put the United States in a difficult position should it be threatened by a rising military power like China; “a nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe”

Iran has notified the UN nuclear watchdog agency that it – Iran - is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level. The admission of what everybody has already known makes the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which argued that in 2003 Iran had “halted” its nuclear weapons program, appear even more bizarre now than it appeared then (see “U.S. Still Fighting for Sanctions on Iran, but with a Weaker Hand” [19 February 2008 HSNW], and “Iran Accelerates March Toward the Bomb” [10 April 2008 HSNW]).

It is now becoming clear that unless military force is used to defang Iran, that country will come into possession of nuclear weapons within the eighteen months.

There are those who think it may not such a bad thing. Adam B. Lowther, a defense analyst at the Air Force Research Institute, writes that what is needed now “may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”

He writes that there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. E lists five of them:

  • First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity finally to defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like al Qaeda. To contain Iran, “Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
  • Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. “Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield [which the United States would provide the moderate Arab regimes].”
  • Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. “This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties.”
  • Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts “but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm. With the likelihood of austere Pentagon budgets in the coming years, Boeing has been making noise about shifting out of the defense industry, which would mean lost American jobs and would also put us in a difficult position should we be threatened by a rising military power like China. A nuclear Iran could forestall such a catastrophe” (emphasis added).
  • Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. “It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost.”