“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds” — these words reflected the far— sightedness of JR Oppenheimer as he pondered the destructive potential of the weapon he had just created. The horror unleashed on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 warranted that these weapons were subsequently held in reserve for deterrence, rather than for waging war.

Since then eight countries have acquired nuclear weapons dividing the world into the arrogant “haves” and the bullied “have-nots”. Within the Middle East, Israel remains the only nuclear power causing the balance of power to be firmly tilted in its favor. Now, this volatile equation seems set to change with the tremulous arrival of Iran on this deadly playing field.

After more than a year of disquieting debate on whether or not Iran’s nuclear program was meant for peaceful civilian use or for militaristic purpose, there seems to be increasing evidence that Iran favors the latter. More recent reports have largely highlighted the unrepressed tough-talk from Iran that indicates neither compromise nor surrender. In a path betraying an uncanny resemblance to the one North Korea has adopted in the previous two years, Tehran seems determined to call the world’s bluff and persevere on its highly provocative course.

Ironically, the ouster of Saddam Hussein’s unpredictable and belligerent regime should no longer cause Iran to look uneasily across its border. Moreover, thawing of relations with Saudi Arabia has certainly made life more comfortable for the Islamic Republic. But, wedged between the American occupied countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, there now festers a deep foreboding and growing panic of imminent and understandable danger. Added to this is the stigma of being within the tripartite “Axis of Evil” which seems to place it squarely within the cross hairs of President Bush’s gun sight. Given the confrontationist mindset of the present American government one can certainly identify with Iranian trepidations. The vastly different approaches adopted by the US toward Iraq and North Korea have certainly done much to convince the Iranians that possession of nuclear weapons would save it from any future American military intervention.

The ramifications of this historic decision are huge and not merely of regional consequence. The trigger set off within the Middle East would likely ignite a nuclear “chain-reaction” across the entire planet. Nuclear ambitions already seem to afflict Libya, Brazil and both Koreas.

These nuclear minnows cannot use the concept of an atomic bomb as a means of deterrence. It is worth remembering that during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israel seriously contemplated launching nuclear strikes at Syrian and Egyptian targets. More recently in 1999, India and Pakistan demonstrated how this concept of deterrence could go terribly wrong when they came uncomfortably close to a nuclear war over Kashmir. These instances serve as perfect reasons to prevent Iran or any other country in this volatile part of the world holding on to nuclear weapons.

Yet, for Arabs and Muslims alike who have barely lived down the ignominy of being overwhelmed by the miniscule Israel, the prospect of a nuclear Iran able to stand up to their regional foe would likely be welcomed in earnest. The legendary Arab pride has been repeatedly brutalized by successive Arab-Israeli conflicts. The occupation of Iraq and the humiliating capitulation of Libya’s weapons program have further fueled the Arab desire for a fitting reply to Israel’s unchallenged nuclear poser.

A nuclear and Muslim Iran, that speaks their language on Israel, would certainly go a long way in restoring this lost pride. For the man on the Arab street, the spectacle of this short— term gain is perhaps of greater value than the odds of a future nuclear showdown with all its accompanying devastation. Before our sanction of a nuclear Iran becomes a coherent cheer, it certainly would not begrudge Iran’s rulers to demonstrate true maturity of thought and stability of power. These basic requisites are yet to be fulfilled.

Needless to say, the issue is not merely a matter of Tehran’s decision and Tel Aviv’s abdication. Intense efforts are under way by both, carrot-wielding Europeans and stick-brandishing Americans to prevent nuclear arms proliferating in this unstable region. Israel has openly courted the possibility of launching strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities, imitating the 1981 bombing of the Osiraq reactor in Iraq.

Fortunately for Iran, this is an option the Jewish state is unlikely to experiment with again. For one, the nuclear facilities in Iran are dispersed over vast areas of the country and reportedly also difficult to target. In addition, the failure to find WMD in Iraq after the American-led invasion has already sensitized the world community against such pre-emptive recourse and would be hugely detrimental to Israel’s diplomatic standing. Moreover, the much publicized testing of the long-range Shahab-3 missile by Iran in August was in all likelihood aimed at displaying its retaliatory potential in the event of such an Israeli misadventure. Military action would further destabilize the entire Middle East and the prevention of such is paramount to world peace. As such, we should try more peaceful means to curb these nasty weapons.

There are two issues that need to be addressed before we embark on the task of denuclearizing Iran. Firstly, America’s persistent war posturing in this region has to be rolled back. And while at it, it would certainly help recast countries like Iran in an “Axis of Dialogue”.

Stereotyping such countries into an “Axis of Evil” only seems to push them precisely where they are not meant to be.

Secondly, the present crisis could be capitalized to forge an all-encompassing solution to the nuclear question within the Middle East. As a primer, Israel’s nuclear weapons program would have to be dismantled and for this to happen the IAEA and the UN Security Council must get their act together. Israel cannot be allowed to use the argument of requiring nuclear weapons as a means of maintaining military superiority in the region — it already does so by way of its conventional weapons alone.

Although there are no simple solutions, there is far too much at stake for the world to watch helplessly as regional powers arm themselves with nuclear bombs. The issue of denuclearizing Iran cannot be dealt with in isolation — the link with Israeli accountability has to be a part and parcel of the final deal. Double standards in this region will have to end somewhere, and this present crisis is certainly one place to start with.

— Dr. Faisal Sanai is a Saudi physician working at the Armed Forces Hospital in Riyadh. [email protected]