The U.S. proxy war in Ukraine and the direct U.S. war in Iran have made the world a more dangerous place, raising nuclear risks.
Ukraine is the dam, we were repeatedly told, that would hold back the Russian invasion of Europe. We were told that by Ukraine, by the U.S., and by NATO. To keep the world safe from Russia, Russia needed to be fought in Ukraine.
It was never true, as even Western officials sometimes admit. As early as two years ago, America’s then-Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith said, “we do not have indicators or warnings right now that a Russian war is imminent on NATO territory.”
And now, after years of war and hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, General Alexus G. Grynkewich, the head of U.S. European Command, says concern about Russia expanding the war by attacking a Baltic country is not necessary because “Russia is not looking for a conflict” and that they wouldn’t “risk” something when they “understand that… they won’t succeed.” Asked about the constant warnings of Russia attacking a Baltic country, Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister of nearby Sweden, agreed with Grynkewich: “We don’t see any signs of that.”
So, the war has not made Europe safer. But it has created a European security architecture that is antagonistic to Russia and that keeps Russia on the other side of a rigid line. That, as we have seen, is a dangerous situation.
Worse, it has allowed nuclear risks to proliferate along that line. Finland, which shares an 830-mile border with Russia, has overturned a decades-old ban by allowing its territory to be used to host nuclear weapons. And it will permit its NATO allies to transport NATO weapons through its territory or hold them there.
Moscow has taken note. “By placing nuclear weapons on its territory, Finland will begin to pose a threat to us. And if Finland threatens us, we will take appropriate measures,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
And the dangerous situation is spreading. Last week, Lithuania’s parliament began to lift a three decade’s old constitutional ban on NATO deployment of nuclear weapons on its territory. Lithuania shares a border with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.
The Polish government has declared an interest in participating in the U.S. nuclear sharing program that is under consideration. If implemented, that program would allow the U.S. to deploy nuclear weapons to additional NATO states. Poland has expressed a strong desire to host nuclear weapons. Like Finland and Lithuania, Poland shares a border with Russia.
Poland has also joined France’s forward nuclear deterrence scheme. France is the only nuclear power in the European Union and the only fully independent nuclear power in NATO other than the United States. Under the plan, France would allow partner European nations to temporarily host French strategic air forces. Poland is joined by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway.
The war in Iran has also led to nuclear proliferation. It has critically harmed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by exposing its hypocrisy and impotence. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was supposed to be protected by the “inalienable right” to a civilian nuclear program. And yet, though Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared that the organization “did not find in Iran elements to indicate that there is an active, systematic plan to build a nuclear weapon,” the IAEA did not condemn the attack or come to Iran’s legal defense. The NPT is the best thing the world has for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Its discrediting does not make the world a safer place.
The bombing of Iran’s civilian nuclear program has destabilized the nuclear order and put upward pressure on proliferation. Iran may conclude it has more incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, as may neighboring nations. Though the U.S. had promised to protect the Gulf countries under its security umbrella, their partnership with the U.S. made them targets for Iranian missiles instead. Their confidence in American defense arrangements has been shaken, and some have begun considering diversification.
In September of last year, months after the Twelve Day War and America’s bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabia signed a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with Pakistan. It is a full alliance that commits “that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” Pakistan is the only Muslim nation with nuclear weapons. “What we have, and the capabilities we possess, will be made available to [Saudi Arabia] according to this agreement,” said Pakistan’s defense minister.
The war against Iran has shaken confidence in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and may incentivize nations to acquire nuclear weapons or ally with nations who possess them. The war on Russia has led to the proliferation of nuclear weapons along the Russian border, which can only be seen by Russia as threatening.
Both wars could have been avoided. NATO could have agreed to keep its promise and not expand to Ukraine. Ukraine and its Western partners could have used the Minsk Accord as a path to peace and implemented it instead of using it as an opportunity to arm for war. As for Iran, it had already signed a nuclear agreement that clearly stated that “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Diplomacy was an option.
Both wars were supposed to make the world a safer place. Both have increased nuclear risks.
Read the full article here
