Can Iran Achieve Its Nuclear Ambitions?
In his new book, Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians and Proliferation, USC Dornsife’s Jacques Hymans outlines why Iran may be its worst enemy.
Sanctions, sabotage, diplomacy and even the threat of military action — the United Nations Security Council countries seem to be emptying their toolbox when it comes to containing Iranian nuclear ambitions. But nuclear proliferation expert Jacques Hymans thinks they may be overlooking the easiest solution of all: letting Iran’s program fail on its own.
Hymans, associate professor of international relations in USC Dornsife, has written Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians and Proliferation (Cambridge University Press, 2012), a new book suggesting that repressive, authoritarian regimes often undermine their own nuclear programs with the same heavy-handed management they use to control their countries. Scientists and equipment are pushed to the breaking point, which ultimately saps morale for atomic projects and fosters unprofessional scientific practices.
Analyses of Iran’s nuclear progress lack credibility unless they consider that point, Hymans said. Most intelligence estimates just assume professional motivation, rather than assessing it, he added. More importantly, the motivation factor works both ways. While leaving Iran to its own devices could result in a drawn-out, struggling nuclear program, drastic action such as bombing facilities or assassinating scientists could unite the program’s workers and drive them to success.
“You end up creating the monster you were intending to slay,” Hymans said. “Basically, I think the more aggressive you become, the more sure you have to be that they are making very rapid progress. And Iran hasn’t been making rapid progress.”
On the contrary, the length of time it has taken Iranians to get to this point indicates something has been going wrong. Hymans said that Iran has a track record of “general mismanagement” in large-scale industrial projects.
This is in keeping with one of the major points of Hymans’ book, the rarely reported kink in the nuclear arms race narrative: Proliferation has slowed down drastically since 1970. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, he noted that the average timeline for building a bomb before 1970 was about seven years; the average timeline since then has been about 17 years. Of the 10 countries that have attempted to develop a nuclear weapon in that time, only three have found success.
Hymans pointed to recent history for an example of failed nuclear innovation.The 2003 invasion of Iraq was predicated on that country’s development of weapons of mass destruction. In the run-up to the invasion, officials in Washington, D.C., argued that Iraq’s nuclear program was being reconstituted after its initial development in the 1980s.
But not only was it not being revived, it wasn’t much cause for concern in the first place. Hymans said officials didn’t understand what a spectacular failure Iraq’s nuclear efforts had been. In both his book and the Foreign Affairs article, Hymans described how the 1980s program was set back by the regime’s unrealistic deadlines and the repeated jailings of officials and scientists.
“After Iraq, people seemed to forget what they should have learned,” Hymans said. “Instead of drawing down the hype, the hype moved to Iran.”
Taking the issue seriously and hyping Iran’s nuclear development are not the same thing, Hymans added, but unfortunately they have been conflated throughout the 2012 presidential election.
The Republican primary debates were often a competition to see which candidate could use the strongest rhetoric. Republican candidate Mitt Romney charges that President Barack Obama is weak and not pursuing more aggressive policies against Iran.
“I expect this will play a significant role in the final battle between Romney and Obama,” Hymans said, adding that both men are likely to assert how aggressive they are.
Of course, Hymans recognizes that there are risks involved in Iran’s pursuit of the bomb. He doesn’t advocate allowing Iran or its peers to obtain any technical materials they like on the open market. His worry is that political leaders are rushing to decisions while overestimating Iran’s progress toward developing a successful program.
“I’m trying to enlarge our view of the possible,” Hymans said. “I’m trying to help us recognize that, if in fact Iran lacks the respect for science and scientists that is so crucial for efficiency, it’ll take a long time.”
Related News Items
- Defending the Invisible October 9, 2015
- Exploring Arctic Issues August 27, 2015
- USC Experts on Iran Nuclear Deal July 15, 2015
- Independence Days May 28, 2015
- Three of the Best May 13, 2015
- New Horizons April 16, 2015
- Opening D.C.’s Doors April 8, 2015
- Investigative Historian March 16, 2015
- Japan, Spies and the Roman Empire February 17, 2015
- Grotesque Yet Beloved February 13, 2015
- When Disaster Strikes January 21, 2015
- Big Picture Economics January 21, 2015
- The Only Way is Up December 22, 2014
- High Performance December 16, 2014
- Soaring to New Heights December 8, 2014
- Researching the Pacific Rim November 13, 2014
- Autarky in Iran November 11, 2014
- Diplomatic Chess Game November 6, 2014
- A Wish Granted October 22, 2014
- My Name Is Water October 16, 2014