The Myth of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)
The First in a Series
Gabriel Rom
As Iran moves full speed ahead with its nuclear program (energy or not, they’re doing something), the debate over the danger Iran presents and what its nuclear intentions are is becoming more complex by the day. Yet, there seems to be a few prevailing misconceptions that have been diluting this increasingly important debate. This series of articles will address these misconceptions and attempt to bring to light the inaccuracies they present, where these inaccuracies originated from, and if any part of them is to any degree valid.
This series will not become my soapbox in support of or in opposition to an attack on Iran, but instead, these articles will discuss the flip side to many arguments that I believe hinder the validity and thus effectiveness of debate and dialogue on Iran‘s nuclear threat.
M.A.D., or Mutually Assured Destruction, was first introduced to the layman’s lexicon in the 1960′s during the Cold War. The United States and The Soviet Union were two polar opposite governments, two mortal enemies of each other, and two nations with stockpiles of nuclear warheads. Out of this geopolitical standoff arose the M.A.D. doctrine. The doctrine assumes that if a nation with nukes attacks another nation with nukes, the retaliation from the attacked nation would be equally if not more catastrophic than the original attack. Following the original attacks there would be an unstoppable escalation resulting in both combatants total and “assured destruction”. Thus, because of the inescapable consequences of two nuclear nations attacking each other, neither would be bold (or stupid) enough to do so. To many, the M.A.D. Doctrine sounds perfectly rational. Since it held true to its word during the Cold War they expect it to hold true now – and maybe MAD will indeed act as a deterrent to Iran. But any idea that can affect policy for this tense and potentially catastrophic conflict between Israel and Iran must be dissected, reexamined, and debated to the fullest of our capability… we cannot afford otherwise.
A growing number of Middle Eastern scholars have been highlighting one important fact about Iran that throws conventional application of M.A.D. out the window: “Iran is not an Arab country, but rather a Muslim country, ruled now by a Muslim theocracy, which calculates its policies not by Iranian national interests, but by what is good for Islam.”[1]
The validity of M.A.D. rests upon the assumption that “the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. Thus both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome-annihilation.”[2] To any sane, rationally thinking Iranian the annihilation of their country is obviously their “worst possible outcome”, but Mahmood Ahmadinejad is not your average Iranian— he’s a delusional theocrat.
According to Bernard Lewis, “The mullah regime in Teheran believes that the Shi’ite messiah would be ushered by a nuclear war…Ahmadinejad and his group clearly believe, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of their belief, that we are now entering an apocalyptic age, which will result in the triumph of their messianic figure, the Madhi” [1]
In Mahmood Ahmadinejad’s violently skewed perception of Islam, the destruction of Israel is something that would satisfy Iran‘s religious aims, regardless of any impact it might have on Iran itself. This, in a way, makes Iran an even more dangerous enemy. Its leaders are putting fanatical religious ideology above real world actions and reactions, thus raising the possibility of a myriad of catastrophic conclusions to their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
