Determining U.S. policy toward Iran and its nuclear programs should begin with considering the way the Iranian leadership and people regard their effort to develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons.  The current leadership wants to remain in power, but they differ about how that is best accomplished.  Ahmadinejad does not determine policy.  To what extent it is ultimately shaped by Ayatollah Khamenei or by the high military leaders is widely debated.  There is also widespread Iranian disaffection with the ruling regime.  The U.S. should be wary of unifying the divergent groups within the country.

It is safe to believe that the major purpose of the Iranian leaders is to maintain themselves in power and to play an important regional role.  Having nuclear weapons can reasonably be considered as necessary to avoid efforts to overthrow them.  They may see what happened in Libya compared to the survival of the regime in North Korea.

Coercive sanctions alone will not suffice for the U.S. government to halt Iran’s progress toward producing nuclear weapons and the means to employ them.  Even a military strike would only delay such programs and unleash terrible reactions.  Current sanctions need to be accompanied by reassurances to Iranian leaders that not having nuclear weapons would not open them up to attacks and to efforts to overthrow them.  They are already close to having the capacity to build nuclear weapons, but not close to being able to employ them.  In any case, they will forever be extremely unlikely to use them to initiate a war, attack Israel or risk passing on any capability to external organizations they cannot control.   Such actions, they know, would be utterly self-destructive.

There are realistic reasons the region and the world would be much better off if Iran did not possess nuclear weapons.  Its possession of such weapons may result in other countries in the region developing nuclear weapons, further increasing the risks of nuclear accidents, military attacks, and even wars.  The economic burdens of financing nuclear arms races would further damage the well-being of the peoples in the Middle East.

The U.S. can take steps that will induce the Iranian leaders to stop short of actually constructing nuclear arms, yet having demonstrated that they ultimately have the capability to do so.  Inducements include reassurances that can be made with little risk to the U.S., Israel, or other countries in the region.  They incorporate working to establish a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.  Israel would not be taking any risk by acknowledging its nuclear weapons capacity and collectively working to diminish the need for them.  The U.S. should move toward restoring diplomatic relations with Iran, with the promises that entails.  Opening Iran to more contact and exchanges with Americans can strengthen the position and influence of Iranians who seek domestic reforms.

This path holds out the promise of widespread benefits for the peoples in all countries in the Middle East, including Iran.   There would be enhanced security for everyone.  There would be greater economic benefits for everyone.  In the context of the Arab Spring, improving stability and reducing mutual fears is highly desirable.  With American leadership many other countries would choose this path making it the right way for all.

Louis Kriesberg, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Maxwell Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, and Founding Director of the  Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts at Syracuse University, is co-author of Constructive Conflicts, 5th Ed. 2012.

Hurricane Sandy may turn out to be the savior of the world from nuclear catastrophe.

The current budget crisis of the United States, amplified by the tremendous human and property losses of killer storm Sandy, may be the opportunity that people everywhere have been hoping for: the chance to eliminate the huge, costly and illegal nuclear weapons stockpiles of the United States and Russia.

As of November 2012, New York, New Jersey, and other states are reeling from the overwhelming property damage done by the storm. At this point we cannot even estimate how many billions of dollars will be required to assist the devastated areas in their rebuilding, or the new and unknown infrastructure needed to reduce the damage of such storms in the future. What we do know is that without very substantial help from the already strained federal budget this highly productive area of the U.S. will be unable to rebuild itself for a long time.

How will the Congress trim the federal budget to provide the urgently needed aid for the coastal areas? Will they cut back on Social Security and Medicare, as some have suggested, or will they prune the excessive, unusable and illegal nuclear weapons complex, which is now planning to spend “between $620 billion and $661 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs over the next decade” according to What Nuclear Weapons Cost Us,  a report from the nonpartisan Ploughshares Fund.

While a large majority of Americans have repeatedly said in polls that they want a nuclear weapons-free world, every attempt to prune the nuclear weapons budget is opposed by the Congress. Many former hawks and military leaders have said that these weapons are a liability that does not keep us safe and should be abolished. Then why does the Congress continue to defend the huge nuclear weapons budget? Because the Nuclear Weapons lobby contributes to Congressional campaigns. A report from the Center for International Policy finds that, “In the 2012 election cycle, the top 14 nuclear weapons contractors gave a total of $2.9 million to key members of Congress with decision making power over nuclear weapons spending. These firms have donated $18.7 million to these same members of Congress over the course of their careers.”

We now know that any exchange of nuclear weapons would threaten the world’s people with a nuclear winter, caused by the huge cloud of radioactive debris that would circle the Earth and reduce food crops to famine levels, as well as weakening the ozone layer, threatening the ocean’s phytoplankton and spreading radioactive fallout over large areas of the Earth. As a result, many nations have repeatedly supported resolutions for abolition at the UN General Assembly, including the latest one by 34 nations stressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, which was delivered in October of this year.

We, the American people, have a choice. We can continue the plan for modernizing and replacing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems to last through the end of the century, or we can immediately cancel all such plans and expenses, and sign an agreement with Russia to work jointly to reduce our huge weapons stockpiles. Once we both reach a much smaller stockpile we can demand that other nations with similar stockpiles—several nations, such as China and Israel, have approximately 300 of them—must join with us in A Nuclear Weapons Convention and take the last step to rid the world of these suicidal weapons systems. This would save the U.S. Treasury hundreds of $billions, while reducing the ever-present danger of a nuclear exchange.

Loosening the grip of the Nuclear Weapons lobby on the Congress and their choosing life-sustaining budget priorities will not happen easily or quickly. The American people must leave the armchair of denial and organize now to preserve a livable world for their children and grandchildren. It will take a consolidated peace movement with breadth and determination. But it can be done.

Now, when we so urgently need to help those living in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and to trim the federal budget at the same time, is the window of opportunity. We must seize this moment to act, or the window will close, we will return to business as usual, and at some time in the future these terrible weapons may set the Earth on fire.
Peter G Cohen, Santa Barbara, Calif., is the author of www.nukefreeworld.com and other internet writing.