President George W. Bush did not care if France, Germany, Russia or the United Nations endorsed his overthrow of Saddam. He acted according to St. Augustine's formula:
"In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized brigandage?" By this reasoning the sovereignty of Iraq under Saddam was null and void because Saddam was a criminal, a thief and a murderer. "If this band of criminals," wrote Augustine, "acquires enough power to occupy regions, to capture cities, and to subdue whole populations, then it can with fuller right assume the title of kingdom [i.e., sovereignty], which in the public estimation is conferred upon it, not by the renunciation of greed, but by the increase of impunity."
In an age of mass destruction weapons, we might restate Augustine's proposition as follows: "If this band of criminals acquires nuclear or biological weapons with which to threaten whole populations, then its legitimacy is effectively established, not by the renunciation of criminality, but by the impunity that comes with the possession of nuclear weapons. No legitimate government, valuing the safety of its people and prosperity of its economy, would risk attacking a nuclear power. Better to recognize that power and hope for a peaceful outcome."
The first criminal to acquire nuclear weapons was Josef Stalin. Because of this acquisition, the West faced one crisis after another - and the series has not ended, even now. Russia has decided, for reasons of its own, to share its nuclear technology with Iran. In his new book, Treachery, Bill Gertz reported that "in 1995 Moscow reached a secret agreement with the United States to halt arms sales to Iran, but ... spent the next several years working around that agreement."
In his book The High Cost of Peace, terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky claimed that Iran embarked on an "ambitious and aggressive" program of "nuclearization" in the summer of 1991. According to Bodansky, "Even before the final Soviet breakup, Iranian intelligence operatives were scouring Soviet Central Asia ... in search of a shortcut to operational nuclear capabilities. In summer 1991, one of these operatives was offered access to nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan." Consequently, in December 1991, Iran purchased two 40-kiloton warheads from "a group of about twenty-five security, scientific, and government officials [in the USSR]." Warheads of this type are deliverable by SCUD-type surface-to-surface missiles or MiG-27s warplanes. Bodansky claims the Iranian warheads became operational in late January 1992. But two warheads is not much of an umbrella; so Iran wants more nukes. Therefore, Iran has been trying to put together a nuclear manufacturing capability. According to Bill Gertz, "Moscow played an integral role in Iran's carefully managed overt-covert nuclear program." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Gertz: "I can't imagine why Russia sells the things it sells to the countries they sell them to."
Let us give aid and comfort to Mr. Rumsfeld's imagination. The criminal regimes of the earth constitute a mighty informal alliance, a brotherhood of thieves and murderers; and, as such, they face a common enemy. Legitimate governments do not accept criminal governments. Countries governed by laws and countries governed by criminal gangs cannot, in the long run, peacefully coexist. George Orwell, who wrote the book 1984, defined modern totalitarianism in terms of "lawless order." There is a basic value-conflict between lawful order and lawless order. And this conflict can only be resolved, in the last analysis, by force of arms. As Augustine wrote, "the bands of brigands [who control states] ... are groups of men, under the rule of a leader, bound together by a common agreement, dividing their booty according to a settled principle." Only a fool or an ignoramus would deny, at this point in time, that Moscow and Tehran expect to divide their booty according to a settled principle; otherwise, there would be no sharing of nuclear technology.
The Iranians are determined to mass-produce nuclear weapons, and they are not deterred by American threats. Iran sees the support that Russia's two-faced policy receives from French and German politicians. It sees the widening cracks in NATO. The U.S. Army is pinned down in Iraq. The Americans haven't won the Arab peoples to the cause of liberty and free market prosperity. The Iranian strategy therefore has a basis in reality. It has a firm foundation. The ayatollahs are building their position. Prince Abdullah of Jordan, the epitome of the "moderate" Arab leader, recently lamented the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, which favors Iran. In an interview with the French daily Le Figaro, the king said: "It appears to me impossible to organize indisputable elections in ... Iraq. If elections take place ... the best-organized faction will be the extremist faction, and the outcome will serve the extremist cause. With such a scenario, there is no chance that the situation will improve." King Abdullah further explained: "There is chaos in the streets [of Iraq], and every day new agitators cross the border [from Iran]. The biggest challenge for Iyad Allawi is restoring security."
The logical thing, for America, would be an invasion of Iran - the simultaneous liquidation of the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian support for the Iraqi rebels. But Iran is a country sensitively positioned and dangerously equipped. If Iran has nuclear weapons, as alleged by Yossef Bodansky, an invasion of the country would involve unacceptable risks. The world economy itself would be jeopardized by Iran's position in the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians have fortified islands in the strait. They have anti-ship missiles within range of the shipping lanes. The oil lifeline of Japan and Europe might be severed with one word from Tehran. Even a momentary closure of the strait could send oil prices above $100 per barrel.
The criminal fanatics in Tehran know the strength of their position. They are encouraged, therefore, to defy the United States. They are encouraged, as well, by German and French timidity as well as open Chinese support. Washington is sensitive to this situation, as a conflict with Iran would send oil prices to devastating highs. And so, with due calculation, Iran announced last week that it has begun to enrich uranium. The likely threat to Iran's nuclear program, at this point, lies in Israel. Various sources are spreading rumors about a planned Israeli strike against Iran after November 25 (the IAEA deadline for Iranian nuclear compliance). Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has hinted that Iran might face a joint U.S.-Israeli strike. If the United States and Israel strike Iran there is no way to predict the reaction, especially from the direction of Lebanon and Syria. It is difficult to imagine the kind of popular pressures the Arab dictatorships and monarchies will be subjected to. A general war between the Arab world and Israel might be ignited. America's position in the region would become militarily untenable, and its economic position would crumble. This may be the outcome that Moscow and Beijing are presently fishing for.
Now for the final formulation of St. Augustine's comments on organized brigandage (as applied to the oil question): "If this band of criminals acquires enough power to dominate or disrupt the chief oil regions, the prosperity and stability of the civilized world will be in their hands. And they will use this power to advance their position further."
