The Hill's Nuclear Umbrella

Clinton’s recent statements about extended a “defensive umbrella” haven’t gone over well with a number of folks.  Israel says it means we have accepted a nuclear Iran.  Senior state department folks have said she was “speaking personally” and that no official policy has changed.  All in a day of diplomatic work.  The blogosphere has taken it a bit further and started analyzing the desirability of such an arrangement.  Small Wars Journal and the Weekly Standard both had posts to read on the issue.  Two additional thoughts to add:

1. The domestic political feasibility of such an idea— Saudi Arabia is mentioned near the top of the list of states in the region that would quickly seek nuclear weapons should Iran be considered a nuclear weapons state.  We certainly have oil interests there but would the Hill formally agree to an arrangement putting at risk DC for Riyadh given that many consider them a despotic, theocratic regime that harbored many of the 9/11 attackers?  Seems like a tough vote to make happen.

2. The “nuclear” question– Clinton’s staff didn’t provide any details about what a “defensive umbrella” would look like and there seems to be some ambiguity as to whether that would be an extended nuclear deterrent.  Either way it could pose problems.   Extending an explicit nuclear guarantee to Middle Eastern countries could pose huge credibility issues for the U.S. extended deterrent around the globe.  If the U.S. were tested, it may be forced to use a weapon just to preserve its credibility elsewhere.   At the same time, having the deterrent be conventional may be insufficient and could also force the United States to get involved in another protracted conflict in the Middle East– not something high on the Obama agenda.  It should also be remembered that none of this would influence Israel to give up their arsenal, particularly in light of a weaponized Iran.  The odds they give up their weapon in a security guarantee are likely close to zero.