The Islamic Republic of Mauritania II
The reason that you have never heard of The Islamic Republic of Mauritania, is that they have no oil money, no ICBM’s, and no nukes. Our friends at the CIA say that the country is a democracy, of all things, with no US attack needed. This is kind of cool, really, except that the Mauritanians are as poor as dirt. Poorer, actually, as they are rich in locusts. The Mauritanian locusts, however, have their own problems, as there is little for them to eat.
Iran, on the other hand, is rolling in western cash, and uses it to buy and build western technology, like nukes, ICBM’s, and all the rest. Can you see the benefits of pouring tons of western cash on an otherwise poor desert nation? Here’s a hint: Nuclear Armageddon.
Iraq and Iran have had, at various times, vigorous nuclear weapons programs, paid for by the West. Poor Mauritania has never had a nuclear weapons program, despite being more Islamic than Iraq. The Mullahs of Iran are Islamic, Shia and Persian, Saddam Hussein was secular, Sunni and Arab. The common factors between Iran and Iraq are Islam, the tons of cash, the ambitions of their leaders, and the (attempted) construction of nuclear weapons. So, no cash, no nukes. To get rid of the nasty nukes, take away the cash. The cash comes from the West. It’s up to the West.
There is one caveat: Pakistan. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has made their own nukes without having any appreciable oil. The cost is high and I don’t know where they got the money. Our friends at Wikipedia say the US helped out with guarding the nuclear facilities to the tune of $100 million. That’s a tenth of a billion dollars. Peanuts, as they say in the nuclear game.
And yes, I do know, that Saddam Hussein did not have nukes when the US invaded in 2003, and that his nuclear program was moribund. In 2003 the sanctions against Saddam were crumbling, but still in place, and 100,000 US troops were sitting in Kuwait, a pistol pointed at his head. The situation was not sustainable.
It is completely clear from his history that if Saddam were left completely alone, he would have restarted his nuclear program and the US, or somebody, would eventually have had to intervene. It looks like 2003 was the wrong year, and GW Bush the wrong leader, to take down Saddam Hussein. My point is only that somebody would have to do it sometime. And, of course, if Saddam died, his evil sons would have followed in his footsteps. The lesson of Saddam’s use of gas warfare, twice, is that there was no red line for him between ordinary weapons and weapons of mass destruction; Any weapon he had, would be used. This is the opposite of the situation in Pakistan and India, for example, where the leaders fully understand the consequences of nuclear war.