Oil and Nukes (The Hidden Friedman)

Tom Friedman continues to hammer away at our interconnected policies of energy, nuclear proliferation, and democracy spreadin' with his Friday column, Driving Toward Middle East Nukes in Our S.U.V.'s (here's the link to the column, hidden behind the Times Select firewall):

I believe the questions that will determine whether we enter the post-post-cold-war world will come down to two: how India, China and Russia deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and how the West, particularly America, deals with $60-a-barrel oil.

Let me explain: if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly other Sunni Arab states are bound to follow. The Sunni Arabs can overlook Israel's bomb, but they will never stand for the Persian Shiites having a bomb and them not. That's about brothers with a centuries-old rivalry. And if the Arab world starts to go nuclear, then you will see the crumbling of the whole global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

A world with so many nuclear powers, particularly in its primary oil-producing region, could only be a more dangerous and unstable place, compared with the post-cold-war world. Imagine Iran with $60-a-barrel oil to make all the mischief it wants, and a nuclear weapon to shield it from any retaliation. Indeed, if you want to know what the post-post-cold-war world would sound like, listen to Iran's poisonous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He was quoted in The Guardian of London the other day as saying: "Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation."

I'm convinced that the only countries capable of getting Iran to back down — through diplomacy — are China, India and Russia. Europe is too weak, and America has already used every economic sanction it can on Iran. China, India and Russia have been great beneficiaries of the post-cold-war order, and the trade, economic development and exports it has made possible. That order was largely shaped and safeguarded by the United States, with China, India and Russia often getting a free ride.

But that order will continue only if China, India and Russia get over their reluctance to get too close to America and become real stakeholders in maintaining this post-cold-war world.

I want to share power and responsibility with them — starting with the three of them, which represent half of humanity, looking Iran in the eye and telling its leadership that they will join in any and all U.N. sanctions if Iran tries to build an A-bomb. That would get Tehran's attention.

As for America, its leadership task has shifted. If the Bush team continues to let Dick Cheney set its oil policy — one that will keep America dependent on crude oil — the post-cold-war democracy movement that was unleashed by the fall of the Berlin Wall will be either aborted, diluted or reversed. If regimes like those in Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Burma, Sudan and Nigeria have the benefit of 10 years of $60-a-barrel oil, whatever democratic tide President Bush thinks he is unleashing will be stymied. The worst regimes in the world will have the most power to support the most regressive political and religious trends.

[...]

A British official recalled for me that in 1946, the British foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, remarked, "Give me 100,000 tons of coal and I will give you a foreign policy." What he meant was, Give me the energy source to heat the homes and run the businesses of Europe, and I will give you a rebuilt Europe.

Well, I say, Give me even $30-a-barrel oil and I will give you an Iranian regime that is a lot less smug — an Iran that will need to be tied into the world much more in order to create real jobs for its exploding population.

That's why we need an urgent national effort, starting with a gasoline tax, to move the U.S. economy onto a path of more fuel-efficient cars and renewable energy.