I've been thinking about this one and am not quite sure about the answer. Here's the question and scenario:
What happens if Iran were to pull a North Korea and announce rather unexpectedly that they did, indeed, have nuclear weapons, made and on the ready?
To jog memories, about a year ago, the DPRK announced that they indeed possessed nuclear weapons. They did not say how many nor did they say if or where they were deployed, but they did make a clear announcement that, yes, they did in fact have nuclear weapons. This caught a lot of people by surprise because until then the basic operating assumption was that the North Koreans were operating nuclear facilities and were certainly moving toward nuclear capabilities, but that they were not in possession of true atomic weapons. Until then, the dynamic in the negotiations was one of how to entice the DPRK to return to NPT guidelines and the previously agreed upon ROE I think worked out under Clinton (which they violated). But when they announced that they had nuclear weapons, the discussions changed from more a semi-militant tone (were DPRK to not come around) to an almost purely diplomatic framework. Of course, the DoD maintains (however crudely) contigency scenarios even for these circumstances, but once the DPRK announced that they were in fact in possession of nuclear weapons, the side-jabber and "leaked" remarks about a military solution were markedly toned down, which make sense because everything became more serious. But the interesting thing was that the RoK said that yes the DPRK claim was plausible. But that's a little strange of a confirmation since until then everyone (at least seemed as) was operating under the belief that DPRK had not yet made that leap. In short, the move worked out almost expertly for the North Koreans. It elevated them from a problem-child to a legitimate player.
What would happen were Iran to make a similar claim?
Here's what I've come up with so far:
The claim would be greeted with far more skepticism since among other things the Iranians have ostensibly been operating in the open with the IAEA (meaning that everything was by the book, even the demand that the IAEA remove its monitoring equipment, etc.). So for a claim like this to be believed, they would almost be forced to disclose more details, either where or how they'd constructed a bomb without the world knowing and/or display or demonstrate some aspects (not necessarily decisive proof though) of a claimed bomb. Yet it would still be possible.
However, the claim would most likely change the framework of the discussion in a way different from the DPRK situation, simply because they'd be a new and contentious player in a very rough neighborhood (with three or four nuclear superpowers, Iran, Israel, the US, and possibly Pakistan) in the neighborhood. The Israeli interest is clear, albeit their reaction is not. For instance, do they treat the claim as an act of war, chance it, and launch against Iran. Or do they simply rely even more fervently on diplomatic talks that have become exponentially more serious and rest with the assurance that Iran would of necessity yield to the deterrence that is an assured nuclear destruction (from NATO and the US) were Iran to launch a first-strike. I almost certainly think the second situation goes one hundred percent in the face of Israel's military (and indeed fundamental national) posture, and would thus be completely unacceptable - it'd be akin to the US putting their hopes of a Soviet launch not happening in the hands of the Canadians: outsourcing the fundamental existence of your nation.
The US would be equally threatened, as a significant portion of our armed forces would lie within range of a nuclear Iran. Well, this point is debatable on some technicalities, depending on one's assesment of nuclear-tipped Iranian missile range. Nevertheless, the US would have ample foundation to, much like Israel, view this as an act of war (nuclear war, no less) by Iran.
If it came to it, and Israel was going to launch, the US would probably launch instead, for several reasons. It'd allow Israel to maintain plausible deniability. And, more importantly, the US is most likely better equipped to do it.
Still, all hell'd break lose - even were Iran to not have nuclear missiles. The word tactical strike would be non-existent in this context.
But the realities of international media must not be underestimated. If Iran were to come out and say something to the effect like "yes we have nuclear weapons - however, under no circumstances would we use them preemptively" then the US might really be in a pickle. It might be enough to come right up to, but not overstep, the int'l supported US line for a near-unaminous consensus that this was indeed an act of war.
But most crucially, it'd be very unlikely - and probably a large gamble - to operate under the assumption that, having made this announcement, that the Iranians were bluffing.
Anyway, I ask for your take on, were this to happen, what would realistically follow.
And in all respect, I do not mean for this to be a repeat of the "would the US use nuclear weapons against Iran thread". The assumption, whether you buy it or not, is that the US would follow through with their nuclear posture which states in no uncertain terms that it is prepared to meet a nuclear act of war against it with an equal or more devastating nuclear response. So let's go with that assumption for now...
