Tehrans IAEA Agreement - Research Paper Example

After the Cold War and World War II, the world has been silently awaiting for another war to occur as seen from the rumbles occurring various countries. In the present world, there have been incidences of country to country wars, like Ukraine and Russia, but never one where the whole world was involved. Countries striving to become superpowers through acquisition of massive weapons of destructions are something which has been in the media for some time. Countries like Iraq, in 2006, were accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction, which was a violation of Tehran’s IAEA agreement. Tehran’s IAEA agreement refers to an agency formed to regulate nuclear and atomic energy. Basically, any country that is a member of the IAEA is expected to act within its mandate. In the event that it acts outside its mandate, then necessary action will be taken. In contrast to this view, there are some people who claim that the world may be heading to a more peaceful state. In as much as the International Atomic Energy Agency categorized Iran as harboring nuclear weapons, they did not clearly state whether the weapons were for peaceful purposes or not. After IAEA investigated the issue of the nuclear weapons in Iran and founding Iran uncooperative, resolving the situation became a diplomatic matter. This research paper will hence address the issue with the aim of supporting the thesis that Iran’s nuclear development may or may not be for peaceful purposes. The paper will hence look at how the nuclear development may not be for peaceful purpose, how Iran is associated to be a terrorist state, and its Islamic region tension to the west. However, it will also look critically into the matter and also prove how Iran’s nuclear development would not be used for war purpose. First, in as much as Iran announced that its nuclear development was purely for peaceful purpose, IAEA questioned their increased interest in nuclear. Even after making investigations and ordering Iran to suspend their Uranium program, plus any projects which had relation to the nuclear programmer, Iran still did not comply. Its inability to comply with what it has been asked brought Western interest, who believed dominated the council to the extent of manipulating it. After investigations, Iran was discovered to harbor nuclear stations which had been buried underground, denoting their purpose that it was not meant for peaceful purpose. In addition, Iran refuted any claims of preparing for war. Nevertheless, as tension heightened in the countries belonging to the Middle East on who would become the superpower in the region, the perception of having nuclear power was a ticket to that post. Secondly, Iran has been labeled a terrorist hub following the unending terror groups mushrooming in the country. In continuing to conduct secret nuclear power development, while refuting allegations of the same, started to be treated seriously as a terrorist threat. In having a country whom had a terrorist group which had links to the bombing of September 11, 2001 attack on USA soil under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden, brought speculations of such weapons falling into the wrong hands, would be a worldwide disaster. In 2007, US issues a statement to Iran that they will be a serious consequence if it fails to comply. This made Iran become more serious to make the weapons. In addition, tension existing between the Islamic and Western countriesWest and the Islamic states reduces the possibility that any country on either side will be willing to let go of what they perceive as a weapon to defend themselves. Iran has repeatedly claimed that the established cooperation between the US and other powerful countries have the objective of increasing tension in the Middle East while taking advantage of their resources. Furthermore, it is unclear to the Iranians how the UN Security Council, which has more members from the West, could be so strongly against Iran. Other countries among the members had more developed nuclear activities that have been militarized and used in the past said George. This creates a perception that other countries are wary that Iran will become more powerful if allowed to continue. As such, it is expected that the resistance that Iran has repeatedly shown to the regulations and the requirements by the council will continue and cannot be solved by peaceful negotiations. Despite the many claims that Iran’s nuclear weapons may not be of peaceful purpose, there are critics who believe that the nuclear program could be resolved peacefully without a war. Tokdemir claims that since the election of Hassan Rouhani, Iran has begun its progress towards peace. He believes that Iran’s agreement with America proves how it is leaning towards a more peaceful termination to the program. However, Tokdemir backs his argument with weak arguments. Many of his statements are inconsistent and filled with misjudgments. This paper will aim to critique Tokdemir’s views and prove that Iran’s nuclear development would not be resolved without a war. In the essay, Tokdemir writes, “Iran has been agreeing on a lot more inspections alongside the rights the rights for them to enrich uranium under the Non-proliferation Treaty which Iran has actually agreed and signed on.” It claims that because Iran signed the non-proliferation agreement and agreed to frequent inspections by the IAEA, it would no longer develop nuclear technology that will be used as weapons. But, Iran has been reluctant to allow investigations and comply with the agreements that were signed on its soil by other nations. In 2002, an agency mandated with the regulation of atomic and nuclear energy (IAEA) raised concerns for the increasing development of nuclear plants and activities in Iran. However, even with the resolutions of the council that Iran be investigated for its nuclear activities, the country was reluctant to cooperate with the IAEA investigations. This rejection is an indication that although Iran is a signatory to the Tehran agreement, they are not ready to comply with the requirements. If Iran has been very resistant of inspections in the past, there is no proof that it will allow them now. In addition, Tokdemir assumes that the rules of the treaty could not be bent or even broken. The argument is incorrect because an agreement to an inspection does not necessarily mean that Iran will not develop its nuclear technology into weapons. Tokdemir claims, “There has been a huge change with the view of the Iranian people ever since the election of the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. He has allowed an open door to a resolution of the nuclear program and potentially a less bellicose and more trustworthy Iran” He also says, “Iran is now portrayed to the public as a country which is sacrificing some of its development to ensure that unrest does not arise in the Middle East from its behalf. Rouhani being elected has made a dramatic change in the view of Iran towards the World.” All these arguments are invalid because they are simply his own opinion. Just because Tokdemir thinks that Rouhani is good for Iran and that he has made the country more open and trust worthier doesn’t mean that it is actually true. In fact, many people would disagree with Tokdemir and say that they are unsupportive of Rouhani and his management. In his essay, Tokdemir also writes, “President Barack Obama has a lot of optimism about the new elected President Hassan Rouhani when it comes towards peace talks and their nuclear program. Nethanyu, the Israeli President thinks that Iranians are still planning on building a bomb however Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.” The fact that Iran says the nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes doesn’t support his statement. I could say I was the Queen of England; it still doesn’t make it true. Unless there is actual evidence that the nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, one cannot guarantee that they are. And, Iran claiming it is doesn’t give enough support to the claim. A pronouncement or a claim of non-use of a weapon however cannot deter an action especially for a country that has a penchant for war and tendency towards extremism. Iran has also a history of covertly developing weapons evident with its previous attempt to develop nuclear weapons and then denying it. Even if we assume that President Rouhani is sincere in limiting the development of nuclear technology to scientific, energy and medical use, the country is just too unsecure to have nuclear technology. In addition, Tokdemir says, “Iran, having thought it through thoroughly, was even further attracted into signing the treaty as they would not have favored being portrayed as a threat to the west and to their allies.” There is no legitimate reason to back up Tokdemir’s claims on why they signed the treaty. They could have just signed so that their economy will improve. Or, they could have signed it because they were forced too. We cannot know the real reason as to why Iran wanted to sign the agreement. In addition, Iran is already seen as a threat to the West and their allies. If they weren’t, America would not be so persistent on eliminating their nuclear program. So, I doubt signing the treaty or not would have much effect on their image. Tokdemir also says, “By both sides agreeing over the last 6 months on Iran’s nuclear program, it can be noticed that Iran does not want a war to occur due to their nuclear activity.” This statement is unconvincing and weak. Just because the countries have been on good terms for the past 6 months, it doesn’t mean that they have solved all their problems. The struggle between America and Iran is an issue that has been going on for several decades. Just because it’s been good for 6 months, it doesn’t guarantee that it will stay that way. After all, their problems are not ones that can be solved in a matter of few months. In conclusion, in as much as Tokdemir’s views that Iran’s nuclear development as one which can be resolved without a war through peace talks and signing treaties that could foster peace with the Western countries. Despite Tokdemir’s claims, other researchers still are convinced that nuclear development by Iran could only be resolved by war. They propose that the nuclear development may not be for peaceful purpose, plus Iran is associated to be a terrorist state, including its Islamic region tension to the west to be some of the things to fuel war. Works cited Flamini, Roland. “Rising Tension Over Irane: Is Iran Trying to Develop Nuclear Weapons?” CQ-Research 6.3, 2012. Print. George Perkovich, The End of the Nonproliferation Regime? , 2006. Current History at p. 355. Retrieved from: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/perkovich_current_history.pdf Katel, Peter. “U.S. Policy on Iran: Would a Nuclear-Armed Iran Endanger the United States?tle.” CQ-Research 17.44, 2007. Print. Patrikarakos, David. Nuclear Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State. , 2012. Print. Read More