Best Approach to a Nuclear Iran - Essay Example

Dore Gold writes, “…outwardly Iran wanted the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but its hidden intention, according to Ramezanzadeh, was to engage in other activities.”(15)The international community is not willing to believe Iran and remains skeptical about its nuclear plan. Bush administration takes a tough stance and warns that production of nuclear weapons is on the agenda of Iran and that concern is shared by Obama administration. Gold argues about the administration’s initial attitude and writes, “Obama’s neutrality on the developments in Iran reached its height when he declared: “It’s important to understand that although there is some ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised.”(5) But the position is not the same now though Iran consistently denies allegations that it owns intention to develop a bomb.

Gold further tenders details that “….intelligence data indicating that Iran was also working on a nuclear warhead that could be fitted on its ballistic missiles.”(35) How do the authors present these issues? The authors present the issues in a logical manner tendering facts in support of their arguments. Both of them share concern about America’s political and economic interests. They differ in details as for approach but both agree that Iran’s nuclear weapons program ambitions must be contained without further delay.

What are their assumptions? Christopher Hemmer argues that patient diplomacy is the best approach to contain Iran’s nuclear program. According to him, Iran with nuclear weapons will pose challenges for the United States, but it is prudent to meet them through a policy of deterrence actively pursued, through containment and engagement and with active deliberations with America’s allies in the region. It is better to talk to Iran across the table on a perennial basis, than challenge it through arms.

Norman Podhooretz answers this question in a simple and straightforward style. He is not willing to trust Iran under any circumstances. According to him a nuclear-armed Iran is dangerous for all concerned countries and disastrous for America. Use of arms to checkmate Iran is less risky than allowing it to go scot-free with its weapon-development program. He advocates direct military intervention and destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. What are their arguments? According to Hemmer, in pursuance the path of peaceful negotiations, America needs to look out for options like change of regime, preventive military strike, economic sanction and make appropriate evaluations about cost of action vs.

costs of inaction. In any case, America cannot remain a silent spectator about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and need to take actions on an ongoing basis. Christopher Hemmer argues, “The United States has three strategic interests in the Persian Gulf: maintaining the flow of oil onto world markets, preventing any hostile state from dominating the region, and minimising any terrorist threat.”(Parameters…) Norman Podhooretz writes, “I argued that deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime rules by Islamafacist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about