Diplomatic Relations between the US and Iran - Essay Example

THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. (Close trusted friend of the president) RE: IRAN and the Nuclear Question ISSUE There is no formal relationship between us [United States] and Iran all the way from 1980. The first diplomatic relationship between the US and Iran was established in the year 1883. However, in 1953, a coup occurred against Iran’s democratically elected prime minister supported by both the United States and the United Kingdom. In 1979, there was also a revolution against Iran’s hereditary ruler (the Shah) and the US was purported to be involved. As a result of all these occurrences, a group of revolutionary Iranian students apprehended the US Embassy in Iran (Tehran) and took 52 Americans as hostages. In response to this act, the United States broke the diplomatic relation with Iran in 1980. It is a fact that the US has, for a long time, been against Iran’s nuclear program. The nuclear program in Iran possesses a threat to both the US and the international community. In conjunction with the International community, the US has applied several methods to coerce Iran into engaging in discussions and addressing concerns over its nuclear program. One of the methods that have been applied to have Iran’s attention is sanctions that up to now, has proved futile. The Iran’s nuclear program is a bridge to weapons of mass destruction on both the US and the International community soils. The reality to the issue is that Iran’s nuclear program was launched by the help of the US in 1950s as part of the ‘’Atoms for Peace’’ program. The participation of the US and the Western European countries ended in 1979 after the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Iran’s Shah. In November 2011, the cooperation between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) significantly reduced after an IAEA report stated that Iran had undertaken research geared at nuclear weapons developments before 2003. The report alleged that Iran had conducted nuclear – related studies on nuclear weapons design, detonator developments, and multi-point initiation of explosives, and nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle. As per now, we [the US] and the international community believe in the credence of the IAEA 2011 report, and the main issue on the table is to compel Iran into discussions regarding its nuclear program. The International community’s sabotage operation on Iran’s nuclear program is active. According to an Iranian Fars News Agency, the Saudi Arabia and Israel’s Mossad intelligence division are co-inspiring to develop a computer worm which is worse than the Stuxnet malware that sabotaged Iran’s Uranium enrichment in 2010. This computer worm could be used to halt the functionality of Iran’s nuclear program in a matter of seconds. The Iranian Fars source mentioned that the recent agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France, and Britain plus Germany) made it difficult for the Saudi officials’ sabotage operations with the Saudi leader (Bandar) terming the move as the ‘’West’s treachery’’. According to the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the November 23 agreement between the P5+1 and Iran was a historic mistake. From the November 17 Sunday Times report, Saudi officials and Israeli Mossad are working together to develop a contingency plan in case the Iran’s nuclear program is not adequately curtailed. The governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia both believe that negotiations with Iran could result in concessions being made to Iran, which according to them, is not an effective move in terminating Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. NATIONAL INTERESTS The United States’ sole interest in the Iran’s nuclear program is to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon. The US fears what the fate of its citizens and the international community would be, if Iran is powered with nuclear weapons. Your government knows that it is unrealistic to force Iran to abandon every part of its multibillion-dollar nuclear infrastructure. According to Los Angeles Times, the US is reported to be ready in allowing Iran to enrich its soil with uranium if it can reach an eventual nuclear deal of using the nuclear for peaceful purpose only (generating electricity or health purposes). Only two weeks ago, the P5+1 and Iran made a deal that gives Iran limited relief from the tough economic sanctions levied upon it that lasts for the next six months. The deal was for the exchange of curbs intended to ensure Tehran never advances its nuclear capability as the final negotiations are underway. It is however, evident that the deal faces a strife opposition from Middle East countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia that fear it will leave Iran with enough capability to secretly edge towards a nuclear weapon. Vital American security and security of its allies - It is also clear to the US that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government will pose severe repercussions for security in America, its allies, and neighbours. A nuclear-armed Iran would accelerate Iran’s aggressive foreign policy in which it may broaden its confrontations with the international community. Iran currently has a conventional weapons capability to hit US and its allied troops who are stationed in the Middle East and some parts of Europe. This implies that if Tehran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons, its threat would increase dramatically. Extremely Important Securing its source of energy in the Middle East – The Middle East is an essential source of energy for the US and the world at large. A nuclear-armed Iran would stir up a long-lasting warfare in the Middle East that may destabilize this volatile and important region. This may lead to a reduced economic development in both the US and the world at large. Important Effects on the US economy and its GDP – A nuclear-armed Iran would mean an ever-lasting war in the Middle East and the US and its allies. This would most likely occur due to the international community’s need to stop nuclear war-fare in the world. The US’s economy could be affected if its trade partners are destabilized by wars from Iran’s attack. This would most likely stagger the country’s economic development due to reduced trade activities from war-tone countries if the nuclear weapons were to be in the hands of Iranian government. A serious threat will also be posted onto some US allied Middle East countries against the Iran’s nuclear program. This includes a country like Israel, which Iran has stated up to now, that should be wiped out of the Middle East. In trying to combat and prevent wars of this nature, the US would be forced to spend a lot of capital on weaponry and machinery, and this would have a regressive effect on the country’s economy and GDP. ANALYSIS The US has been in the forefront in ensuring Iran does not get a nuclear bomb. The US and the International community have had several conventions (like in Geneva), and even conferences with the United Nations council to ensure that Iran is prevented from implementing its nuclear program policy. Several policies have been implemented to make Iran to halt its nuclear program, but the Islamic state [Iran] is too adamant to surrender to even threats. Both economic and political sanctions have been used to make Iran abolish the nuclear program, all of which go in vain. The US has gone a step further even to levy sanctions with countries that are allied to Iran but, in all cases the Iran nuclear program still remains a reality. In the early October UN General Meeting in New York, a proposal was presented, that is; if Iran agrees to suspend enrichment at 5%, close Fordow, and limit stockpiles of nuclear material, it would be given limited sanctions relief on the ability to buy refined petrochemical products, and to trade precious metals. However, this deal is not a surety that Iran will eventually abolish its nuclear program. As per now, the only hope, thus, the US and the international community have in battling the Iran’s nuclear program is the proposal of trade sanctions relief for the control on Iran’s enrichment facilities. The US government has been pondering on a more comprehensive nuclear agreement: relief from all proliferation- related sanctions on Iran in return for the suspension of enrichment over 5% and limits on Iran’s enrichment capacity—including specific limits on numbers and types of centrifuges and stockpiles of materials in Iran, the additional protocol, and other transparency measures—that would leave Iran with a “breakout” timetable of more than six months. The US efforts, as well as the support from the international community, nonetheless, should not stop if Iran was to stop its nuclear program ambition. STRATEGIC OPTIONS Option 1: The current US strategy (Geneva Agreement) This involves the current US strategy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear situation. The US decision to restore the broken diplomatic relations with Iran was very crucial in this deal and the need for reconciliation with the West was very critical in setting up the nuclear treaty. In the treaty, commonly known as the Geneva agreement, Iran promised to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities. The broken relationship between Iran and IAEA was also restored in which Iran agreed to allow IAEA officials to carry a regular inspection on its weaponry production for the first six months as the agreement is underway. According to this agreement, Iran is to be relieved of all political and economic sanctions. This agreement is currently underway and Iranian officials plan to have a meeting next week (from 10th December 2013) with representatives from US and other countries to plan the next step in implementing their deal. Pros The US will be updated on all the developments in the nuclear facilities of Iran. The report by IAEA will be accessible to your government [US] and thus, every detail in the nuclear plant will be available for the government’s consumption. The restored diplomatic relationship between US and Iran makes Iran closure to US thus, its operations can be easily controlled. Under the treaty, all the research carried out by Iran on nuclear weapons or machinery building is subjected to approval by the IAEA. This implies that any potential to a nuclear weapon development will be eliminated by the IAEA. Con In case Iran does not honour the treaty, the US would have missed a significant opportunity to deal with the Iran nuclear problem. This is because; the Iran government could be able to implement the nuclear program before another peace treaty is made. Option 2: Make a deal with Russia and China The alternative strategic option is to make a deal with both Russia and China. This involves giving both countries what they would expect most from the US. In return, the US can be sure of gaining the support from both countries (political or military), just in case, Iran goes ahead to implement the nuclear program. For Russia, the US could be able to win its support through Removal of the US rockets from Ukraine Removing the American base that is situated in Uzbekistan Giving South Ossetia to Russia In winning the China’s support, the US would have to support China against Japan RE islands by preventing Japan from building military army and technologies because it is a threat to China. Pros In case of a nuclear war-fare, the US would have advantage over Iran. It military operations would be supported by these two powerful nations and it could be easier to win the battle The relationship between US and both China and Russia has an economic inclination. Trade relationships could emerge between the countries thus, improving the US economic developments. Cons Removal of the Uzbekistan American base would reduce the American military might and even aggravate violence in the area. Giving Russia the South Ossetia (Georgian territory) would reduce the political might of the US Relationships between Japan and China remain at stake if America goes against Japan. This could have an effect on economic relations between the US and Japan Option 3 Reliance on the Middle Eastern Countries Saudi Arabia – The Saudi Arabian government are some of the Middle East governments that are strongly against the Iran’s nuclear program. In dealing with the Iran issue, it would be prudent for US to use Saudi Arabia’s help to sabotage the Iran’s nuclear program operation. This can be achieved by giving the country, all the support it needs (be it political support or military weaponry/soldiers) to succeed in the operation Syria – The US can win Syria’s support by sustaining the government of Bashar. The Iran government supports Bashar’s rule in Syria and thus the US could use this to either strike a revolution (just like in the ‘50s with Dr Muss Adak and the famous 1979 Islamic revolution) Qatar – The US can use the influential power of media like, Arabic Al Jazeera and Pharsi Al Jazeera, to launch a campaign in Qatar that benefits its (US) interests. This may involve introduction of programs depicting the negative effects of nuclear war or programs to criticize the Iran’s nuclear program. Pro The operations within Iran would be easily monitored using Intelligence from these countries. This information would be useful for both the US and these Middle East Countries in the combat of Iran Con There is no surety that these Middle East Countries would be useful to US. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1: The Current US strategy is my recommendation as far as the Iran’s nuclear program is concerned. The current strategy is advantageous given the fact that it is based on a diplomatic agreement. This agreement was reached in the presence of several countries and thus, it is very difficult for it to be breached by Iran. On the other hand, the two alternatives are kind of aligned to no diplomacy thus, are not appropriate for a callous country like Iran that may resort to war at any time. IMPLEMENTATION According to diplomats, the implementation of the current nuclear deal is expected to take effect from early January. Western diplomats assert that the sanction relief on Iran will only take place after the UN inspectors have verified that Iran is fulfilling its side of the deal. Expert-level talks are planned to be held next week by Iran and the six world powers in which details on how to implement the nuclear deal will be discussed further. The discussion will feature issues like the components of the Iran’s nuclear program that should not be installed in the Arak plant under the agreement, and issues pertaining to sequencing of gestures by both sides. The IAEA is thus, left with a greater responsibility in verifying that Iran carries out its part of the November 24 interim accord. It is however, worth noting that this agreement is the first step in resolving the Iran’s nuclear program dispute and that has been stirring up fears of emergence of a new Middle East war. FALL BACK When Iran fails to dishonour the current strategy to end the nuclear program issue, the P5+1 are mostly to call for a war with Iran. This may aggravate the idea that Hassan Rohani’s election win as the Iranian president in June, was a plot to fool the international community in believing in Iran. Iran could suffer from the full imposition of the both the economic and political sanctions, as a measure to contain it. SOURCES CONSULTED Breakout Beckons, Economist, 28 June 2013. Print Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States: Joint Publication 1,’’Joint Chiefs of Staff, 25 March 2013, Ch. 1, pp. I-11 – I-13 (Instruments of National Power and the Range of Military Operations). Print International Crisis Group, Sanctions, International Crisis Group, 25 February 2013, Executive Summary, pp. i-v. Print National Foreign Trade, U.S. Foreign Policy Tools: An Illustrative Matrix of Selected Options, Allison, Graham. The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2012, pp. 11 – 16. Print Allison, Graham. Will Iran Get a Bomb – or Be Bombed Itself – This Year?” Atlantic, 1 August 2013. Print Allison, Graham. How close is Iran to Exploding its First Nuclear Bomb? Scientific American, 30 May 2012. Print Allison, Graham. Why Netanyahu Backed Down, New York Times, 12 October 2012. Print Associated Press. Iran Increases Some Nuclear Activity, UN Agency Says, Wall Street Journal, 28 August 2013. Print Broad, William J., John Markoff, and David, Sanger. Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay, New York Times, 15 January 2011. Print Chambliss, Saxby. Opening remarks at Senate Select Committee on Intelligence press conference, 7 June 2012 (watch). Online Resource Clawson, Patrick. Rouhani’s Nuclear Views: An Open Book?” Washington Institute, 19 June 2013. Print Einhorn, Robert. Getting to ‘Yes’ With Iran,Foreign Policy, 10 July 2013. Print Erdbrink, Thomas, and Rich, Gladstone. Iran Assails House Sanctions Bill, Saying it Will Complicate Nuclear Dispute,’’ New York Times, 1 August 2013. Print Erdbrink, Thomas. Iran’s President Puts New Focus on the Economy, New York Times, 3 August 2013. Print Hadley, Stephen, Joseph, Lieberman, and Jim, Steinberg. Iran’s nuclear ambitions demand Urgent reaction from international community, Washington Post, 13 June 2013. Print Heinonen, Olli and Simon, Henderson. Nuclear Iran: Technical Issues Overshadowing Iran, Washington Institute, 23 October 2012. Print Heinonen, Olli and Simon, Henderson. Nuclear Talks with Iran: Diplomacy and Diminishing Time, Washington Institute, 23 September 2013. Print Ignatius, David. Rouhani sees a nuclear deal in 3 months, Washington Post, 25 September 2013 Ignatius, David. The Anatomy of a Leak, Washington Post, 22 June 2012. Print Johnson, Keith. Beijing Gets a Pass on Iran Sanctions, Wall Street Journal, 5 June 2013. Print Kahl, Colin H., Raj, Pattani and Jacob, Stokes. If All Else Fails: The Challenges of Containing a Nuclear – Armed Iran, Center for a New American Security, 13 May 2013, pp. 5 – 16. Print Kirk, Mark, and Eliot, Engel. Without Stronger Sanctions, Iran Will Go Nuclear, Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2013. Print Luers, William, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh. ‘’For a New Approach to Iran,’’ New York Review of Books, 15 August 2013. Print Maloney, Suzanne. Why Rouhani Won And Why Khamenei Let Him, Foreign Affairs, 16 June 2013. Print McCain, John. Remarks on Senate floor, Fox News, 7 June 2012 (watch 0:05-0:30) Netanyahu, Benjamin. Remarks at UN General Assembly, 27 September 2012 (watch 11:52 – 29:17). Print Netanyahu, Benjamin. Remarks at UN General Assembly, Times of Israel, 1 October 2013 (read transcript). Print Obama, Barack. Interview with Israel’s Channel 2, 14 March 2013 (watch 2:05 – 8:12). Online Resource Ross, Dennis. Calling Iran’s Bluff: It’s Time to Offer Tehran a Civilian Nuclear Program, The New Republic, 15 June 2012, Instruments of American Power. Print Rouhani, Hassan. Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Way Out, TIME, 9 May 2006. Print Rouhani, Hassan. Why Iran seeks constructive engagement, Washington Post, 19 September 2013. Print Rouhani, Hassan. Interview with Christiane Amanpour, CNN, 25 September 2013 (watch). Online Resource Rudoren, Jodi. As the New Iranian Leader Gets a Warm Reception, Israel Calls for Caution, New York Times, 24 September 2013. Print Sanger, David. ‘’Quick Turn of Fortunes as Diplomatic Options Open Up with Syria and Iran,’’ New York Times, 19 September 2013. Print Sanger, David. Big Challenges Remain Despite Progress on Iran, New York Times, 28 September 2013. Print Sanger, David. Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran, New York Times, 27 March 2010. Print Sanger, David. Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyber Attacks against Iran, New York Times, 1 June 2012. Print Zakaria, Fareed. Can Rouhani or Obama deliver on any deal? Washington Post, 25 September 2013. Print Read More