Tackling the Issue of Nuclear Weapon on Iran - Report Example

U.S. Vs Iran Introduction Military supremacy has been the aim of most s with each trying to get the most advanced weaponry that would give them an advantage in case of war. However, after the death of many people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there have been restrictions on development of nuclear weapon with the ability to wipe out nations. Iran has however continued to develop dangerous weapons despite the many American sanctions (Anon, 1). America is afraid that the continued production of nuclear weapon put the world peace and stability at risk. Iran began its nuclear program back in the 1960s, these program were halted in the 1970 after the Islamic revolutions. However, the country revived these programs in the 1990 with renewed determination and has continued up to date. This has been a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that different states had signed as a way of preserving world peace. There have however been questions whether American intentions in limiting production of weapon by Iran are legitimate. It is obvious that American wishes to have more control on Israel by limiting Iran expansion for its own political gains. Some allegation that American have had on Iraq possession of WMD were seen to be false. It is feared that this may also be the case with Iran (Katz et al, 145). The conflicts between Iran and America have now escalated and this has raised heated debate on how this should be tackled. This article analyzes the arguments presented by both side of the argument and explains why people are supposed to take sides in an argument. The state of Affair in the conflict between America and Iran In December last year, Iran claimed to have identified an American drone that was spying on the Iranian airspace. American claimed that this spacecraft may have gotten into Iran as a result of technical problems. In January an American of Iranian decent was executed after being convicted of spying for CIA. In the same month a scientist was killed in Tehran after a magnet was attached to his motorcycle. Iran suspected the involvement of the Israel or the American in this case(Katz et al, 192) The Israel has blamed Iran for the bomb attacked which have been experienced in India, Georgia and Thailand escalating the tension in the gulf region. Evidence has shown that thee different bombing were under one single plan which they believe was made by Iran. Iranian has denied any involvement in these bombings and has blamed Israel for the same. Israel has called upon America to weaken Iran military by destabilizing it nuclear establishment and attacking it. American is now amassing the support of world nation against Iran through the increase of sanctions against it and is also encouraging domestic opposition against the rule of Ahmadinejads in Iran. India has refused to join American in its quest as it is for more diplomatic action in dealing with the Iran issues. China and Russia have sided with Iran over the preference of military action. American allies such as France, Greece, Italy and Spain have enacted some action on Iran through toping importing oil from Iran starting July 2012 (Katz et al, 180). Iran however reacted by stopping the supply of crude oil to these countries with immediate effect as a sign that it was not shaken by such threats and it had a strong enough economy to withstand such blows. The Obama government has put in place the harshest form of sanctions again Iran. This included cutting them off from world trade and convincing other countries to action them, developing covert action against the Iranian nuclear facilities with the help form Israel. Some of these actions include the cyber worm attacks on Uranium enrichment operations and explosion at nuclear facilities. It has also take in time to convince Israel to give the diplomacy action time to work before taking military actions. Argument against Military Action in Iran There are many reason which have been put forward supporting the action of American refraining from Bombing or even threatening open bombing on Iran nuclear facilities. This is because such action would not stop the nuclear operations but would only drive them underground. It would also increase Iran determination to produce more nuclear weapon making the country an even major threat to international security. The capacity to create nuclear weaponry lies in knowledge which cannot be destroyed through bombing. Even if the facilities were destroyed, it is possible to rebuild them and operate them in secret. This would make it even much harder to scrutinize nuclear development and Iran may just take the world by surprise. The bomb attack in Iraq did not succeed in stopping Saddam Hussein form creating nuclear weapons (Katz et al, 165) In fact, these attacks enraged Saddam who expanded the program a reported later by scientist involved in the operations. It took inspection regime and operation desert storm to finally bring down Iraq. The situation should not be expected to be any different in Iran. Bombing Iran would also be breaking the international law on matter related to self defense. The laws state that countries are only allowed to attack a defense against attack or when there are distinguished threats of attacks. This is not the case for Israel. This is because the Israel president has not aid that Iran would be able to produce the nuclear bomb before 2014. The threat is therefore farfetched and does not qualify for launching an attack on Iran. Launching an attack on Iran today would thus be a breach on this law and enhance the notion of preventive war. This means that a country is free to attack another one when they feel threatened by this. If the world I ruled by this principle, then all countries would go to fighting and this would increase instability while the bombing claims to promote stability and peace in the gulf region. This action thus ha a potation for creating more war and strife with ripple effect felt all over the globe (Katz et al , 167). It would also undercut the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is because America would be attacking a country which is under the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this would set the wrong signal about working with this agency making the control on nuclear weapons even harder to manage. Another reason why bombing id not the solution is that it would result in many civilian casualties which would not only be devastating to the Iranian families but to America too. The nuclear facilities are found scattered among the population and bombing them would mean killing a lot of people who live around these areas. The Iranian people have been pro-American. However, in case of such an action they would turn against American and Join with the government in fighting against the external enemy. The civilian in Iran have supported America in opposition against the current president rule. The attack would however change all this making bringing about reform in governance in Iran much harder than it is now. Opening attacks on Iran would be a catalyst for chaos in the gulf region. This is because Iran has developed some allies with other states in the region such as Hamas in Gaza, Warlords in afghan and Militia in Iraq. This means that if American is planning on military attacks on Iran, it should also be prepared to battle with the mentioned countries. This I because they would come in to fight on the same fronts with Iran and America would thus create more enemies. This would mean that American troop would be fighting against an even larger force putting their lives at more danger and making the war even more costly. This was at the time when the country is recovering from the economic recession and the American questioned the military attacks since they have seen it as a waste of the public money where the citizens are struggling with unemployment and rising cost of living (Katz et al, 159). Terrorism flourishes on hate. America has created several enemies such as Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghan who would easily get into alliance with Iran if they saw that America was fighting an unfair war. Moreover, such an attack on Iran would be untimely. This is because; the country is a year away from the development of bombs that is if it is actually planning developing a nuclear bomb. America has failed to use the six year that it has had to negotiate amicably with Iran on the development of thee bombs. America is the symbol of democracy in the globe. As such, it should give time for diplomacy actions to work before resorting to military action. Using threats for bombing against Iran without credible reasons for use of this method would only be elf defeating. The Iran government is aware of the many reasons which nullifies the use of military actions against it and have even called these threats in public as bluffs (Katz et al, 190). Continuing to threaten Iran would thus only ruin the chance for diplomacy which could be the only plausible solution to the Iran problem. Arguments for Military attacks There are several reasons why military attack on Iran is seen to be an effective way of dealing with the nuclear weapon. This is because the facilities would be put to the ground and America would be able to outs out the current president and help the Iranian citizens to put a leader in power who would be more responsive to international issues such a promoting peace and stability within the gulf region (Allin, 423). The sanctions are also seen to fail in bringing about diplomatic resolution of the issues at hand. Although America claims that the aim of the sanctions is to bring Iran into negotiations, Iran can see that they are aimed and completely ruining the nuclear programs. They would thus not agree to go into talks. The America has continue to call for talks but at the same time it is involved in activities such as spying on Iran with drones, killing its scientists and the covert war all which is making it hard for Iran to go into talks with her (Jones, 679). All this has continued to weaken the relations between America and Iran which has also reduced the chances of having peace talks. The only solution left now it to use force and destroying the nuclear facilities. A supporter of military attacks ay that the effect of attacking Iran cannot be devastating as those of having a nuclear Iran. This is because if Iran was left to go nuclear, it would catalyze the armed race in the Middle East which would result in destabilization of order in this region which would gradually spread to other part of the globe bringing about instability. It might even lead to a state where America may no longer be the upper power with the country that will be most advanced military wise taking the lead (Helman, 254). Other countries such as Egypt Turkey and Saudi Arabia would also start on working on developing nuclear weapon as a way of defending themselves from the recognized threat of military attack by Iran. If the Iran is able to make the nuclear bombs, the America would not be able to act in this region, its interests in the region would also be threatened, and military option when that happens would not be possible as Iran would have more power than America. Evaluation of the Arguments for or Against Military Attack The arguments put forth which are against the military attacks on Iran have been based on evidence and look and the broader picture of the implication that that an attack would have not only on America but on other issues related to the world stability ( Marie & Shahdad, 543). Iran does not live in exclusion, it is among other nations who are directly observing this event and gauging the implication it may have on them. Iran also has allies who would suffer in case of an attack on it. In order to protect their interest in Iran, they may be forced to join in the war again America. American in its bid to promote world peace and stability has also created many enemies along the way (Rawshandil &Nathan, 79). These may also be interested in joining in war against America and finally bring it down. It also takes the evidence of the military attack on Iraq which is a perfect example of how military attack is not a solution in dealing with nuclear weapon issues. The argument for war is based on assumption and exaggerates the influence a nuclear Iran would have on global peace and stability (Katz et al, 150). Most of these assumptions are not based on any facts and are just meant to create paranoia among the global population pushing them to take side with the supporter of military action. In fact a war has worse implications on peace and stability of the gulf region and the rest of the world than a nuclear Iran would. I think America is just afraid that it might lose its upper powers in case of a power race. The argument also takes into account the financial implication of such an attack which is a sensitive issue today as countries are recovering from the recent economic recession (Katz et al, 145). The American citizens would be reluctant to support a move that leaves their economy worse than it is now. It also shows that the implications of the war may have far devastating effects on the world peace and stability which America claim to promote. Moreover, the argument put forth against the use of military attack on Iran does not completely rule out the military option. They say that America should first try diplomacy which has far less devastation implications. They can however resort to military attack as the last option. This is because it is good to embrace talk when there are still hopes of dialogue and not ruin it for military options which have less desirable results (Shlomo, 130). The argument for use of military attacks ware also based on facts, however, there is need to first explore the option with less undesirable implication before this option can be taken. Why People Are Persuaded To Take a Stand on a Particular Issue The application of the different options that is diplomacy or military attacks have different implications on different countries. This is because each of these countries has distinctive relationship with both Iran and America. Countries which envisage that a military attack on Iran is most likely to affect their interests in this country will most likely side with Iran and fails to support American actions such as the sanctions. Other countries whose interest lies in American remaining the super power will definitely take sides with America. In some cases, some countries may have interest in both of these countries or absolutely no interest they would not take sides (Orr, 383). The bottom line is that countries take side in case of a conflict depending on which side safeguards the individual countries interest and whether they view the move as being in line with the country’s political ideologies. This is an illustration how people need to take a stand in a particular issue. This is because certain actions may be against their values and believe and they would not like to be associated with them. The action may also have some direct impact on them. During a conflict like the one discussed above, people are naturally inclined to take sides with the party one. Although one may realize that the two sides have many values which are consistent with the individual the party that one opposes have some specific values which one may not like. However, by taking one side, one opposed even the good values of the opposing side. This therefore implies that although it’s important for people to give their stand on certain issues, they should to take sides ( Davis, 292). However, they should focus on the contentious issue at hand. Taking ides makes people to be against a group that one does not totally oppose. Moreover, one may take sides without fully understanding the implications of such an action and later realize that they choose the wrong side. In summary the two alterative solutions in tackling the issue of Nuclear weapon on Iran are based on assumptions which are yet to be proven. Those who support use of military force Iran base their argument on assumption on what would happen if Iran went nuclear which could not be the case. Those against the war on the other hand have some major assumptions on what the implications of this war would be. Instead of focusing in the impacts of war, the people should be focusing more on the current strategy which is trying to get Iran into task that will see the issue solved amicably. Work cited Allin, Dana H, and Steven Simon. The Sixth Crisis: Iran, Israel, America and the Rumors of War. New York, NY [u.a.: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Anonymous. “Iran Nuclear Programs (Nuclear Talk 2012). New YorkTimes. November 16th 2012. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html Davis, Lynn E. Irans Nuclear Future: Critical U.s. Policy Choices. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. Internet resource. Helman, Christopher. “Israel has Nuclear Weapon but only Iran has nuclear Power”. Forbes. 21st October 2012. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/10/21/does-anyone-care-about-irans-nuclear-energy-program/ Jones, Jason. The American Rhetorical Construction of the Iranian Nuclear Threat. London: Continuum, 2011. Print. Katz, Yaakov, and Yoaz Hendel. Israel Vs. Iran: The Shadow War. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2011. Print. Orr, Tamra. Iran and Nuclear Weapons. New York: Rosen Pub, 2012. Print. Rawshandil, Jalīl, and Nathan C. Lean. Iran, Israel, and the United States: Regime Security Vs. Political Legitimacy. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2011. Print. Shlomo-Ben-Ami. “Israel Versus Iran Versus America”. Project Syndicate.28th November 2012. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ahmedinejad-nuclear-enrichment-air-strikes-war-by-shlomo-ben-ami St, Marie J. J, and Shahdad Naghshpour. Revolutionary Iran and the United States: Low-intensity Conflict in the Persian Gulf. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2011. Print. Read More