Convincing Irans leadership to stop its nuclear program - Assignment Example

Convincing Iran’s Leadership to Stop Its Nuclear Program/Or Show Flexibility to Do So Introduction Mr. Ahmadinejad, you have strongly defended Iran’s right to a nuclear program on the grounds that Iran is only involved in nuclear materials for peaceful purposes, which is allowed under international law. The problem for us, the international community, is that it is not easy to differentiate between “good nuclear” for peaceful purposes and “bad nuclear” for military purposes. Do you plan to lead Iran building a nuclear weapon, or only develop nuclear energy? If the former, for how long do we (as the international community) have to respond to the threat before you succeed? If your country succeeds in developing nuclear for military purpose, the consequences could be diverse and dangerous. If it is nuclear power you want for your country, I don’t think your country should be allowed to enrich its uranium or import nuclear energy materials, since these moves by your country are already stirring a lot of reaction as Nations fear for their security. The shahs, who you serve, are responsible for enforcing harsh laws which make Iranians comply with your government’s directives, since their fundamental human rights and freedoms have been ignored by your administration. Your media is a good example, where local journalists who voice their concerns are being silenced. As the international community, we have observed the following measures to deal with the situation which is slowly getting out of hand. External Military Action As you well know, this is a way of thinking that is dangerous. The notion is that violence or the threat of it, must be responded to with violence, though in this modern day and age, seems outdated and uncivilized. As per your government’s behavior, you well know that vexing problems cannot be solved with force. This is not the correct method for America and the international community.1 Your country so far poses no existential threat. Your government is seen to be in internal disarray. We see that your political, economic and moral power is so inferior that resorting to terrorism and assassination to carry out international agenda seem to be your administration’s viable option. Your country threatens to develop nuclear capabilities, but you should know that the international community and your neighbors like Israel would not hesitate to resort to military action if and when the threat materializes, but as you know, military options against your country is not wise. This kind of retributive, vengeful action will lead us to even a trillion dollar expenditure.2 Costs If your country develops nuclear weapons, it would prove more disastrous than other nuclear states like Pakistan, India and China. Get rid of known and suspected nuclear facilities and thus removing your country’s capability to make nuclear weapons for a long time, but also damaging your resources and collateral damage of human lives. Launch of military air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities will result to civilian casualty Sabotage of your country’s nuclear facilities covertly Air strikes would limit the amount of troop involvements Identifying all nuclear sites will not be easy; since the NATO/UN and US military does not have the required intelligence, thus would probably cause a lot of damage in this pursuit. 1Markaz Al-Imārāt, Irans nuclear program: realities and repercussions (Abu Dhabi: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, 2006), 20. 2Energy Information Agency, International Energy Outlook, 2008 (Washington: Department of Energy, 2008), 23. Most likely, military intervention will not halt your regime from attempting to possess nuclear weapons. The threat of military intervention however will make your regime more likely to try to acquire these weapons. Your officials have made it clear that they will retaliate thus spur war. Benefits Your country is known to be relatively peaceful unless provoked. Iran is known to only attack others when threatened Waiting for the international community to act would mean giving your regime a lot of time to reconsider your options and have your priorities right. Protection of the surrounding states, especially Israel, and maintain stability in the Middle East. Internal Military Action Huge demonstrations and riots against your oppressive regime are eminent, and will show that most of your citizens are dissatisfied and that they are capable and willing to put their lives in danger in order to express their dissatisfaction as was the case with Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, and also what is going on with Assad’s regime in Syria. As you are aware, there are several dissident groups both inside and around the boarders of your country that could be supported to gain more power and start a revolution and oust your oppressive régime. Internal military strike against your country will most likely lead to war in the Middle East and aggression targeting U.S. interests. This could also compel you to abandon the Nuclear Non‐Proliferation Treaty, remove the present international inspectors, and rapidly engage in a nuclear deterrent. Top military and civilian leaders have in many occasions given warnings regarding the aftermath of a military strike. Former Israeli Mossad chief Meir Dagan said that military intervention in your country “would mean regional war” and in that case, you would have the best possible reason to continue your nuclear program.3 Benefits Your people deserve the liberties inherent in a democratic system. Oust your dictatorial, non-democratic conservative regime and install a democratic government.4 Continue efforts in democratizing the Middle East Other nations will be encouraged to tighten sanctions in order to stall funds that support your oppressive regime. Costs Your people would feel positively towards the West because of helping them overthrow their hard-line regime Your regime is a threat to Iraq’s young democracy and the whole of Middle East The west will encourage and support group’s resistance to your regime. Information will be used to amass support for regime change.5 Military force such as air raids and Special Forces will be used. Diplomatic Option the Best Option Diplomatic efforts as you know will have to be increased so as to achieve the transparency measures that will ensure your country’s nuclear program remains harmless. 3International Institute for Strategic Studies, Irans Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005), 23. 4 Saira Khan, Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Protracted Conflict and Proliferation (New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010), 20. 5Yaël Ronen, The Iran nuclear issue (London: Hart, 2010), 23. Lack of corresponding diplomatic undertaking, pressure alone, has the potential to lead to unintended and likely devastating consequences, like war. I believe that you acknowledge that progress will be difficult; keeping diplomatic channels open is the best way to evade war and ensure that your country drops its aspirations to gain a nuclear weapon.6 As tension with your country continues to escalate, we emphasize the relevant authorities like the UN and NATO countries to exhaust the available methods of diplomacy to deal with the crisis over your nuclear program, and evade the potential of yet another war in the Middle East. You should appreciate the international Administrations efforts to bring together the international community to come up with diplomatic options to this situation.7 As you know, so far, we have redoubled our diplomatic efforts to achieve strict transparency measures that can confirm that your country’s nuclear program is strictly a civilian one. Lack of a corresponding diplomatic undertaking and lack of communication with your administration has a potential to lead to a dangerous uprising that could result to devastating consequences. We are not exaggerating regarding the abuses of your regime and we are aware that you rejected previous diplomatic overtures. To avoid military intervention, Admiral Michael Mullen, who was the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for the international community to make full use of any method that is available.8 6The Iran Project, Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf 7Stephen Hadley, Eight Ways to Deal with Iran, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/26/eight_ways_to_deal_with_iran 8Watson Institute for International Studies, Policy Options, the U.S. and Iran: Confronting Policy Alternatives, http://www.choices.edu/resources/documents/iran_options_4.pdf While we acknowledge that progress will be difficult, you and I agree that robust and lasting diplomacy is the better option in dealing with the serious concerns about your country’s nuclear program. Benefits of diplomatic option Your country has shown a desire to cooperate by virtue of stopping its nuclear weapons program in 2003 Halt your country’s uranium-enrichment program and get rid of yet another security threat in the Middle East. You can re-establish a positive relationship between the western powers and the rest of the international community You can establish negotiations among allied countries in the UN and the IAEA as necessary You could open international diplomatic relations that puts to an end such talks about “serious consequences” or using other belligerent language. There will be pressure on Russia, China and others to cooperate in offering your country incentives for non-nuclear.9 The United States will be able to reestablish its credibility as a force for stability, and your country as peace loving and democratic, by counting on diplomacy A large scope of diplomatic effort would enable your administration to focus on matters such as human rights and deal with groups involved in sponsorship of terrorism, which will create a better Iran, a better Middle East and a better world. 9 Abdullah Toukan & Anthony Cordesman, Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program, http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf Costs Your country may see it necessary to develop nuclear weapons if it feels threatened by Israel and/or the United States Your country has a huge youth population known to harbor favorable attitude towards the West and is the biggest ally against your régime It is estimated that your country is probably ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. The West has the time to strategize. Conclusion Based on the stated costs and benefits, it is evident that the benefits are few. An attack on your country would trigger conflicts and that would most likely lead to the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. The two paths open to western states are: To increase efforts to get a diplomatic settlement, this is a process that is more likely to achieve results. The other is to accept that your regime will at the end have a nuclear military and use that as the beginning of a process of balanced regional denuclearization. Put bluntly, war is a bad option in responding to the cumbersome issue of your country’s nuclear ambitions, but for the sake of peace and tranquility, please exercise democracy and be more open to diplomacy.10 10Renard Teipelke, Policy Paper on Irans Nuclear Program: Strategy Options for the United States (Berlin: GRIN Verlag, 2010), 24. Bibliography Al-Imārāt, Markaz. Irans nuclear program: realities and repercussions. Abu Dhabi: Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, 2006. Energy Information Agency. International Energy Outlook, 2008. Washington: Department of Energy, 2008. Hadley, Stephen. Eight Ways to Deal with Iran. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/26/eight_ways_to_deal_with_iran International Institute for Strategic Studies. Irans Strategic Weapons Programmes: A Net Assessment. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. Khan, Saira. Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Protracted Conflict and Proliferation. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Ronen, Yaël. The Iran nuclear issue. London: Hart, 2010. Teipelke, Renard. Policy Paper on Irans Nuclear Program: Strategy Options for the United States. Berlin: GRIN Verlag, 2010. The Iran Project. Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action against Iran. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf Toukan, Abdullah, & Anthony Cordesman. Options in Dealing with Iran’s Nuclear Program. http://csis.org/files/publication/100323_Options_todealwith_Iran.pdf Watson Institute for International Studies. Policy Options, the U.S. and Iran: Confronting Policy Alternatives. http://www.choices.edu/resources/documents/iran_options_4.pdf. Read More