A Nuclear Capable Iran - Term Paper Example

A Nuclear Capable Iran Introduction Since the Second World War, the number of nations who have nuclear weapons has only increased. Of course there have been situations where some nations have rolled back their nuclear plans and went on to become weapons free states, but many others have worked hard to seek out nuclear arms. The number of nations seeking nuclear weapons today suggests that a nuclear arsenal may be considered a strategic asset as discussed by Paulikas (2006). However, for many analysts, the existence of such weapons also comes with a responsibility to not to use them to the extent that they may not be used at all. Thinkers such as LaFranchi (2006) as well as Carter (2006) have made it clear that some nations may be responsible enough to possess nuclear bombs but others may have to be prevented from gaining access to such technology. In this regard, nuclear proliferation becomes an international problem when countries such as Iran and North Korea generate different opinions on how they should be handled. While the case of North Korea is more or less settled, Iran remains and issue and there are several methods given by expert analysts which show that the nuclear intentions of Iran can be handled in several ways. Iran’s Needs The basic reason for why Iran is seeking nuclear armament is because Iran wants to make itself regionally secure. The need for security is reflected in the history of Iran since in 1941, the Allies wanted to find a path through the country to support the Russian front against Germany. The King of Iran, Reza Shah was suspicious of the motives of the allies and was thus removed from the throne. This was a basically a misunderstanding between the allies and the Iranian people but it turned them away from the allies in historical terms (Kilgore, 2007). The troubled history of Iran and the west continued through the revolution until in recent years, Bush made Iran a part of the ‘Axis of Evil’. In these circumstances, Iran can clearly see that America does not attack a nuclear capable North Korea while it continually threatens a non-nuclear Iran (Kilgore, 2007). Iran wants to avoid the fate of Iraq which was attacked for allegations of having weapons of mass destruction while it had none (Jackson, 2006). The false charges brought by the American government caused the Iraqi people a lot of misery and even though Saddam was a cruel ruler, the methods used to remove him and the timing was less than ideal (Kilgore, 2007). In fact, Kilgore (2007) suggests that it is the manipulation of the Israeli lobby which is causing fingers to be pointed at Iran. This lobby and think tanks that have their sympathies with Israel are blamed for pushing the American media with misleading information about Iran’s plans to get nuclear weapons. In reality, the rate of development in terms of nuclear technology for Iran has made Negroponte remark that Iran could be decades away from creating a bomb. At the same time, Israel already has several hundred atomic bombs with itself. Kilgore (2007) reports that: “Israels real goal is to stampede a reckless and unpredictable American president into militarily attacking Iran before his term expires, out of fear his successor would not do so. Thus the frenzy of the Israel lobbys accusations - which are merely statements, repeated endlessly and without proof - is accelerating. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no proof that Iran aims to acquire the bomb (Kilgore, 2007, Pg. 25)”. It is important to note that in diplomatic terms, Iran and Israel were seen as good friends in the early 70s. In those days, the king of Iran announced that Iran would seek to build some nuclear energy stations since the growing population and the one export of oil created risks for the country with regard to their energy policy. In this case, Israel had no objections and lent support to the idea since Iran was still selling it oil while the other Arab nations had boycotted selling oil to Israel after the war (Kilgore, 2007). More importantly, the US and the UK also supported Iran’s plans and thought that this could bring Iran towards the process of becoming modernised. However, in today’s world, both Iran and Israel seek to be seen as the leader in the Middle East and this has placed them in conflict with each other. Considering the nuclear situation, Iran has seen the hurried response, appeasement and the diplomatic treatment given to North Korea after it tested its nuclear weapon and this would certainly encourage those in Iran who wish to see it has a nuclear capable country (Kilgore, 2007). For Iran, a ban on luxury goods seems to be a very low price compared to the security it seeks as a confirmed nuclear state. Moreover, Iran is confident that the investments made by other countries with regard to the oil resources in Iran would prevent an attack on them since China has made significant investments in Iran’s oil sector since it needs cheap oil to support its booming economic golden age. Of course, it must be noted that a nuclear capable Iran would only bring instability to a region where China, India, Pakistan and Russia are all carrying nuclear weapons and have delicate alliances with each other and deep suspicions as well (Savage, 2007). Handling Iran In this situation, just as North Korea was offered a good deal after they went nuclear, Iran needs to see the same deal before they can be made to reverse their nuclear ambitions. North Korea got a comprehensive package which brings the country closer to other nations in the region and provides many advantages for coming back to a non-nuclear position (Savage, 2007). Iran could be given such a package which could help the government see that the world respects it and appreciates its regional position As discussed by Savage (2007), “Iran is a military power in the region, but it fears American attack. The U.S. could offer a respite from these fears. Likewise, Iran could be made to see that obtaining nuclear weapons could set off an arms race in the region with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many other nations following suit. Such a scenario would actually reduce Tehrans current military superiority in the region (Savage, 2007, Pg. 31)”. The safety which is being sought by Iran can be simply bought through political efforts while the current strategy being used by the international community can only hurt their objectives. It must be understood that the international bodies are seeking security in global terms but nations such as Iran and North Korea are seeking security in a local context. Their idea of security also includes the safety of the current rulers since for North Korea, the White House accepted the need for the government to stay in power as discussions were taking place and the same should be true for Iran. Considering the case of Iran, Rice admitted that the nuclear tests have pushed the US to seek other approaches to creating peace in the region rather than the use of force (Savage, 2007). Therefore, the use of force in Iran may not be a bright idea while diplomatic pressure, the lure of economic benefits and the addressing of security concerns would be more helpful. Iran has to be recognised as a genuine regional power in the Middle East and has to be taken into the community. While Iran has had its fair share of problems with other powers in the region but unless the western world talks to Iran on an equal footing, it would be difficult to convince the Iranian government to not seek a nuclear arsenal (Savage, 2007). Perhaps the difference in approaches to handling Iran and North Korea comes from the fact that a nuclear North Korea is directly able to threaten American interests with a nuclear attack. If North Korea has ICBMs, Japan is directly under threat while America could also be attacked on its homeland. However, the administration of the American government and international pressure groups managed to convince North Korea of rolling back its program with huge amounts of aid in cash and in oil. America went to the length of having a level of normalised relationship with North Korea even though America was still at war with North Korea. Additionally, the country got all economic sanctions lifted and is no longer considered a state supporting terrorism (Savage, 2007). Most importantly for North Korea, the country does not have to give up the weapons it has created and this may be a problem for the future since they could sell their bombs to the highest bidder. The critics have certainly thought negatively of this situation and said that the rewards for going nuclear show the way to other countries who may wish to go nuclear and then come back to the fold when they were offered benefits by the international community (Economist, 2007). Despite this criticism, advocating the use of force to handle Iran is only seen as a desperate move since negotiations seem to be the better alternative than anything else (New Statesman, 2007). The EU and many other groups believe that a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem can be reached but even with sanctions and warnings, Iran continues on the path to uranium enrichment (Jackson, 2006). The world today may see Iran as a despotic country which has given little importance to the international community or international law since it seems to be very confident if it comes to a fight against America and her allies. In such a situation, the American government along with the western allies has to show the responsibility which comes with their position as world leaders and bring Iran back to the negotiations table (Zakaria, 2006). Conclusion In this manner, it is easy to conclude that they responsibility of controlling nuclear proliferation rests with America and the European Union since they have to act as the most responsible and the most pragmatic states in the world. Even nations like the UK are not exempt from that responsibility since Tony Blair’s move to reinitiate the trident program has met with criticism since it is seen as a part of a new arms race in the world (Plesch, 2006). The nations of the world have to move towards peace to create a lasting peace rather than to move towards war to have a temporary peace. This is because there have been accusations that countries such as Britain and America had engaged in the proliferation of nuclear weapons themselves by transferring nuclear technology to countries such as Israel (Jones, 2006). The Federation of American Scientists has said that: “The United States has a critical role in setting the direction for the future of nuclear power and nuclear proliferation across the world. The United States cannot continue to treat nuclear weapons as militarily useful and politically salient while expecting to stop global nuclear proliferation (FAS, 2006, Pg. 1)”. Therefore, it is a simple matter to control the spread of nuclear weapons since the powerful nations of the world can use diplomatic, economic and even security related means to ensure that such weapons are not needed by countries who could benefit more from regional stability and economic development. While the objective of having these weapons is to make the world a safer place, their very existence threatens the world and certainly pushes individuals into behaving irrationally. The dangerous part is that these individuals control the destinies of nations and this care must be maintained to ensure that the destiny of the world is not hurt through the actions of individuals. Word Count: 2,088 Works Cited Carter, A. 2006, ‘Americas New Strategic Partner?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 33-44. Economist. 2007, ‘Trust me?’, Economist, vol. 382, no. 8516, pp. 14-15. Federation of American Scientists (FAS). 2006, ‘Rethinking the India Nuclear Technology Transfer Deal’ FAS.org, [Online] Available at: http://fas.org/intt2006/ Jackson, D. 2006, ‘EU leaders lend U.S. support on Iran, N. Korea’, USA Today, 23 Jun., p. 7a Jones, M. 2006, ‘Britain’s dirty secret’, New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4783, pp. 18-21. Kilgore, A. 2007, ‘Does Iran Need the Bomb to Protect Its Security?’, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25-26. LaFranchi, H. 2006, ‘Is Iran Studying North Korea’s Nuclear Moves? Christian Science Monitor, vol. 98, no. 146, pp. 1-10. New Statesman. 2007, ‘A ray of hope in North Korea amid fears of an attack on Iran’, New Statesman, vol. 136, no. 4830, pp. 4-5. Paulikas, G. 2006, ‘Nuclear Naïve Faith’, Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 165, no. 18, pp. 4-5. Plesch, D. 2006, ‘How to start an arms race’, New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4822, pp. 12-13. Savage, L. 2007, ‘Will Bush Bomb Iran?’, Macleans, vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 26-32. Zakaria, F. 2006, ‘Time to Face Reality on Iran’, Newsweek, vol. 147, no. 5, pp. 31-32. Read More