UN Sanctions to Restrict Irans Nuclear Ambitions - Essay Example

pre-empting iran Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has led the charge towards the acquisition of nuclear weaponry and has been inciting the international public for years. His outlandish claims that the Holocaust never existed, that Iran will “wipe Israel off the map”, and his overt support for Hezbollah in Lebanon make Iran an international problem. Accordingly, his nuclear ambitions to arm the theocratic republic of Iran may in fact allow him to bring his threats to fruition. According to a recent Financial Times article, there is strong popular support within the European Union as well in the United States for the imposition of additional sanctions on the theocratic republic of Iran. Are stronger UN sanctions the best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Seeking to address this question and many more with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, this essay will persuasively argue that an aggressive foreign policy by key international actors is the only means through which Iran’s nuclear ambitions can be contained (Financial Times, 2009; Hareetz, 2009). Why not continue to sanction Iran? The theocratic Islamic republic continues to ignore international condemnation with respect to its nuclear ambitions and it has become widely apparent that sanctions – be they United Nations or bilateral sanctions such as those presently implemented by the United States – have not worked. Iran has faced a plethora of international sanctions in relation to its continued desire to enrich uranium following Iran’s decision to ignore Security Council Resolution 1696, which expressly forbade Iran from ceasing its uranium enrichment program. This was followed by ignore Security Council Resolution 1737 which froze the assets of key individuals and companies involved in the enrichment program as well as limited the availability of nuclear-scale material to this country. Sanctions were increased in March of 2007 with Security Council Resolution 1747 and again with Resolution 1803 which expressly forbade Iran from continuing its enrichment process. Iran has consistently ignored the international community and as we have persuasively demonstrated, remains committed to developing nuclear technology. What other options are available to the international community to deal with this rogue state? Iran’s nuclear ambitions will have both regional as well as global repercussions. From a regional perspective, the Jewish state of Israel will most likely be impacted by a nuclear Iran. Despite this, the United States is the world’s hegemon and a country with a complex relationship with Iran, especially in the post-Revolution period (1979+). Accordingly, the United States may be the best country to pre-empt Iran’s nuclear goals. According to David Skidmore, American unilateralism developed into an explicit and implicit policy Bush Administration since the aftermath of September 11th 2001. Although the United States, has historically committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush’s famously remarked that “you are either with us or against us” and set the stage for American unilateralism on a global scale (Bloom, 2005; Skidmore, 2005). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. Espousing a neoconservative worldview in the early years of the Bush Administration, the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Unilateral military action was thought justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism - the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 without UN Security Council approval. Now the Bush administration has established a unilateralist precedent, will a pre-emptive attack by the United States occur (Skidmore, 2005)? A variety of reasons make a United States-led intervention in Iran unlikely. While the precedent was established under George W. Bush’s tenure and the new President of the United States Barack Obama has taken a more conciliatory tone with respect to foreign policy. Accordingly, the United States is also heavily embroiled in Iraq and is unlikely to expand its regional resources through an invasion or wholesale attack on Iran. Finally, while President Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements have been threatening and irksome, that’s really all that they have been; mere talk and outlandish statements. While the United States will likely not pre-empt Iran’s nuclear attempts with an invasion or military strike, the United States may act through its client states to put an end to incitement from Tehran. Accordingly, these reasons however do not mean that the United States will not offer support, either tacit or overt, to its major ally in the Middle East to decisively act to put a stop once and for all to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the global community but represents a dire and existential threat to the Jewish state of Israel. According to some analysts, an Israeli attack of Iran is imminent. Accordingly, John Keegan of the London Telegraph (2006) reports Israel is exacerbated with Iran’s declared financial and operational support for Hezbollah and will bear arms in order to end Iran’s support of the Islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah. After the successful war with Hezbollah in the summer of 2006, Isreal appears ready to reassert control if Hezbollah were to strike again and will be willing to open up the front with Iran concurrently. Louis Beres in the Jewish Press (2006) argues emphatically that Isreal has a right to defend itself and a duty to protect the Jewish people in the face of incitement and violent threats to its existence. According to former US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, the United States will support Isreal in the event of an Iranian attack. These pronouncements from the world’s sole superpower should give Iranian generals come confidence that they can act aggressively if need be (Economist, 2009). The Hebrew daily Haaretz reports (2008), the Iranian regime is ready to counterattack if Isreal were to strike the first blow. Accordingly, “if the Zionist regime attacks Iran, we will surely strike its nuclear facilities with our missile capabilities," Mohammad Ali Jafari, Guards commander-in-chief, said to Irans Arabic language al-Alam television. Despite threats, it appears as though Iran is willing to make strong verbal pronouncements but able to act to match its rhetoric. Concluding Remarks As we have shown, UN sanctions on Iran have not worked. Despite threats, Israel as it has until now resisted any and all calls for retaliation, violence or attack, despite the incitement emanating from Tehran. Additionally, the United States remains embroiled in Iraq and seems unwilling to open up a second front in the Middle Eastern campaign. It is a shame however that Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is unable to maintain proper diplomatic decorum with Isreal but Israel may be the only actors able to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While the United States gave Israel its support during the invasion of Lebanon two summers ago under George W. Bush’s presidency and continues to do so under the Obama Administration, Israel maybe reticent to open up another front in the War on Terror and has thus far not reacted forcefully to the pronouncements from Iran. Accordingly, unless threatened through nuclear attack or though another similar existential crisis, Israel may not go to war with Iran to defend itself anytime soon. Despite this apparent caution on the part of Israel and the United States, a unilateralist move on the part of Israel may be the most effective means through which to contain Iran’s nuclear challenges. Word Count: 1,270 References Beres, L.R. (2006). Iran, Hamas and Jewish Survival: Israels Obligation To Defend Itself Fully. Jewish Press. Online. Available from Internet http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18835/Iran,_Hamas_And_Jewish_Survival:_Israels_Obligation_To_Defend_Itself_Fully.html, accessed October 4 2009. Blitz, J. (2009). High support for new Iran sanctions. Financial Times. Online. Available from Internet http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6bc717a-9b05-11de-a3a1-00144feabdc0.html accessed October 4 2009. Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: the allure of suicide terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Iran: If Israel attacks us, well hit its nuclear sites. (2007). Haaretz.com. Online. Available from Internet http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102705.html, accessed October 4 2009. Keegan, John. (2006). Why Israel will go to war again – soon. Telegraph.co.uk. Online. Available from Internet http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3633843/Why-Israel-will-go-to-war-again---soon.html, accessed October 4 2009. Skidmore, D. (2005). ‘Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.’ Foreign Policy Analysis vol. 1, no. 2, 207-288. The Economist. (2009). Pocket World in Figures, 2009 Edition. London: Profile Books. Read More