Irans Nuclear Weapons - Coursework Example

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons The threat posed by Iran to Israel and Western nations including the U.S. is growing by the day. Defiant, intimidating rhetoric by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a confirmed nuclear enrichment program and naval operations in the Persian Gulf all have acted to sound the alarm of immanent danger from that extremely volatile region of the world. The recent capture of British forces by Iran is simply another example of and the next step in that nation’s hostile intent. The U.S. and its ally Israel must address what the response will be to this nuclear threat and when it should be carried out. President Bush has already deployed two Carrier fleets to the Persian Gulf to beef-up U.S. presence in the region. It is doubtful that Bush or the Israelis, who bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor into oblivion in 1981, will allow Iran the capability to produce, test or use nuclear weaponry. This discussion highlights the reasoning for the use of military force against Iran, if necessary, to ensure that this fanatical, theocratic regime does not unleash the horrific power of nuclear bombs on the U.S., Israel and/or Western European nations, its perceived enemies. The contention that Iran will not allow for nuclear inspections or halt its development of nuclear weapons unless it is forced has gained wide acceptance. The Iranian government must be convinced that it’s nuclear and military facilities will be destroyed before it would consider complying with international law and United Nations directives. Diplomatic efforts are not the answer as this will only forestall the inevitable and allow Iran to continue its nuclear aspirations which are gladly accommodated by North Korea, China and Russia. According to three Israeli legislators, “the United States and its allies must act to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, by force if necessary, because conventional diplomacy will not work” (Sands, 2005). The lawmakers said that Israel would act on its own to stop Iran from obtaining or making nuclear armaments if because “Iran will not be deterred by anything short of a threat of force,” said National Union Party member Arieh Eldad who along with an Israeli delegation visited Washington to deliver this urgent message (Sands, 2005). Iran is not escalating the fanatical rhetoric or aggressive actions because it has benign intentions with its nuclear program. It has drawn a metaphorical line in the desert sand and is daring the U.S. and the world to cross. Iran believes that the U.N. is too impotent to attack because world support for an invasion would be lacking and the U.S. too weak militarily because of its involvement in Iraq. Iranians watch television too and know that the U.S. public has become disillusioned of war in that region and wants out now. Ahmadinejad taunts Bush believing that the American public would not permit another protracted conflict next door to the Iraq morass. Of course Sadaam Hussein thought the same thing when he said, paraphrasing, ‘Americans do not have the stomach to engage in a long, bloody war.’ The aggressive words and actions of Iran are escalating and this will increase ten, possibly one hundred fold when it obtains nuclear arms. “Iran would undoubtedly ratchet up the bluster, not much of a stretch, given its already wildly out-of-control rhetoric, and quickly proceed to torment the West with nuclear blackmail, a host of demands, and an orchestrated campaign of non-nuclear terrorist attacks, all calculated to break the will of the West” (Devine-Molin, 2006). An Iranian government that had nuclear capabilities would become infinitely more fanatical than it has ever known to have been. The situation is clear; confront an Iran with nuclear weapons or an Iran that is still in the development stages. Given its less than reasonable nature, an Iran with such weapons would inevitably launch an attack either itself or in association with various terrorist groups who share their hatred of Israel and the West, a hatred that has blossomed since the Iraq invasion. The population, economic and strategic centers of the world such as New York City, Washington D.C., London and Tel Aviv would be in immediate and grave danger if Iran possessed nuclear capabilities. In addition, Iran’s neighbors, Pakistan and India, already possess nuclear weapons and either a conflict or coalition between these countries would have dire consequences for the entire world. The dynamics of the war in Iraq will change dramatically when Iran can threaten to deliver nuclear strikes, deliveries that would not necessarily mimic the ‘Enola Gay style’ operation. In this case, nuclear weapons do not have to be flown across an expansive ocean. Varying degrees of nuclear destruction and the resulting poisonous fallout could be perpetrated by simply walking a device across the unmarked and at present, imaginary border between Iraq and Iran then detonating it by remote control (Devine-Molin, 2006). Iranians have a deep-seeded hatred for the Western culture, its imperialistic tendencies and the fact that is predominantly a Christian nation. Of course the Constitution is the legal remedy for the U.S. ever becoming a theocracy but this is how the U.S. is largely perceived in Iran. Because their government is and has been controlled by religious leaders, this form of government is, understandably, considered as commonplace among Iranians. The U.S. was founded by Christians, ‘God’ appears on the money, and the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, etc. therefore, Iranian characterization of the U.S. as a Christian nation is reasonable and plausible. The religious factor plays a significant role in the fanaticism aspect of this growingly dangerous situation. Generally, Iranians, as do much of the Muslim world, believe Western nations allow decadent behavior that is in opposition to God’s (Allah) teachings. This is a culture that values religious traditions over individual rights whereas the opposite is true in Western nations. To an Iranian, the decedent, Godless American infidels are building military bases on Muslim Holy lands and trying to control the world. The combinations of emotion-provoking factors are realities and could easily act to ignite an already fanatical setting within the highest level of government which is unsettled at best. “By its own admission, the leadership of Iran is hell-bent on bringing the West to its knees, starting with the destruction of America and the tiny nation of Israel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his mullah cohorts, won’t be deterred from acquiring nukes” (Devine-Molin, 2006). Earlier this year, despite the growing threat posed by Iran, television crews from all over the world were covering the war protesters in London who were burning effigies of Bush and Tony Blair for their aggressive tactics in Iraq. While this was taking place, Iran launched an intercontinental missile. “They [Iran] are working on expanding the range of their missiles, and those weapons can be tipped with nuclear weapons.  I think this is a serious threat to the region” (Berger, 2005). This event made the news along with the London protests but received far less coverage and commentary. The London event was the ‘sensational’ story but however well-intended was not the lead item of world importance. Evidently, the story of nuclear weapons in the hands of a madman who happens to be the leader a fanatical government intent on the destruction of its ‘enemies’ isn’t sensational enough (Loconte, 2007). According to the Israeli army, Iran is progressing swiftly in its goal of developing a nuclear device within the next two years. Israel’s normally high level of concern regarding the prospect of Iran’s nuclear capabilities was raised when Ahmadinejad publicly announced that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’ and expressed the notion that the Holocaust never happened, that it was a ploy to win world sympathy so the Jewish State could be created. In addition, he has continually encouraged other Muslim countries to take action against Israel who has asked the UN Security Council to initiate action to ensure Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons.  Ephraim Inbar, an Israeli analyst strongly suggests that if diplomacy alone does not stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Israel should seriously contemplate using a limited air campaign to eradicate Iran’s facilities. According to Inbar, “With a sustained air campaign, as well as occasionally the use of special forces, this program can be stopped” (Berger, 2005). This tactic is not without precedence. The Israeli air force successfully destroyed a nuclear facility in Iraq which, at the time the action was widely rebuked by the nations of the world but is viewed today as an imperative operation that was vital to the regions as well as the world’s security. “Israel prefers that the U.S. would deal with Iran, but with America tied up in Iraq Israeli officials have not ruled out the military option. Israel cannot allow Iran to acquire the atom bomb” (Berger, 2005). The U.N. has approved sanctions against Iran and has authorized inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Last week, the inspectors were asked to leave Iran and the economic blockade has been as effectual as were similar sanctions against Iraq. U.N. actions have been largely ceremonial in nature, decrees to display an awareness of the situation and that the body has taken steps to rectify it. Similar ineffectual ‘actions’ were taken in the Darfur, Sudan genocide. “UN sanctions are really all about symbolism and a show of unity that permits the global community to pat itself on the back with one hand, and wag its finger in the face of the offending nation with the other hand” (Devine-Molin, 2006). Iran has literally laughed in the face of UN sanctions and has refused the scrutiny of UN nuclear weapons inspectors. These are not isolated, unrelated incidences. Iran is steadily moving in one direction and that is in the development of a nuclear arsenal with no concern regarding the punitive actions other countries, whether separately or allied. Those actions by other countries, specifically the U.S. and Israel, must be made real to the Iranians if they are ever expected to halt nuclear programs. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned Bush of what the Israeli response must be when it becomes necessary and has called on the assistance of the U.S. which in all likelihood was at least partially responsible for the naval carriers to be stationed in the Persian Gulf. “If Iran achieves the ability to produce nuclear weapons, as we know it is seeking to do, we will enter a new era of instability unlike any the world has ever seen. Israel wants peace but no longer can the international community afford to hesitate, contemplate or waver in its dealings with this defiant state,” Olmert said (“Israeli Prime Minister”, 2006). It has become increasingly apparent that in the near future the U.S., along with Israel, will become forcedly engaged in military air-strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear program to ensure that the reckless and lawless tyrannical, fanatical Iranian government regime never possesses nuclear weapons. No, or very few, ground troops will be needed nor would they be very effective when and if it becomes necessary to take action against Iran. It will be a vast series of surgical air-strikers against specific targets. The action, as in 1981, will be wifely vilified but in the final analysis, necessary to the security of the region and the world. Works Cited Berger, Robert. “Israel: Iran Could Enrich Uranium in March.” Voice of America. (December 13, 2005). March 28, 2007 Devine-Molin, Carol. “Stop Iran.” Assyrian International News Agency. (January 17, 2006). March 28, 2007 “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Calls for World to Speak With One Voice on Iran.” Associated Press. (November 14, 2006). March 28, 2007 Loconte, Joseph. “Irans nuclear train has left the station.” Britain and America.com (February 28, 2007). March 28, 2007 Sands, David R. “Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran’s nuke goals.” The Washington Times. (September 30, 2005). March 28, 2007 Read More