US Policy and Iranian Nuclear Weapons - Case Study Example

US Policy and Iranian Nuclear Weapons Introduction Nuclear weapon in Iran has been always a vivid issue for discussion internationally.There is no doubt that Muslims are lacking of relevant technologies and resources for development. There are no appropriate resources of nuclear weapons development and there are no sources for special technologies. Therefore, there are strong and controversial arguments in the world concerning possibility of Iran owing nuclear weapons. Tehran outlines that they are working at development of uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes. Of course, the West does not believe that Iran develops nuclear weapons for peaceful goals. It is irrelevant for further policies development internationally to accuse Iran of nuclear weapons development. A Global “No” to Nuclear Weapons in Iran There are a number of steps to be taken in order to prevent Iran from development and implementation of nuclear weapons. The transatlantic E3+3 partners oppose Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but Chinese agree. Special economic sanctions are to be developed to stop Iranian development of nuclear weapons. Military opposition is another strategy to Iran’s potential nuclear policy. Russia and China oppose to nuclear policies in Iran, but they do not support radical methods and strategies. The international community is focused on introduction of economic sanctions opposing to Iran. America is one of the most radical strategists in this opposition: “Among those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Americans and citizens of their European negotiating partners in the E3+3 talks with Iran strongly support tougher international economic measures against Tehran to try to stop its atomic weapons program. This includes 80% in the U.S. and Germany, 79% in Britain and 74% in France” (Global “No”, 2012). The Chinese and Russians are opposing to introduction of economic sanctions. Actually, there are different moods concerning economic sanctions in European countries. The Brazilians, the Japanese and the Greeks are not very much supportive in this policy. Americans do not discard military intervention to Iran, but French have many doubts. At the same time, America has strong supporters, such as Britain and Germany. Russia can accept a nuclear Iran. It is possible to illustrate international attitudes towards nuclear weapons in Iran. Figure 1 Iran’s Negative International Image (A Global “No” To a Nuclear-Armed Iran, May 18, 2012). Muslims nations reflect their negative emotions concerning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These moods were intensified in 8November 2011. The government of the country denied this fact and claimed that there is no a secret program of nuclear weapons development. The IAEA continued its accusations and claimed that activities in Iran are "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device" (Q&A: Iran nuclear issue, 2012). Nevertheless, there is no a clear definition that Iran is able to master the process and when exactly it will make a nuclear bomb. It is argued that a process of weaponisation takes place and Iranian scientists are working at location of a device into the nose-section of a missile. It is appropriate for America and the European community to work out different exploration strategies identifying a real state of affairs in Iran. Moreover, Americans are worried about Iranian attempts of uranium enrichment. As a matter of fact, there is a huge population in Iran and they are looking for alternative sources of energy. Enrichment of uranium can lead not only to material gains of the country, but also to essential outbreak in the field of science and technology. Americans should clearly differentiate between the real goals of potential attempts of nuclear weapons development. For this purpose, it is relevant to find out the real reasons for uranium enrichment. Iran has been involved in an enrichment programme for 18 years, but it is necessary to ensure that it has peaceful intentions. The international community should consider "what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions", as it is suggested by the UN organization (Q&A: Iran nuclear issue, 2012). Another benefit for America is that Tehran does not intentionally hide its attempts of weaponisation and it shows a “greater transparency” of these processes. Currently, different organizations from all over the world are inspecting attempts of Iran in their nuclear development. Iran makes an emphasis on development of nuclear power for power station fuel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights" (Q&A: Iran nuclear issue, 2012). These lines of the Iranian President can be supported by relevant lines from the Qur’an. It is even possible to suggest that there is no nuclear weapon development in the country: "Hence, make ready against them whatever force and war mounts you are able to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God" (Qur’an 8:60). This statement means that nuclear weapons are the only one possible means for resistance internationally, but Muslims would use it in case their enemies used nuclear weapons too. This suggestion alarms American nation to the greatest extent. Nevertheless, America should be focused on the fact that Iran would be unable to develop nuclear weapons in the shortest terms and even if it did, the US military forces would deal with “poor” 2 atomic bombs by means of 20,000 warheads. Moreover, there is a huge discrepancy between military power of America and Iran. The main goal of Iranian government is to reach international respect and having a powerful means of resistance to potential threats. Experts underline that it is possible to produce highly enriched uranium in several months. The US general said that several years would be needed to produce a bomb. Starting from July 2011, Iran made many attempts of faster centrifuges installment for speeding progress in uranium enrichment. This development would decrease the time required for material stockpile, which can be used both for peaceful and military goals. The National Intelligence of America wonders if Iran has made attempts of nuclear weapon development. Israeli militants claim that Iran makes numerous attempts of nuclear weapons development…So, actually no one knows exactly. In this context the following measures have been taken: regulations of the UN, imposed on Iran, prevented the country from implementation and development of nuclear weapons. At least, these regulations are directed on challenging the process of nuclear weapons development. There is an international ban on selling material and technology to Iran, as well as serious restrictions of Iranian dealings. International cooperation with Iran is often on halt, because the US imposed sanctions on Irans central bank and against three oil companies that trade with Iran. This concerns Chinese Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. The countries of European Union joined the US and were prevented from cooperation with Iran at different levels. These steps can be considered as a “global wall” for Iran. The American government clearly realizes that any attacks on Iran can lead to the world’s instability. Barak Obama is more focused on peaceful solution of this issue, but he says that any solutions can be possible. Supposedly, the world’s community can be pacified by the fact that there are friendly solutions for a problem. For example, peaceful attempts of Iran in their developments can be justified by a small research reactor in Tehran producing medical isotopes, driven by the Americans. The IAEA is worried about plant being built underground near Qom. Technologies of the plant are protected and that is why located in the mountains. This plant specializes at uranium enrichment and it has current attempts to enrich uranium to 20%. Starting from 2012 the IAEA claimed that there is a clear production and exporting of enriched uranium. In accordance with the Article VI, it is relevant to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" (Q&A: Iran nuclear issue, 2012). This statement should concern different countries and not only Iran. A fair basis of international relations is first and foremost important factors of successful cooperation among different countries globally. Thus, there is a complex and challenging context of Iranian developments of nuclear weapons. The American governments should realize a dualistic nature of nuclear developments in Iran: on the one hand, uranium enrichment can be used for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, it is evident that the country makes steady attempts to reach nuclear independence and be able to respond to powerful attacks of their enemies. A potential hazard for Iran can be dealt with immediately in case of nuclear weapons production. Currently, Iran does not show hostile moods. It is evident that Iran needs technological support, necessary materials and technologies for their developments et cetera. As a matter of fact, it would be enough for the international community to stay away from cooperation with Iran, when the country attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It does not mean that export or trade relations with the country should be abolished. Vice versa, strong and trustful relations internationally would decrease an opportunity of nuclear weapons producing and hostile attempts of using it on the representatives of different countries…It is better not to avoid international cooperation and develop suspicious relations with Iran, but to be able to direct international relations in mutually favorable direction. References A Global “No” To a Nuclear-Armed Iran (May 18, 2012). Available from: http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/05/18/survey-methods-26/ Q&A: Iran nuclear issue. (March 06, 2012). Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 Read More