Intelligence Briefing - Iran Nuclear Crisis and Election - Assignment Example

 A 33-second vlog was posted pertaining to online simulation on Iran Nuclear Crisis on October 19, 2012 that challenged presidential candidates of United States of America to make its position on the issue of which soldiers are apparently interested to know how this crisis should strategically end (Truman National Security Project, 2012). This intelligence brief is issued to determine its probable implication to the ongoing campaign and election for presidential candidates. It will also explore if the vlog will rouse serious concern amongst Iranians and will it cause polarization among electorates. Sources of information are primary and secondary evidences sourced from reports and journals. For context, its best to reckon that in first quarter this year, Iraq seemed to be interested to fly its rockets to destroy the alleged nuclear facilities of Iran and its program but this rouse security alarm to United States of America considering the possibility of unmanageable impact to Middle East if airstrike will be granted. If not prevented, war could ensue and violence will still prompt US and other international security forces intervention. As part of the effects, relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction of damaged communities will be too costly to pursue in these times when some part of the world remain confronted with problems on poverty, insecurity, and unpeace too. To strategically deal this problem, US have pursued diplomatic and dialogical discourse to discourage Israel from attacking Iran and stressed the standing position of the UN Security Council backed by incumbent and running presidential candidate Barrack Obama. Concern heightened as reports indicated that there is obvious nuclear development progress in Iran (The New York Times, 2012). Study showed that since 2008 to 2012 there is apparent increase of uranium enrichment process to raise the U-235 levels, the latter being an isotope that is scientifically optimized to fuel bomb and reactors (The New York Times, 2012). Report further bared that Iran has raised this to the level from 5% to 20% in the last four years. The UN Security Council have already issued the fourth sanction in 2006 and since then, there has been six computer attacks, four cases of alleged scientists assassination, and two unexplained explosions at Iran’s missile and steel plants (The New York Times, 2012). In 2010, UN Security Council again sanctioned Iran although the goal of halting Iran’s nuclear-based weapon production is yet to be seen. Fifteen members of the council voted for the imposition of economic sanction but Turkey and Brazil opposed while Lebanon abstained (The New York Times, 2012a). The European Union followed the same position as US imposed sanctions to major institutions of Iran involved in banking, insurance and trading relations (The New York Times, 2012a). Although US literally considered in 2011 that the international sanction slowed down Iran’s nuclear production and have disrupted its market relations but reports pointed that Iran was able to obtain new ways to experiment the use of explosive compression of uranium deuteride to produce bursts of neutrons, the latter is a particle that can dichotomize atom into two and produce a surge of nuclear energy (The New York Times, 2012a). This can be a sparkplug, said Chinese and Pakistani experts (The New York Times, 2012a). This concern undoubtedly caused an impasse in the negotiations as Iran maintained a close position (Patrikarakos, 2012) and as they sustain such undisclosed activities in the development of nuclear warhead based on the I.A.E.A. report bared in February of 2011. It cannot be postulated however if vlog, recently released, is related to the online poll done in March this year by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and of Anwar Sadat Chair University of Maryland (Kull, Telhami, Ramsay, Lewis, & Subias, 2012) but this apparently bared some military concerns for those who wanted to put an end to threat from nuclear production in the Middle East. The academic institutions conducted that poll to generate public participation and to know the pulses of American people about Iran’s alleged continued activity in producing nuclear weapon—a tool universally considered as weapon of mass destruction (Kull et al., 2012). The online poll was conducted last March 3-7 and result was based on 727 randomized respondents through web-based and probability–based design (Kull et al., 2012). Result showed that most of these American respondents support diplomatic resolution instead of direct airstrike to Iran’s nuclear program .They also favour that US and other security stakeholders should sustain the negotiations with Iran and that such should be dealt through the UN Security Council to evoke global pressure (Kull et al., 2012). Most of the respondents wanted US to discourage Israel in pursuing its military security plan but there were varied positions whether or not they wanted US to directly and openly discourage Israel or to stay neutral on it (Kull et al., 2012). In case Israel pursue the plan, only one out of four respondents favour US to provide military support to and only 4 out of 10 US to provide diplomatic support. Most of the respondents believed that any military strike against Iran will be beneficial for US and only less than half of all respondents that any strike could weaken the Iranian government and that they believe that any strike will dragged to months or years of armed conflict in the region which will be costly to pursues (Kull et al., 2012). On the acquisition of nuclear weapons 6 of 10 believes that Iran is working to produce nuclear weapons and likely develops their weaponry out of this (Kull et al., 2012). Moreover, the poll bared that 6 out of 10 believes that should nuclear weapons are produced, Iran will use it aggressively against Israel instead of building strong deterrence base d on balancing the power theory (Kull et al., 2012). Results of this study concluded that respondents would prefer continued diplomatic relations instead of dealing the issue militarily and heads on (Kull et al., 2012). The respondents who indicated their political leanings as independents, democrats, and republicans will opt for negotiations and affirmed furtherance of diplomacy (Kull et al., 2012). Although they have similar inclinations, but statistics bared that democrats strongly recommends that such diplomatic measures be undertaken through the UN Security Council (Kull et al., 2012). In this context, raising the issue on Iran could inspire wide debate among western allies and Israel about possible need of increasing diplomatic sanctions, political pressures, sabotage and military actions to stop Iran’s program albeit the outstanding imposition of sanction which covered the petrochemical and oil industries suspected to have supported the nuclear program of Iran (The New York Times, 2012a). Further security concerns however needs to be heightened in the region as Iran retaliated by vowing to block the Strait of Hormus, a significant transit point and thus, will result to the deployment of US military forces (The New York Times, 2012a). Iran internal pressures may cause some rifts amongst its leaders and conflicts that will polarize its peoples as economic difficulties are more felt in the region these days (The New York Times, 2012a). Hopefully, forces will maintain its vigilance to unpredictable patterns of attack that can be stage as form of Iranian’s resistance to this sanction and as they internally struggle to optimize the resources they could utilize to keep their domestic market going (The New York Times, 2012a). This includes bombing activities done at embassies of Israel and attacks that can be staged by extremists groups to sow dissention and tactical offensives to innocent civilians (The New York Times, 2012a). Authorities assessed that in case attacks, which could be possibly authored by Iranian forces, may mean that the nuclear program is suffering an extensive backlash in its operation (The New York Times, 2012a). But this could also mean that US security should also tighten its measures to leave no space unscathed for anyone who desire to cause security problems as election draws in schedule (The New York Times, 2012a). Records bared that Iran has an active military and police active forces of 545,000 with sufficient armaments. It has also its 12.6 paramilitary forces that are believed as combat-capable (FAS, 2012). Of these, nearly a 100,000 is estimated to be expert on capable while there are also about 300,000 reservists (FAS, 2012). A number of them have been involved in Iraq wars (FAS, 2012). They have certainly attained some sophistication too in its military capability (FAS, 2012). Reports mentioned that Iran’s military strategy to improve its stature to counter US power and influence among Islamic nations through diplomatic and solidarity with Muslim countries (FAS, 2012). On the other hand, the country has established it’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps- Qods in 1990 which allegedly provide arms, funding, and paramilitary training (FAS, 2012). Its unconventional forces are accordingly trained with asymmetric doctrine. The country continued to use multipronged strategy and relations with varied leaders within its comfortable political spectrum although the country has been noted to have militant groups as its constituents and those considered terrorists such as the Kataib Hizballah, Asaib Ahlal-Haq, and the Promised Day Brigade (FAS, 2012). This country is also alleged to have supported militarily the Iraqi militants and have also allegedly worked to influence the Afghanistan’s domestic developments after forces pulled out from the region and developmental institutions come in for rehabilitation and reconstruction for humanitarian causes, including the establishment of democratic institutions within the Muslims political forefront (FAS, 2012). Amid all these involvements, Iran continuously refused to submit to international body and to address the issues hurled by international communities (FAS, 2012). It has also reportedly continued strengthening its heavy-water Iran Nuclear Research Reactor in violation to UN resolution (FAS, 2012). Aside from this, ballistic missile training for its forces are sustained which include extended-range variant and 2,000 medium –“range ballistic missile to hone its range, accuracy, and lethality (FAS, 2012, p. 4).” Security management remains to be an agenda to be carefully and stringently enforced albeit the declaration of United States that terrorist group has been weakened following the death of Osama bin Laden. True, the deployment of forces in Middle East and in some strategic region of the world could provide deterrence to potential attacks against US and its allies but the fact that current political rifts with Iran might ignite political violence at any unpredictable period, but it’s wise that diplomatic measures should be backed with heightened security alertness. While US is waging all measures to protect and de-escalate tension and potential eruption of violence, global forces should also be wary on the potential implication of the sanction imposed to Iran. Meanwhile, as US is gearing for national election and issues on Iran is now brought into the open for political discourse, it is believed the matter will not bear serious implications to electoral process as all political groups within US politics stand for disarmament, denuclearization, and for global security (Norris & Kristensen, 2012; Kristensen, 2012 ). Probably, a voice from the military front only deserves to be listened and their morals should be boosted, too. Notwithstanding, security measures should be beefed still for national welfare and protection. For eventualities, the historic security management done by for US president John F. Kennedy on resolving Cuban missile dilemma can still be applied logically, with prudence and in strategic ways possible without the need for ripping blood from any states (Norris & Kristensen, 2012). References Federation of American Scientists (2012). Annual Report on Military Power of Iran. FAS. Washington, DC, Print. pp 1-4. Kristensen, H. (2012). NATO: Nuclear Transparency Begins at Home. Federation of American Scientists (FAS). FAS Web. Washington, D.C., p 1. Kull, S., Telhami, S., Ramsay, C., Lewis, E. & Subias, S. (2012). Americans on Israel and Iranian Nuclear Program: A study of American Public Opinion. Anwar Sadat Chair University of Maryland and Program on International Policy Attitides (PIPA), Knowledge Networks, US. pp. 1-15. Patrikarakos, D. (2012). Nuclear Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State. The Independent. Web. 20 October, 2012. Norris, R. & Kristensen, H. (2012). The Cuban Missile Crisis: A nuclear order of battle, October and November 1962. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Sage Publications. pp 1-7. The New York Times (2012). Iranian Nuclear Progress. The Opinion Pages. TNYT Sunday Review, NY, US. Web.16 June, 2012. Accessed: October 20, 2012. Truman National Security Project (2012). Tell Me How This Ends: Be the President. Make the Decision on Iran. TellMeHowThisEnds.com. US. Read More