What Can Be Done about Iran's Nuclear Program - Literature review Example

Student’s Name] [Instructor’s Name] [Class] What can be done about Iran’s Nuclear Programme? Introduction Once the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle more than fifty years ago, the number of nations who have nuclear weapons has only increased. Of course there have been instances where some states have unilaterally rolled back their nuclear programmes and went on to become nuclear weapon free states, others have actively sought nuclear weapons through the assistance of their allies and friends while still others have secretly been hard at work creating these weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the countries seeking nuclear weapons will continue to suggest in their defence that their nuclear arsenal is a strategic or defensive weapon which is only to be used if their national security is threatened (Paulikas, 2006). However, the existence of such weapons also comes with the responsibility of not using them at will and the question of when they can or should be used (if at all). Additionally, analyst such as LaFranchi (2006) and Carter (2006) suggest that some states are responsible enough to have their own nuclear weapons and can be accepted in to the nuclear club while others have to be restrained to prevent the current rising levels of nuclear proliferation. The Iranian Situation This positioning of the global environment in terms of nuclear weapons and their proliferation has created a complex equation of power and strife between various countries (Cortright, 2006). It has also created some very important questions for any student of politics, economics, sociology, current affairs as well as contemporary international affairs such as why countries feel that nuclear weapons are required for their security and why nuclear proliferation is a global issue. Iran and North Korea serve as primary examples in many such studies and several different opinions are discussed depending on the perceptive taken by the analyst to come to a real answer to the question. Between the two, Iran is the one which has not conducted a test as of yet and remains a country which is suspected of harbouring designs to get nuclear weapons. North Korea is more or less spilt milk since they have left no doubt as to their nuclear capability even though it may be limited at best. However, the situation did teach an important lesson that taking a hard-line with some rouge states may not be the best approach and a negotiation between countries could often be the better solution to the problem. What the situation calls for is a better understanding of the defence and security needs of the country in historical as well as present terms. Seeking Security Kilgore (2007) gives a detailed analysis of why Iran is looking for nuclear weapons and why the country feels the need to protect itself with weapons of mass destruction. The project to seek security with nuclear weapons is the logical result of a need for security that is deeply seeped in the history of Iran. In 1941, the Allies had to find a path through Iran to support the Russian in their war effort against Germany. The ruler of Iran, Reza Shah raised objections to this violation of his sovereignty and therefore, he was removed from the throne, exiled to South Africa and replaced by his son Reza Shah Pahlavi. The old king was accused of having pro-German sentiments while as a matter of fact, he was only anti-Russian. This was a misunderstanding which deeply influenced the Iranian psyche against the western allies. Further on, in 1953, the American CIA removed Iran’s Prime Minister Mossadegh on the suspicion of being a communist after he had nationalised the Iranian oil companies. In actual fact, he was an Iranian nationalist who was opposed to Washington’s exploitation of the country’s natural resources. More recently, in 2001, President Bush made Iran a part of the famous ‘Axis of Evil’, along with North Korea and Iraq. Quite apparently, North Korea is more or less prevented from being attacked by other countries simply by virtue being a nuclear power while Iran is struggling to become one to get the same status (Kilgore, 2007). Iraq on the other hand, has been attacked for having weapons of mass destruction even though none have been found. Saddam was accused of having ties to Al-Qaeda even though there was no significant evidence found of links between Saddam and any other terrorist organisation (Jackson, 2006). On the basis of these false charges, the Iraqi people had to pay a heavy price and even though their dictator should have been removed from power a long time before the Americans felt the need to go into Iraq, the reasons and the methods used by America are indeed a security threat which has actually worsened the security situation of the region (Kilgore, 2007). Is it the Fault of Israel? In fact, Kilgore (2007) places the blame squarely at the door of the Israeli lobby in Washington which is moving the American media to take a serious look at Iran’s plans to acquire nuclear weapons. However, given the rate of development in terms of nuclear arsenal and technological growth, the Director of the National Intelligence, John Negroponte reports that Iran could be more than a decade away in actually creating a nuclear bomb while Israel already has more than two hundred such bombs. He goes on to say that: “Israel's 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 lobby's 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)”. Strangely enough, Iran and Israel were great friends just a few years ago. In the early 70s, the Shah of Iran announced that the country would build at least ten nuclear power generation stations since the growing population and the only major export of oil were significant risks that could hurt their energy policy in the coming years. There were absolutely no objections to this made by Israel and the idea was actually supported by the country since Iran was one of the few Middle Eastern countries selling it oil which was in open defiance of the Arab oil boycott of Israel (Kilgore, 2007). International Cooperation Washington as well as London also blessed this project since it was supposed to bring Iran on the path towards modernisation. However, today the leadership position of the Middle East is being contested by both Iran and Israel and it seems that only one can be on top of this regional group of countries. Iranians have seen the light response and gentle treatment given to North Korea after it became a nuclear power and it seems that they are willing to go the distance now to become a weapon carrying nation since they might expect to be treated in the same manner (Kilgore, 2007). Kilgore suggests that, “Taking the experience of North Korea and the fanaticism of the Israel lobby into account, it would be easy to understand if Iran seeks to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Iranians feel that they have been mistreated by history, and they are looking for some respect (Kilgore, 2007, pg. 25)”. This situation certainly rings true in terms of security since a ban on luxury goods as well as high end items for conducting a nuclear test seems to be a very small cost when compared to the resulting security which can be bought by being a declared nuclear power. In fact, an all out attack on a country like Iran or North Korea could possibly mean making a lot of other regional powers quite unhappy with the western nations. For instance, China has made significant investments in Iran’s oil industry and this has resulted in a lot of cheap oil for the growing Chinese economy. However, China may not be willing to accept Iran as a nuclear power in a regional situation where other countries such as India and Pakistan are often glaring at each other over their volatile borders. Russia could also have her own reservations about a nuclear weapons capable Iran even though it supports Iran’s right to seek peaceful nuclear energy to support the country’s development goals (Savage, 2007). What else can be done? It seems that just as North Korea was offered a new deal after they went nuclear, Tehran needs to see the same or similar benefits before they can be made to rollback their nuclear weapon seeking agenda. North Korea was given a comprehensive economic and military support package which sought to bring the country closer as a part of the members establishing the defence of the region as a whole and gave the country significant advantages for coming back to a non-nuclear state (Savage, 2007). According to Savage, “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 Tehran's current military superiority in the region (Savage, 2007, Pg. 31)”. In effect, the security which is being sought by Iran can be easily created through diplomatic means while the strong words being used by the international community will only hurt their purposes. The meaning of Security Essentially, while the USA, the UK and other western countries are seeking security in a global context, countries such as Iran and North Korea are looking for security in a more regional context. For both Iran and Korea, the idea of security includes the safety of the current regime since asking for regime change would be a dangerous question. For Korea, the White House accepted the need for the current government to stay in power as negotiations were being conducted with the government and the same rules should be applied for the case of Iran (Savage, 2007). As a matter of fact, Condoleezza Rice plainly admitted after the nuclear tests conducted by Kim Jong Il, that the US would seek comprehensive negotiations and approaches other than war to create peace and stability in the region rather than use force which might create more regional instability. The governments of the world presently seem to recognise that Iran also needs to be stabilised with the same tools. These means include international pressure which comes from the diplomatic side, the economic side and by addressing the security concerns of the country (Savage, 2007). Simply put, what Tehran needs is to be recognised as a legitimate power in the Middle East and to be welcomed into the international community as a powerful regional force. Undoubtedly, Iran has had its problems with other nations in the region but unless the American government considers talking to Iran on equal footing and with respect, it would be very difficult to convince the Iranian government to not work towards procuring nuclear weapons (Savage, 2007). Dealing with a Despot The natural question therefore, is what countries like America and the UK would do when they are faced with a despot and what steps they take when a country like Iran refuses to cooperate in any way. America and some of her European allies believe that Iran’s concealment of its nuclear activities and its behaviour towards the international community when it comes to collaboration with the IAEA points towards a tyrannical government and international law has to be called up to stop Iran (Omestad, 2006). Europe and many other countries believe that a political resolution of the issue can be reached. But even with sanctions and the Security Council giving words of warning, Iran is continuing on the path to uranium enrichment. In fact, as a countermeasure, Iran went ahead and warned America of harm and misery if the hindrances to their enrichment process are not stopped. Since Iran is a big player in the oil market, it could easily cut oil production which could have dire effects on the global oil markets to the extent that it could even cause problems for the American troops stationed in Iraq (Omestad, 2006). Can International Laws Help? The matter of Iran appears to have gone beyond the control of international law, and heavy sounding words on the American side have also stepped up since Vice President Cheney and the American ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton have both talked about serious consequences for Iran and the use of all available means with which they could stop Iran from pursuing her current course (Omestad, 2006). Clearly, it is surprising that a nation as enlightened as America may need to resort to force and violence to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. Iran, behaving as a despotic country, has given little heed to the international community or international law and appears to be very confident in squaring up against America and anyone else who challenges her aims in seeking out nuclear weapons. The question has an interesting element concerning the enforcement of international law regarding nations who fail to abide by it, i.e. can it be enforced? In situations like Iraq (Saddam regime) and Afghanistan (Taliban control) where the states failed to agree with international law and refused to cooperate with the rest of the world, the rule of the law was certainly enforced on them (McCarthy, 2006). Even though that raises the larger question of the respect for other nation’s sovereignty and a nation’s right to create and control the law where she has jurisdiction, it was mostly sidelined in the interests of global or perhaps just American security. It seems that the ultimate responsibility of controlling nuclear proliferation does rest with America and the European Union since they have to act as the most responsible states in the world. Even the UK is not exempt from that since Tony Blair’s decision to restart the trident programme has not met with appreciation since it could start a new arms race in the world (Plesch, 2006). Additionally, there have been accusations that Britain had engaged in transferring nuclear technology to countries such as Israel which helped Israel in developing their own bombs (Jones, 2006). On the other side of the pond, the Federation of American Scientists has clearly 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)”. Conclusion It seems that for the most part, international law is certainly enforceable and as exemplified by situations in the past, it has been enforced on despots through negotiations in a few cases or through other stronger means. However, it is also clear to me that the enforcement of many international laws has been selective in allowing certain countries to break it at their will. Even though these countries have earned the diplomatic ire of the rest of the world, as long as it is in their interest they will continue to break the laws of the world. I strongly feel that the responsibility of upholding laws that ask for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons does indeed lie with the more powerful nations of the world and as long as they are willing to take all different measures to ensure that weapons are not distributed like chocolate, the world is likely to remain a safer place. They may have to offer money, use force and even cajole other countries into towing the line but the process is necessary for the continued security and established stability of volatile regions. Works Cited Carter, A. 2006, ‘America's New Strategic Partner?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 33-44. Cortright, D. 2006, ‘The New Nuclear Danger’, America, vol. 195, no. 19, pp. 18-22. 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. McCarthy, A. 2006, ‘International Law v. United States’, Commentary, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 41-48. Omestad, T. 2006, ‘Truth or Dare in Tehran’. U.S. News & World Report, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 33-34. 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?’, Maclean's, vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 26-32. Read More