Nuclear Weapons Iran vs Israel, Research Paper Example

Iran’s nuclear program traces its roots in the period of the 1950s years after US use of atomic energy for military use in the Second World War (Kerr, 1). However, after the war the US passed the Atomic energy Act that shifted the focus away from the possibilities of nations using nuclear power as a threat towards the peaceful use of nuclear power to generate energy. However, the revolution that took place in Iran in 1979 and especially in the last eleven years many things have taken for the worst. The United States has always expressed concerns that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons for mass destruction since mid 1970s (Kerr 1). It is ten years now since the first public revelations that there was involvement of Iranians in the covert development of nuclear power. Despite the International atomic energy Agency’s (IAEA) investigations, passage of a considerable number of UN Security Council Regulations and sanctions, Tehran is still to satisfy the international community that their production of nuclear power is purely peaceful. Kerr (9) asserts that Tehran continues to enrich uranium, install centrifuges, and conduct research on new centrifuge types. Tehran also still works on heavy water reactors, and this is a proliferation concern to because it is likely that its spent fuel will contain plutonium, which is a fissile material type that is useful in the production of nuclear weapons. A vast international coalition is of the opinion that Iran must freeze the production of nuclear power and not, in any way, develop any of the ingredients such as enrichment of uranium, a usable warhead and a delivery system that could result in as bomb (Abrams 25).  Meanwhile, Israel, which forms the block of the four Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-signatories, and the sole state in the Middle East possessing nuclear weapons, remains free from any meaningful oversight (Steinbach 1). The fact that there is permission for Israel and not Iran to poses nuclear weapons arises from Iran’s historical uses of Nuclear power, and this is because of speculation that it can rise to become a meaningful nuclear power, hence a nuclear threat to its neighbors, the US and Israel with whom they still have hostile relations.

A nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst outcome of the several months’ long heated debates over the best way Israel, and the US should employ to respond to Iran’s nuclear activities (Lean 32). In 2006, President Bush termed the Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the greatest challenge where for almost twenty years Iran had managed to hide its nuclear activities from the international community. He asserted that the truth of the matter of Iran’s intentions lain in the fact that the regime declined to agree in good faith, refused to comply with international obligations and the aggressive statements that the then president made to wipe off Israel from the face of earth (Rawshandil and Lean 82). History provides some explanation of the incumbent hostilities between Iran and Israel, which started in the early days of Islamic revolution. In as much as the nuclear program might be the most significant cause for alarm for US, Israel Rawshandil, and Lean (83), asserts the Israel-Iran animosity to the slogans of the time. For instance, there is the possibility that Ayatollah Khamenei’s slogan “Israel must be annihilated” or “The road to Jerusalem passes through Karbala” during the Iran-Iraq war shaped the resent perceptions of Israel towards Iran as a threat to Iran. In as much as Iran’s attempt to secure a nuclear capability triggers a war of words between Israel and Iran, the war has never gone beyond words (Steinbach 1). Iran contends that nuclear energy should be for all and nuclear power for none, and the Iranians who support this right to nuclear energy will continue to make Iran a nation victimized by political and economic pressures until that time when attention will drift away from the nuclear discourse.

A potential standoff between Iran and Israel will surely affect the Middle East security and the triangular relations Israel, Iran and the US (Dickey et al 1). Therefore, the nuclear program in Iran is the most vexing foreign policy challenges that continue to affect US administration. First, the growing pessimism about the ability of diplomatic efforts by the international community to ensure the prevention of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not reassuring (Elderman et al 1). Additionally, the US is unsure of the fact that the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will be manageable. In as much as Rawshandil and Lean (45) argue that the US has the capability to contain Iran even if it developed nuclear weapons, it is noteworthy that the argument rests on questionable assumptions. This is because it would mean that if Iran developed nuclear weapons, there would be induction of caution and restraint where other Middle East nations would have to balance against Iran other than bandwagon with it. Another red flag would be the fact that there would be an expectation that Iran conforms to the similar warnings it has defied in the past in pursuit. However, it appears that as soon as Iran acquires nuclear capability, it will become much aggressive such that the US allies in the Middle East will be under threat thus forced to accommodate Tehran. This will then mean a diminish of the US power to control its interests in the region leading to further proliferation of nuclear weapons and all its dangers (Elderman et al 1). In the short term, the consequence would be the unhinged Israel-Iranian nuclear weapon competition and a significant risk of either side launching a strike on the other in spite of the involvement of enormous risks and costs. In the long term, Saudi Arabia and other Middle-East states will likely join the contest with all of them pursuing their nuclear capabilities, which can result into a highly unstable regional nuclear arms contest. For that matter, the US and Israel feels that it is proper to take away Iran’s nuclear power to avoid further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The only case today where a UN member can call for the destruction of another member is a situation such as that of Tehran, which has repeated threats to obliterate Israel (Abrams, 25). The fact that there is no reason to believe that Iranians do not mean it exacerbates the decision to have Iranians disarmed. This is because Iranians comments on Israel are continually becoming genocidal in nature. An article in Iranian Press in February originating from Alef website through the circulation by Revolutionary Guards Fars News Agency called for the destruction of the Jews (Abrams 26). This call for Iran genocide on Israel is an acceptable discourse in an Islamic republic. For that matter, there should be an understanding that Iran can launch a nuclear attack on Israel even now and not after acquiring the capability to strike and, therefore, Israel’s worries are genuine. Additionally, apart from Iran resolving to have a state action it can also confer the same capability to Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups with it has connections to carry out the attack so that they mask their own role in the attack (Abrams, 28). In case Iran receives the capability of nuclear weapon production, it can use its capacity to fund terrorist activities against Israel and other Israel I and Jewish individuals and sites worldwide. Going back in history, the India and Georgia’s attack on Israel Embassy officers and the bombings in Buenos Aires that occurred in 1990s occurred at a time during which Iran had no added protection of nuclear weapons (Rawshandil and Lean 22). The same goes for the Hezbollah and Hamas rocket attacks kidnappings and bombings occurred when their benefactors, Iran possessed no bomb. One can then imagine how neutralization of the situation with nuclear warheads can turn out in the end. This then leads to disarmament of Iran and not Israel because of the imagination of what can transpire when the monopoly Israel has been having is no more. This is because it will be disastrous because it will undermine Israel’s ability to survive. In case the international community decides to go slow on Israelis bid to acquire nuclear weapons, it will not be a surprise to Israel, the US and many others instead it would be the confirmation of a lie that Iran has been pulling on the international community, which was busy trying to prevent the outcome. This will in turn taint the unyielding, firm, tough and ready to act resolutions of Israel, damaged US image as the dominant power in the Middle East, and as the only committed nation to preserve the existence of Israel (Abrams 27). The moment it reaches a time when Iran has the nuclear power it so yearns for, and there is there are still declarations to wipe Israel out, it would be an easy task for Israel to turn into bare land.

Iran maintains that it has the right to develop nuclear programs under treaty obligations where it goes on to explain peaceful projects (Dickey et al 1). Iranians believe that it is time they managed their own nuclear-fuel cycle and stop overdependence to provide fuel for its population. This follows Iranians’ experience in the 1980s during their war with Iraq and in the 1990s when the US imposed extremely restrictive sanctions. According to Cordesman (289) this sanctions made them recognize their vulnerability, and, therefore, a need for them to acquire nuclear weapons. At one point, the Iran’s vice president of the Atomic Energy organization reiterated, “We are wasting our time now” (Dickey et al 1), and this is during the time when the international community has stalled their uranium enrichment processes. There is also a belief that Incase the international community does not choose to disarm Iran, the nation will not be a significant threat because they might not assemble a powerful nuclear weapon without help from outside (Kerr, 8). The intuition behind this is that there search for outside assistance will tip off the security agents resulting to preventative mechanisms to avoid enormous impacts. However, one can clearly argue against the point in search a way that the action of looking for help from outside might still bypass the intelligence of the security agents leading to production of nuclear weapons, which is a significant threat to the security worldwide. This is a clear indication that the feasible solution to the security threat is to allow the US and Israel to take weapons away from Iran. Meanwhile, Bowen (924) argues that the disbarment should not take place but rather depend on established clear redlines that Tehran will not violate without asking for some retaliation. Elderman et al (1) asserts that Incase Iran uses nuclear weapons, transferred them, or invaded its neighbors the US will immediately respond with the measures it chooses to adopt lacking specification in advance. In as much as the above argument resonates among many senior international community officials, prominent academics, and security consultants, it is certain that there is a flaw in the standpoint. This is because the history of Iran’s deception already raises doubts, and the fact that it was capable of conducting some deadly attacks before it had the capability, it will be much more badly when it secures the status it so desires. The solution to have US sanction them may fail too and these assertionsfollow the 2010 reprieve of Iranians from the sanctions that had worn out the country’s economy (Newton-Small 1). Thanks to the resilience and the cunning politics of Iran in the face of the sanctions that enabled the doing away of business subsidies, which redirected money to the people. Currently, every person in Iran receives a check of roughly 25dolars every month courtesy of The Iranian oil revenue (Sonboli 1). This shows why some sanctions cannot work where it was clear that any form of oppression could lead Iran to the negotiating tables.

The international community and most importantly the US and Israel should remain firm on their decision to take away weapons from Iranians at all costs. There has to be the assumption that Iran’s objective is to achieve capabilities in nuclear military, and recognize that, in the past, negotiations have been and still are a tactic to stall enabled the Iranian regime buy time as it continues with its activities. The fact that there may be an argument against the choice of whom to disarm weapons between Iran and Israel, the strength is characteristic of the capabilities of Israel to attack Iran without the backing of the US. In as much as Israel is always ready to attack at any instant it will be dependent on Iran as a country, which already knows that Israel is there immediate threat. For that matter, disarming the Iranians in the best possible way will be influential in ensuring that Iran ceases from pursuing its ambitions of a nuclear power giant and chiefly in the Middle East, which is politically unstable. However, the support from the regional countries who also oppose the ambitions of Iran of acquiring the nuclear capability is a significant boost of ensuring alleviation of security threats Iran possesses.

Works cited

Abrams, Elliot. Attacking Iran’s nuclear project. World Affairs May/June. 2012, pp 25-28. Print.

Bowen, Wyn and Brewer, Jonathan. International affairs. 2011, Pp 923-925. Print

Cordesman, Anthony. Saudi Arabia: National Security in a Troubled Region, 2009. Santa Barbara California, ABC-CLIO. Print.

Dickey, Christopher et al. Iran’s nuclear lies. Newsweek.  7.11/2005, 146 (2), p1.

Elderman, Eric, Krepinevich, Andrew and Montgomery, Braden. Foreign Affairs. Jan/Feb 2011, 90 (1). P 1, Print.

Kerr, Paul. Irans nuclear program, Status.Congresional Research Service: Report.  September 26, 2012 Pp 1-10. Print.

Newton-Small, Jay. One nation under sanctions. Time. 2012, 180 (13), p1. Print

Rawshandil Jalil and Lean, Nathan. Iran, Israel, and the United States: Regime Security Vs. Political Legitimacy, Santa Barbara California, ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.

Sonboli, Nabi. Nuclear weapons. Who needs redlines: Iran or Israel?. 2012. Web. 7 December2012.Available at: < http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-weapons-who-needs-red-lines-iran-or-israel/5307596>

Steinbach, John. Comparing Israeli and Iran’s nuclear programs. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 2011, 30 (5), p 1. Print.