Iran’s Possible Nuclear Program

Iran’s possible development of nuclear weapons has now become a hot topic in the United States foreign policy, due to the push by the U.S. to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons has often been mentioned at the UN Security Council meetings as a pressing issue. Rogue States like Iran and North Korea are often. There is a dilemma of whether or not to engage Iran in a conflict over the possession of nuclear weapons. Though Koerig advocates the use of force, he also sees that there is a tradeoff of using force on Iran. It would impact the economy of the United States and not only that, the people of the United States have an Iraq syndrome. They fear the chance of ending up in a costly war without anything to show for it. Kahl is right; any war with Iran will be messy and violent as any war often is. The Iraq war was, and despite efforts by U.S soldiers to pinpoint targets and avoid the deaths of civilians, they were still killed in either accidents or misjudgment.

Both Koerig believes that Iran chose to build the nuclear weapons program in other to serve as a deterrent to threats from both Israel and the United States. According to the IAEA, there is no concrete evidence that Iran possesses a nuclear program, but it has the skills and knowledge to build and develop a nuclear program. So far, diplomacy and dialogues between the U.S and Iran has been established albeit ineffective. Efforts to persuade Iran not to proliferate and even economic sanctions have been done all with no positive feedbacks.

I think that in other for diplomacy to work, the U.S. foreign policy makers have to dig into the cause for Iran’s nuclear proliferation program and see if they can negotiate some kind of deal that benefits both parties. Because the U.S. has a partial attitude towards Israel, it tends to lean on conditions that favor it. But this time, it has to recognize parties i.e. Israel’s ballistic missile capabilities and the Iranian nuclear development program. The U.S. must realize that both issues (threats and weapons program) are inter related and they must be treated fairly.

The other Middle-Eastern conflicts must be addressed as well as they are interconnected. Disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Syrian- Israeli conflict must be given a high priority. The Arab world would not be convinced that the U.S is indeed interested in creating peace and stability in the region by only addressing the Iranian nuclear program.  By building this relationship, it can induce a disputing party to negotiate in a less threatening environment and it also lessens the probability of a misunderstanding.

As for the motion to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, that seems impossible and also dangerous. It might be possible for most nations to agree to sign the treaty, but the knowledge of developing the weapon cannot be erased. An aggressive state would have an incentive to do so. It is far more advantageous because it has a more destructive power to annihilate enemy states. Efforts to reduce it should be promoted rather than a total zero of nuclear weapons.