Case Study Of The Iran Nuclear Program

Since the end of the Cold War, the cases of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea have gathered enormous international attention. Iran 's nuclear program appeared as a result of the Cold War alliance between the United States and the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 2003, Iran was suspected of developing a military nuclear capability and is now developing medium and intermediate ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. On the other hand, North Korea set off a nuclear device and declared suspicions about a military nuclear program in 2006. Iran and North Korea have recently started cooperation to develop multi-stage ballistic missiles and have conducted several missile flight tests over the last few years (Schmid, 2008).

At this point, the US had few options in which to prevent the continued advancement of the Iranian nuclear program. However, the deal reached by the Obama administration, whose support extends to the world’s leading powers, significantly extends the time Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon and ensures that we have ample time to counteract any attempt at restarting the Nuclear program. In addition, the US has made it clear that if Iran does violate the terms of the deal, sanctions will be reimposed and more aggressive options could be taken. This deal is far from perfect and there are legitimate concerns raised by its many critics. That being said, without this deal, Iran could quickly double its capacity to enrich uranium and move towards producing a bomb. One of the greatest criticism raised, is that the deal and provisions will expire. While some are only in place for 10-25 years, the fundamental principle of the deal—to preserve the peaceful nature of its nuclear program—are permanent. Unfortunately, neither military action, sanctions or this deal for that matter can guarantee that Iran will never have in their possession a weapon of mass destruction. However, this deal is

When the deal was signed on July 14, 2015, it successfully achieved the limitation the aforementioned threats, as Iran will have no nuclear weapons and be subject to intense U.N oversight for at least ten years. This oversight, sanctioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), consists of stringent daily facility and centrifuge inspections, with a clause that states “the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). To quote President Barack Obama, the Iranian Deal “is not built on trust; it is built on verification” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). Lifting sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for these allowances is not a difficult decision. A deal that restricts and checks enrichment, and also renders Iran a non nuclear- weapon possessing country is a good deal that allows states around the world to sigh a breath of relief.

There is no reason, however, to believe that this allegation is true. North Korea established a nuclear energy research complex at Yongbyon in 1964 and set up a Soviet research reactor at the site in 1965. North Korea subsequently expanded the complex and built a number of new facilities, including a large plutonium reprocessing plant (Radiochemistry Laboratory). North Korea signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1985 but did not submit to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections until May 1992. Discrepancies between North Korean declarations and IAEA inspection findings indicate that North Korea might have reprocessed enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. According to a December 2001 National Intelligence Council report, the U.S. intelligence community ascertained in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two, nuclear weapons. In mid-2002, U.S. intelligence discovered that North Korea had been receiving materials from Pakistan for a highly enriched uranium production facility. In October 2002, the U.S. State Department informed North Korea that the U.S. was aware of this program, which is a violation of Pyongyang’s nonproliferation commitments. North Korean officials initially denied the existence of such a program, but then acknowledged its existence. On 10 January 2003, North Korea declared its withdrawal from the NPT.

The world nowadays is hectic and chaotic, there will always be issues that seem to never stop. The issues that have caught a great deal of attention are the ones in the Middle East. There one can see almost anything and everything, from: displacements, killings, bombings, terrorism, blood, and war. During the strenuous days, one country started to take the initiative to make themselves better. The country of Iran has been developing a nuclear system, for some time now and the United States of America feel that it’s time to start putting sanctions on their program. After the past thirteen years of limited restriction, the government is arguing about what leniency they should have and how much. Allowing such a deal to get approved would only, delay the inevitable. Iran shouldn’t have such a loose-running program. Having a country that is known for so many heinous activities. Does it make sense to allow them to continue on this path, towards nuclear weaponry? The United States government knows this and found numerous ways to cut Iran off enough to prevent this scenario.

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced back to the 1980s when it was at war with Iraq. It sought develop a nuclear program as an anticipatory move that would defend against Saddam’s Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran’s government, which was then in favor of the US due to its alignment to US policies was developing a nuclear program, but it was annulled as a result of the revolution. The US, along with its allies, is wary of the current nuclear program in Iran. There have been many approaches to curb this threat from Iran’s nuclear program. The most recent and notable one is the Iran nuclear deal, which will inevitably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The main US allies who are against the Iran

Regarding the IAEA, Iran agreed to ratify the Additional Protocol and the Safeguards Agreements and “enact inspection measures that will enable IAEA inspectors unprecedented access to its nuclear facilities” (“Iran” 1). Per the agreement, “the IAEA will be requested to provide regular updates to the Board of Governors, and as provided for in this JCPOA, to the UN Security Council” (“Full Text” 4). In addition, Iran signed a "Roadmap for Clarification of Past and Present Outstanding Issues" agreement with the IAEA to resolve any questions the Agency still has concerning the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program. This issue was reported as resolved by the IAEA Director General in his report to the Board of Governors in December 2015 (“Full Text” 10). To ensure Iran does not construct another enrichment facility like Natanz, the agreement allows for IAEA inspections of the entire fuel cycle, “from the mining stage through waste disposal, and monitor all centrifuge production facilities”

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), for instance, is a well-versed piece that covers these risks. Within the treaty, enacted in 1970, each state subscribed is responsible for the disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The first Articles disavow any acceptance or transfer of weapons between nuclear or non-nuclear states, followed by Article III which mandates safeguards that must be followed by all participating members. While maintaining the ability for each state to conduct research on nuclear energy peacefully, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ensures that each country signing (a total of 190 have signed), is monitored for the improper use of nuclear energy within the country. This treaty was made in light of the truth of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, such that it requires the international cooperation and participation -- a cooperation of industry, civility, and security to further the safety of nuclear energy for the public. The countries possessing nuclear weapons during the treaty’s conception (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S), are all committed to the steady reduction of weapons stockpiles in their own countries; all signing countries are not permitted to produce nuclear weapons

The possibility of Iran soon having nuclear weapons is no joke. The Iranian government is growing closer to this goal every day. The Iranian government has totally disregarded United States government’s sanctions against their nuclear program and still continues to enrich uranium. An unsafe goal for such an unstable country as Iran these weapons could easily be put to use against countries like the US and Israel whom Iran openly despises. Iran does all this while also testing long range missile systems capable of launching a missile over 300 miles easily reaching countries like Israel and its neighbors. Iran is also working on an inter-continental missile which would have ranges of much over ten times of what the country has now. Therefore

During this timeframe, the “Shah became increasingly isolated and dictatorial.” Gripes between the two countries escalated to a new high point in 1979 with the Iranian take-over of the U.S. Embassy and the ensuing hostage crisis. The relationship between the two countries continued to deteriorate as witnessed by the U.S.’ support for Iraq during its war against Iran. Additionally, Iran protested the shooting down of one of their civilian airplanes over international water by the U.S. Navy. On the other hand, Iran has been linked to “terrorist attacks on U.S. forces in Beirut in 1983 and in Saudi Arabia in 1996; and Iranian support for extremist movements in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, and Afghanistan.” Moreover, around 2010, the U.S. and Israel are suspected of launching a massive cyber-attack on an Iranian nuclear facility. This was accompanied by assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in order to slow down the country’s nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) marks the last major milestone in the relationship between the U.S. and Iran. The signing of this agreement in 2015 is considered “one of the most deficient arms control agreements in history.” JCPOA provides Iran with enough flexibility to advance its nuclear program, which eventually will lead to a nuclear bomb. Although such an agreement took place, Iranians will always remember the coup that led to a dictatorial, repressive regime. The

A nuclear free Iran is the main objective. This policy transcends partisan divides within the American political system and between international hegemonic rivalries. A nuclear capable Iran is neither an American nor an Israeli problem. Rather, the community of nations must collectively ensure the end of Iran’s pursuit towards a weapon of mass destruction. The consequences of failure are unprecedented. Regional stability will deteriorate, global security will be undermined, and economic interests will be threatened. While there is a consensus on the policy, the road taken and tools used to mitigate the proliferation of a nuclear bomb is not as clear. Unilateral actions by the United States of America are not enough. Even if Western allies implement a strategy together - it is still not enough. The formation of a multilateral coalition is essential if Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb is to be halted. A dual track approach that combines diplomatic negotiations with economic sanctions is the peaceful path required for the policy of a nuclear free Iran to be effective. Military engagement is a tool that remains on the table but should only be used when all other approaches are exhausted.

This deal has relieved some of the tension between Iran and the United States (Broad). The remaining tension between the two nations is that each country finds each other 's activity to be suspicious. US President, Barack Obama, speaks about Iran 's suspicious behavior: “Iran is a destabilizing factor in the region, threatens Israel, violates human rights at home, and supports terrorism abroad” (Naji). The United States cannot fully trust Iran, since their beliefs go against American beliefs, such as protecting Israel and human rights at home as well as trying to limit terrorism abroad. Iran 's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is equally wary of United States’ actions in the Middle East region and its intentions toward Iran. Despite the suspicious activity, the US is hoping Iran will be more open with coordination in the campaign against ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as Iran is the only regional power willing to commit ground troops to combat them. The US wants Iran to coordinate their ground and air campaigns, respectively, to dismantle ISIL’s capabilities and hopefully end the menace it poses to the Middle East (Mohammed). Now that the two nations are able to openly communicate and since the deal is in place, they will be able to discuss more ideas such as the ISIL campaign, in the future.

Recently the United States and several European nations entered into negotiations to release Iranian assets in exchange for assurances that Iran would do several things, including, reduce both their stockpiles of enriched Uranium and the number of Centrifuges. Additionally they are to convert one facility into a research center, cease activities related to any nuclear weapons projects, and submit to inspections of their nuclear facilities. There are several problems related to this agreement. Any of the issues alone would be troubling; together they should be a deal breaker.

It became known in the 1990’s that Iran had certainly renewed their civilian nuclear projects, and Western tension continued to increase following 2002 and 2003 reports that Iran began clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion. This sparked international controversy over the intentions behind Iran’s nuclear program beyond civilian or peaceful purposes. For example, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center is suspected to house Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, and is also the alleged location of Iran’s uranium-conversion efforts.iv It is estimated that as many as 366 tons of uranium hexafluoride has been produced since 2004. This is then fed into centrifuges at another key site: the Natanz enrichment facility.

Iran’s leaders have actively pursued the development of nuclear energy technology since the launch of U.S. President Dwight D.