Hard Power on Iran

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

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

As you are all too aware, the United States and its Allies have faced troubles in the Middle East for many decades. Much of this is due to well-funded and well-protected terrorists operating in the region under the protective umbrella of participating countries, including Iran. Understandably, the thought of a nuclear capable Iran is terrifying to many of you. I wish to propose a different option than the current economic sanctions that have been taking place, one in which Iran becomes both more powerful and aligns it’s views with that of the United States.

The Iranian nuclear deal and sanctions is a very convoluted and confusing dilemma. Thomas Friedman a foreign affairs, globalization and technology correspondent for The New York Times, wrote the article titled, “Look Before Leaping” in which he writes about the basic ins and outs of the Iranian nuclear deal. He discusses the most probable possibilities of the deal going into depth about the likelihood that Iran is a potential economic and social ally in the sense that “Iran is a real country and civilization, with competitive (yet restricted) elections, educated women and a powerful military. Patching up the US-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria” (Friedman). He also goes into the possibility that Iran could, once the nuclear sanctions are lifted, attack Israel and lead not only the region, but also the globe into absolute and complete disarray. The complexities of this issue stem all the way back to 1979, when Iran revolted against its Shah and transitioned to “its ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps — to gradually move Iran from being a revolutionary state to a normal one” (Friedman). For far too long Iran has been involved in

This article is of interest to me because it is important subject of argument in politics and because it deals with a controversial pact that has the power to cause long term consequences if not dealt with carefully. The Iran deal consist in the agreement among the U.S., Iran, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China would lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran's agreement not to build nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have provided states with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Nation-states with the abilities to develop such weapons have solidified themselves atop the global hierarchy. Since few states have such weapons, it is naturally attention grabbing when a nation is revealed to be in the process of developing them. Iran began a nuclear program in the 1950’s with the help of the United States, who subsequently suspended aid after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (Breachy and Sinha 1-3). After the monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a clerical Islamic government, many nations, especially the United States, began to fear that Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers have crippled Iran’s economy. After the 2005 election of former President Ahmadinejad, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth (Vick), many great powers have begun to work with Iran in an attempt to retard its nuclear capabilities in return for a reduction of international sanctions. Many actors in these negotiations want different things. Iran’s ideal agreements have the sanctions against the country lifted while still maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the

The U.S. should prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a bomb as it would pose a specific security threat to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which are important strategic allies of the U.S. The ultimate goals of U.S. policies towards Iran are to limit Iranian uranium enrichment program, to relieve sanction and to ensure inspections conducted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through new sanctions against and diplomacy with Iran. Liberal institutionalism provides the best approach for dealing with security issues regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran because diplomacy would satisfy both Iranian and U.S and its allies’ interests. This memo explains the assumptions of liberal institutionalism, introduces the Iranian nuclear program background, provides liberal institutionalism diplomatic options, and offers specific strategic options with recommendations.

Tensions between Iran and other major world powers, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, have been running high ever since the Iranians began investing in nuclear weaponry back in the 1990’s. The global community has attempted to force Iran to stop its production of such weapons with economic sanctions. These sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy but have not stopped the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear proliferation in Iran is not necessarily a threat to US society rather it is a threat to an ideal held by the US and other nations. By having nuclear weapons, Iran has the capability to destroy any nation it chooses. This kind of power paired with the track record of support for past militant groups, has caused Iran to be an issue. The Iran Nuclear Deal will help to solve the issue but has a few faults when outlining exactly how this deal will stay in tact for fifteen years without Iran reneging on its promises.

The Iranian nuclear program has been one of the most challenging issues in the world for more than a decade. The struggle was mainly between Iran and six of the world’s most powerful countries, which included China, the U.S.A, the U.K, France, Germany and Russia. What’s really worth noting is that this controversy was not solely about Iran 's willingness to have a nuclear program, which to its own merits was completely peaceful, but it was about who got to have more influence and control in the Middle East as a whole. Both sides of the conflict took measures to further their goals. Iran put whatever resources needed into developing its nuclear program, and the world’s powers (P5+1)

The Iranian nuclear project has been certain since its inception with the new regime, and Iran has one specific objective to achieve, it is to produce a nuclear bomb. Iran 's leadership has fully convinced that the quest to build Iran as the leader at the regional level will not be achieved without having a military nuclear capability. Iran is considered to have a nuclear weapon is very important in Iranian strategy based on the adoption of the fierce policy of intervention in the affairs of the regional countries and expanding the circle of influence. The Shah 's dream before his fall is the same as the dream of velayat-e faqih at the current time, which the Iranian regime coveted in controlling over the most of the countries of the region. As a part of the Iranian strategy is launching public threats which confirms Iran 's diverse capabilities and potential to inflict great damages in any of the countries in the region that dare to threaten or challenge its interests. Iran used the media as an element of national power by continuous launching news of achieving big successes in the development of weapons and military equipment and the growth of military capabilities that will be used to punish enemies To spread fear and terror in the region. It turned out the Iranian regime continues to pursue an expansionist policy in the region after the completion of the nuclear agreement, Iran caused in escalating the

The great harmful power of the atomic bomb persuaded several leaders of the necessity to limit this power. there emerged the goal of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and also the hunt for a regime, a collection of rules, establishments and practices to forestall not only the popularity of nuclear weapons but also the material and power necessary for its acquisition.

My proposed initial approach in dealing with the Iranian situation would involve the adept employment of diplomacy. As indicated by Reed Fendrick, diplomacy involves a constant calculation of countries’ apparent vital interests, power capacity, and relations with other countries, in an endeavor to exploit one’s own country’s freedom of action with the definitive intention of guaranteeing the attainment of the nation’s vital interests, the fundamental element being survival.2 Fundamentally, I advocate the use of certain aspects of diplomacy to effectively quarantine Iran in the world’s public view. Upon summoning an emergent United Nations conference, and possibly the convening of other summits that comprise diplomats throughout the international community, a shared message could be composed and disseminated to accomplish this purpose. As discussed in the National Security Policy Memorandum, the

Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons due to history of terrorism in their country. The Iran deal is a deal made by the U.N. and Iran on the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Terrorism is an ongoing problem in the Middle East. With this kind of issue going on, having weapons of mass destruction in Iran could result in the world being changed if the weapons got into the wrong hands. Radical terrorists are very unstable people who can not be trusted no matter what. With terrorism being so popular in countries in and around Iran, Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. The Iran Nuclear Deal will determine the future of Iran’s nuclear problem. If Iran is allowed to obtain Nuclear

Due to the Iranian Nuclear Test Crisis, issues on security have risen. First off, this crisis is not just a threat to the US, but also a threat to multiple countries in the Middle East as well as throughout the world. Choosing the best strategy is important because Iran may have up to six nuclear warheads that could be used with their ballistic missile fleet and Iran has already stated that "any US-led offensive would result in Iran retaliating accordingly."5 Even though the US has not prevented Iran from achieving

Since conception, nuclear technology has symbolized an indomitable source of power and wartime security. The repercussions of the irresponsible usage of nuclear weapons and reactors has been crippling to victim nations, destroying urban centers and irradiating whole swathes of land, rendering them uninhabitable. The consensus of hesitation regarding intentionally destructive nuclear technologies has led to the drafting of ample legislation in order to restrict their use and to stop further development of evermore pernicious applications of this technology. Many groups throughout the years have called for total nuclear disarmament, but that is a quixotic proposition now that the cat’s out of the bag. Diplomatic attempts have aimed at preempting the development of more advanced applications and thwarting unauthorized research, but the constant progression of technology often outpaces the speed with which diplomatic agreements can be contrived and enacted. Nonetheless, peace-promoting organizations have worked vigilantly to regulate and control the spread of benevolent nuclear applications while ostracizing and inhibiting states that overstep international precedent and threaten nuclear annihilation. Legislation such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons