Iran Nuclear Involvement

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.

Additionally, it also presents perspectives on important policies and strategies of Iran and North Korea, in regard to the development of their armory of nuclear weapons.

Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary

The hostage situation received more coverage in the media and politics than any event since World War II. They were finally released in 1981. In 1985, the U.S provided weapons to Iran to fund operations to free American hostages in Lebanon. After embezzlements and illegal money transfers to South America, this incident threatened U.S political relations around the world. Later, the USS Vincennes shots down an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians en route to Mecca. The plane was mistaken for a fighter jet. 1997 brought the election of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami who declared an interest in mending relations with the U.S. The US would later call Iran a part of the “Axis of Evil (Bush) and infuriate Iranians world wide.

Iran’s nuclear programme has in recent years worsened US-Iran relations. The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons (Bahgat , 2009). Other reasons for mistrust include USA’s support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s. Specifically, Iran continues to resent the US supplying Iraq with the chemical weapons it used during the war. Adding fuel to the fire, in 1988, US guided missile Cruiser the USS Vincennes on station in the Persian Gulf mistakenly shot down Iranian Airlines flight 655 killing 290. (Milinski, n.d.)

Since the early 1900s the United States has been embroiled in Iranian affairs, something that would have great effects both in 1979 and now. The United States’ interest in Iran was originally spurred by the discovery of oil, but due to the Cold War U.S. interest in Iran grew even more for strategic reasons. To continue to exert their influence in Iran, the United States, through the CIA, installed shah Pahlavi as ruler. The shah was a cruel and strict dictator and was eventually overthrown and exiled. In place of the shah, an Islamic Republic came to power under the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

In September of 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, in the beginning of the eight year Iran-Iraq war. Iran was paranoid that Iraq’s leaders had “ambitions….in terms of expansion and regional hegemony”. 2 The invasion justified their fears. At first, we “did not have good relations with Iraq, which was had been close to the Soviet Union”.3 Although “not an ally of Iraq”, the United States believed that “Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to be defeated by a radical Islamist, anti-American regime”.4 There was speculation that the U.S. had given the Iraqis “the green light to launch war” against Iran.5 This would have been plausible because if Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, could seize oil-rich territory, the U.S. would then have “access to Iranian crude”.6 The United States also wanted to terminate the radical Khomeini government and with the prospect of Hussein capturing Iran’s main source of revenue, this was probable. Because of this, “over the next decade Washington would play an ambiguous role in the Iran-Iraq War.”7 Not only was Iraq receiving U.S. support, but Iran was too, despite the fact our relations with them were

Although, the Cold War has been over for decades the threat of imminent nuclear destruction still looms over America; not from terrorist groups such as ISIS or Russia the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, but rather, a persistent threat that many Americans do not even perceive as one. North Korea is not shy about demonstrating their nuclear weapons, with the most recent of their tests being fired into the Japanese ocean. Both the articles I’ll be addressing today give a clear statement of how America has addressed nuclear conflict in the past and how Americans still fear the same kinds of attacks without thinking of new ways their country could be compromised by nuclear weaponry.

American-Iranian tensions have permeated the media for the past several years. Iran, a strategically positioned remnant of the Persian-Empire, a country with rampant anti-western ideology that is held by its’ highest echelons of authority will launch its own atomic program in the second half of 2015. The origin of American-Iranian tensions are often shrouded but modern relations directly stem from the 1953 Coup d'état, also known as TPAJAX. In its infancy, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) the primary planning agency for TPAJAX, would set the stage for American foreign policy throughout the second half of the 20th century and the remainder of the Cold War. The question is: was TPAJAX successful?

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

In 1979, the Iranian hostage crisis would occur; this event would damage and sever ties between Iran and the United States for years to come. Over the years, Iran would have hard-line leaders that would only further isolate themselves from western powers and more specifically the US. It would be another 30 plus years before Iran would seek out the US and have a conversation between the two countries; leading to what might be a possible change in policy for a country that has been isolated from the international stage.

The “Preface to the 2008 Edition: The Folly of Attacking Iran”, highlights the decades that have followed the coup and reasons for the United States attacking Iran. It concludes by introducing the idea that Operation Ajax, which was the code name of this operation, brought tragedy to Iran, which led to the rise of anti-American terror, and weakened the security of the United States. The author explains how most Americans are unfamiliar with the history of what the CIA did in Iran in 1953 and the reason why the country had such hatred for America following the hostage crisis in 1979. The chapters begin with a clear overview of Iranian history and ends with explaining the effects of the countries because of the coup. This book is written like a thrilling story rather than a history book, which makes the information easier to comprehend, for those uneducated about the topic.

Maslow’s law of the instrument states that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but what if it works alongside a sickle? As a key player of the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States (US) has had a dual role in the nuclear proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consequently, this conflict of imperialism has had major implications for Iranian relations to the present day. Even with the support of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU); Iran’s path towards peaceful nuclear energy still faces opposition from the US. In summation, from the nativity of the Second Red Scare in 1947 to the present day, a mix of political and strategic interests has lead to the formation of the Joint

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

Iranians remained passive and allowed the U.S. to continually profit off of their oil for years until newly elected Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh sought to change this. An American staged coup successfully removed Mossadegh from office and reinstated Shah Reza Pahlavi, who moved Iran into a more modern and pro Western era. As per their arrangement, the Shah negotiated a deal with the U.S. that provided Iran with tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid and in return the U.S. was given permission to once again control more than 80 percent of Iran’s oil reserves. (Pollack 2004, 54) Looking for a way to revive Iran and return the country to it’s former glory, the people looked to the one man they thought could accomplish this, Ayatollah Khomeini. Thus the Iranian revolution was born. In an effort to remove Western influence and American intervention, extremists stormed the American embassy’s gates in Tehran, eventually forcing their way inside. American diplomats and embassy officials were taken hostage and held for 444 days, starting the event that is known as the hostage crisis.