Iran Nuclear Weapons, Weapons

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

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.

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)

60 years and some 23,000 nuclear warheads later, since the bombing of Hiroshima, the question that faces the U.S and their allies alike “is less how a nation might array its nuclear forces and more how to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons from spinning out of control”. The very nuclear weapons created to deter attack and ultimately bring about peace are also the cause for ambiguity among world nations, the hole in which millions of tax payers dollars are cast, and the heart of unease felt worldwide by those who fear their amazing destructive power in the wrong hands. The national vision of peace has been misconstrued and wrapped the Americas in a paradoxical ideology of safety that has

Therefore, as Nuun (2009) said “for NWFW to be plausible, every nation is required to work towards the shared vision of eradicating nuclear weapons”. However, there are a number of disbeliefs and counter arguments that will be discussed in this essay, that the utility of such weapons are still of use today as compared to during the Cold War, and that states preaching for the abolishment of nuclear weapons may be a double agenda. For example, to reduce smaller and weaker states to obtain the ability to retaliate or pose a threat to the vast US conventional superiority, the collaboration of nuclear weapon disarmament and non-proliferation may stop these states from doing so (Lodgaard, 2009). This essay will be discussing about the utility in possessing nuclear weapons in today’s world. The adopted research method for this project is secondary research that uses articles, academic journals and academic books from the University of Manchester library

Kenneth Waltz, Senior Research Advisor at the Saltzman Institute for War and Peace, explains that most Western and Israeli commentators are horrified of the thought of an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, historical record indicates that if a country is bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon, the country is rarely dissuaded from doing so. Sanctions now, he explains, makes Iran even less likely to change their mind―feeling most vulnerable, Iran seeks protection of a deterrent (Waltz “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb). Instead of viewing sanctions as a failed policy for their inefficiency, it should be viewed as a failed policy for targeting a non-existent and unimportant problem Although the world views proliferation as a pandemic, my argument is that Iran should have a nuclear weapon because nuclear weapons help countries de-escalates and deters conflicts, its weapon will not be a threat, and nuclear weapons increases the diplomatic power of the holder.

A combination of Islamic theocracy with democracy makes Iran’s political system one of the most complex and unusual political system of the world. The clerical regime with a highly complicated government structure has known as an adversary of the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East. While the historical hostility between the countries, is more than the Iran’s nuclear program, but now the center of debates, is Iran’s nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has reduced tensions between both countries and Iran has bee trying to comply with the deal. But there are many questions and concerns about the future of Iran’s relationship with the U.S. and its role in the region.

The Iran Nuclear Deal has caught the attention of many nations around the world. The Iran Nuclear Deal, is a deal that will prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb, by reducing and controlling the amount of plutonium and uranium available for them to use. One of the most important countries involved in this deal is the United States. The United States is currently debating whether they should agree to this nuclear deal. Agreeing to this deal will benefit the United States, by suspending some of Iran’s specialized weapons, making Iran less of a threat. America has enough to contend with, and making a deal with Iran will put America in a much more secure position.

The summer of 2015 marked a significant event in history – the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany, and Iran were able to come to an agreement about restricting Iran’s nuclear programs. The capability of Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon scared the international community, and this deal brought some peace to the political scene. For Iran, a nuclear weapon represented legitimacy and leverage over the major powers of the world, so it is interesting that Iran willingly blocked its avenue to achieve this bargaining chip. Nonetheless, there are ongoing security concerns about a nuclear Iran and its methods of power projection, so it becomes necessary to analyze the success of the Iranian nuclear deal and current

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader in Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects of conflict and nuclear weaponry coexisting with humanity, these warnings have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear due to the conflict between Israel and Iran. As Israel and Iran have different religious ideologies, this has created tension and conflict to occur, but more recently, in relation to nuclear weaponry, their conflict has worsened into that, of a modern day cold war.

From the onset of its creation, nuclear weapons have dominated the headlines and more importantly occupied the minds of policymakers. Cold warriors likely remember drills in school, to shelter in place in the event of a nuclear attack or accident. Moreover they likely remember the general uneasiness and uncertainty that a nuclear attack was imminent. Thankfully, the cold war has ended, but the world’s fascination with nuclear weapons has not.

Armageddon in the Middle East. Populations reduced to dust by nuclear war. International actors drawn into tense conflict and potentially world-altering violence. These are the fears held by the U.S. and Israel when considering the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons. However, the attitudes of the Obama administration in discussing potential deals with Iran have demonstrated a change in the U.S. strategy when interacting with an Iranian regime that desires nuclear capability. In recent months, Iran has made global headlines once again by asking for permission to develop and possess nuclear weapons within their state for the purpose of stabilizing the turbulent Middle East. This recent development has sparked a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear power in the Middle East, creating mounting tensions and polarization in American and global politics. The Obama administration aims to stabilize the Middle East by developing a diplomatic deal with Iran. However, the argument of Israel and the conservatives in Congress that Iran’s potential nuclear capability brings much more risk and danger than reward is a much more realistic, pragmatic and appropriate viewpoint given the tensions and instability in the Middle East and the history of Iran’s conflict with Western civilization.

As defined by Christoph Bluth from the Political Studies Association, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is “widely perceived by political leaders as one of the major problems of global security in the contemporary era” (Bluth, 2012). This is clear by the catalog of concern and actions taken by governments around the world to address the issue of nuclear weaponry. With more than 22,000 nuclear weapons in existence today, international law must try to unite with nations in order to control, constrain and potentially eliminate nuclear weapons (Bluth, 2012). The following essay will examine nuclear

Through the UN Security Council, it is clear that the Iran nuclear program should be evaluated and dealt with before it become too late. The council has in the past called for a suspension of the uranium activities in Iran to reduce the threat. In addition to the efforts of the UN Security Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency has also tried to intervene on the matter. The agency has increasingly requested for adequate information about the past activities and the plans on Uranium usage nuclear power development. The efforts by the international organizations have failed and hence the world powers including United States, Russia and Israel have decided to take up actions that are likely to reduce the threat to their nationhood (Blitzer, 2010). United States and Israel are passively involved in resolving the problem.