Iranian Nuclear Threat Essay

Some people may claim that they are not a threat to the U.S. because they have the weapons but, we are more advanced and have a lot more. However, just one nuclear missile or bomb can do a lot of damage.

With sources dating back to the late 1960s, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has expanded to be a useful instrument of the government’s security. Its principal motivations for developing the nuclear weapons are as follows: to block foreign pressure, create an international impact and preserve the terms and conditions of the DPRK (ruling party of North Korea). In contrast, Iran 's motivations to develop strategic weapons appear to be more complex than that of North Korea. Iran 's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and

regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

enemies to scare them into not continuing the battles that they are taking place in. They rhetorically strategized to scare the enemies into thinking that they were not bluffing and would use the weapons if the task presented itself. Bush even said that even if matters did go worse that he still most likely would not have used the nuclear weapons that he possessed. Also the statement made that if a president looks at using nuclear weapons lightly that it should be an embarrassment to them shows that even when they threaten using these weapons they are most likely bluffing. It appears that as time goes by people do not want nuclear weapons around especially our president. He also sees the huge damage that it can cause and is also trying to make it impossible for Iran to obtain these weapons as he is also working on trying to remove our nuclear weapons from Europe and other parts to not have the option of obtaining nuclear weapons in the future. This matter is super important for Americans to know about because nuclear weapons can be very catastrophic if they are used, especially by an enemy to the United States. The questions that need to be asked are is there ever going to be an end to nuclear weapons? Will we ever find the peace and security that Bush talks about? Will there

With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this

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

Iran has often felt like a third world nation because it is a nation that stands alone between two extremes. The nation itself was called Persia in ancient times, so it is not an Arab nation historically and many of the people in the country are not Muslim. The people of Iran see the Christian nations to the Northwest and the Muslim nations all around them and they have developed a unique sort of national insecurity. This has led their present leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to continue to voice threats to the Western powers, especially the United States, and to raise concern about his stability if the country were to produce a nuclear warhead. This what if scenario assumes that Iran has done just that and seeks to determine what actions Ahmadinejad and the Iran leadership would take in that case. One real possibility is that, feeling threatened by the West, Iran would use Hezbollah as a terrorist arm to cause havoc in the West.

The North Korean government continues to financially fund the research and testing of nuclear and ballistic missiles. Little information is known about the North Korean nuclear program and has been made available to foreign nations due to the secrecy and isolation of international affairs. The threat of a nuclear strike from North Korea has become an increasingly serious matter for many nations including the U.S. and its Asian allies, Japan and South Korea. Currently, there are only nine nations known by intelligent analysis that possesses the resources to manufacture nuclear weapons which do include the U.S. However, North Korea is the only nation in the 21st century to conduct a nuclear missile test that has been reported by North Korean

The historian Spencer Weart notes "You say 'nuclear bomb ' and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world" The escalation of nuclear proliferation in and around the world, especially in the Middle East has led to the fear of nuclear war in the near future. Many countries built nuclear weapons because it felt insecure from the major nuclear states or from their neighbors conventional military or nuclear capabilities. This is the situation with China, India and Pakistan. Many other reasons encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons, but the main reason for acquiring nuclear weapons is the deterrence against any external threat and prevention external offensive that might lead to war. Nuclear weapons make such countries feel more secure, nuclear weapons can prevent war because countries will have the ability to deter any external aggression. At the same time, there is no guarantee that acquiring nuclear weapons may lead to nuclear war.

Once the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown and the country perceived to be taken over by Islamic extremists, the West began researching the development process to make sure the wrong weapons would not fall into the wrong hands, but the capital Tehran encouraged the fact that it was strictly for peaceful purposes. Lies and deceit possessed the rest of the negotiations as both sides tried to get straight answers to understand what was actually going on in the nuclear program, but nevertheless those answers were never found as they were clouded by a long standing hatred between certain Islamic groups and the Western world(). More recently, ten years ago the International Atomic Energy Agency sent agents to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities and they found trace amounts of enriched uranium at a factory in Natanz, which led to a three-year halt on Iran’s uranium enrichment. After those three years, the enrichment process resumed and the U.N. Security Council responded in 2006 by placing sanctions upon the country’s economy in an effort to curb any further nuclear development. These sanctions, which include a ban on purchasing Iranian oil, a ban on certain Iranians from traveling outside of the country, and a ban on deals with financial institutions from the country, severely crippled Iran’s economy forcing their oil revenue to collapse and creating an almost absurd amount of inflation. Despite this, uranium enrichment has not slowed down for the Iranians as the

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a