Essay about Israel and Iran's Incompatibility

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.

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

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

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

Contemporary actions against the nation of Iran stem from the United States’ self-appointed obligation to fight that terrorism abroad, as well as the rise of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s claim to be solely interested in nuclear power for its energy benefits is continually met with skepticism, as Iran refuses to meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory. The United States is also deeply interested in peace within the Middle East. The political, religious, and ideological differences in the region have turned into a decades-long conflict for which the American public has a waning appetite. As such, the US has employed a number of DIME efforts to induce Iranian compliance with the political goals stated in the NSS.

Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism have become the two major focuses on the international stage in today’s world. The ultimate fear of the United States is the possibility that nuclear weapons might be placed in the hands of terrorist organizations and states, which might use such weapons to attack other countries. Iran and North Korea possess large scale nuclear proliferation programs, which have recently become much larger threats to the world. North Korea, which was previously bound by a non-proliferation treaty with the United States, recently broke the treaty by resuming its nuclear programs. The United States has been unsuccessful in persuading North Korea to resume compliance with the agreement. Iran, on the other hand, is much more deceptive in its nuclear programs. When nuclear proliferation was recently discovered to have resumed in Iran, Iranian officials explained that they were producing uranium (the “main ingredient” in nuclear weapons) for national energy resources. Thomas Omestad of U.S. News and World Report states that “Iran intends to convert 37 tons of ‘yellowcake’ uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride, a gas that in turn could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium for five nuclear bombs” (Omestad 38). Richard Russell of Parameters quotes Iranian President

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)

Nuclear weapons have provided states that possess them with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Those 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 suspended help 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 the Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (Brachy and Sinha 10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers, have crippled Iran’s economy. After the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth, many great powers have began 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 would like to have the sanctions against it lifted while maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the Middle

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

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

There have been a number of treaties and agreements seeking to limit and control the proliferation of nuclear arms, however, there have been constant breaches of these agreements and treaties. The latest breach is the recent claim by the North Korea’s Government that they have tested a Hydrogen bomb, in violation of the terms of a treaty they had agreed on.

The continued conflict between India and Pakistan is the main driver behind the stalling of Pakistan to move towards an FMCT. Pakistan claims that an FMCT “would lock-in an unfair strategic advantage for India” thus resulting in the continuation of both countries building their nuclear arsenals making these two countries the largest fissile material contributors.12 North Korea’s production of fissile material is centered on their belief that it provides regional security serving as a nuclear deterrent “preserving peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and other parts of Northeast Asia.”12 Israel’s lack of transparency regarding both its own nuclear capability and/or production of fissile material further poses potential issues in achieving consensus of an FMCT.

The reason why Iran is such an issue in today’s world is because we are not quite sure what their intentions are. For the past 20 or so years, politicians and international organizations have been saying that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, while they say that their only intentions are developing nuclear power to help power their country. Countries that see themselves as not really being allies with Iran feel threatened that they will develop a nuclear weapon and use it on them. Both the United States and Israel feel this way.

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

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