Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and …show more content…
Of course, five years has passed since Daalder wrote this article, and the war with Iraq was not easy. So, even though there is continuing negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program and demands that it stops, the threat of war under these circumstances is not likely. In 2006, Daalder did not believe that attacking Iran would take place at all. He said, “But with the human, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Iraq war so very evident to all, there is nothing inevitable about war with Iran” (Daalder 2).
Most countries of the world are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program. The European Union and the United States have been trying to negotiate with Iran for it to end any activities to create nuclear weapons. In 2009, the United States under the Obama Administration began its negotiation process. They first offered Iran positive incentives to develop new relations with the U.S. Iran refused. So, it used another tactic by imposing “pain” on Iran by having stiff sanctions put into place. The United States hoped this would bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it did not (Pollack & Takeyh, 2011, p. 1). In January of 2011, Iranian officials met with the EU
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make
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
President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:
Things move so far and so fast in the Middle East that some of the pieces here already seem like distant history just a year or two after happening and being written. If Iran, in 2013, ‘felt that the economic pressure and the credible threat of military intervention were to threaten its very survival, it might, just as Assad did with the chemical weapons, go as far as give up the entire nuclear program altogether.’ Before 2014 started was a relatively peaceful time. But of course, we know now that the West will never make such a threat, that the mullahs will have their way, and that the Americans are in retreat amidst the confused ruins of their policies as the Russians move in.
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
On one side are those who favored using the military option in lieu of diplomatic relations; this group includes Vice President Chenney, members of Congress and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Their opponents favored using diplomatic outreach, sanctions, and other non-military means to bring about change in Iran. This side consisted of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Intelligence Community. The author believes that the efforts of the aforementioned group persuaded both administration to pursue a non-militaristic approach in their dealings with Iran.Mr. Oren’s believes that the collective works of the State Department, Defense Department and the U.S. Intelligence community were able to silence the voices of war and provide a better alternative.
Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.
Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)
In the year 2014, The United States and Iran are considering working together in order to put a stop to the threats posed by the militant group, Isis. This is a big step for the two countries since just in 2013, the United States threatened to use force against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Even though, the two countries are facing a common enemy, Iraq; this does not reduce the tension that the U.S and Iran have towards each other. For 60 years, the U.S. had a tumultuous relationship with Iran. From the removal of Iran Prime Minister in 1953 to the most recent, Iran’s nuclear agenda, the United States have been involved. This raises the questions of how did the U.S. involvement in past history shape current Iran
The possibility of Iran soon having nuclear weapons is no joke. The Iranian government is growing closer to this goal every day. The Iranian government has totally disregarded United States government’s sanctions against their nuclear program and still continues to enrich uranium. An unsafe goal for such an unstable country as Iran these weapons could easily be put to use against countries like the US and Israel whom Iran openly despises. Iran does all this while also testing long range missile systems capable of launching a missile over 300 miles easily reaching countries like Israel and its neighbors. Iran is also working on an inter-continental missile which would have ranges of much over ten times of what the country has now. Therefore
The first thing we have to look at is how trustworthy has Iran been in the past. If Iran cannot be trusted then a Soft Power approach will not work. "The U.N. had already found the country in violation of its international agreements in 2003"(Obama's Iran Gamble) Iran was caught red-handed violating its U.N. treaty obligations when it built a secret uranium-enrichment facility in the mountains near the town of Fordow.(Obama's Iran Gamble) This shows that Iran cannot be trusted to follow any diplomatic agreements.
A nuclear Iran may be inevitable within the next decade. There is ample evidence suggesting that Iran has the intention and capability of obtaining nuclear weapons. According to Fox News, a new document issued by the Department of Defense on the Iran nuclear threat states: “Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.” Clark Abt, professor at Harvard University, estimates that a single nuclear attack on a major US harbor, such as New York City or Washington DC, could cause a loss of one million civilians and could create three trillion dollars of economic losses. In order to identify the necessary steps to avert Iran from procuring nuclear weapons and thus preventing possible nuclear attacks, it is crucial to understand why Iran seeks to arm in the first place. It is profusely clear that International relations theories provide an insight into why Iran aspires to develop a nuclear program. However, upon further examination, only the realist and identity, not the liberal, theories in international relations can further our knowledge of this issue.
These papers seeks to explain the significance of Iran’s nuclear program and show how other countries react and are affected by it. Israel does not only have a particular outlook of the Iranian nuclear program, but it also has an independent way of taking evasive action to reduce its fears (Eiran & Malin, 2013). If Israel were to launch attacks on Iran to push back their nuclear program, the cause and effects of this could ripple across the region and beyond. Meir Dagan, former head of Israel’s external intelligence agency was warned numerous times that an Israeli attack on Iran would “ignite a regional war” (p. 76). Also Israel’s concerns over Iran could make a chain of defensive outcomes that could get out of control in a way that
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