The Iranian Nuclear Test Crisis

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.)

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 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

Blackwell acknowledges the debate between the credibility of nuclear deterrence and argues the change in the logic of deterrence in current situations from the one in the Cold War. He provides data that explains the trend of the reduction of US nuclear weapons, which is , he argues, continually changing the circumstances in nuclear deterrence.

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.

The U.S. should prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a bomb as it would pose a specific security threat to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which are important strategic allies of the U.S. The ultimate goals of U.S. policies towards Iran are to limit Iranian uranium enrichment program, to relieve sanction and to ensure inspections conducted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through new sanctions against and diplomacy with Iran. Liberal institutionalism provides the best approach for dealing with security issues regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran because diplomacy would satisfy both Iranian and U.S and its allies’ interests. This memo explains the assumptions of liberal institutionalism, introduces the Iranian nuclear program background, provides liberal institutionalism diplomatic options, and offers specific strategic options with recommendations.

Direct U.S.-Iranian relations date back as far as 1923 when the United States sent an economic advisor to Iran in an attempt to help provide independence and stability to the Persian economic system. The relationship between these two countries however, has not remained as positive as it began. Over the course of the last 70 years the United States has been both close allies and distant enemies with Iran; never seeming to make constructive diplomatic relations last. This troublesome history between the U.S and Iran has created a climate in which long-lasting successful diplomatic relations are unlikely. Considering this, the United States must continue on a path of aggressive foreign policy in regard to Iran in order to ensure the interests of the U.S are adequately protected.

The Iran hostage crises ushered an era in which the greatest foreign policy challenges facing the US were the threats posed by conflicts in the Middle East. Today, the US still finds itself facing similar threats in this region. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, diplomatic struggles with Iran, and the continous threat of terrorism continue to create problems for tge

Over the past 37 years, Iran has become one of the most complex and stubborn national security strategy issues that the United States has had to deal with. Once a key U.S. ally in the region, Iran is now a chief protagonist. To complicate matters, recently, the U.S. has found itself simultaneously an adversary and a quasi-ally of Iran. An example of this duality would be: on one hand, Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, that have attacked the U.S. and its allies. On the other hand, the U.S. has found itself on the same side of the fight with Iran against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Now and in the future the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) will have to consist of a combination of diplomatic, economic, and military action, while also partnering with regional and international partners, if the U.S. expects to contain Iran’s disruptive influence and ensure compliance with the brokered nuclear agreement.

Historically the strategy of Nuclear Deterrence appears to have been an effective one. There have been no major conflicts involving the global super powers since World War Two. As Ward Wilson states ‘it has often been asserted as fact that nuclear deterrence works, that it kept us safe for fifty years during the Cold War, and that because of the peculiar characteristics of mutual assured destruction, it provides unique stability in a crisis.”

Over the past decade, an international debate over how to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon has erupted. However, many people in the United States lack a thorough understanding of the implications of a nuclear Iran. A close examination of the facts demonstrates that Tehran has clear intent to develop, but not necessarily use, nuclear weapons. A realistic assessment should take this into account when considering the significant threat posed to the United States by Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

The Obama administration’s choice of approach was justified by looking at three commonly discussed options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program that come to mind. First is the one being perused, i.e. attempting to peacefully reach a long-term deal for containment through economic sanctions, reaching an agreement that is comprehensive and effective in the long term, at minimal risk and costs. Second, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would mean setting back Iran’s nuclear program but not containing future developments, weighted against the risk of starting another war in the Middle East. The current administration argues that this would incentivize them to

Iran is currently a burning issue due to its nuclear program and the dialogue between the USA and Iran has seemed very complicated since years. Western countries have feared that Iran wants to acquire the atomic bomb since they have discovered its nuclear program in 2003. From that moment Iran has been considered as a real threat by the USA. But in fact the relations between these two countries have begun about 150 years ago and have not always been tense. The first relations were also cordial and useful for both parties. Iran used the US help to develop its education and industry, notably its oil industry, and the USA found an ally in the Middle East.

The Iranian nuclear program began in the 1950’s under the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The Shah applied for help to establish the program through the Atoms for Peace program. The program was started by the United States and helped provide a nuclear research reactor and power plants for Iran. At this time the United States and the rest of the world believed that Iran was interested in nuclear power as a means to provide a power source to help modernize Iran. Seventeen years later Iran is one of 51 nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1979 the Iranian government is overthrown and Shah Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini comes to power and ends the nuclear power program. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980’s their view on the

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