Is A Nuclear Free Iran?

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

In his article, Kenneth Waltz answers the self-titled question “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb?” The Iran nuclear crisis has been a contemporary issue among international powers including the US, EU, and Israel. This includes US sanctions against Iran, EU oil embargo, and the Israeli nuclear monopoly that has led to instability within the Middle East. Many in international politics believe that a nuclear-armed Iran is of the most disastrous outcomes (Waltz 2, 2012). However, Waltz argues for the antithesis and that a nuclear armed Iran would restore stability in the Middle East (Waltz 2, 2012).

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

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

As you are all too aware, the United States and its Allies have faced troubles in the Middle East for many decades. Much of this is due to well-funded and well-protected terrorists operating in the region under the protective umbrella of participating countries, including Iran. Understandably, the thought of a nuclear capable Iran is terrifying to many of you. I wish to propose a different option than the current economic sanctions that have been taking place, one in which Iran becomes both more powerful and aligns it’s views with that of the United States.

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

Maslow’s law of the instrument states that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but what if it works alongside a sickle? As a key player of the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States (US) has had a dual role in the nuclear proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consequently, this conflict of imperialism has had major implications for Iranian relations to the present day. Even with the support of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU); Iran’s path towards peaceful nuclear energy still faces opposition from the US. In summation, from the nativity of the Second Red Scare in 1947 to the present day, a mix of political and strategic interests has lead to the formation of the Joint

Iranium (2011), directed by Alex Traiman, covers Iran’s evolution and relations between Iran and the United States from 1979 to 2011. The documentary discusses the possible repercussions of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The first critique will consider whether the featured commentators and actors were appropriate. The second critique will examine the bias of the documentary. The third critique will review the factualness and quality of the film. While the documentary was slightly one-sided, the thoroughness of analysis made for an effective and fear igniting film.

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.

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

Can one country change the landscape of the entire world? Americans must be able to understand importance of one country in the Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economy (DIME) methodology. This paper will go over the background of Iran, what type of government it is, the strategic importance to the United States and the possible future for Iran and relations with the United States.

This paper will show that the US and its allies should take a more Hard Power approach when it comes to nuclear program of Iran. The paper will show how Iran cannot be trusted, due to its history of braking its word, and how the deals that we have made so far shows that the world is giving them the ability to create nuclear weapons. Also I will show how the resent agreements mad heave not done enough to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

The years between 1965 and 1967 were of a critical point for U.S.-Iranian relations. The Vietnam War and relations with the Soviet Union was often the issue that experts focused on during this time and during Johnson’s administration. The foreign policies regarding Iran were often overlooked. The preoccupation with Southeast Asia and the Soviet Union led the U.S. to neglect their relations with the very same allies that they were trying to maintain credibility with, most especially Iran.

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.

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