Iran a Nuclear Power

Jenny Tafro
Professor Rubin
International Justice
18 October 2012

Terrorism and national security have been at an all time high after the attacks of 9/11 and the war in the middle east. As one of President Barrack Obama 's advisers, weighing the options for what to do about Iran possibly becoming a nuclear power has never been more important. Two main strategies are on the forefront, monitoring the situation like we have been doing or going ahead and bombing their nuclear sites and possibly their government officials. Both situations have ramifications to which could possibly be detrimental to our country, but the positive results of them need to outweigh the bad. The negatives of each strategy look to be a positive for the other, which both have plenty. The highlighted goal is to keep Iran from becoming the tenth nuclear power while keeping the future outlook of America in mind. Stepping back and monitoring what they are doing has been working so far for us, keeping our country out of a war with Iran. An attack of their nuclear technology would spark retaliation and possibly a full out war, which we have been trying so hard to get out of for the past decade. Besides our decision to observe and wait, we also have to take into consideration Israel 's involvement. With the tension between Israel and Iran seemingly growing as the days go by, keeping Israel from attacking Iran keeps some stability in the Middle East. “Amid rising concern of a looming military confrontation, the Islamist regime gave warning of the consequences that would be unleashed by the use of force to end its nuclear ambitions. Eshagh al-Habib, Tehran 's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran "is strong enough to defend itself and reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against ant attack"”(Blomfield). A regional outbreak of war would be very costly to the area and America would most likely step in to help Israel. Another point to this plan of action highlights the fact these nuclear weapons might not be a big deal. America has such a higher level of technological support and nuclear knowledge that these weapons would not even threaten our national security. Another theory we look at is if in fact Iran becomes nuclear, it may force America to become economical allies which could have a huge impact on our economy, mainly our gas prices. This theory is based on what happened when China became a nuclear state. “With respect to their relationship, America and China remain geopolitical competitors, but economic allies. While they differ on nuclear policies and doctrines, it is unlikely that there will be sharp confrontation between Washington and Beijing on nuclear weapons, even if they are factored in potential conflicts over the Koreas or Taiwan” (Ivanov). This is a very positive outcome that came from China becoming nuclear, but there is nothing that will guarantee that there will be the same results with Iran. While there are some possible good outcomes to sitting back and monitoring Iran 's progress, everything is just a speculation of what will happen and only when something happens can we then determine what will work. On the opposing side, bombing the nuclear sites of Iran also has some optimistic results. The biggest plus of doing this would be to keep Iran off the nuclear map. Not only are we nervous for an Iranian nuclear state, but Israel 's existence is put in grave danger. Israel has bombed Syria 's nuclear sites with no retaliation, which gives Israel more incentive to bomb Iran if we don 't do it first. “What is more likely, then, is that one day next spring, the Israeli national-security adviser, Uzi Arad, and the Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, will simultaneously telephone their counterparts at the White House and the Pentagon, to inform them that their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has just ordered roughly one hundred F-15Es, F-16Is, F-16Cs, and other aircraft of the Israeli air force to fly east toward Iran”(Goldberg). Also if we take charge and take care of business, other countries that are thinking about becoming nuclear will be threatened that they too will be attacked if they think to become a nuclear state. This will help in Obama 's thought to end nuclear proliferation and to keep America 's national security tighter. This outlook of what to do looks into the flaws of the wait and see method. It takes care of any question of what do we do if and when they get nukes. Once they get them, Iran would be more secure as a country and very hard to contain. Iran could possibly start attacking Israel, which would spark conflict that we did not do anything soon enough before they were attacked, since Israel was persuaded to refrain from bombing Iran 's nuclear sites. “Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part of the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S. resolve. Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran could complicate Washington 's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stopped--or were stopped--before it became a nuclear power.”(Lindsey, Takeyh) This strategy seems very preventive, yet may in fact spark up another war in the Middle East. Looking at these two strategies, they have qualities of the good world theory, or liberal international relations theory, and the Hobbsian world theory, or the realist international relations theory. Monitoring the situation can be put into the liberal international relations theory. This theory says that friendships are possible, and that good countries will make for a good world. Not taking over their nuclear sites lets them preserve their country, without using force. Also these friendship 's are economical relations which can lead to peace. An example would be how American and China have an economical friendship because both countries do not want to fight, so they create a money line. This money line will be destroyed and both economies will be shot if either one tries to attack. In this theory, war between different countries is rare, which goes along with the notion of not attacking the nuclear sites to stay out of a war with Iran. The Hobbsian world theory on the other hand has super powers like America, which has the most power in the world. This power is guided by other countries fear towards the super powers. Everything a country does during this type of civilization is guided by fear. Iran says that they are creating nuclear sites and weapons for safety reasons, but most likely they are to gain the most power in the Middle East, especially over Israel. The goal of the super powers is to be the strongest country, and to not let anyone mess with them. Inferior countries tend try to balance against the superpowers by joining with other weaker countries to gain strength. Some smaller countries join stronger countries, and bandwagon along for safety. Another strategy is to hedge, or play both sides and try and stay neutral. America as the super power, would be using its power to bomb Iran 's nuclear sites to keep our level of power higher. As an adviser for President Obama, I would advise him to continue to monitor the situation without using force. Going to Iran and bombing their nuclear sites would keep Iran 's power lower, but would spark a retaliation of attacks and most likely start another war in the Middle East. One of Obama 's main issues was to bring our troops home, and bombing Iran would send more over creating more problems for him. With the technology that America has, and the amount of powerful nuclear weapons, I feel that we would be safe even if Iran became a nuclear state. In regards to controlling Israel, we would be able to protect them if such attacks were ever to occur. Keeping our nation and citizens safe is what is most important to this country, and with all the information we have on Iran 's nuclear plan, monitoring the situation is the best decision to make.

Works Cited
Blomfield, Adrian. "Iran promises retaliation against attack on nuclear facilities." The Telegraph. N.p., 28 2012. Web. 18 Oct 2012. .

Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Point of No Return." The Atlantic. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2012. .

Ivanov, Georgi. "Why the U.S. Should Allow Iran to Become a Nuclear Power." Policymic. N.p., 18 2012. Web. 18 Oct 2012. .

Lindsay, James, and Ray Takeyh. "Foreign Affairs."Foreign Affairs. (April 2012): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. .

Cited: Blomfield, Adrian. "Iran promises retaliation against attack on nuclear facilities." The Telegraph. N.p., 28 2012. Web. 18 Oct 2012. . Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Point of No Return." The Atlantic. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2012. . Ivanov, Georgi. "Why the U.S. Should Allow Iran to Become a Nuclear Power." Policymic. N.p., 18 2012. Web. 18 Oct 2012. . Lindsay, James, and Ray Takeyh. "Foreign Affairs."Foreign Affairs. (April 2012): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. .