Hey Class,This week's topic was Iran's highly-contested nuclear program. Unfortunately, we had to condense our lecture into 2 hours, so we weren't able to listen to all your questions, concerns and opinions. Now you have the opportunity express them in your comments. If needed, here are some questions to guide you:
- Dariush Zahedi said that Iran might be trying to "pre-empt a preemptive strike." Do you think this is a good idea? What are some of the consequences?
- How does the nuclear issue relate to, and shape, the national psyche?
- What are some of the domestic economic benefits? (Please assume that Iran will not invest in it's capacity to refine oil and will continue importing.)
- Lastly, how does this issue impact the delicate balance of powers in the region? What could happen if the United States (or Israel, or both) strikes Iran?
See you next week,
Keyan
24 comments:
I do believe our Government, if not worse, is just as much at fault as the Iranian Government at not letting Iran's Nuclear issue come to a peaceful settlement. The U.S. should learn from its mistakes over North Korea (which is far more scary to me to have in their possesion a nuclear bomb) and practice detente with Iran, rather than continuing its unfounded policy of containment.
For whatever reasons, the US administrations is intent on keeping Iran on the fringe, and i believe U.S. objections may have less to do with countering Nuclear proliferation than with exploiting the issue to enlist the support of U.S. allies against Iran, seeing how recent announcments that Egypt now plans to build several nuclear reactors for "peaceful purposes" are fully supported by the U.S. Instead of using the nuclear issue as a tool to further isolate and cause friction between the U.S. and Iran, it could be used as a tool to finally bring our nations closer together and cement Iran's place in a new Middle East/international order. If the debate was actually about Iran's use of nuclear technology for energy rather than a symbolic battle between two nations jockeying for power over the middle east, than it would have been solved long ago through countless different ways.
Iran's population is currently estimated to be close to 70 million, about 70% of which is below the age of 30. Over the next two decades its population may reach 100 million!!! If Iran does not replace crude oil with another energy source or increase its oil production significantly, it may become a net importer of oil over the next decade, a huge catastrophe for a country that obtains half of its total annual budget from exporting oil. Iran must stop relying on oil and natural gas as its main sources of energy, and begin developing alternative sources. This justifies Iran's interest in Nuclear technology.
Despite the U.S. sanctions strategy, Iran’s government behavior has not changed in anyway. The only thing that has changed is that the U.S. has made life more difficult for Iranians. If the U.S. wants to seriously resolve issues with Iran, it should employ a more holistic strategy that takes into account the psychological and political factors associated with Iran’s history of foreign interventions and its resistance to coercion by foreign powers.
I just don't really buy this argument that the Iranian government needs to develop nuclear energy for their own energy and fuel purposes. It just seems too convenient on top of the fact that there are too many fuel alternatives which are far less controversial and suspicious. Also, even though there is a limited about of oil in Iran, I do believe it would be worth while in terms of both time and money for the Iranian government to invest in oil refineries, etc.
I suppose we will have to wait and see what comes of Iran's nuclear program however, their are obvious risks with this defensive mindset.
On a different note, the NPT has proved to be completely useless for all parties involved. First, nations like Iran have continued to proliferate and superpowers like the US have failed to disarm in the way that was outlined in the NPT.
Iranian officials state that they do not intend to use their nuclear facilities to make weapons. This may or may not be completely true, but it seems as though much of the intelligence the U.S. has provided about Iran have been false (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=
/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAR681.DTL&feed=rss.news)
They have complied with the NNPT stipulations and, to be completely honest, it does make sense that they would want to ability to have nuclear weapons. To be a country surrounded by countries -- some of them enemies -- who have nuclear weapons, it makes sense to want this ability. To be a country who fought a war with human waves because their enemy -- funded by most of the world -- had more advanced weapons, it makes sense to want this ability.
Having this ability does raise new issues. Are these nuclear weapons (which have not been made, and are not even certain to have the intention of being made) a threat to the U.S. and much of the world?
This is a question I cannot answer. But there is something strange to me when I see the U.S., a country who has signed the NNPT but not gone along with all the stipulations (disarmament), dictating to another country which has cooperated seems a bit contradictory. There is such a dysfunctional situation here -- that one country pats another on it's head and says, "naw, kid, you don't get to play with nuclear power" just strikes me as odd. I suppose that's something a country gains when it becomes a "superpower."
I think that we need to look at what the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says about nuclear energy technology in order to come to a conclusion on Iran. In article 4 of the NPT it says, and I quote, it is the "unalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran is a party to this piece of international law and it is hard to argue that the text of the treaty means anything other than--Iran does have the right to nuclear energy. Its hard not to be disappointed with the way foreign policy is directed more by prejudice, emotion, and false accusations than rooted in rationality and reality. This treaty is international law. When the IAEA and the CIA are both saying that Iran has not been seeking nuclear weapons and the world, through the U.N., nonetheless votes for more sanctions against Iran, I can't help but feel disillusioned by the political games played by Washington and the international commmunity as a whole.
I think we should look at the facts. The fact is that 97% of the world's nuclear weapons are held by the United States and Russia, who--as a part of the NPT Review Conference of 2000--have agreed to dismantle and disarm their existing stockpiles of close to 39,000 nuclear weapons combined. The rest of the world has roughly 1,000 nuclear weapons combined. With all this to say, the United States and Russia are not following the guidelines to achieve disarmament, and even spending as much as 1.4 billion dollars in the U.S. in 2006 to upkeep our nuclear stockpiles. The fact that world attention is focused on Iran and away from the U.S. and Russia can sometimes seem like a finger pointing game to deflect attention away from the real nuclear dangers and inhibiting the true path to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
(all facts come directly from lecture slides and books I have read for a Weapons of Mass Destruction and International Law class that I am currently attending!)
After everything we’ve learned, it seems quite obvious that the last thing Iran wants is a war, let alone one that could involve nuclear weapons. The economic sanctions have already severely damaged Iran’s economy and a war would only further their strife and dependence on oil. If the country were to go to the war with the U.S, they would get crushed rather easily, but the damage they could inflict through guerilla tactics, various gunfights, and sabotage maneuvers would be detrimental to both countries and the world as a whole. If the U.S. or Israel were to strike, it would be hard to say how things would turn out, but I’m sure the remaining powers that weren’t strongly aligned with the U.S. as others have been, they would begin to feel nervous. Iran is almost a figurehead in its sternness and unwillingness to be bossed around and its defeat could hurt the morale of the area. Moving towards Nuclear energy reduces their dependence on oil and hopefully lower demand for the country as a whole. As a result, the price of gas may go back down and relax the rationing they have in place. Along with this, it is certainly something the country can take pride in as their main goal is to be self sufficient. They may be a mass exporter of oil, but they are very dependent on others to refine it and as is, do not want to get too tied into that business. However, not only will nuclear energy be a crowning engineering achievement, but it could be a first step towards moving Iran up the economic ladder. Because the government has made it such a high priority, it seems very essential for them to complete this task.
Gauging the strategic impacts of Iranian nuclear weapons is complicated. Some people might argue that a Nuclear Iran would bring stability to the region in much the same way that it brought stability during the Cold War. This seems less plausible when considering that Iran is not concerned with one single adversary but a number of them. With stability already in short supply, one country might try to attack Iran as soon as it goes nuclear to preempt a similar first-strike.
Indeed, it seems very likely that Iranian development of nuclear weapons would not deter military action but would immediately precipitate it. Moreover, considering its NPT commitments, Iran would be against the whole world, literally. The US could wrap itself in a light-blue UN flag and avoid most world condemnation (save the claims of hypocrisy in view of NPT Article VI, which the US must be accustomed to by now) as it carried out strikes before huge arsenals had ben amassed. More interesting would be if Iran chose to withdraw from the NPT in the way that North Korea did. They might be able to put together a slightly convincing argument that they were driven to do this out of concerns for Iranian security. Of course, this would probably have little effect on a military response to going nuclear.
That said, I think the nuclear energy argument is very valid and, should Iran fully comply with IAEA demands, the nuclear power program must be allowed to continue.
To say that obtaining nuclear power is not a legitimate aspiration for Iran is to deny the predicament the country will face in the upcoming years regarding energy sources. The worldwide oil supply is being depleted and being as dependent on it as is Iran will be economically devastating if they do not transition to another form of power. Building oil refineries, which is costly, time-consuming, and impractical, would ultimately be an exercise in futility because Iran’s oil supply will not last much longer at its present rate of depletion. Nuclear energy for civilian purposes is not only a right for Iran as detailed in the NPT, but also a promising route for the country to take to lessen its dependence on a dwindling resource. Additionally, nuclear power produces far less waste and pollution as an energy source than does petroleum, and much of the world is looking toward nuclear energy as a possible way to reduce the damage humans are doing to the earth. Iran is in compliance with the guidelines of the NPT, has a legitimate need for nuclear power, and should be given support in its pursuit of a more environmentally-friendly source of energy.
In regards to the possibility that Iran might attempt to create nuclear weapons if allowed to continue its nuclear program, the threat a nuclear Iran would pose does not seem as great as the United States has made it out to be. For one, Iran would not use nuclear weapons against other countries because the inevitable counterstrike by the United States or Israel would completely destroy Iran. The one possibly legitimate fear that the United States might have about Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. However, judging by Iran’s offer under the reformists (and the Supreme Leader) to cut off support for terrorist groups if allowed to pursue peaceful nuclear power, even that situation seems unlikely. The United States squandered a valuable opportunity to diffuse tensions with Iran when it ignored the reformists’ proposed treaty, and America’s continuing demonization of the Iranian people’s desire and need for nuclear power only worsens the situation.
Iran is walking a very fine line with its nuclear program. If there goal is indeed o 'pre-empt a preemptive strike' by creating a bomb, they may be hastening the strike they are trying to avoid. While I believe they are simply trying to create a self-sustaining energy program, you cannot underestimate the power having a nuclear weapon would give Iran. If they are able to make a nuclear bomb, they have basically ensured their protection from US attack. The US government would never risk warfare with a country that could attack Israel with a nuclear weapon. However, you have to think about the total reaction to Iran announcing nuclear capability. First, although probably safe from US attack, a full trade embargo would be established, further crippling Iran's import-export economy. There would be a lot of pressure on other countries from the US to do the same, and almost all would side with the US instead of a country that time and time again lied about their nuclear intentions. There already is incredible distrust and almost irreconcilable differences between the US and Iran, a secret nuclear weapon program would end all hope of reconcile. Although a bomb would 'pre-empt a preemptive strike,' other consequences would be terrible for the Iranian people and Iranian interests for the future.
The Iranian nuclear issue is by no means clear cut. On the one hand, Iran can accurately claim in inalienable right to produce nuclear energy in terms with IAEA standards. The problem is that Iran has not always complied with these standards and has generally behaved in ways which would suggest ulterior motives regarding its nuclear program. Specifically the exposure of the secret gas centrifuge plant at Natanz and the heavy-water production facility at Arak by the MEK indicate a lack of transparency in the nuclear program. Even more egregious is the fact that neither enriching uranium nor extracting plutonium, the purposes of the aforementioned facilities, are necessary in the civilian nuclear process. While Iran did not violate the terms of its IAEA obligations in keeping these facilities secret at the time they were exposed, one must explore the possibility that Iran intended to keep their operations secret indefinitely. Iran has every reason to want a nuclear bomb and concealing its true nuclear operations could easily lead to this objective. Although the official government stance claims that Iran’s nuclear program would be used strictly for civilian purposes, the prospect of doing additional uranium enrichment to build a bomb may become too alluring a prospect for the regime to deny. Specifically, with the United States to the east and west in Afghanistan and Iraq, foreign military presence throughout the region, and nuclear armed Israel and Pakistan in focus, there is much reason for Iran to want a nuclear weapon. Speculation of an American strike of some sort in Iran or threats of regime change from Washington may only fuel the regime’s desire to gain nuclear weapons as a means to fend for itself on the international stage. More than that, a nuclear bomb would create a sense of prestige for Iran, in context with science and military power. Iran has focused recently on being on the cutting edge of science and a nuclear bomb, even more so than nuclear energy, would be a huge boost for the national psyche. Thus it seems that the potential for abuse by Iran in regards to its potential nuclear energy program are simply too great. The international community should become intent on preventing Iran from developing such a program, or come to bear the cost of a nuclear Iran.
For many of us who are out of touch with Iranian daily life, it is easy to deny Iran the capabilities of refining Uranium. Iran is a country that, through the Islamic Revolution, has isolated itself economically. However, the rest of the world depends (to some extent) economically on Iran's oil production. In lecture, it was brought up that Iran's economy is so terrible, despite its immense oil resources, that the country must export then import refined oil, as a lack of the necessary resources to refine its oil. It is a fact that oil quantities in the world will only last a few more decades (if current trends persist). It is in our best ECONOMIC interest, as non-Iranians, to allow Iran to supplement the production of energy through oil with nuclear energy. It is true that many believe Iran cannot be trusted with refined Uranium. However, most modern states have some sort of nuclear arsenal. If we have them, why can't the Iranian's? After all, what good is a doomsday device if it is never going to be used? We all know that if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon, then the US and other countries will double their arsenal of nuclear weapons, leading to a worldwide nuclear arms race. This situation does not frighten me since it is in the best of every nation, allied or what have you, to avoid a nuclear armageddon.
I disagree with a previously stated comment that the Iranian government does not need to develop nuclear technology for their own energy and fuel purposes. There are multiple fuel alternatives, but that doesn't essentially mean that Iran has access to all of them. This is something that takes more in depth research than a simple assumption. Nuclear energy might just be the most convenient and cost efficient form of energy for Iran, as opposed to alternative energy sources such as switchgrass or other biofuels. Oil is a limited resource, and I don't think Iran is out of line by investing in nuclear energy.
In terms of how this issue will effect the balance of power in both the Middle East and the United States, I'm not going to deny the tension that will continue to occur due to the disparate ideologies of each region. As we know, the preemptive strike isn't a new concept to the United States, and I'm afraid some buffoon in the white house will attack just to preserve U.S. hegemony. With Israel nearby, Iran could potentially be swarmed by two very strong military forces-if it decides to openly wage war. This is a large part of my reasoning why Iran should be allowed nuclear technology. I find it hard to believe Iran would commit to such an action with the knowledge of these two surrounding military powers.
As we discussed in class, Iran does not officially want a bomb, as weapons of mass destruction have been deemed un-Islamic. This raises some questions about the nuclear program in relation to the national psyche. First, it is important to consider Iran's "irreconcilable differences" with the rest of the world. For decades Iran has dealt with foreign intervention in its domestic affairs. At this point, many Iranians feel that they have the right to nuclear weapons, and that other nations should not interfere with that right. In many ways, the nuclear issue is a psychological one. Instances of unfavorable intervention have been branded in Iranian psyches and feelings of paranoia and distrust contribute to Iran's interest in nuclear technology. Furthermore, Iranians seek the national prestige that comes with a sophisticated nuclear program. They strive to be on the cutting edge of science, especially with an engineer as president. These issues are not meant to serve as a justification for Iran's nuclear program, but they are important in understanding the motives behind it.
Pre-emptive moves have never worked in an internationalist system, and if Iran is anticipating an attack by either the United States or Israel, it is making the situation even worse instead of convincing them to back down. Iran will lose the support of Russia and China, and its attempts to open itself up to the world will be halted, and the economic crisis will only worsen.
I believe Iran should definitely be able to start a nuclear energy program to generate electricity, and even with the possibility of making a nuclear weapon. Iran however needs to show good will, and focus their attention on creating civilian power plants. I disagree with the Nuclear Non-proliferation Act in its blanket disapproval of any nuclear weapons, which I see as unrealistic, and unfair to emerging powers: countries that are subservient to the developed nations will have their nuclear programs ignored, while countries that try to isolate themselves will be cut off from the world.
Iran does not need a nuclear weapon program to increase its prestige, and I think it is a very bad reason. Iran should exert power over the region, but a nuclear weapon could only inflame relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states, and bring even more chaos into the Middle East as different countries play themselves against Iran, especially in Iraq, and encourage extremism on all sides.
Iran's potential development of a nuclear program, peaceful or otherwise, is extremely pertinent toward the power relations of the Middle East. This is the primary cause for concern from the perspective of the United States, not Iran using a nuclear bomb, per se, but the threat derived from nuclear weapons. Iran's peaceful nuclear program will obviously boost its domestic economy, but perhaps more importantly, it gives Iran significant leverage in Middle East politics. Iran is attempting to establish itself as a leader in the region - the possession of nuclear energy and potentially nuclear weapons program is a strong statement of national sovereignty.
I do not believe that Iran is trying to bait an attack on itself by the United States, but Iran is attempting to make a power claim in the Middle East. A successful and robust nuclear program would significantly boost Iran's standing in the region. Iran, known to support Hezbollah and likely Hamas and al-Sadr's militia in Iraq, would have a much firmer say in regional politics. The rumor that Israel threatened to attack Iran if Hezbollah if the latter launched missiles at Israeli territory exemplifies Iran's want for a nuclear program. With the potential for nuclear weapons, Iran would be the one pushing other nations - for economic, political, social, or religious purposes, and not vice versa.
I don't feel that it is in Iran's best interest to try to "pre-empt a preemptive" strike because nuclear weapons are only a deterrent when you actually possess them. If Iran is only building them then they have no real teeth and invite suspicion. I am pretty confident that if the US wanted to take out all of Iran's nuke making capabilities they easily could (we have no idea of the kinds of weapons the US has been developing for just this situation).
I think the nuke issue is not that relevant to the people. They say they support it, but I doubt they would care if they didn't have it.
The real problem with Iran is that it needs energy. And the best way to do that is through oil. But not oil that they send to other countries to be refined. The biggest mistake Iran is making is spending money on nuclear energy when they could develop oil refineries, which they have none of. Why no one in Iran has thought of this boggles the mind.
Lastly, I try not to depress myself by thinking of possible scenarios where US/Israel attacks Iran. There would be no winners in that situation.
This is a subject I find myself very conflicted about. I can see why there is fear for Iran to attain nuclear power, but isn't it scary that any country have that power? Yes, it is...it scares me to death! Yet how can we treat nuclear power as though it were some sort of club upon which entrance is solely the prerogative of the U.S.? Maybe the best way to prevent any one from creating nukes is to find a way to dispose of them all that already exist and then making it illegal to aquire nukes. Then we wouldn't be hypocrites. Then we would truly practice what we preach! At any rate this maybe to radical for some, so let me suggest that at the very least one thing this country could do to improve the situation is to stop antagonizing Iran. Maybe that would allow us all to feel a little more at ease about the country's nuclear program.
I feel like the issue further adds to and illustrates the "Iran against the world" theme. Sadly, without trust between Iran and the west neither side will be comfortable with the other having nuclear weapons. On a personal level I feel the U.S. can trust the elected government in Iran and the majority of the people in Iran. I think the unease comes from knowing that there are people who may not care about the consequences of a nuclear attack and could get access to Iran's nuclear materials. However, the same can be said in regards to the US. It seems like we may be headed towards another Cold War.
Iran disputes the fact that they would use the nuclear program for terrorism, but the United States and its supporters claim that they intend to use the program for their own benefit rather than terrorism. Iran argues that Article IV of the NPT guarantees the right of member states to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Even though international officials argue against the enrichment facilities as economically not viable and too potentially dangerous, Iranian officials respond that they need to secure their supply of fuel.Iran also proves to have an energy problem. Despite vast reserves of oil and natural gas, nuclear power is needed to meet growing energy demand. Nearly 40% of Iran’s 4 billion barrel per day oil production is consumed locally.
I believe that Iran cannot continue to rely on oil and natural gas as an energy source for its increasingly large population. Especially when you consider that we are currently in a state where hydrocarbon energy sources are diminishing, Iran needs to remain a net exporter of oil and natural gas. Keeping this in mind justifies Iran's needs to develop a nuclear energy program. And as far as my opinion goes, Iran can feel free to develop weapons for defense purposes, as long as they do not launch on anybody.
The American government is making things very difficult for Iranians as they continue to request that Iran cease all uranium enrichment. However, our government should keep in mind the benefits that will come out of a nuclear Iran, such as the ability for Iran to continue exporting oil and natural gas. I believe it is in the best interests of the US to lay off and let Iran do what they want to do. If they do end up attacking Israel, they know that would end up in the obliteration of Iran and that is the last thing that even these hard-liner conservatives would want for their people.
I think that something most people don't understand is that Iran is very progressive and the whole nuclear energy developement is a sign of that. We need to stop approaching Iran so confrontationally and look to aid pro-democratic parties if we want to overthrow the regime or look to agree on peaceful measures. WE do have the power to wipe Iran off the planet and we should do that if Iran screws up by launching a weapon. Until that happens, it is in our best interest to stay out of Iran's business.
As much as I am terrified of the thought of nuclear war or being exposed to the likes of Chernobyl, I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in a country like Iran, without nuclear weapons, at the mercy of a country like the United States. What with Clinton's outright threat towards Iran, if i didn't already feel like the country's burgeoning population makes an alternative to fossil fuel a necessity, I feel like the potential of our fickle nation to make and break agreements the way we have done for centuries with native americans and to refuse participation in treaties that we have been instrumental in drafting such as the kyoto protocol would scare me into attempting to procure one. The united states is obviously less concerned with peace than it is with a balance of power, and I feel that it is more racism and underlieing economic interests and political control that make the US not want Iran to obtain these weapons. While we have pushed for other countries to be banned from technological advancement we have refused to disarm ourselves. The great irony is that Iran received this technology indirectly from the united states; i wish there was some way around it, and i feel like better dipolmatic relations would be a start, but i can't come up with any reason for iran not having nuclear weapons that seems fair given the current circumstances.
The nuclear issue helps shape the national psyche by putting a country in the elite group of nuclear powers. The ability to use nuclear energy to power your country give citizens the peace of mind that they have a reliable energy source for the future and do not have to depend on fluctuating prices of fossil fuels.
More importantly, the knowledge that your country has nuclear weapons gives citizens the knowledge that it is unlikely they will be attacked on a large scale because nukes are deterrents. It gives people a sense of security knowing that they can destroy an enemy at the push of a button. This ability has been such a deterrent over the years that no country since the United States has used nuclear weapons because they know another nuclear power could use their weapons against them. When more than one country holds the power of such a powerful weapon it is no longer worth it to use that weapon offensively, only as a defensive mechanism to deter attacks.
Post a Comment