As the deadline
to curb the Islamic republic’s ability to build a nuclear weapon quickly
approaches, it is imperative that negotiators must reach an agreement to avoid
potential harm.
More than a
decade of negotiations must be settled in a matter of two weeks – before the
Nov. 24 deadline. Secretary of State John Kerry, Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif and Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy
chief met for hours today.
Although the
U.S., EU and U.N. Security Council imposed penalties to punish Tehran for its
covert nuclear program, Iran argued that its nuclear activities are not a
threat as they are only used to fuel medical and energy demands. I think it is
highly unbelievable that Iran’s efforts are only for peaceful purposes. As Henry
Sokowlski identifies three major threats in Getting
Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, this is not a scenario that should be taken
lightly. If Iran obtains this capability there will be more nuclear
proliferation, higher oil prices and increased terrorism to diminish U.S.
influence. These consequences are of a major concern if the U.S. is unable to
reach an agreement between Iran and international powers.
Currently, Iran
has 19,000 centrifuges and the P5+1 want to cut those numbers. At first they
wanted to limit the number to 1,000-2,000 but after long talks they are willing
to allow more, as long as there is transparent monitoring. The monitoring is in
place so that it would be obvious if Iran amped up their programs to actually
make a bomb and the international powers could step in.
But I don’t
believe Iran can be trusted. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran
has not been open about its current and past use of these materials, despite promises.
Because of this, the agency said it can not guarantee that Iran doesn’t possess
more nuclear materials than identified.
To make things
more complicated in the international sphere, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, tweeted out a plan to
eliminate “the fake Zionist regime,” referencing Israel, one of America’s
allies, on Sunday. This made the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
reaffirm that Israel would not accept any agreement that would eave Iran as a “nuclear
threshold state,” according to The
Washington Post.
If Iran is able to progress with its nuclear
capabilities this could have dire consequences on the region. Sokowlski argued that Iran would earn
support from terrorists operating against Israel, Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Europe and the U.S.. This would completely “undermine U.S. and allied efforts
to foster moderate rule in much of the Middle East,” and could result in large-scale
conflicts. For example, if Iran is able to gain nuclear capabilities for “peaceful”
reasons, Egypt, Algeria, Syria and Saudi Arabia may adopt the same argument.
For all of theses reasons and more, I believe
it is crucial for the powers in play to reach an agreement that dramatically
curbs Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/high-level-talks-underway-on-iran-nuclear-program/2014/11/09/6b029aa2-67ee-11e4-ab86-46000e1d0035_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-oman-us-and-iranian-negotiators-talk-late-into-night-about-nuclear-deal/2014/11/09/71c257a0-501e-43a5-9ec9-05b28d6514f2_story.html
Henry Sokowlski's Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran reading
One thing to consider here is the argument put forward by Waltz - i.e. that Israeli nuclear weapons are encouraging other state to seek nuclear weapons. However, at present we, publicly at least, do not know of any other Middle Eastern state which is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. If this is the case then we may infer that an arms race has not developed, and that, therefore, it is deeply unclear whether Iranian weapons would result in further states seeking them. How would you evaluate this line of argument?
ReplyDeleteLauren Mishan: I think the point you brings up is interesting that it is unbelievable that Iran's efforts are peaceful. I think with majority of the Middle East being a sort of breeding ground for terrorist groups, it is hard to imagine that these nuclear weapons would not end up in the wrong hands. Just like the point you brought up about Khomeini's tweet, I think it is plausible to believe that Iran may not have peaceful plans for the future. Like many countries in the Middle East, they would like to take Israel "off the map," which does not sound very peaceful to me. I think in order to protect the surrounding countries, the international community must reach an agreement with Iran to make sure that there can be no possibility of nuclear warfare in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteSeth Windmuller: I agree with Lauren Mishan above me. It is a scary thought for really anyone in the middle east to have nuclear weapons, not just incase they use them but they could so easily fall into the wrong hands. There has to be intervention of producing nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete