Midhat Muhammad Ayyad Grand Valley State University Third and Final Issue Position PLS 212 Turned

ed in on the 15 of April, 2013

Page | 1

Iran Going Nuclear, Peacefully or Militarily, and the US Foreign Policy

Background: An Attack on Iran Threatens Regional Stability Israel officially and perhaps through unofficial channels of diplomacy as well pleas for surgical-air-strikes upon Iran to destroy its nuclear capability before it is realized. Whilst it is a clear challenge to the second, it represents a grave threat to regional stability and the first, Israel, first and foremost. Yet, according to Joseph, in his journal publication titled Controlling Irans Nuclear Program, Irans nuclear program per se is the destabilizing factor across the region (Cirincione).

It is well-known that the United States supports its Middle East key ally Israel through thick and thin, by which the former sanctions Iran on behalf of the latter, which is not news in itself. Although Iran is faced with dozens of military threats and unrestrained sanctions (authorized by the United Nations Security Council), the country has remained active in its peacefully-intended nuclear program. According to Joseph, a good interest why the US does not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons is because it can represent a challenge to the US itself, given Irans strategic location, possession of natural resources, and such (Cirincione).

According to news reports, various publications and official investigations, Iran has been able to enrich uranium up to 20 percent. Some news reports indicate that Iran recently decided to suspend this level of enrichment to relieve itself from the bombardment of economic sanctions.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are in one league, wholly opposed to Iran's right to the nuclear program in question. Thus Israeli officials, especially the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, urge for an air campaign against a few of Iranian nuclear facilities that are deemed suspicious.
Page | 2

Such unpredictable military action, covert or otherwise, could in turn cause elusive instability in the region, according to hordes of political commentators (me included), analysts, and officials within political circles. Unfortunately, not only is the U.S. concerned with Iran's nuclear program, but also a group of countries in the region because of religious animosity and oppositional groups from within Iran, in spite of the fact that it is not confirmed whether or not Iran has decided to go nuclear militarily, according to Joseph (Cirincione).

An attack on Iran is a looming threat to the entire region. The U.S. President Barack Obama strives for a diplomatic solution; nonetheless Mr. President often invokes the all options on the table phrase. Similarly, the Israeli president Shimon Peres did in fact impel his subordinates to rest hostile threats toward Iran. There is a sense of cooperative internationalism that advocates for discreet diplomatic engagement. And yet, according to Joseph, should Iran decide to go nuclear militarily, it would be a regime suicide (Cirincione).

Perhaps, if not categorically, a good argument why the state of Israel should not even think of attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran is because the region is experiencing radical changes like economic inequality (in Egypt and North Africa in general), regional clashes (even in the richest countries in the Arab world), and religious intolerance (in the heart of the Middle East). The U.S. is not an exception; it should refrain from aggregating the economic sanctions.

To be sure, it is the civilian people that are aggrieved by these far from smart sanctions. It is understood, hopefully, that a conspiracy might be at play.

Page | 3

Iran is the only country in the Middle East capable of showing military resistance to Israel. Israel, yet, wishes to maintain the status quo: Israel needs to remain a regional hegemon. More to the point, Israels all-out diplomatic ill use, that is to say military threats, are hard evidences.

It is safe to say that Israels course of action is overly-aggressive, which is illegal under international law governing diplomatic relations. Israel constantly depicts Iran as a security threat. It was not long ago when Iran's ambassador to the UN protested the Israeli war campaign at a U.N. conference in New York City.

All things considered, Iran clarified its intentions concerning its nuclear program on a number of occasions and in many ways. Accordingly, Irans objective is to pursue nuclear technology for the generation of optimal fuel for civilian power plants. Critically, Iran offers Lebanon electrical energy at economical values in order to relieve the countrys power crisis. Further, Iran is a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It also offers the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full oversight of its nuclear facilities. However, the most recent report by the IAEA (November 2011) finds that uranium enrichment in Iran far exceeds the normal level required for the production of civilian nuclear energy.

Back to the present, it is a serious issue that Israel continues to speak at the forefront of intimidation and threats of air strikes on nuclear facilities scattered about in the huge country of Iran. Yet Israel is not ready to attack Iran without the consent and assistance of the U.S., a
Page | 4

country that has had an intense relationship with Iran since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Needless to say, the Obama administration has confirmed its position wherein diplomacy tops all priorities. On the other hand, the U.S reaffirms Israels security, as once claimed in a speech addressing AIPAC, a lobbying group for Israel.

Identifying the Actors The United States supports Israel through thick and thin. The US has confirmed that all options are on the table, including military strikes if need be, to cripple Irans attempt to retain nuclear technology for military purposes, but it is not yet confirmed whether Iran indeed tends to its nuclear program for military purposes. Israel, on the other hand, is seemingly convinced that Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. Israel automatically gets the chill, given its peoples history and Irans frequent threats of destruction of Israel. Israel retreats to its main supporter, the US, for help on this matter and the US continually exerts sanctions on Iran to stop it from succeeding in its nuclear program. The sanctions are usually authorized by the UN Security Council. Meaning, China, Russia, Britain, France and the US all are mutually supportive of each other in intending to stop Iran from going nuclear, without resorting to military means.

Alternatives: From Crippling Sanctions to Total War Ive visited the American Israeli Public Affairs Committees (AIPAC) official website to investigate its legislative agenda. Its agenda coincides with Israels foreign policy.

AIPACs legislative agenda for this year pushes for the prosecution of Iran because it regularly violates international law with its genocidal threats against Israel. This is paradoxical
Page | 5

because the only nation-states on Earth that commit genocide are some of the members of the UN Security Council; and perhaps it is not enough that the economic sanctions endorsed on Iran are hurting the countrys economy and overall wellbeing of the civilian population.

The United States reactions to this case, at the behest of AIPAC, were crippling sanctions, which affected Irans civilian population rather than the target regime. Sanctions are nonstop, are extortionate, and are a sign of the Wests weakness to initiate dialogue.

Strictly speaking, it is as if the clock is ticking for Israels Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, in light of the election season, and moving in on Iran this way proves his political viability. Beyond Israels waters edge, the United States president, Barack Obama, is in lockstep with Netanyahu. The two are proliferating propaganda on Iran. Other officials too are on the same side of the fence, composed of the same rhetoric that all options including military ones are on the table.

In reality, even some Arab governments, chief of which is rival Saudi Arabia, hold bad views toward Irans nuclear program. Iran clarified its intentions concerning its nuclear program on many occasions and in many ways. It is seeking nuclear energy to generate optimal fuel for civilian power plants. Iran offers Lebanon electricity at competitive prices in order to resolve the countrys power crisis.

Besides, Iran is a signatory state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); equally it has the right to enrich uranium. It also offers the International Atomic Energy Agency
Page | 6

(IAEA) full supervision of its nuclear program. However, IAEAs latest report (November 2011), details fully that Irans program in question has a military dimension. The report finds that Irans uranium enrichment far exceeds the normal level required for producing civilian nuclear energy.

Russias foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, not long ago lashed out at the report as a politicized compilation of well-known facts. Even before IAEAs report and, in fact what rendered IAEAs unprecedented reportage, was Irans depiction as a serious threat should it possess nuclear weapons. This depiction is ultimately seen from the US and Israel. The latter never ratified NPT (www.armscontrol.org). Conventional wisdom holds that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Alternatively, it seeks to master the technology so that it would offer less expensive and more efficient energy sources.

The matter of this whole situation is that a clash of arms between Israel and Iran is presently the innermost fear for the Middle East because the conflict could easily unfold regionally, whereby Irans powerful armed forces cannot be easily extinguished. That aside, the worlds economy will be devastated largely due to shortages of oil supplies, perhaps in the manner of sabotage, perhaps in a more subtle way.

It is safe to say that this war path is a bit exaggerated. However, Iran is not a threat to Israel. Indeed, acquiring nuclear weapons, at this point in time, is rather a negative-sum gamea

nuclear war benefits no one. The issue is not whether Iran will get its hands on a nuclear bomb; indeed once they master the technology, building an Iranian bomb would only be the matter of time. That is exactly Israels fear, that Iran might master the technology from a military
Page | 7

dimension. Nevertheless, there is no legal basis and no existential threat that renders an attack on Iran legitimate. Yet whatever it is that Israel demands, America responds Amen. Perhaps there are other fears, including the fact that if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, other regional states will as well, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt especially. Nevertheless, Iran remains unwavering and Israel holds grudges. Israel is pushing for an elite military strike to sabotage Irans nuclear facilities, especially since cyber warfare amounts to no good. And by agreements binding the US, it is entitled to protect Israel. The solution is in Israels hands.

Conclusion Understanding politics is not that easy. Further, there is a history between the Persia and the Jews, and a more contemporary history between Iran and the US. Each of these players has their own interest, and they play the political game accordingly. It is not possible, as such, to make any predictions of the future, indeed I would be lying. However, I have succeeded in giving the background its due measure, followed by the most important actors (Israel, the US and the UN SC). In that, all of the spotlights seem to hover around these players. In arguing for the alternative, I have convinced myself, and perhaps the reader, that what is happening right now is going to continue to happen, which is to say sanctions will not be lifted, unless a political miracle incurs, and the road the US and Israel are taking is leading to a total war. This is the entire story concisely.

Work Cited
Cirincione, Joseph. "Controlling Iran's Nuclear Program." Issue in Science and Technology22.3 (2006): Page | 8 72-82. Print.