For the outside observers it is still difficult and complicated to distinguish Iran’s program as the rightful development of nuclear technology (as Iranian authority’s claim) or the building of nuclear weapons (as the outside world’s suspicion) (Chubin, and Litwak, 2003).
Iran’s nuclear program has started since the realm of Shah in the 1970s and slowly developed till today, but during its builds of nuclear facilities the Shah also signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 (Khan, 2010). At the same time, Tehran has continuously called for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, such as Shah’s initiative to the UN General Assembly in 1974 and Islamic Republic’s advocation in 1986 (Pirseyedi, 2013). Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in June 2003 officially revealed that Iran has violated its obligation for not reporting its secret storage of nuclear material and the process of uranium enrichment, however, none of these reports from IAEA has officially accused Iran for violating the NPT or proved it being weaponizing its nuclear program (Chubin, and Litwak, 2003).
Tehran’s ambiguities have been considered by many scholars as part of its ‘Nuclear Dual Policy’ (Khan, 2010): at one hand, Iran has declared continuously on its policy advocating the global or regional abolition of nuclear weapons (Pirseyedi, 2013); but on the other hand it has insisted its program of high level uranium enrichment and secretly built the heavy-water reactors in order to keep its nuclear alive (Khan, 2010).
This Dual Policy, if indeed the Iranian regime is advancing for the bomb, could have been ended in three different outcome:
Nuclear Weapon Testing: Iran would eventually test its n...
... middle of paper ...
...e deterrence power of nuclear weapons but avoid violation of the NPT and direct confrontation with the international society (Waltz, 2012). However, as Saira Khan has indicated, the key point of nuclear deterrence and prestige is ‘a function of crossing the nuclear threshold and acknowledge of the possession of nuclear capacity’. If Iran could not show its opaque warhead ‘clear enough’ to the world, then this opacity is of no use in providing prestige for Iran (Khan, 2010).
The different approaches to build its nuclear capability would directly impact Iran’s position to the Middle East and vise versa. A blunt and aggressive declaration of the nuclear capability of Iran would no surprise provoke hostile responses from the region, but a more reserved opacity attitude might also impact the political reality in the Middle East as well as the power balance of the world.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East had depended on a friendly government in Iran. The newly appointed leader, the shah of Iran, began Westernizing the country and taking away power from the Ayatollah, powerful religious leaders. The United States poured millions of dollars into Iran’s economy and the shah’s armed forces, overlooking the rampant corruption in government and well-organized opposition. By early 1979, the Ayatollah had murdered the Shah and taken back power of the government. A group of students who took the American embassy hostage on November 4th, 1979, turned the embassy over to the religious leaders. Carter knew he must take action in order to regain the American embassy and the hostages, but with all of the military cutbacks, the rescue attempt was a complete failure and embarrassment. It took the United States 444 days to rescue the hostages. This was the final straw for many Americans, and enough to push them to the “right” side of the political spectrum, Republican.
Sherman, Brad. “Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Vital Speeches Of The Day 74.2 (2008): 66-68. History Reference Center. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
Sexual intercourse between two people who willingly consent to the actions results in strong human emotional bonding. The act is permissible only when the two parties involved mutually desire to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. In the following case, the mutual agreement is broken. A man engages in sexual intercourse with his wife who is in a minimal conscious state and is paralyzed after an automobile accident. The wife is a 29-year-old woman who suffered from severe brain injury, leaving her unable to care for herself. She is only able to show some response to visual, auditory and tactile stimulation. In addition to being incontinent, she is unable to walk, talk, move or eat on her own. Despite her incapacities, her husband chose to continue the sexual relationship he previously shared with his wife, but consequently she became pregnant. The pregnancy was terminated because it was in the best interest of the wife’s health. The wife’s family considers the husband’s actions rape, and notified the police. The husband’s actions go against fundamental moral and ethical principles. The husband’s actions are deemed unethical because the wife’s incompetency disables her capability to consent to sexual intercourse, leaving her with no choice.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
Sherill, C. W. (2012). Why Iran Wants the Bomb And What. Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2012 , 32-49.
Even today, Iran has largely maintained its anti-American stance, and conflict between the two nations is tangible. The United States, still wary of Iran’s hate for all western influence, keeps sanctions on Iran, in an attempt to restrict Iran's nuclear power. To many Americans, Iran is considered part of the Axis of Evil, a nation of terrorists and radical Muslims. In Iran, there still exist many ‘death to America’ slogans. With Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, however, the United States and Iran have started restoring diplomatic relations. We can only hope that Iran and the US will find enough common ground to break the shackles of
middle of paper ... ... Radical governments are far less likely to suffer the consequences of their actions, simply because of the cowardly nature of the leaders. The citizens of these countries are the ones to pay the price for the horrendous actions of their leaders. The danger involved in widespread knowledge of the production of nuclear weapons is the likelihood of attack by extremists who would use this knowledge for selfish and ambitious purposes rather than for the common good. Works Cited DeGroot, Gerard J. & Co.
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
Maghen, Z. (2009, January). Eradicating the "Little Satan": Why Iran Should Be Taken at Its
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
The various decision making models on the decision to drop the bomb are, a rational actor model, organizational model, and a model of bureaucratic politics. President Truman used the rational actor model to make his decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. “Rational actor theory treats the actions of governments and large organization as the acts of individuals”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Government leaders usually select the best option that will achieve the best result and at the lowest cost. Governments need to examine a set of goals, the evaluate the, then picks the goal with the highest payoff. “The appeal of this model lies in its predictive powers. Often enough, governments do not make clear why they act. On other occasions, they announce their goals but keep their strategies for achieving them secret”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Using standards of rational behavior help analysts put together leaps for the government’s unclear goals or actions. The model explains the progression of events that brought about the bomb’s development. First, several physicists saw that there was a possibility of nuclear fusion, Second, Roosevelt ordered speedup for the recovery period, Then, there were scientific breakthroughs that led to a higher certainty of success and lastly, the race with Germany and Japanese resistance in far east encouraged several scientists to push for success. “Although this outline of key decisions proceeds logically enough, there are troubling features to it, suggesting limits to the rational actor model”(Davidson and Lytle, 2010). Roosevelt is a rational actor model but there have been several committees and subgroups that were involved in the process. “Historians have offered contradictory answers ...
...that it will not accept a future in which Iran--its Shiite, Persian rival--has nuclear weapons and it does not” (Allison). If many more countries create nuclear weapons, the world could be in danger of a nuclear war just like it was during the Cold War.
The negotiations on the nuclear threat and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula have recently shaped the agenda of the North Korean system of international relations, thus affecting the patterns of foreign policy of the DPRK. This issue has gained such a priority to lead to the establishment of the 6PT experiment, thus proving to stand at the core of the debate on the stability and safety debate in the Northeast Asia region. The theory of realism provides reasons why North Korea has positioned the nuclear weapon debate at the centre of its policy. One of the fundamental assumptions of Realism is in fact that each state, embedded in an international order characterized by a condition of antagonism, attempts to pursue its national interest. Besides that, the overriding national interest is defined in terms of national security and survival.
The Public Choice For some parents, deciding on a school for their children can be a difficult decision. Many parents do not spend much time thinking about it; they place their children into the local school designated by where they live. Others attended a private school themselves and found that it was a beneficial experience and therefore want the same for their kids. But which is better: private schools or public schools? While there are many advantages and disadvantages to each (nothing is going to be absolutely perfect), we are going to focus on the benefits of an education in the public school system, or in other words, schools funded by the government that are for anyone to attend.