INF was agreed upon in 1987 between the Soviet Union and U.S. signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. This treaty has been viewed historically as one of the groundworks that brought an end to the Cold War. This accord is still in effect today but when Vladimir Putin rose to power, the Kremlin reassessed their strategy and urged that the U.S. and Russia drop the treaty. State Department officials of arms control investigated Russia’s ambitions and has considered to close the case. However, Obama administration officials are not in the saddle to affirm the tests of the missile to be a violation of INF.
If Iran, a country that condones terrorist behavior, continued to develop their nuclear program after the placement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty without the knowledge of the foreign powers, no one is guaranteed their safety. In this paper, I will discuss that though Iran insists their nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, if foreign powers don’t step in to regulate the enrichment of Iran’s nuclear initiative the future of relations amongst the United States, Israel and Iran do not look promising. Currently, the threat of a nuclear Iran is perhaps one of the biggest fears the Obama Administration faces. The Middle East is such a volatile region, and any disagreements that arise in such a tumultuous region have the capability of destabilizing lingering relationships amongst international powers. If Iran were to secure themselves with nuclear arms, in such a region as the Middle East, it is believed that a domino effect would come into play.
However, there have been significant facts and examples showing threats of terrorism infiltrating their nuclear system, and potentially running the government. Corruption has continued to loiter despite Pakistan’s claimed screening and security measures. Also, continued attacks on the stability of government remain active and extremism continues to create a presence outside of the government. The solution to this complex problem should favor the side of U.S. intervention, rather than waiting for Pakistan to take control of the problem. Pakistan had proven incapable in solving their nuclear weapons issues and has instead created a situation detrimental to the peace of the world and in particular the safely of the United States and their allies.
While Iran claims that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes, such as energy production, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) November 2011 report acknowledged the opposite. This report details Iran’s research directed towards the development of nuclear weapon capacity and nuclear payload integration into missile delivery systems (IAEA 2011, 8), supporting the United States and European Union’s fears. Tensions have run high in the world after this announcement, leading to even more crippling sanctions against Ira... ... middle of paper ... .... The Iran people should not have to suffer for their government’s actions, especially not so when the popular support for Ahmadinejad is so low (Economist 2012). The current model is extremely negative and causes antagonism against the West.
One of the few things that are clear in this dilemma is that there is a great deal at stake, including the military effort and large sums of money that would be required for the U.S. to strike Iran. Above all, however, is the considerable loss of lives that would be the result of a preemptive strike, especially if it were a nuclear attack. The w... ... middle of paper ... ...s in which war was narrowly avoided, but Russia and the U.S. were able to negotiate agreements like SALT-I and SALT-II that limited the construction of new weapons. This required communication between the two countries; in order for negotiation to be effective, the U.S. and Iran must reopen communication channels to reach a solution. Overall, the argument to attack Iran is not compelling.
Iran is being seen as advancing its nuclear power and this is seen as a security threat by major world powers and has resulted in security dilemma in USA. Thus USA is left with no choice but to use pragmatic and broader based approaches to try and contain Iran nuclear advancements. This is why USA is lobbying UN controlled agency IAEA. However, this has strained the fragile relations between these two countries as Iran has accused IAEA of being used by USA to spread its propaganda. Another international relations theory that aptly applies to this scena... ... middle of paper ... ... Halliday, Fred.
This statement highlights the belief that agreements between nations will not be sufficient to prevent the amassment of nuclear weapons; other actions must be taken in order to deter nuclear build-up. The actions to be taken, however, mark contr... ... middle of paper ... ...t another nuclear standoff and possible nuclear war. The difference in these articles comes in the authors’ ideas of what kind of actions must be taken to combat an increasingly nuclear world. Despite the differences, the message of the articles remains clear—nuclear weapons continue to pose a threat to the world today, and the international system must act in order to prevent the potential catastrophic effects that would result from the use of nuclear weapons. Works Cited Kaplan, Robert D. “Living with a Nuclear Iran.” The Atlantic.
This is mainly due to fear of the opposing party's retaliation. The aftermath of the crisis led to the first efforts at improving international relations and nuclear disarmament.
Khrushchev did a final pledge not to invade Cuba in exchange for the withdraw of soviet missiles. Although it is just a distant memory ... ... middle of paper ... ...t said, Iran can really be a threat to us with their nuclear weapons if they are thinking about using it or testing it. Topic Sentence: today nuclear weapons are more dangerous than it ever was. Why? Because of the rapid increase of global terrorist threats and countries that are building nuclear weapons without anybody knowing.
By dissolving tension that had resulted between the world powers at the time, as many atomic scientists had hoped, cooperation with the USSR would have diminished the need to hold the USSR at arms length away and prevented Cold War tensions. The main reason FDR should have shared nuclear information with the international community was the increasing likelihood that nuclear technology could no longer be kept within the Anglo-American monopoly, and if released unintentionally the news would create unnecessary tension between the Big Three. Neils Bohr, a lead scientist on the Manhattan project, foresaw the potential for a nuclear armaments race between the US and USSR emerging within 10 years of the bombs creation. In reality it was not even the US’s secret to keep, with atomic weaponry being such a new field, any country could have easily stumbled upon a scientific breakthr... ... middle of paper ... ...to Secretary of War, "Office of Scientific Research and Development," September 30, 1944. National Archives.