Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the book Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling, he points out that when diplomacy and bargaining are taking place, there has to be a common interest, even if the common interest is to avoid mutual damage. In order for bargaining to work, there must be “An awareness of the need to make the other party prefer an outcome acceptable to oneself” (Schelling 1). In much of the language reported from Iran, however, it does not appear that Iran is willing to negotiate, maybe because it does not feel that damage will be inflicted by not bargaining. Iran may be correct. Unless Iran openly inflicts violence on another country, it may be able to develop its nuclear arms and continue to make threats in spite of what other countries have tried to force Iran to do. This opinion seems surprising considering that Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein taken down, even though the nuclear threat from Iraq was not as clear as the nuclear threat coming from Iran. But as argued by Ivo Daalder (2006), the cont...
... middle of paper ...
...ut like Thomas Schelling says, it is unlikely that the country would do something that would guarantee its total destruction (such as using a nuclear weapon). On the other hand, that does not mean it will not cause harm to others.
Works Cited
Daalder, Ivo. "Is War With Iran Inevitable?" Brookings Institute, April 21, 2006. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0421iran_daalder.aspx (accessed September 24, 2011).
Eckman, Jim . "Iran v. Saudi Arabia." Issues in Perspective, April 30, 2011. http://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/04/30-2/ (accessed September 24, 2011).
Pollack, Ken & Takeyh, Roon. "Doubling Down on Iran." Washington Quarterly. 34. no. 4 (Fall 2011). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/09_iran_pollack_takeyh/09_iran_pollack_takeyh.pdf (accessed September 24, 2011).
Schelling. T. Arms and Influence. Yale University. 1966.
Dodds, Joana and Ben Wilson. "THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES1." Middle East Review of International Affairs (Online) 13, no. 2 (06, 2009): 72-94. http://search.proquest.com/docview/220899524?accountid=8289.
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
Matusek, Matt. “Purpose of Iraq war murky to Americans.” 17 September 2004. The Online Rocket. 1 April 2008.
Sherman, Brad. “Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Vital Speeches Of The Day 74.2 (2008): 66-68. History Reference Center. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
The key point in Posen’s paper is the failure of the U.S. to negotiate with Iran to stop their nuclear program. The next step that the U.S. should take is ensuring its security. Posen also stressed further risk of Iran’s nuclear program for the U.S. and analyze all risks based on the recent situation. Several of Posen concerns are the fact that nuclear weapons might be used by Non-state actors such as terrorists and the possibility that Iran will be inclined to use nuclear weapons to threat Israel or its neighboring countries. Nevertheless, Posen also gives an exp...
...hich has been seen in the past as the deals that are struck may prove to be nothing for Iran anyways. United States went into Iraq against the UN. Iran knowing this, would understand that striking the deal with the US may not be in their best interest and can simply play along to their demands, but secretly continue their research and development on nuclear technology. Ultimately, leaving the second option as a reliable one, which is pre-emptive war. The other options give the Iranians too much time and leniency regarding a very big threat, a threat that would be in the hands of a Middle Eastern State in a very unstable surrounding environment known to home anti-western and anti-Jewish radical organizations and people. This is something that would be near impossible to contain considering guerilla warfare and stateless people are very hard to track down and control.
“Ready for War.” Intelligence Reports Iss. 131 (Fall 2008). 46-54 SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2011.
... both themselves and the nation or nations victimized. 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 would be the ones to pay the price for the horrendous actions of their leaders. The danger involved in widespread knowledge of 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.
Hardy, R. (2001, Sept 22). The iran-iraq war: 25 years on . BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260420.stm
In these findings, there is nothing to lead America into believing that Iran has a desire to use a nuclear weapon against any other country. Based on these findings, we must ask ourselves if there is a better way to handle Iran other than imposing sanctions that hurt the Iranian people or pursuing acts of aggression. Can we learn a valuable lesson in diplomacy from the past?
As most historians would argue Militarism is one of the main causes of the First World War. Militarism is the belief that a country should have a strong military. A strong military needs the most powerful weapons in order to be considered strong and be able to defend the country from the enemy. As of the 21st century one of the most powerful weapons is the nuclear weapon. Just like any other country Iran has the right to be able to defend itself against any threat. In the same way the Treaty of Versailles isolated countries leading them to feel unsafe and unprotected, the No...
Roberts, M. R. (2011, September 08). "A broad terrorism plan". American City & County, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.
...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.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on policy matters in Iran, assured an audience of thousands of members of the hard-line Basij paramilitary organization that the negotiators would not compromise on Iran’s main nuclear policies.
A similar problem may arise with another regional actor, Saudi Arabia. Any rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran will unnerve the Saudi Kingdom, which views the Islamic Republic as arch-rival and may consider such development as tipping the balance in the region in Tehran’...