A nuclear-armed Iran challenges United States security on multiple fronts: terrorism, attacks on allies, and U.S. interests in the Middle East. Iran, throughout history, has exhibited anti-U.S. sentiments, opposing U.S. involvement and influence in the Middle East. Beyond its attitudes toward the United States, the Iranian government has been an active supporter of revolutionary ambitions with its neighbors and has been an active sponsor of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. An Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a significant security risk for the U.S. because the state could easily supply terrorists with the supplies or technology to build and operate their own nuclear arsenal. For this reason, the U.S. must adopt a combination of refocused coercive economic sanctions and non-coercive diplomatic strategies to address Iranian nuclear proliferation.
Currently, the U.S. holds key interests in the Middle East — securing the flow of Persian Gulf oil at reasonable prices and quantities, the protection of Israel, reducing the threat of rouge states, and ensuring the Middle East does not produce terrorist plots. American interests in the Middle East will become difficult to secure and maintain with a nuclear-armed Iran. One of the main concerns is that a nuclear-armed Iran can create an accelerated rivalry and competition for oil between Iran, the U.S., and Russia. A nuclear-armed Iran could complicate current U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by, as previously mentioned, supporting terrorist organizations in these areas.
The U.S. must keep pushing Iran to re-engage diplomatic discussions. This discussion must produce comprehensive negotiations to eliminate or severely monitor Iranian proliferation. Previous diplomatic measures sought to create preventative measures of proliferation. The U.S. exhausted many efforts before implementing sanctions, requesting multilateral responses, and attempting to curtail the supply side of Iran’s nuclear weaponry attainment. These diplomatic measures have not effectively prevented Iran from seeking nuclear weapons even after they were found in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Refocused economic measures, on the other hand, will continue to put pressure on Iran’s ability to obtain financial and material elements for proliferation. Aggressive economic sanctions will include measures that attempt to curtail Iranian oil consumption by shifting oil needs to Saudi crude. Another significant component will be to continue blacklisting Iranian businesses and firms that operate worldwide through exports and necessitate imports. A key sanction would include freezing Iranian assets beyond those related to Iran’s uranium enrichment practices.
The most advantageous option would be to allow Iran to proliferate under strict United States or United Nations inspections with Iranian guarantees to cooperate in other areas (i.e. stop funding of terrorist organizations, collaboration of Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.). This is the case because Iranian proliferation is inevitable. This approach will not only fulfill the tenets of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, but it will also prevent any military and civilian casualties, it will encourage international cooperation and discussions, and it will encourage Iran to adopt international norms of responsibility.
By refocusing its current strategies to enforce its current economic and diplomatic efforts, the U.S. will address the shortcomings of current strategies dealing with Iranian proliferation, and avoid the potential destabilization of the Middle East.
Photo Credit: AslanMedia
The Discussion
"The most advantageous option would be to allow Iran to proliferate under strict United States or United Nations inspections with Iranian guarantees to cooperate in other areas (i.e. stop funding of terrorist organizations, collaboration of Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.)." EXCELLENT recommendation, Jesse.
Israel's hard power track record and the fact they never signed the NPT, to me, is just one of many reasons Iran would never give up nuclear proliferation. So I feel the suggestion you gave above is BRILLIANT!
Well done!
1 Replies
It does not help that US helped Saddam and Iraq against Iran in that brutal war that cost millions of Irani lives, WMDs were used by Saddam under the eyes of the US. And US did nothing to stop it.
After such blatant and brutal agression from US, why would any country want to even ever talk to them?
That is key #1 to understand the Iran-US conflict. All US can hope is using diplomacy and time, the wounds which are still fresh will heal. The people of Iran are ready for diplomacy, the leaders, not so much. Time heals all and it would heal these deeps wounds.
That is if US starts treating Iran as a sovereign nation. Regarding nuclear weapons , sorry you can't stop time and technology. Countries will eventually and inevitably get them.
1 Replies
You're right that the US has to try a new approach to negotiating with Iran. In principle, it's good that the Obama administration has been more open to negotiations with Iran - that said, our insistence on ending Iran's nuclear program as a condition for any agreement isn't productive. The Iranians refuse, and the US effectively shrugs and says "hey look, guys, we're trying to be the reasonable ones here" to the rest of the world.
Allowing Iran to develop an energy-oriented nuclear program under strict scrutiny sounds great - but I'm not sure that Iran would agree to it currently. Perhaps more productive would be negotiations focused on issues on which the US and Iran might actually agree as a confidence building measure.
1 Replies
US government in 1953 overthrew a democratic Iran, and put dictators in charge. The people tried to rebel against this change, but could not, due to US military support of the dictator. The tyrannical rule has been running for decades with US military support, while it was abusing its own people, now that tyranny does not want to cooperate, so it is sanction and war time, mean while the innocent civilians are suffering. We need a balanced view.
I would not say that I am asking Iran to give up their current approach to the Middle East; rather, by allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons under controlled conditions, their sphere of influence in the region actually increases.
I would disagree on your point that "Iranian nuclear proliferation is not inevitable." Even with economic sanctions, Iran continued to start production at its second major uranium enrichment site this past January. Their current course coupled with their attempts to gain nuclear weapons in the past indicates they will eventually gain nuclear weapons.
1 Replies
In practice you are asking Iran to give up their current approach to the Middle East which consists of trying to extend its influence into the region (via Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Bahrain, etc) and to push out the American and Western interests.
It is not likely that such a dramatic shift in Iranian perspective can be driven solely by economic sanctions.
Iranian nuclear proliferation is not inevitable given all the options on the table.