"... it's somewhat befuddling why conservatives would be so opposed to a slight easing of sanctions in order to produce a temporary halt in Iran's nuclear program. Carrots are supposed to be in the diplomatic toolbox; if the idea is to pull the country away from nukes and setting it on a new course, Iran will need the U.S. and its allies to produce some carrots before the process is over." - NewsdayPresident Obama stated yesterday that America does not want to see weapons in the hands of Iran. However, he is in favor of continuing to try and allow a temporary lift of non core sanctions to see if Iranian leadership is actually serious about working to dismantle its programs (article). This contradicts the stance of hardliners in the West, but it does present an opportunity for trying a more two way method of negotiation instead of pure coercion as tried before.
Lastly, we should look at exactly how close Iran is to attaining the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Reuters reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has drastically slowed expansion of its nuclear programs since Hassan Rouhani became president and has significantly less uranium than is needed to create a bomb. Additionally in an interview on PBS News Hour of David Albright, a physicist, founder, and president of the non-profit Institute for Science and International Security, spoke on his opinions of Iran's plans for nuclear capability.
"The likelihood if Iran was going to break out, if it decided to do that it would be seeking , at least in my view, probably just a crude nuclear explosive." - AlbrightHe goes on to say that a weapon like this would be impractical for a major attack and would probably not be fit for use in a missile delivery system. It would be used simply for Iran to be able to say that they have nuclear capability and as a bargaining chip to use to further decrease or lift sanctions against the country. While this is important, I would also agree with Albright when he later states that the real question is whether or not Iran will be able to get to this point without sparking a conventional war with Israel and consequently the US.
Hi partner. The United States has been imposing sanctions on Iran since Carter in 1979. This is how we have chosen to cripple their economy, in a way that is less costly and risk-adverse for us. Other nations that have chosen to impose sanctions upon Iran include South Korea and Japan. Multilateral sanctions, such as those imposed upon Iran, are more effective than unilateral sanctions, according to the findings of Bapat. Multilateral sanctions actually appear more effective than do unilateral sanctions, even if an institution is not involved. According to what you have said, these sanctions appear to be working in reducing, or at least causing the stagnation of, these nuclear weapons capabilities in Iran. I now ask: judging by Iran's volatile history, do you trust them to engage in nuclear disarmament?
ReplyDeleteHi back. I do not trust the Iranian leadership when they say that the goal of Iran's nuclear program is to provide energy for the country. Tehran has been a sworn enemy of the United States since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and I see no major shift in politics to suggest they are not now. I would agree with the current decision to keep strong sanctions against Iran as they seem to be slowing the progress of their nuclear program.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that Iran's development of nuclear weapons capabilities is not centered around a militaristic agenda. Israel has for years been the regional hegemony; it has a powerful military and explicitly cooperates with the US. Development of nuclear weapons in Iran would create a balance of power in the region, albeit a hostile one. Iran is clearly seeking for international credibility with this project; any engagement on their part would be foolish and premature. However, the presence of regional extremist organizations and Iran's relatively porous borders do pose an international security threat. The US especially must communicate with Iran and ensure the security of Iran's nuclear facilities.
ReplyDeleteI could not see that the Iranian leadership to attempting to create nuclear technology simply for an energy source. Their stockpile of oil is one of the largest in the world, why would they need to seek an alternative energy source at this time? I believe that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, not for any specific offensive attack, but to place themselves on the bargaining table with the world’s super powers. If they can create these weapons than the factor of deterrence for the US is lowered. They would have to listen to the international community less in regards to Israel, and funding terrorist organizations. The international community would have to take any threat they give, or anything that they bring to the table much more seriously if they were in position of nuclear arms. I see them making these weapons rather than an energy system, but I only see them using these weapons as a bargaining chip rather than a first strike offensive weapon.
ReplyDeleteAlthough President Hassan Rouhani has replaced former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is unlikely that a change in the executive government truly means a change in domestic policy and international desires. Unfortunately, the presidential position in Iran seems more like a figurehead position that speaks for public recognition, but contains very little power in comparison to some of the other leaders in the ideological government. In actuality, it is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or the Supreme Council that has the most power, and at the end of the day, President Rouhani is unable to truly accept or make any decisions for the country without the approval of Khamenei and his associates. Therefore, Rouhani should not be seen as a dramatic change that shows the domestic success of sanctions, rather the U. S. and Israel are still working with the same ideological government, with a less controversial figurehead for the executive branch of government. In this situation, the U. S. should approach the nuclear discussions with extreme caution.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, it is extremely unlikely Israel will allow Iran any nuclear capabilities, due to the countries prior accusations and statements about its plans to attack Israel after they receive nuclear capabilities, so any agreement Iran makes with the US will either hinder relations with Israel or will be prevented by Israeli military strategies.
With this new attitude in discussions between Iran and the US I find this topic very interesting. If ever there were a moment in history where agreement was plausible and curtailing Iran's nuclear attempts was even seriously on the table this is that time. I may be naive and like to think that people aren't as bad as we always assume, but the idea of carrots is one that seems extremely logical. If people really think that we won't have to take some steps that just require trust in Iran, then we will never see progress. If we want to believe diplomacy is real and that the world could function and resolve issues without war and violence then we have to be willing to take the step and incentivize Iran into slowing development on the nuclear front with the easing of sanctions. In my opinion this is the only way that they would agree to this, even a government fully willing to stop it's nuclear program would probably continue it if the international community were to be insulting enough to show absolutely zero trust in the relationship.
ReplyDeleteI think the discussions with Iran are a very difficult situation that could end up with several different outcomes. However, many would say not to trust Iran, and that regardless of these talks, Iran will continue to do as it pleases with regards to its nuclear development program. It is possible that our sanctions are actually having an effect powerful enough to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it still is difficult to tell what the Iran government would do with this new freedom in the absence of sanctions.
ReplyDelete