Nuclear weapons can be used for deterrence, compellence, defense, or coercion by major powers to achieve their interests in the international arena. The United States and other members of the United Nations use various treaties, such as the NPT (UN.org), military force, or economic sanctions, in the case of North Korea, to deter others from pursuing nuclear weapons. But what happens when an emerging power, Iran, is asked to freeze their nuclear programs? Will threat of force or sanctions deter an actor that is unhappy with the status quo from developing a nuclear weapon while there are others in the region with the capability to destroy the other with one weapon? I believe the answer is no. However, I do not believe sanctions or a military strike is necessary either. Negotiation is the best course of action to pursue.
Over the weekend, the talks in Geneva, between Iran and the other world powers, are at a stalemate. Even though both sides have not reached an agreement on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, it does not mean they never will. Secretary of State John Kerry believes, “There’s no question in my mind that we are closer now, as we leave Geneva, than we were when we came, and that with good work and good faith over the course of the next weeks, we can in fact secure our goal.” (NYTimes) Diplomacy takes time.
The best way to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is through an agreement that limits uranium enrichment and their plutonium program that allows for international monitoring. Iran has already agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, access to some of the nuclear facilities. (NYTimes) Perhaps this is just a small step, but it is in the right direction.
I agree with you that negotiation is the best course of action to freeze Iran's nuclear programs. However, I believe that sanctions can still help to deter Iran from further expanding in their nuclear programs. Increased sanctions would make life harder in Iran which if continued would create a greater and greater incentive for Iran to seize their nuclear programs. The issue I do see with imposing sanctions on Iran would be on the states that are economically interdependent on Iran, such as China's importation of oil. Which is why I agree that negotiations are the best course of action.
ReplyDeletePerhaps sanctions would only further agitate Iran and disrupt the status quo even further. It is a delicate balance and like we talked about in class. The unhappier Iran is, the less likely they are to cooperate. The negotiations seem to be our best possibility to stopping Iran from producing nuclear weapons. It takes time like the article says.
ReplyDeleteI think that the sanctions have worked rather well in the case of Iran. It did not make them stop their program entirely, but it did cause enough of a disturbance that they considered negotiating with the major powers. Iran had no incentives to negotiate without these sanctions being in place to make them feel the international pressure. The multilateral sanctions put further pressure on Iran by the International community to rethink their nuclear program.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that negotiations is a good course of action, however I think negotiations alone will not produce the results that the US and the international community is looking for. I think this is a good example of when smart sanctions would be a good idea and it may not force Iran into stopping their nuclear program immediately it might be able to force them into negotiations with the US. Forcing them into negotiations would then be the best course of action that could lead to the proliferation of their nuclear weapons. Any sort of smart sanctions on the things the Andrew brought up about their Uranium enrichment and plutonium program would be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you that negotiation is most likely to be successful, I disagree with the motivations you stated for Iran gaining nuclear weapons. You stated "while there are others in the region with the capability to destroy the other with one weapon," however it is pretty widely regarded that Israel is and has been in possession of nuclear weapons for a long time. They not only have the capacity to engage in nuclear war but also have the resolve to use them in a crisis situation based off of previous signs of aggression by the state. So I disagree that Iran nuclear program is intended mostly to intimidate the west, however it would result in a change in the balance of power.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Morgan said, negotiations alone are not going to be enough to convince Iran to halt their nuclear program. Even with sanctions put in place it is still very uncertain how cooperative they are. It may seem pessimistic but looking at the facts I think Iran ultimately is going to do whatever they want, as long as they think it is worth the consequences. They have publicly again and again stated their intentions towards the Jewish state of Israel. Also even though they are allowing inspections on some of their nuclear facilities, I don't see it much different than the situation with Syria and chemical weapons. Yes inspections are being allowed, but not total hands off inspections. They show what they want inspectors to see, in order to help keep the status quo, but are likely hiding things.
ReplyDeleteThe big question is if Iran is just continuing with negotiations simply for the sake of saving face, what will be the breaking point for them? What is it that will either change their intent towards Israel, or convince them it is yet again a good time to attack? I agree the sanctions and negotiations are baby steps that take time, but much more quickly can all progress be lost if they don't feel the consequences of their actions will be that costly.
It is hard to see the US as credible in terms of this post because we were supposed to cut down on our number of nuclear weapons, and we have not. Since the US is not following through on htier end of a bargain, why should Iran even come to the table?
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to trust Iran, the talks going on now could nothing more then them stalling the world or an attempt to relieve pressure on them from the major powers. They probably are going to keep pushing forward with their nuclear plans unless they commit to a plan to stop their nuclear and can fully prove they have done so, the major powers will have two choices. Let them do as they will with sanctions that don't work on Iran or they can step up and act, taking away the nuclear weapons or what pieces they have of it.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what the international community decides to do, whether its negotiating or sanctioning, i do not believe it will achieve its goal of stoping Iran from making nuclear weapon. Since Iran is on its way of obtaining nuclear weapon, the best way to go, is negotiating, and making sure that Iran is more inclined toward the West than to Middle East countries. Negotiating, might mean that the West has to come to peace, that Iran might become a new nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteGood post Andrew but I disagree with your statement that sanctions or a military strike are not necessary. Negotiation may be the best course of action, but in my opinion it's not practical. Iran is going to do what they want and if we don't "incentivize" them in some way, they'll most likely keep pursuing nuclear weapons. I'm glad though that we're supposedly coming closer to an agreement as said by Secretary of the State John Kerry. It would be nice to exit this situation with no one harmed and our goals of stopping Iran from pursuing nuclear programs accomplished.
ReplyDelete