The Iranian Nuclear Program Crisis
Rauf Naqishbendi
July 15, 2007
Iran claims that they started to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the Western World, the United States in particular, contradicts this Iranian claim and asserts that Tehran’s intent is to make an atomic bomb, and demands that the Iranian nuclear program be suspended. This difficult development surfaced at the worst possible time, at least for the US.
Iran is one of the major oil and natural gas producing countries and it has bountiful oil and natural gas reserves at its disposal. The obvious question is: why does Iran have to invest billions of dollars in atomic energy to generate electricity, as they claim? It’s preposterous, and economically a poor investment. So, the suspicions that the Iranians are pursuing uranium enrichment to make an atomic bomb are plausible. So far, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad has not been flexible and imperiously defies the world’s demand to discontinue his nuclear programs.
Iran’s possession of an atomic weapon would exacerbate the peace and stability in an already problematic Middle East. Ominous and acrimonious anti-Semitic remarks by Iranian authorities against Israel have made Israelis uneasy. Israel is a small country, and striking Israel with one or two atomic bombs could incapacitate Israel to the extent that they would be unable to strike back. Additionally, Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades; with its Islamic fundamentalist government, possessing an atomic weapon could have grave consequences to the Middle East region and beyond. How then can Iran be subdued and convinced to suspend its nuclear programs? What are the alternative options the world can exercise should Iran proceed with its agenda?
Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council haven’t been unified as to how to handle the Iranian crisis. The US adamantly favors economic sanctions. Let us examine economic sanctions and their viability. Economic sanctions are imposed to create a financial crisis for the government targeted. The logic behind this action is to jeopardize the economy as an embargo drastically reduces commerce, which leads to higher unemployment, a lower standard of living and the government’s difficulties to finance social programs effectively. This should result in political instability, social disturbances, disarray within the ruling party, and eventually the ousting of the targeted government. This action makes common sense, and that is why the US in the past has tried to rally the world behind its economic embargoes against many nations. But history contradicts the expected results and proves this option faulty. Take Iraq for example. While under an international embargo, Saddam’s regime remained in power until it was ousted by force. Innocent civilians were the victims of the embargo; the main target, Saddam and his cronies, were well fed, clothed and sheltered. Almost a million Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition; in fact, the Iraqis blamed America for their insuperable difficulties more than Saddam. Libya is another country that was subject to economic embargo, yet the embargo didn’t cause any social or political disturbances to topple Khadafy’s regime. If economic sanctions were declared against Iran, it would backfire on the US, and the little support America has among the Iranians would be uprooted, and it would not produce any better results than the sanctions imposed on Iraq post Gulf War. Moreover, the US has imposed economic sanctions against Iran for years, but the lack of diplomatic and economic ties with Iran leaves the US without any effective leverage in this matter. If the US had a better economic and diplomatic relationship with Tehran, the US sanctions would be more influential. Also, it should be recognized that economic sanctions could succeed if Iranian oil and natural gas were to be banned in the world market, but that cannot happen since Iran’s oil is essential and there is no surplus of oil as all the oil-producing countries are pumping oil at maximum capacity.
Bombing Iranian atomic facilities and major army posts is another option. This option is the most dangerous choice given the Middle East’s current problematic affairs, and undoubtedly this would open another tragic and bloody chapter in the most strategic energy region in the world. The consequences would be extremely dangerous to the world’s peace and economy. Cunningly enough, Tehran has chosen to reveal their clandestine nuclear program at the worst possible time for the US. They have taken advantage of the vulnerability of the US in the wake of the Iraq and Afghan war. Iran has a long border with both Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries with heavy US military involvement. The Taliban’s activities have been on the rise recently, and US military action would result in further Iranian support of the Taliban and therefore the escalation of Afghanistan’s chaos. At the same time, the Iranians have been emboldening and aiding terrorist organizations in Iraq surreptitiously; however, an open war between the US and Iran would make Tehran openly aid insurgencies, possibly sending Iranian Jihadists, and subsequently worsening the already deteriorating pandemonium in Iraq.
The reality is that the Iranians are determined, and they will pursue their nuclear weapon program notwithstanding opposition for fearing little retribution from the world.
Iran is one of the major oil and natural gas producing countries and it has bountiful oil and natural gas reserves at its disposal. The obvious question is: why does Iran have to invest billions of dollars in atomic energy to generate electricity, as they claim? It’s preposterous, and economically a poor investment. So, the suspicions that the Iranians are pursuing uranium enrichment to make an atomic bomb are plausible. So far, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad has not been flexible and imperiously defies the world’s demand to discontinue his nuclear programs.
Iran’s possession of an atomic weapon would exacerbate the peace and stability in an already problematic Middle East. Ominous and acrimonious anti-Semitic remarks by Iranian authorities against Israel have made Israelis uneasy. Israel is a small country, and striking Israel with one or two atomic bombs could incapacitate Israel to the extent that they would be unable to strike back. Additionally, Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades; with its Islamic fundamentalist government, possessing an atomic weapon could have grave consequences to the Middle East region and beyond. How then can Iran be subdued and convinced to suspend its nuclear programs? What are the alternative options the world can exercise should Iran proceed with its agenda?
Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council haven’t been unified as to how to handle the Iranian crisis. The US adamantly favors economic sanctions. Let us examine economic sanctions and their viability. Economic sanctions are imposed to create a financial crisis for the government targeted. The logic behind this action is to jeopardize the economy as an embargo drastically reduces commerce, which leads to higher unemployment, a lower standard of living and the government’s difficulties to finance social programs effectively. This should result in political instability, social disturbances, disarray within the ruling party, and eventually the ousting of the targeted government. This action makes common sense, and that is why the US in the past has tried to rally the world behind its economic embargoes against many nations. But history contradicts the expected results and proves this option faulty. Take Iraq for example. While under an international embargo, Saddam’s regime remained in power until it was ousted by force. Innocent civilians were the victims of the embargo; the main target, Saddam and his cronies, were well fed, clothed and sheltered. Almost a million Iraqi children suffered from malnutrition; in fact, the Iraqis blamed America for their insuperable difficulties more than Saddam. Libya is another country that was subject to economic embargo, yet the embargo didn’t cause any social or political disturbances to topple Khadafy’s regime. If economic sanctions were declared against Iran, it would backfire on the US, and the little support America has among the Iranians would be uprooted, and it would not produce any better results than the sanctions imposed on Iraq post Gulf War. Moreover, the US has imposed economic sanctions against Iran for years, but the lack of diplomatic and economic ties with Iran leaves the US without any effective leverage in this matter. If the US had a better economic and diplomatic relationship with Tehran, the US sanctions would be more influential. Also, it should be recognized that economic sanctions could succeed if Iranian oil and natural gas were to be banned in the world market, but that cannot happen since Iran’s oil is essential and there is no surplus of oil as all the oil-producing countries are pumping oil at maximum capacity.
Bombing Iranian atomic facilities and major army posts is another option. This option is the most dangerous choice given the Middle East’s current problematic affairs, and undoubtedly this would open another tragic and bloody chapter in the most strategic energy region in the world. The consequences would be extremely dangerous to the world’s peace and economy. Cunningly enough, Tehran has chosen to reveal their clandestine nuclear program at the worst possible time for the US. They have taken advantage of the vulnerability of the US in the wake of the Iraq and Afghan war. Iran has a long border with both Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries with heavy US military involvement. The Taliban’s activities have been on the rise recently, and US military action would result in further Iranian support of the Taliban and therefore the escalation of Afghanistan’s chaos. At the same time, the Iranians have been emboldening and aiding terrorist organizations in Iraq surreptitiously; however, an open war between the US and Iran would make Tehran openly aid insurgencies, possibly sending Iranian Jihadists, and subsequently worsening the already deteriorating pandemonium in Iraq.
The reality is that the Iranians are determined, and they will pursue their nuclear weapon program notwithstanding opposition for fearing little retribution from the world.
Print
Email
