STRATEGY OPTIONS AGAINST IRANIAN NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT - Наукові конференції
Головна
UA RU EN

Вас вітає Інтернет конференція!

Вітаємо на нашому сайті

Рік заснування видання - 2014

STRATEGY OPTIONS AGAINST IRANIAN NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT

09.02.2014 16:06

[Секція 10. Світова економіка та міжнародні економічні відносини]

Автор: Iana Koliasa, Lazarski University, Warsaw, Poland


The diplomacy to prevent Iran’s nuclear program remains one of the main goal for international community.

Without past negotiated results, international sanctions, pressure, intelligence services, Iran would likely have nuclear armament. In this case there would be shift of power to Iran not only because of nuclear threats but also sale of weapon in exchange for political impact and agreements on energy supply.

The situation

The diplomatic ways to cease the growing risk of Iranian nuclear program have not worked. The fear of near states to feel the consequences of possible nuclear weapons is increasing. The United Nations Security Council will need to deal with a wide spectrum of problems which did not appear in recent times and cannot be resolved rapidly, such as:

• The neighbors of Iran understand the risks of Iran’s nuclear program and this fact can be an impetus for Israel and Arab countries to develop their own nuclear instruments if the USA does not accept any measures against Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

• Iran continues to promote the violence and do a challenge Arab states and Israel. Consequently, The Israeli government has done their first major attempt in trying to weaken the situation. Israel considers the idea of steady prohibition on uranium enrichment in Iran which implies on ban any amount enrichment uranium reserves on Iranian territory. In addition, Israel insists on severe control proposition, disarmament of Arak reactor and Fordow enrichment facility (Einhorn, 2013). 

• The government of Iran demonstrates the great support of terrorist groups in Iraq and Lebanon which killed numerous Iraqi citizens and American and Iraqi troops. Also Iranian leaders continue to look for the ways of nuclear weapon production and try to increase their impact on Arab countries because of the Arab spring.

•  The people are worried about an inappropriate system of education, increasing level of insecurity, mismanagement of government, lack of democracy and deficiency the rule of law. 

• Economy remains not so strong because of corruption, unemployment, inflation, low price of oil and international sanctions. 

• The United States of America blame the government of Iran in human rights misuse against the Iranian population. When there were disputes about presidential elections in 2009, a great number of Iranians were on the streets for protestation the actions of government and security forces not only put under arrest the people but even killed many of them. Moreover, the arrested people were tortured in the prison.







The Stance of Obama

During the campaign, Obama Administration identified the issue of prevention Iran’s nuclear program. It was repeatedly promised to focus once again on the problem and resources on the region by:

• Economic and political incentives to stop the pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity. One of the US main goals is based on using economic pressure because of violation the international sanctions which means the high price for widen of nuclear attempts (Landler, 2012).

• Strict international sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to cooperate. The UN Security Council imposes the sanctions on Tehran because Iran does not meet the commitments to the international community. The majority of these sanctions are based on decrease the transfers of technology, hinder the financial flows to and from Iran and limitation on travelling for Iranian government. There are sanctions such as the elimination of access to the USA for any financial institution that buys the oil through Iranian Central Bank for the purpose of close the bank in Iran and hence the lack of funds to finance nuclear program ( Landler, 2012). In November 2011, the report by the IAEA stated the proof of the nuclear weapons program in Iran and as a result the Obama Administration decided to strengthen the efforts to press the regime. The sanctions were geared on Iran’s petrochemical and banking sectors. In 2012, Obama signed an executive order for permission the USA to freeze the interests and property of Iranian government such as central bank and financial institutions (Biden, 2012). The USA is satisfied by economic sanctions against Iran because the currency has been devalued by 80 percent and the export of oil has low level. There was passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which will reinforce stabilization of current U.S. sanctions on Iran (AIPAC, 2013).

• Military and security measures.  At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference in Washington, D.C in 2012, Obama emphasized the increase of pressure because the Iranians leaders should have a grasp that policy of the USA is not about containment but prevention Iranian nuclear power program (Biden, 2012). Also in the speech to the UN General Assembly in September, The US President claimed that it could be better to resolve the nuclear problem diplomatically but there is not so much time for long-time diplomatic practice. However, one of the reasons why the USA did not use the military force is the dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. The economic situation of the USA and its allies is significantly related to flow of oil from the region where Iran is situated. The essence of this fact is the relation of economic recovery from the financial crisis to stable price of oil. The USA understands that any possibility of raise the oil prices could return the international economy in the times of recession. 

Further Recommendations

Besides the implementation of Obama Administration foreign policy proposals, it needed to extend the efforts in Iran.

• Resolve the issue peacefully. The use of military force can only postpone Iran’s obtaining of nuclear weapons by a few years. It will not force them to cease the nuclear program but it gives the aim to continue nuclear production facilities. Also there is a serious threat that Iran retaliate on the large scale including attacks against U.S forces. Military strikes and secret operations can only strengthen problem and then persuade Iran that it needs nuclear armament for safety. In addition, military actions against Iranians would injure civilians in the process of attack, also alienate the Muslim population around the world and cause the perspective of clash of civilizations. On the other hand there is assumption that Iran almost ready for representation of nuclear power and they need only a few months to complete the weapons. In this case Iran willingly can use it against Israel which could lead to war. Moreover, Iran could sell weapon to others and countries such as Turkey and Egypt could try to get the nuclear weapons for own protection. These issues can compel us to doubt because it can be late to destroy Iranian nuclear program in case of not taking the actions and only expect for diplomatic solution. 

• The change of current Iranian regime could bring many positive outcomes. New regime could possibly have other behavior to nuclear program capacity. Moreover, it could have other attitude to a whole range of issues such as human rights, relations with neighbors and even problem of terrorism (Einhorn, 2013). The spread of democracy could improve the situation in country and significantly increase the peace and stability. Washington already created the program on the legal basis which based on the Iran Freedom Support Act.  However, similar strategy can have significant consequences because there are the possibility of disruption the domestic legitimacy and uncertainty about the preference of democratic Iran to refuse from nuclear power (Carpenter, 2006). 

• The strengthening of pressure on Iran diplomatically can demonstrate the good results.  For example, such approach could convince Iranian government to select more peaceful stance in negotiations and even change the opinion on future course of actions about nuclear weapons. The essence is the fact that harsher kinds of sanctions could be more effective and prompt Iranians leaders to revise their objectives on nuclear power while current sanctions just demonstrate very little compliance from Iranian side. But it is evidently that sanctions can have devastating influence and could cause more and serious problems in the US – Iran relations.

• Negotiation can help to improve the situation and relations between countries. What if the Iranian perception of hostile society pushes them to seek an abundance of opportunities for nuclear power? The USA needs to establish better and mutually beneficial relations with Iran (Albright, 2012, p.37). It should try to find new approaches to the nuclear problem and the role of Iran, for example the offer of foreign investment could be the option. The Iranian government and population should understand that cooperation is the key to support by international community (Einhorn, 2013).  On the other hand it is difficult to promote good relations and trust between the USA and Iran when the USA and other countries develop many strategies of punitive policy and prepare for possibility of great conflict. Moreover Iran doesn’t implement even simple issues and refuse the attempts of the USA to find the resolution of the problem (Carpenter, 2006). In the case of not finding the common grounds on nuclear issue and permanent Iranian grievance, Washington can rely on deterrence and considering other more effective methods of influence.

Conclusion

The Iranian nuclear weapon problem should be solved as soon as possible. The mistake to allow the Iranian nuclear weapon production can have more than devastating impact on the global scale. All these recommendation of strategies against Iranian nuclear enrichment represent the pros and cons and need more detailed reconsideration and choice the best outcome. However, in the world of democracy, recognition of human rights and many freedoms, the best option is negotiation.   




Resources:

Albright, David and Brannan, Paul, 2012. Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons: constraining its future nuclear options. The Institute for science and International security, viewed 20 November 2013, <http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/USIP_Template_5March2012-1.pdf >. 

AIPAC, America’s Pro-Israel Lobby, 2013.  Prevent Iranian Nuclear Weapons Capability, viewed 20 November 2013, < http://www.aipac.org/learn/legislative-agenda/agenda-display?agendaid=%7BE9465F79-9380-4A00-BAA9-18DB524F23C8%7D >.

Boychuk, Ben and Mathis, Joel, 2013. Debate: What's the best way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Scripps Howard News Service, viewed 17 November 2013, 

<http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/debate-what-s-the-best-way-to-stop-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons-1.6436947 >.

Biden, Joe, 2012. The Candidates on U.S.-Iran Policy. Council on Foreign Relations, viewed 17 November 2013, 

< http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798 >.

Carpenter, Ted Galen, 2006. Iran’s Nuclear Program: America’s Policy Options. CATO Institute, viewed 17 November 2013, < http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/irans-nuclear-program-americas-policy-options >.

Davenport, Kelsey, 2013. ‘Options for a Diplomatic Solution to the Iranian Nuclear Challenge’. Iran nuclear brief. The Arms Control Association, viewed 22 November, 2013, 

< http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Iran_Brief_01_09_2013.pdf >.

Einhorn, Robert, 2013. Is a "Good" Deal Possible? Brookings, viewed 24 October 2013, <http://www.brookings.edu/research/speeches/2013/10/24-nuclear-deal-possible-iran-einhorn>. 

 Landler, Mark, 2012. ‘Iran Face-Off Testing Obama the Candidate’. The New York Times, viewed 17 November 2013, < http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/world/middleeast/faceoff-with-iran-complicates-obamas-re-election-campaign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 >.

Misztal, Blaise, 2013. Will the Results of Iran’s Presidential Election Bring Meaningful Change? Bipartisan Policy Center, viewed 17 November 2013, 

<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2013/06/will-results-iran%E2%80%99s-presidential-election-bring-meaningful-change >.

Rubin, Jennifer, 2013. ‘Obama to allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program?’ The Washington Post, viewed 20 November 2013, < http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/07/obama-to-allow-iran-to-keep-its-nuclear-weapons-program/ >.

United Nations Security Council, viewed 17 November 2013, < http://www.un.org/en/sc/ >.



Creative Commons Attribution Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
допомога Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст мишкою і натисніть Ctrl + Enter

Інші наукові праці даної секції

Конференції

Конференції 2024

Конференції 2023

Конференції 2022

Конференції 2021

Конференції 2020

Конференції 2019

Конференції 2018

Конференції 2017

Конференції 2016

Конференції 2015

Конференції 2014

:: LEX-LINE :: Юридична лінія

Міжнародна інтернет-конференція з економіки, інформаційних систем і технологій, психології та педагогіки

Наукові конференції

Економіко-правові дискусії. Спільнота