Introduction
The modern world can be characterized by complex international relations that consist of multiple interdependent aspects. Remembering the lessons of WWII and other military conflicts that resulted in the death of millions of people, states try to protect their interests by using diplomatic methods. The rule of force is no longer the dominant paradigm as the safety of less powerful countries is guaranteed by their allies.
However, the given system does not presuppose the absence of conflicts at the international level because of the critical differences in perspectives on particular issues or events. For this reason, there is still a need for the potent tools that can be used to guarantee the dominant position and provide a competitive advantage to some states.
Military and economic capabilities often play a critical role in these debates. Unfortunately, in many cases, the power of the atom also becomes one of the arguments that are suggested to support a particular position. Thus, the Iranian Nuclear Program can be considered as an attempt to make the country’s position more solid and protect it from potential enemies; however, at the same time, it threatens the existing world order and balance in the region.
Background
The appearance of the nuclear weapon, its mass production, and its use as a potent tool of pressure introduced a significant threat to the world. The 20th century was characterized by the opposition of two superstates and their blocks because of the desire to dominate and impact global intercourse (Institute for National Strategic Studies 67). However, in the course of the development of this opposition, it became obvious that the use the nuclear weapon and its unwise production is not the option as it will result in the collapse of the society.
For this reason, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)) were created (Institute for National Strategic Studies 65). These agreements strictly regulated the use of nuclear power and the further spread of lethal weapons. To a greater degree, these pacts, along with the functioning of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), became the ground for the peaceful development of the world and the successful cooperation of various states.
However, even though almost all independent states agreed to accept PTBT and NPT, today’s international situation remains difficult. The fact is that there are multiple attempts to engage in the unlicensed utilization of nuclear power and the creation of nuclear weapons. For instance, cases of North Korea and Iranian Nuclear Programs can be considered credible evidence to the statement (Institute for National Strategic Studies 56).
Both these states are suspected in numerous violations of the basic assumptions of these agreements as they create the scientific and economic base for the development and creation of the nuclear weapon (Institute for National Strategic Studies 77). These attempts pose a significant threat to the balance of power and situation in the region. For example, the Middle Eastern region that has traditionally been associated with multiple conflicts experiences a new wave of tensions because of Iran’s attempts to empower its position by exploring the theme of the nuclear weapon (Institute for National Strategic Studies 24). Regardless of the fact that Iran emphasizes the peaceful character of this incentive and its focus on the satisfaction of the state’s need for energy, there are still multiple questions associated with it.
The conflict related to the Iranian Nuclear program is also complicated by the fact that it violates the existing regulations regarding the use of nuclear power for different purposes. Along with the instability traditionally peculiar to the region, it becomes a significant threat to the stability and peace in the area. The countries that are considered potent actors who impact the policy-making in the Gulf region such as the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, are concerned about the further development of the program because of the possible misbalance of power it can bring to the area (Institute for National Strategic Studies 55).
At the same time, there are multiple threats to the security of these states and the whole world. For this reason, it becomes critical to conduct an in-depth investigation of the problem with the primary aim to analyze the nature of the Iranian Nuclear program, its basic assumptions, and the main goals it aims to achieve. Being one of the factors that attract the attention of the international community, it also generates numerous issues for vigorous debates and discussions.
Iranian Nuclear Program
Past
The roots of the nuclear program of Iran can be traced back to the 1950s. It appeared during the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who tried to modernize all spheres of the state’s economy and industry to increase the level of its independence (Ningthoujam 111). For this reason, the project was launched as part of the Atom for Peace incentive with the broad support of the USA and other Western states (Ningthoujam 111).
At its initial stages, the program had a peaceful character and was aimed at the creation of the nuclear infrastructure and nuclear fuel cycle that were the basic elements for the use of the power of the atom to generate energy and satisfy the needs of the industry and economy. Iran invited multiple foreign specialists to create all needed factories and modernize the country’s power system to prepare it for the new approach.
However, after the 1979 Revolution, international cooperation regarding this issue was ended because of the lack of stability in the region. Thus, in the 1980s new wave of negotiations about the necessity to continue the program emerged; as a result of agreements with France, Argentina, and Russia, a joint research organization to support the evolution of the country’s nuclear program was created (Ningthoujam 112). Russian nuclear experts and technical information helped Iran to relaunch the project and introduce appropriate measures to facilitate the development of the sector.
Present
The nuclear program of Iran includes a research reactor and other elements of the chain needed to produce energy. However, in the 2000s, information about the secret uranium enrichment program supported by the country triggered vigorous debates about the non-peaceful use of the nuclear power and Iran’s intentions to create lethal weapons to dominate in the region (Ningthoujam 119). Under these conditions, the IAEA started its own investigation aimed at the analysis of the situation and its threat to peace in the world. In 2006 it concluded that in the 1980s, a secret project AMAD was launched with the primary aim to create an explosive device that uses nuclear power (Ningthoujam 120). This statement provoked vigorous debates regarding the issue in the UN.
Trying to refute arguments provided by the opponents of the program, Iran gave the IAEA access to the additional details about their nuclear programs (NCRI-U.S. Representative Office 54). These details demonstrated the absence of any projects aimed at the creation of weapons. In such a way, regarding the fact that the agency did not have credible evidence proving the continuation of AMAD, in 2018, the IAEA reiterated its 2015 report stating that there were no signs of the prohibited activity after 2009 (NCRI-U.S. Representative Office 47).
This conclusion helped Iran to enter the agreement known as the Iran nuclear deal; it was reached in 2015 between the state and the USA, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany (P5+1) and regulated the enrichment, reprocessing, and monitoring to ensure that there is no threat to peace (Institute for National Strategic Studies 112). It became a significant step to the resolution of the problem and making a compromise.
However, there are still many problematic issues related to the problem. Israel reports that the project AMAD remains topical as Iran supports its development (“Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab Allies Tout Victory Over Iran After U.S. Quits Iran Deal”). Additionally, some other facts increase the level of tension and precondition various states’ responses. The USA proclaimed that it would withdraw from the deal because of its insecure character and the threat the program posed to the region and world (Salama).
This announcement was supported by such representatives of the Gulf region as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain as they see the Iranian Nuclear Program as a direct threat to their safety and peace in the whole area (NCRI-U.S. Representative Office 87). At the same time, these claims were opposed by Russia that insists on the necessity of compromise and the need for further negotiations regarding the problem.
Future
The disputable character of the topic makes forecasting about the future of the Iranian Nuclear Program extremely complex. It is obvious that the state will not stop the development of this project as it serves as the guaranty of its independence and economic power in the future. At the same time, it remains a potent level of influence that can help to interfere with the international policy of various states and empower the Iranian’s position.
At the same time, multiple states try to ban the further evolution of the project as it will threaten their roles at the international level and introduce a particular shift into the existing balance of power (Institute for National Strategic Studies 81). For this reason, in the next several years, the topic of the Iranian Nuclear Program will remain one of the most discussed issues in the UN and IAEA because of the radical difference in perspectives on its nature and real goals.
Evaluation
There are two radical opinions on the discussed programs, and it is difficult to select the most relevant one because of the lack of credible evidence. The first one evaluates the Iranian Nuclear Program as a peaceful incentive aimed at the improvement of the state’s economy and its empowerment due to the innovation and gradual increase of independence. For instance, Russia accepts the necessity to support the evolution of this program to minimize tension in the region as it is sure in the absence of military goals (Institute for National Strategic Studies 54). The second opinion considers Iran’s attempts to enrich uranium and create all needed facilities as a direct threat to the world’s security as the real aim of the project is the creation of nuclear weapons and missiles. The USA and the Gulf states adhere to this option and insist on the necessity to exert pressure on Iran to stop the further development of the program (Institute for National Strategic Studies 73).
UAE and Gulf States’ Position
Past
The Iranian Nuclear Program has always been unwelcomed by the Gulf states and the UAE. The fact is that the region is characterized by the struggle over the dominance between several countries that have powerful economies supported by the revenues from the oil sector (Salama). In such a way, at the first stages of the program’s evolution, the UAE and Saudi Arabia were not able to introduce effective measures to resist the launch of the program because of the lack of the global influence and the opportunities to interfere with the international discourse and affect the decision making of the leading powers (Institute for National Strategic Studies 121). For this reason, their reaction remained unclear, and there were no direct obstacles to the project.
Present
With the rapid economic development of these states, the situation has altered radically. Today, trying the preserve their dominant positions in the region, countries of the Gulf, including the UAE outline their negative attitude to the Iranian Nuclear Program and emphasize the necessity of its monitoring and elimination to preserve the peace in the region (Salama). After the U.S. announcement of the withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies emphasized a significant political victory over Iran (“Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab Allies Tout Victory Over Iran After U.S. Quits Iran Deal”).
At the same time, they insist on the introduction of the additional international sanctions to make the state stop its projects aimed at the development of the nuclear weapon. In such a way, they directly oppose Teheran in its attempts to gain more independence and reconsider the existing patterns of power.
Future
One understands the fact that the UAE and the Gulf states will continue to exert pressure against Iran because of the existing threat to their security. The given problem can be considered one of the central issues peculiar to the Middle Eastern region, which means that significant attention will be devoted to it in the future. All states of the Gulf will adhere to their current position because of the necessity to avoid the further empowerment of Iran and fears connected with the creation and use of the nuclear weapon to achieve particular goals and reconsider the existing balance of power (Salama). That is why the USA will remain a central strategic partner as it tries to ban the further development of the project by introducing international sanctions and focusing allies’ attention on the necessity to solve the problem.
Existing Threats
UAE
Being one of the main rivals of Iran, the UAE has numerous concerns about the nuclear program discussed above. The fact is that the country’s location makes it vulnerable to the potential strike which means that it becomes a potential victim (“Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab Allies Tout Victory Over Iran After U.S. Quits Iran Deal”). However, it is not the major concern; the fact is that the state also has its own nuclear program that is focused on the creation of power plants to satisfy the demand for energy (Salama). In such a way, it is considered the only country capable of keeping pace with Iran which makes its position even more dangerous. Furthermore, the country’s dominance in the area can be opposed because of the increased power of Iran and its ability to act independently.
Gulf States
For the Gulf states, the situation is similar. For instance, Saudi Arabia sees Iran as a direct threat because of its international policy and support provided to particular population groups (Salama). In such a way, the empowerment of the rival will introduce a significant instability in the region and trigger the Gulf states’ reaction aimed at the creation of appropriate measures to minimize threat and protect their positions at the regional and international levels (“Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab Allies Tout Victory Over Iran After U.S. Quits Iran Deal”). Moreover, there is still a significant danger of military intervention supported by the nuclear power to control the area and undermine the force of rivals. For these reasons, Gulf states try to resist the given program and slow down its speed.
Regionally
The project also poses a threat to the whole Gulf region. The fact is that the development of nuclear weapons by Iran will trigger a domino effect as other countries in the area will apparently try to acquire their own similar weapons to preserve the balance of power and protect themselves from a theoretical attack (Salama). They can buy or try to build it by engaging in various deals. It will create a hazardous environment characterized by the existence of the uncontrolled nuclear missiles and the high chance for their use as the method to struggle against potential rivals. The UAE can be the first to create them because of the existing background. In such a way, all countries in the area can be involved in a devastating military conflict that will have a crucial impact on the whole world.
Globally
Finally, the existence of the opposite views on the Iranian Nuclear program can result in the aggravation of relations between world powers who support or oppose it. For instance, Russia and the USA have various perspectives on the future of the project which means the growing tension between them. The further deterioration of the situation can result in the emergence of new issues and reconsideration of the balance of power.
These shifts are extremely dangerous for global intercourse as they can be followed by military conflicts and the introduction of new sanctions that will affect all states (Salama). Finally, specialists admit the chance of the beginning of the WWIII because of the emergence of a new actor with the nuclear weapon and the split into two opposing camps that try to protect their interests.
Future Predictions and Conclusion
Altogether, the situation regarding the Iranian Nuclear Program remains complex. It poses a significant threat to the Gulf region and the whole world because of the possibility of the creation of lethal weapons. Additionally, regarding the U.S. plans to withdraw from the deal, it is possible to predict the further aggravation of the situation around this problem. There are opposing views on the future of the project which means that powers supporting them will engage in the struggle to protect their interests.
In such a way, there is a dangerous situation that can result in the emergence of devastating military conflicts as other nations will also try to acquire nuclear weapons to protect them. It means that there is a significant need for new negotiations aimed at the creation of the appropriate solution to the problem.
Works Cited
Institute for National Strategic Studies. Russia and the Iranian Nuclear Program: Replay or Breakthrough? CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014.
NCRI-U.S. Representative Office. Iran’s Nuclear Core: Uninspected Military Sites, Vital to the Nuclear Weapon. National Council of Resistance of Iran-US Office, 2017.
Ningthoujam, Alvite Singh. “Iranian Nuclear Program: A Chronology.” Contemporary Review of the Middle East, vol. 3, no. 1, 2016, pp. 111–122. Web.
Salama, Samir. “Iran existential threat to UAE, Saudi, says top US lawmaker.” Gulf News. 2018. Web.
“Saudi Arabia and Gulf Arab Allies Tout Victory Over Iran After U.S. Quits Iran Deal.” Haaretz, 2018. Web.