Introduction
Nuclear program involves the development and assembling of weapons of mass killing generally from elements of high nuclear power potential such as uranium and platinum. Development of these weapons by a country poses a serious security threat to the other local and international countries, as it is the case with the quest by the Iranian republic to develop nuclear weapons.
The Iranian nuclear program poses a serious security threats to the United States and the United Nations Security Council. In the past, different approaches have been applied such as sanctions on various aspects of economy, leadership, and information to persuade Iran to drop its quest for nuclear weapon development but such techniques have utterly failed.
Therefore, more comprehensive and well-integrated approach will definitely now persuade the Iranian leadership to end its nuclear weapon development program and this paper explores the available options that the US has in its bid to stop the seemingly ill-motivated Iranian uranium enrichment program.
Available Tools and Options for the United States
The Iranian nuclear program started back in the 1950’s but Iran leaders continue to disagree with the allegations of its nuclear program implementation. The US policy towards the Iranian nuclear development says, “Iran has consistently denied allegations it seeks to develop a bomb.
Yet many in the international community remain skeptical” (Rubin, 2008, p.26). The failure by the Iranian republic to declare publically its interest in nuclear development forces the United States to develop reproachable strategies to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons development program.
A major strategy available is to impose stricter economic sanctions on the Iranian oil and gas industries, banking sector, insurance and shipping industries including the aircraft. Arbatov observes that, “…more rounds of sanctions by the U.S. and other entities were motivated by Iran’s alleged nuclear development program” (2007, p.64). The U.S. government should seriously bar importation of oil from Iran and impose heavy penalties to any company, which infringes the order.
Importation and exportation of expatriates for the nuclear development program should remain unauthorized leading to lack of appropriate technology for the implementation of the program. Regrettably, the U.S government should aim at crippling the economic status of the Iranian republic for its citizenry to suffer economic downfall and therefore pressure the leadership to give in to the demands to abandon the controversial nuclear weapons development program implementation.
Moreover, to diminish the nuclear materials with which Iran uses to develop the nuclear weapons, the US can consider banning the supply of any nuclear associated materials, skills, and technology completely, to diminish the Iranian uranium and platinum enrichments and therefore, incapacitate the implementation of the nuclear program.
On the other hand, the U.S government can employ military approach in an attempt to achieve what sanctions fail to achieve. The military approach would involve attacking the Iranian military and the nuclear infrastructure. In this strategy, striking the military alone would not be appropriate in solving the problem of nuclear program because the program develops weapons of mass destruction.
However, striking both the military and the nuclear infrastructure including the nuclear plants would cripple the entire program. A single attack serves only to delay the program implementation; therefore, well-integrated regular military strikes throughout the year would compel the Iranian government to give in to the pressure of the U.S.
The military strike remains the last resort, after all other means have failed and as Arbatov observes, “If all other approaches fail to produce the desired objectives the president will have to weigh the risk of failure to set back Iran’s nuclear program sufficiently against the risks of military strikes” (2007, p.65). Nevertheless, use of this strategy calls for proper planning and risk taking otherwise the strategy would easily degenerate into war.
Another appropriate approach available for the U.S involves the use of revised diplomatic dialogue and as Rahman warns, “should the president decide that the only way to test Iran seriousness about solving the nuclear dispute is to drop all preconditions to negotiation, several principles should be observed” (2007, p.53).
During the negotiations, the U.S diplomats should present their incentives to the Iranian government such as the lifting of the trade bans and sanctions, end to isolation and segregation, provision and supply of spare parts of aircrafts and political support only if they were willing to abandon their quest for nuclear development program.
For the diplomatic approach to attain its objectives, prior alliance building with other states from the international community remains of paramount important. However, it is important to note that, if Iran continues to enjoy support from other states especially Moscow and Saudi Arabia, then the U.S diplomatic force is bound to lose the fight against the nuclear program.
Therefore, in the light of this insight, the US should consider extending its operations and sanctions to Russia and Saudi Arabia and to any other country, which supports the Iranian nuclear weapons development program.
Other western states including member states of the United Nations Security Council joined the U.S in the push for the Iranian republic to stop nuclear development. According to Arbatov, “United Nations demanded that Iran suspend its Uranium enrichment activities, failure to which it would impose sanctions and complete arms embargo” (2007, p.65).
With nuclear development in Iran, international peace remains threatened and this explains why the United Nation Security Council imposed strict bans to Iran to pressure it to abandon its quest for nuclear development program.
Conclusion
Nuclear development program in Iran faces stringent opposition from local, regional, and international community simply because of the security threats associated with the development and testing of weapons of mass destruction.
More so, the international super powers including the United States has continually engaged the Iranian republic to abandon its quest to carry out the nuclear weapon program. Different approaches and strategies applicable include more economic sanctions, diplomatic dialogue, military attacks and isolation or segregation.
Formation of alliances among the United States and other European countries in the fight against nuclear development in Iran strengthens the pressure imposed by the U.S government to end the nuclear development dispute in Iran. Nevertheless, I think the best approach is the military option because all other strategies have failed; therefore, if military invasion is the only way out towards achieving the common good for all, so be it.
Reference List
Arbatov, A. (2007). The Inexorable Momentum of Escalation. In P. M. Cronin (Ed.), Double Trouble: Iran and North Korea as Challenges to International Security (pp. 64–65). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rahman, B. (2007). Islamic republic of Iran nuclear activities. The Iranian journal of International affairs, 19(4), 53-77.
Rubin, M. (2008). Meeting the Challenge: U.S policy towards Iranian nuclear development. Bipartisan Policy Center, 6, 23-33.