Executive Summary
The United States does not have the best options for dealing with the North Korean and Iranian nuclear energy disputes. Inducements, pressures, and intimidations have not been successful.
A military intervention would provisionally stop the plans to launch a nuclear energy, but human organizations and diplomatic requirements would prevent this strategy. Moreover, military strike would bring about a high risk of reconstitution and would hasten the conflict.
For some decision makers in the American government, the superlative alternative is to isolate these governments until they disintegrate or pressures build on them to an extent where they might be forced to engage in consultations based on the US stipulations.
This alternative has the veneer of stiffness, which is enough to make it politically justifiable in the American government. Upon a careful analysis, the strategy in reality permits North Korea and Iran to carry on with their nuclear programs uncontrolled.
It also neglects more attainable short-term objectives of improving intelligibility and securing susceptible nuclear equipments. The policy seeks to attain tentative long-term ambition of denuclearization.
These short-term objectives are believed to be significant to the US national security in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
North Korea and Iran are extremely different nations that share in any case one vital relationship, which is related to decades of separation from Washington. The US has developed various policies aiming at segregating the two from the global society.
They are also compared in terms of their role, which is related to undermining the peace and security of the regions they occupy. The countries do not have respect for fundamental freedoms and support policies that are hostile to the United States, its associates, and partners.
Introduction
The nuclear dispute with North Korea and Iran are amongst the most obstinate national security problems that the US policy makers are faced with in the current international system. Democratic and Republican regimes have generated diverse strategies toward every state at different periods.
These policies vary from joint and polygonal discourse with inducements or pressures to sanctions, segregation, and even the threat of military intervention. None of these strategies has prevented the nuclear development of either country.
Iran has moved on with its uranium fortification plan and abridged collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The breakdown in North Korea is even more sensitive because Pyongyang pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, carried out nuclear experiments in 2006 and 2009, and currently requesting for recognition as a “Nuclear Weapons State.”
One question that cannot be avoided is that why did agreements reached with North Korea and Iran to congeal or limit their nuclear plans disintegrate.
One wonders what could be the projections for current ambassadorial efforts. Evaluating the two cases discloses general prototypes that offer the signs of deteriorating negotiations. North Korea and Iran were forced to negotiate based on their insight of chance and susceptibility.
Their views were motivated by the instantaneous strategy context they faced, which includes the political, financial, and defense situation existing at home, in their regions, and in the international system.
When accords reached could not convene their objectives, their views on chance and susceptibility, and in turn, their policy, changed. Discussions in both cases were prolonged and Iran and North Korea changed policy in reaction to the development in the policy context over time.
Particularly, their justifications for possessing a nuclear potential extended to include discouraging governmental change, improving negotiation advantage, and attaining political trustworthiness with the United States.
This proposal suggests a study that would be of great importance in understanding the American policy makers behavior as regards to the threats posed by Iran and North Korea since the two countries have always posed serious security challenges to other actors in the international system.
The paper proposes a methodology that would be used to conduct an extensive research on the views of some of the American policy makers regarding the actions to be taken to stop the influence of Iran and North Korea. The techniques will be discussed in summary, as well as the data collection methods.
Before moving to give a viable methodology, the paper will review the existing body of knowledge under the literature review section to understand the actions that have already been taken by both Democrats and Republicans.
In the fifth chapter, the proposal will give a data analysis technique, which would be ideal for analyzing data generated through quantitative study. The proposal gives the summary of the finding at the end.
Research Question
How will the United States respond to North Korea and Iran’s threats of nuclear war?
Purpose Statement
The United States has an intricate plan for addressing issues related to Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. The plan is not restricted to the nuclear challenges that the two states pose.
This implies that the United States has always perceived the two states as the major threat to its national interests because of their capability to disrupt peace.
The United States has come up with various programs aiming at stopping the two countries from interfering with its national interests, especially its national security.
The main question is how the United States will act to prevent the two aggressors in the international system from tempering with the lives of its citizens.
The main question is whether the United States will act unilaterally or it would consult other actors (Multilateral action).
The main purpose of the paper is to evaluate the options available to the United States policy makers. The US has various options, but some factors would be considered before arriving at the most excellent option.
The paper looks at some of the factors that must be considered before coming up with the best option to address the challenge posed by North Korea and Iran
Significance
The study is of great importance because it discusses some of the consequences that the state will have to deal with when it decides to intervene military. The paper gives a number of options, as well as their effects to the people of the United States and the international system.
The study conducts a literature review to determine some of the options that have been employed before, implying that policy makers can rely on the document to come up with the most viable policy as regards to addressing the thorny issue of nuclear weapons.
Literature Review
Existing body of knowledge offers various alternatives to the American policy makers as regards to nuclear weapons threats that Iran and North Korea pose.
There are gabs in the literature because some scholars and analysts observe that the United States should act unilaterally meaning that it should act as a world police in mitigating the nuclear problems while some observe that consultations would be the only viable approach.
The existing literature proves that the spread of democracy is the only way in resolving the nuclear problem, even though the approaches differ. In one of the articles titled ‘the spread of nuclear weapons,’ Sagan and Waltz posed a major question regarding world security and peace.
They ask the question, “What will the spread of nuclear weapons do to the world.” Waltz’s standpoint is that the spread of nuclear power would be productive to the world economy and the development of the world.
For developing countries such as Iran and North Korea, their acquisition of nuclear power is productive since it would go a long way to uplift the living standards of the poor.
His believe is that the deterrence policy and the rational actor model would be utilized effectively to prevent the occurrence of war owing to the possession of nuclear weapons.
He even goes a notch higher to claim that the presence of nuclear weapons would make states more cautious because they are mutually assured of destruction.
With the acquisition of nuclear weapons, states would definitely drop their ambitions of producing conventional weapons. Moreover, states would cut military spending, as soon as they acquire nuclear energy, which is beneficial to the world security.
Waltz advises that states should not stop arming themselves simply because the US instructs them not to acquire relevant weapons. The role of the US in this case is to enter into peaceful agreements with a state wishing to acquire nuclear energy, but not impeding the plans of the state.
This is because the United States cannot offer protection to all states in the world hence the acquisition of nuclear energy should not be an issue of debate.
To Waltz, the presence of nuclear weapons in the international system would reduce war and conflicts because it successfully reduced tension between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Sagan differs significantly with the views of Waltz because the deterrence notion and the rational actor model require the existence of some conditions, which are absent in the current international system.
One of the major arguments of Sagan is that weak states such as Iran and North Korea do not have sufficient policies and mechanisms through which nuclear energy could be safeguarded. This means that nuclear energy could easily land into the hands of criminals and terrorists, which is extremely dangerous.
The case could be different in case Iran and North Korea were democratic states. For the ideas of Waltz to be accepted, democracy must be restored in the two countries since an egalitarian society would not support the activities of destroyers of life and property.
Weak states such as Iran and North Korea have no ability to implement policies that would prevent nuclear accidents and the spread of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear energy should only be acquired by states governed by strong civilian governments, unlike North Korea and Iran, which are run either by dictators or by military regimes. States would not be cautious, as was the case in the Cold War because the international system is different.
A report released in 2006 by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism suggested that the United States had achieved a lot in terms of preserving its national interests, but more had to be done since terrorists had diversified their techniques and channels.
This means that the US has to come up with additional strategies to ensure that the heinous acts of terrorists are curtailed.
The report concluded that the state had achieved its interest of kicking out terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, but much had to be done to ensure that the activities of other extremist organizations funded by states such as Iran and North Korea are stopped.
This means that Iran and North Korea pose a serious challenge to the international community because of the possession of nuclear power. The nuclear weapons could be used to destabilize the world economy and security, especially when it gets into the hands of terrorists.
Iran and North Korea are suspected to support terrorism meaning that they can easily liaise with extremist organizations to cause havoc in the world. In this regard, the report gives some of the strategies that would help the state in fighting terrorism, including the ambitions of North Korea and Iran.
It should be understood that the fight of terrorism is the advancement of freedom and human dignity because the main aim of terrorists is to destroy human life and property.
The report rules out any possibility of poverty being the main cause of terrorism since Iran and North Korea have always claimed that the acquisition of nuclear power would help them elevate the levels of economic development.
To deal with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran, the leadership of these two countries ought to be interrogated meaning that the US should come up with policies such as denying the government officials entry to the US and other allies.
This would force them to comply since travelling sanctions would force them to comply with the internationally set standards. Another strategy entails preventing the attacks that would be launched by terrorists.
This implies that the US government must come into terms with the reality that terrorism does not target only developed countries, but instead it could be committed in other countries that support the US.
In this regard, the US government should offer technical and military support to other countries around the world to help them curb the issue of nuclear threat. For instance, India and Pakistan have acquired nuclear technologies, which is one of the strategies to counter the influence of North Korean and Iran in the region.
The report also suggests that the US should ensure that the materials used in the manufacture of nuclear power should not reach the hands of criminals, including Iran and North Korea.
To put this strategy into effect, the US government should determine the intentions, capabilities, and plans of Iran and North Korea as regards to the acquisition of nuclear power.
The power could be used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, which is extremely dangerous to the world security. The sale of materials should be supervised closely.
A study conducted by Blum concluded that terrorists had shifted focus in terms of the targets and the techniques employed.
However, he noted that the use of weapons of mass destruction is not within the reach of terrorists because the unavailability of materials and qualified personnel to design the weapons.
His study concluded that terrorists were increasingly shifting focus to the Middle East because of the perception that some states in the region are sympathizers of the west. Moreover, terrorists have adopted a new approach of unleashing terror because they no longer kidnap, but instead they carry out suicide bombing.
The study proved that terrorists have never resorted to the use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as the report released by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, Blum’s study proved that terrorism had reformed mainly because of the emergence of extremist organizations.
In this regard, Blum suggests that the US should simply focus on promoting peace and democracy in the two countries, which would definitely end the acts of terrorism. This would demand for a multilateral action implying that other actors must be involved in the plan.
In fact, Blum suggests that non-actors should be involved in ending the looming nuclear crisis, which is the main worry in regards to the utilization of the weapons of mass destruction.
A report released by the national security strategy in 2010 gave extensive plans on how the US would deal with actors in the international system considered a security threat.
The plans proposed are mainly concerned with strengthening the instruments of the American government because disunity in government has always snatched the executive an opportunity to deal with Iran and North Korea as regards to the nuclear threats.
In this regard, American leaders must understand what actually constitutes national security and work in harmony to realize these plans. To succeed in fighting North Korea and Iran, the approaches employed ought to be sustainable and achievable.
It is noted that the US has been able to develop due to the establishment of strong institutions and technological advancement. However, the government has been unable to act on the threats posed by other actors internationally because of the internal wrangles among government the branches of government.
In particular, there are some unfinished reform agendas, which are hindering the capability of the government to deal with external challenges, such as the challenge of possession of nuclear power, which is a threat to world peace.
In this regard, the three arms of government should be able to work in harmony to pass the important legislations that would give the executive the power to act swiftly. Terrorism and the threats of nuclear power are some of the problems that do not demand too much consultation because they are considered urgent.
However, the US government does not have the power to act unilaterally since it must consult other non-state actors, including consideration of public opinion, which is time consuming.
The national strategy for homeland security report released in 2007 suggested that the government had to develop the technology sector if it were to contain the influence of world aggressors such as Iran and North Korea.
The field of research should be developed because it supports the strategies that the government designs in keeping off the threats posed by enemies. Enemark is of the view that the topic on weapons of mass destruction should stop because the weapons have never existed in the international system.
He notes that even though Iran and North Korea are accused of possessing nuclear power, they have not been in a position to develop weapons of mass destruction.
His major concern is with the use of language because its use may confuse policy makers when making effective policies meant to curb the threats posed by Iran and North Korea.
The scholar suggests that policy makers should focus on formulating policies aimed at stopping Iran and North Korea from proceeding with their nuclear plan, but they should not incorporate the term weapons of mass destruction in their plans.
Methodology
This chapter focuses on various aspects of research development. It includes methods of data collection, its analysis and presentation procedures. Every research project applies a certain research method to achieve its objectives depending on its goals.
The methods used to conduct research in this project compared closely with the methods proposed in the project proposal. This was so because the project proposal had been proven to be workable.
In research, design deals primarily with aims, uses, purposes, intentions, and plans within the practical constraints of time, location, money, and availability of staff
Research Design
The chapter brings back the research hypotheses. This is important because it is at this stage that the researcher goes into the field to gather information. It is therefore necessary that the research hypothesis is brought to focus because it would be the guiding light in the process of gathering data.
The researcher would be trying to confirm the hypotheses. In order to eliminate criticism, this chapter clearly states the scope of the study. There are limits beyond which this research may not hold because of the method used in data collection and analysis.
It is therefore important that limitations are clearly stated to make it clear to readers of this material how far this research reveals what it purports to. Therefore, data sources are expected to be more reliable.
However, the rationale to use such data is that data sources are available at lower cost or free of costs while data collection process using questionnaire is time consuming and expensive.
As the researcher of this dissertation would follow both qualitative and quantitative research approach, it is essential to collect significant part of secondary data. Therefore, this paper mainly focuses on published data and computerized database to formulate the paper.
However, secondary data has a number of positive factors. For instance, it is easy to collect, and less expensive. In order to formulate the paper, the researcher would use Computerized Database and Published Secondary Data including general business sources.
However, the following chart gives an idea about the secondary data sources, as shown below. The dissertation would mainly focus on the internet databases because this is an easy and less expensive system of data collection.
Theoretical Framework
Data Collection
Data in this article will mainly be obtained from the various sources that are already published, as shown in the above diagram. It should be noted that the sources to be utilized are peer reviewed journal articles and books.
The researcher will restrict himself to the public articles and books in order to make the whole process valid and reliable. In any study, the researcher should ensure that validity and reliability is achieved.
In this study, keeping off from biases and unneccessary criticism would be one of the techniques employed to ensure the study is credible.
From the chart in the theoretical framework section, both government and other publications will be relied upon in analyzing the behavior of leaders as regards to policy formulation.
Analysis and Findings
From the literature review, the researcher gathered considerable amount of information about this field. Many of the reports that exist in this field are very resourceful as individuals of high integrity did them. The manner in which they were done also passes as good enough to be used in various aspects of research.
However, this is a different research. It must be in a position to develop its own arguments based on data collected from primary sources. This does not rule out the importance of secondary sources of data. To ensure originality in any research, there is need to use primary data.
The purpose of collecting data was to help facilitate analysis that would lead to giving answers that are desired in this research. The objective of this research was to respond to some of the questions that other scholars had not responded to through the existing literature.
To be in a position to respond to these questions, there will be need to collect data. After successful collection of data, analysis would be very important.
When taken from the field, data is considered raw and therefore cannot be of much help to the target audience. For this reason, it is important to analyze data to produce the desired result that would be useful to various individuals.
Role of literature review in data collection requirements
Literature review plays a vital role in data collection process. As noted above, research has been going on for some time now. Every field of study has some relevant previous bodies of literature that other researchers had conducted before. This information is very important to a researcher.
In the process of gathering data, the first source that any researcher should not assume is the secondary sources of information. It is important to note that the studies were done after careful collection and analysis of relevant data.
When taking literature review as part of the sources of data, it is important to note that they are secondary sources. Unlike the data that would be collected from the fields which is raw, literature provides data that is already processed.
Literature review plays an important role in determining how data collection would be done.
Because the bodies of literature provide information that is already synthesized, and with clear steps that were taken to reach the results, the researcher may consider taking an approach used by one of the researchers that may lead to generation of required answers.
Alternatively, the researcher may consider integrating a number of methods employed by different previous researchers to come up with his or her own technique that incorporates all the desirable concepts used by the available literature. A good research project should not purport to be basing its arguments from the scratch.
It is important that a researcher engage closely with the works of previous researchers from an early stage of data collection.
With this, the researcher would be informing the consumers of this document that there was an effort from the earliest stage of the dissertation that closely compares the works of other researchers, and how they relate to the current research.
This would not only enhance the validity of the report, but also demonstrate that the research seeks to develop the works of previous researches.
The findings from the review of literature reveal that the US should act to prevent North Korea and Iran from establishing their nuclear power programs. The United States needs to come up with comprehensive strategies to compel Iran and North Korea to negotiate on its own terms.
However, this would not be an easy task since Iran and North Korea are determined to realize their dream regarding nuclear power programs.
If the US allows the two countries to actualize their nuclear plans, the world security would be at risk since the energy could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction, which are extremely dangerous to the very survival.
However, some scholars observe that the issue of nuclear energy should not be tied to weapons of mass destruction since they are not related at all. Terrorists have never employed weapons of mass destruction mainly because of the technicalities involved in the designing the weapons.
Literature reveals that the US should focus on seeking multilateral support because nuclear energy is a matter of death and life meaning that each actor should be involved in designing the policies aimed at stopping its development.
In this regard, the role of the United Nations is critical since it could invoke its powers, including slapping economic and political sanctions on the two states, which would force them to stop the program.
In this case, the US should lobby other powerful states, mainly the five permanent members of the Security Council, to force the UN to slap economic sanctions. The influence of the UN has been tremendous, especially its use of a no-fly-zone rule, which forces states to negotiate.
From the review of the existing body of knowledge and evaluation of various government reports, at least three viable policies can be applied successfully in dealing with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons threat.
One of the policies is containment. This policy was applied successful to check the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold war. In early 1990s, the US was able to contain the influence of Iraq in the Middle East region through the application of the policy.
The policy does not demand the involvement of the international community since it is just upon the US government to isolate the two states. The United States has applied the policy variously whenever its national interest was under threat.
Truman advocated for the application of the containment policy meaning that the United States confronted its adversaries in all corners. In this regard, the United States should come up with policies aiming at reducing the influence of Iran and North Korea in regions they are perceived to be strong.
The second policy is the use of diplomacy and economic sanctions, even though they have been applied unsuccessfully previously. Iran and North Korea are signatories to the world agency in charge of nuclear energy control and management (International Atomic Energy Agency).
In this regard, they should be forced to abide by the provisions of the agency. The agency should be supported to conduct frequent inspection in the two countries and the leadership of the two countries should be urged not to interfere with the operations of the agency.
Through diplomacy, Iran should be reminded that it sits on massive deposits of oil, which can sustain the country’s energy for years hence there is no need of developing nuclear energy.
In case the two policies fail, the US could as well deploy the military in the two countries to restore democracy and install civilian governments. Democratic regimes would be willing to take part in diplomatic negotiations rather than generate unnecessary conflicts.
Summary and Conclusion
The United States has a role to play to its people as far as preservation of peace and maintenance of security is concerned. American foreign policy makers have engaged in negotiations aimed at resolving the issue, but the efforts have bore no fruits because of techniques applied were defective.
The US came up with a policy that would entice Iran and North Korea to drop their nuclear plans, but the plans were unsustainable. Therefore, policy makers should come up with a long-term program, which is realistic and all-inclusive meaning all stakeholders in the world security should be involved.
It should be understood that unilateral decisions are usually aimed at resolving the short-term problems, but they do not address the long-terms issues. Therefore, the US should advocate for a policy that would resolve the issue finally.
This entails the involvement of the UN and other powers in the plans. The policies made towards the relations with the two countries should not be isolationist in nature because it would simply worsen the issue.
This article has tried to come up with some of the best decisions that would resolve the issue at hand. The paper would conduct an extensive research to establish the views of American foreign policy makers before recommending the best policy option.
The paper has always conducted a literature to determine the views of previous scholars and policy makers. The findings suggest that the US government cannot handle the issue without involving other actors, including the American populace, the United Nations, and other units in the international system.
The existing body of knowledge shows that no single policy that can be applied in resolving the existing nuclear energy crisis between the United States and the two world aggressors.
It is also eminent that the two aggressors are determined to move on with their nuclear programs despite the objections from various units in the international system. The United States has a role to play given the fact that it is the world’s superpower.
Three options are available to the superpower, but the main problem is choosing the best option that would preserve the status of the superpower and at the same time fulfill the interests of the American people.
Studies show that the Iranian and North Korean citizens are tired of the tyrannical and militaristic governments.
They are willing to cooperate with the international community to end injustices and the conditions of the 19th century, which include lack of food, lack of representation in government, inequality, oppression, and brutality.
Irrespective of the policy that the United States employs, the life that people face in Iran and North Korea should be uplifted. All possible means should be employed in uplifting the living standards of the Middle East citizens. In the region, the human rights are never respected at all.
Bibliography
Blum, Andrew. Non-state Actors, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. International Studies Review 7.1 (2005): 133-170.
Creswell, John. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, Sage, 2009.
Department of Defense. National Security Strategy. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2010.
Department of Defense. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2006.
Department of Defense. National Strategy for countering Biological Threats, 2009. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2009.
Department of Defense. National Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2007.
Enemark, Christian. “Farewell to WMD: The Language and Science of Mass Destruction.” Contemporary Security Policy 32.2 (2011):382-400.
Hakim, Catherine. Research Design: Successful Designs for Social and Economic Research. London: Routledge, 2000.
Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.
Jafarzadeh, Alireza. The Iran Threat. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
National Science and Technology Council. A National Strategy for CBRNE Standards. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2011.
Safire, William. “On Language; Weapons of Mass Destruction.” New York Times Magazine, 1998, 22.
Sagan, Scott, and Kenneth Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003.
Sagan, Scott. “How to Keep the Bomb from Iran.” Foreign Affairs 85.5 (2006): 45-59
Sciolino, Elaine. Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face of Iran. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
United States Government Accountability Office. Steps Have Been Taken to Improve U.S. Northern Command’s Coordination with States and the National Guard Bureau, but Gaps Remain. Washington: Government Printing Office, 2008.