While Erin makes some good points, I DO NOT believe that sanctions will be sufficient to impede nuclear development in Iran for the following 4 reasons:
1) Iran is not building a nuclear program to boost their hegemony. This is evidenced by their supreme secrecy about their program. They have not allowed UN inspectors (who cannot, by order of the UN charter, order them to suspend or cancel their weapons development). Many officals at the Brookings Institute and other similar policy centers believe that Iran may be very close to creating, or have already created, a nuclear weapon. The fact that they have not flaunted this fact proves that they are not building their program to gain leverage over other nations, by being able to threaten nuclear war (basically what polical hegemony refers to). They have also claimed that their nuclear program is to promote energy development. Iran is situated in one of the most oil-rich areas on the globe. And if they were going green, why wouldn't they want the UN to see that they were going? They would, it would cause the UN to lift sanctions and grant Iran favor in the UN, and in turn positive hegemony within the UN.
2. Iran has not responded to previous sanctions by the United States and the UN security council. Since 2007, the UN has sanctioned Iran's nuclear program, going so far as to suspend the soveriegnty clause, freezing the assests of leading nuclear scientists known to be involved with the program, and withholding aid. The US has also imposed sanctions and threatened further sanctions should Iran continue to oppose UN Security council innitiatives. Iran has ignoring all sanctions. A complete economic embargo of Iran by the United States and her allies would likely be the only sanction strong enough to prompt Iran to respond. However, the US is not in the position to do this until it achieves some level of energy security. A negitive response from OPEC is likely and would cripple the US economy. Until the US produces it's own oil (alternative energy is not capable of fueling the US economy in its present state no matter how much we would all like to think "green" energy is the answer), we cannot embargo Iran.
3. Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-owned weapons dealer/producer, deals weapons to Iran. Many experts are speculating that rosoboronexport is also providing components for missle construction to Iran's program. The weapons trade has placed a major strain on Russian-US relations. Proof of some kind of nuclear trade would likely collapse all relations. This has not been addressed by the US administration; President Obama has actually called for a "relaxation" in US policy towards Russia. Russia is also somewhat politically unstable at the moment; mass-protests and riots of the middle class (featuring speeches by Russian reality-tv stars) over disputed election practices and government transperancy has plauged the former superpower with unrest. An escalation in tensions between the US and Russia would stall all UN security council action against Iran; Russia and the US both have permenet veto power in the security council. During the cold war the US and Russia used this power to block almost every initiative the other nation proposed.
4. Isreal has already made verbal threats directed at Iran should they fail to suspend nuclear activities. Isreal currently has first-stike capacity over Iran. It has been speculated that Isreal has considered bombing Iranian nuclear plants. Doing so would obivously have long term heath costs for the entire region, and an incalculable number of lives would be lost. The US, a supposed ally of Isreal (despite the fact that the President has refused to meet with the Isreali ambassador about the issue this week), would be tied to the conflict by past treaties. A war between Isreal and Iran would force the US to either involve itself in a nuclear war or cut ties with our primary ally in the middle east.
I agree with Tori. Iran has ignored past government sanctions so trying it again will not help. President Obama has a weak foreign policy (which is evident by what is going on in Lybia). I believe that his idea of foreign policy is to be friends with all the nations in the middle east. I believe that these nations see him as weak which in turn makes the US seem weak. I believe that Iran does not see the US as a threat so they will do what they want. As for Israel, there are so many countries in the Middle East that want them gone and since, as Tori mentioned above the president didn't want to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel (not ambassador) Netanyahu, who is a great ally of the US, means that we are almost leaving them to defend themselves. So in conclusion having a stronger foreign policy I believe will help control the conflict better.
1) I agree with Erin that "strong sanctions" against Iran are preferabel to a military strike against their "pilot" program. However, like Tori I am unsure how responsive Iran will be to sanctions (unspecified by Erin) unless the broader international community is involved. I would also point out that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is a greater threat to Israel. Obviously, the very existence of tiny Israel would be threatened. I think Israel can legitimately ask the United States to specify what "trigger" would allow them to make a preemptive strike on Iran's facility with the tacit support of the U.S.
2) In response to Kirsten's comment, I am not sure how the assassination of our ambassador in Libya is an example of "weak foreign policy." I think it is an example of a weak regime supported by the U.S., which could not effectively protect our embassy. The United States, however, rightfully supports the post-Gaddafi regime, and I think that generally the Obama Administration should get good grades for not inserting our military directly into the Libyan revolution that toppled a dictator.
I thought Gov. Romney's criticism of the Obama administration's "apologetic" foreign policy was an uninformed cheap shot by a candidate trying to get Kirsten's vote with "tough talk". I think the effectiveness of our diplomacy will be better measured by our relationship with Egypt. But perhaps this can be the subject of another vlog.
Although Erin makes some excellent points, I disagree with her position that sanctions will ultimately succeed in preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry. As we have seen in the past, sanctions have had little effect in persuading Iran to open up its nuclear program to international inspection. Iran's maneuvering with respect to its nuclear program is very similar to that of North Korea, which has continuously rejected international attempts to gauge the extent of its nuclear program. Continuous appeasement of North Korea has not resulted in cooperation with the international community and it appears that Iran is utilizing the same strategy. The issue of military intervention in Iran is a tough one due to the extremely complicated dynamics of the Middle East. I disagree with Erin that Iran would use nuclear weaponry against the United States because of our overwhelming military superiority and missile defense systems. So should the United States support a strike by Israel which has a more direct interest in stopping the Iran nuclear program? I believe that the US should support a thoroughly thought out military strategy by Israel, which would attempt to limit any United States and Israeli loss of life. But first, I agree with Mr. Netanyahu that President Obama needs to clearly set forth "red lines" that Iran must not cross. Otherwise, US reluctance to "get tough" merely serves to give Iran comfort to move forward as it is doing. Furthermore, military action of some kind may be necessary to deter others in the Middle East from pursuing nuclear weapons.
Though I agree that the US should support Israel against Iran as long as it is in a well thought out way, I think that Israel making any sort of preemptive strike on Iran could be the worst thing the country could do. Israel has very few allies, and their allies are not in the Middle East. Most of the countries in that region support Palestine in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many, including Iran, feel that it would be best for the area if Israel as a country no longer existed and instead became a Muslim nation of Palestine. If Israel attacked Iran, it is very likely that other Muslim countries in the area would use it as an opportunity to attack Israel. Israel is not equipped to handle fighting against multiple countries at once, so that could be the end of Israel. I think that it would be better to try to stop the nuclear program through diplomatic means and then through the UN, rather than making it the United States' job to get involved where nobody wants us. That way, we would not need to engage in any sort of warfare with Iran.
Although in theory, governmental sanctions would be the diplomatic route to take in controlling Iran’s nuclear proliferation, the radical Muslims that populate Iran must be taken into consideration. Ahmadinejad rules under the belief that anyone that is does not follow an Islamic religion should be killed, according to the rules of the Muslim jihad. Although these radicals should not define the Islamic religion and do twist the words of the actual Quran, they are the controlling power in Iran. These groups have an emotional and religious connection to the cause. They preach that they will die for Islam, as shown by the terrorist attacks around the world. If they die, they are considered heroes and martyrs, which only amplify their determination to spread Islam and control the world. As a result, sanctions from a foreign country that radical Muslims view as the enemy are not going to stop them. Consequently, there is no simple solution to the Iranian nuclear proliferation, and war may be imminent. The best way to attempt to delay a violent Iranian conflict is to put pressure on all fronts. By this, I mean the use of the United Nations, third parties, and subversive action to accomplish this goal. As said before, the United Nations has already tried to reason with Iran, but nothing can be passed without the unanimous vote of the Security Council. Russia and China have veto power, impeding any resolution from passing because of their close ties with Iran. The United Nations must convince Russia and China that their aid is not worth the possible consequences if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear capabilities. Russia may be benefiting from weapons sales now, but who is to say that after it accomplishes its nuclear goals, Iran will not attack Russia because they are not a primarily Islamic country. The same can be said for China. If Iran obtains nuclear power, it will only rededicate themselves to their ultimate goal of controlling the Middle East, now giving them weapons to reinforce their actions. Another aspect that should be explored in the nuclear conflict is the help of third parties, specifically, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a gateway country between the West and the Middle East. The United States is allies with Saudi Arabia because the current ruling family needs the United States to stay in power. Without the help of the Americans, the ruling family would be overthrown and all their wealth and power would be lost. On the opposite end, the United States values Saudi Arabia because of their oil access. Although it does not receive most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, the United States can control the flow of oil and wealth to the other Middle Eastern countries. Due to Saudi Arabia’s supreme economic and military influence in the Middle East, it would be the ideal country to convince Iran to halt their nuclear operations. They can also relate to the Iranians on a religious level because Saudi Arabia is a primarily Islamic country. One facet of the nuclear conflict that is hidden from the public eye is the subversive actions of special operations organizations. The goal of these groups is to destabilize corrupt or dangerous governments outside of the United Nations’ or public view. Many of these organizations have already taken action to halt Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Approximately two years ago, an unknown group from the West (either the United States or Israel) tampered with the centrifuges in an Iranian nuclear facility. The unknowns had programmed the centrifuges to malfunction and eventually break, in order to hinder the Iranian’s nuclear success. This group did achieve their goal, setting back the Iranians by about two years. Although democratic countries, like the United States, do not primarily look to these institutions for relief because they are not considered proper foreign policy, they are something to keep in mind.
Personally, I believe that Iranians should not be able to expand nuclear technologies especially for the purpose of nuclear weaponry and nuclear development in Iran because of the massive destruction Iran has inflicted on countries, especially America. I do not believe that they are capable of having the responsibility of nuclear development in their country. This was proved with Erin’s statement of their “secret pilot plant” -nuclear underground facility- that was hidden from the world. If we look around at the world as a whole, usually in which countries do we see terrorism spark the most? The Middle East, not elsewhere. We have seen that the consequences and existences of nuclear weaponry would lead to deaths and injuries, especially in America, where millions of soldiers have died from nuclear weaponry. Though not every Middle Eastern person is a terrorist, countries around the world should still keep caution towards them. Keeping Israel’s sovereignty in mind, America should send protest groups to Iran to explain to the Iranian people about the dangers of nuclear weaponry. This measure would work because if more people are informed, the result would be more people trying to influence the Iranian government against extreme measures like terrorism. Personally, I do not believe that government sanctions would exactly benefit Iranian people or American people because they too expensive and Iran also admits that the sanctions are hurting the economy, meaning that sanctions will have no effect of Iranian people. Iran has also ignored government sanctions. This is seen when the Iranian people were not persuaded to international inspection for their nuclear program. Ali Larijani said that 20 percent of the country’s economic problems are due to sanctions from Europe and the U.S. His statement came two weeks after an oil embargo.
Though, Iran would not initiate a firsthand strike on Israel, we cannot expect this to be true. If Iran can have a “secret Pilot plant”, unknown from the world, a strike to other countries could also be presumable, in secrecy. Moreover, if Iran proliferates in nuclear weaponry, they may also dominate the other Middle Eastern countries around Iran. I agree with Erin that with nuclear weaponry, many people would also want to get their hands on nuclear weaponry for the purpose of power.
I agree with Erin that the Iranians should not be allowed to expand their nuclear weapons program because the threat to the area would be immeasurable. Personally, I do not believe that Iranian leadership is looking into a nuclear program for the source of nuclear energy. Mr. Ahmadinejad has called the existence of Israel "an insult to humankind" and has predicted that one day, Israel will be "wiped off the map." That being known, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments make it clear that he, and many in the leadership of Iran, are against the existence of Israel and make a plausible case for the suspicions of a nuclear weapons program being in existence in Iran. I also agree with Erin that military action on behalf of the U.S. would be ill-advised. The U.S. is still involved in the war in Afghanistan, and it would be irresponsible to involve the U.S. in another war based on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing. The lives of U.S. soldiers and the lives of those in the Middle East need to be taken into account when thinking of the situation. Stricter sanctions should be placed on Iran. If stricter sanctions are placed on Iran and they cannot export oil or other goods, the value of their currency will go down, bringing their economy down with it, therefore limiting the amount of money that the government could spend on their nuclear program.
I believe that both arguments make logical sense. In my opinion I feel that putting sanctions on Iran simply because of what may happen is not a sufficient reason. However, I also understand that fear that many people have towards the topic of Iran obtaining or creating their own nuclear bomb. I feel that if the U.S. did put sanctions on Iran it may make us a target which will put American citizens in harms way as much as the sanction of military intervention. I do not believe that it is in our best interest to get involved in another countries affairs especially when their are doubts about the rationality of its leaders. I agree with others who have added that governmental sanctions would have no affect on Iran and their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons. If there was a way for Iran not to obtain nuclear weapons I would support it, however, I believe that as a country we should not get involved in other countries and especially not put a target on our backs to simply stop something that seems to be inevitable. I feel that putting government sanctions on Iran is not a good idea because it is not based on evidence that is legitimate enough, such as the expression of the Iranian leaders to use their nuclear weapons immediately when obtained. Also, I think that it is more important to make our relations with Iran stronger rather than hinder them because of fear of the unknown.
I think that trying to suspend Iran's (supposed) nuclear expansion by military force is completely unadvisable and something that the U.S. should definitely avoid. However, I also feel that attempting to impose sanctions prohibiting their expansion of a nuclear program is probably impractical and would probably be sort of obsolete and simply diminish any relations the U.S. has with Iran. No countries should be allowed to have nuclear weaponry in my opinion, but unfortunately many do and I'm not sure what a clear solution to this would be. A war between Israel and Iran that the U.S. would most likely inevitably become involved in should definitely be avoided at all costs. Perhaps if the U.S. along with other world powers could collectively impose strict sanctions on Iran, it could actually work, but the U.S. on its own is unlikely to make any real impact on what Iran does or does not do in my opinion.
In my opinion, I don’t think that the U.S. government has a right to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Although I do not particularly want Iran to be developing nuclear technologies because it is a potential threat to ours and other countries, I do not believe that we should, or can, try to control Iran’s nuclear advances. I don’t think it is up to America to choose who gets to advance nuclear technologies and who doesn’t. Why should the U.S. get to choose, what gives us the right to dictate over this matter? Maybe there is something I don’t know about this issue, it just does not seem fair to me that the U.S. would try to make decisions for other counties based on its own, and inevitably biased, beliefs about the issue. Utilizing military force in this matter, as many have said, would definitely not be the best way to go about this issue. I feel one way to go about the issue would be to get a group of countries to try and use diplomacy, not force to resolve the issue, if need be. However I feel that perhaps the U.S. could spend its efforts bettering its own defense system, and potentially other military technology for America, instead trying to prevent other countries from doing so. I feel that the American government should only try to control and govern America. I believe that the U.S. really should not get to determine who can advance nuclear technology, if another country tried to do the same to us, I do not think America would take it well. To conclude, it is my belief that America has no place telling other countries what they can and cannot do, and should not intercede and try to enforce their beliefs on another country.
I personally believe that no country should be able to expand its nuclear technology, including Iran; however, we have no solid evidence that Iran has nuclear warheads, or intentions to build them. Iran insists their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes (although we can’t bank on their word). I agree with Erin that we shouldn’t use military force. We have to consider the fact that we are still involved in the war in Afghanistan. At this point, getting involved in another war, based on a country in supposed possession of nuclear weaponry, could turn the U.S. into a laughing stock, especially if they it turns out Iran isn’t in possession of nuclear weapons. Honestly we don’t need a repeat. Banking and oil embargo sanctions went into effect in July, however they aren’t enough, they are only harming the ordinary people. Iran believes that nuclear enrichment is a legitimate right of every member of NPT (The Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore I believe that if harsher sanctions were to be placed on Iran, and if more nations were on board it might work. I really believe that we should avoid getting involved in another war.
I agree with Erin, I don't think the Iranians should be allowed to expand their nuclear weapons program. I don't believe sanctions will stop Iran from perusing nuclear proliferation. We should not be focusing on "if" they obtain the means of producing nuclear weaponry but rather "when". This is not the first time Washington has had to face a hostile government attempting to develop nuclear weapons but history does have a tenancy to repeat itself. I think that this makes the government feel rather confident in their efforts to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear power. However, as nuclear proliferation comes to be seen as inevitable, wishful thinking can make its consequences seem less severe and if faith in deterrence grows, incentives to combat proliferation diminish. Many speculators believe that eventually it may be impossible to stop Iran or even other Middle Eastern countries, from getting the bomb. I have done some research and according to various articles , the knowledge of how to build these weapons has become more widespread and the right of parties to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and plutonium, the argument goes, any foreign government could acquire nuclear weapons will eventually succeed. For example the 1981 Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq.It may have delayed Iraq's progress however small air strikes would probably not be able to stand up to Iran. That is why I believe that sanctions through the UN Security Council will probably be our best bet. However it will probably only make it more expensive to produce nuclear weaponry but not impossible. Like Isabelle stated above about President Ahmadinejad calling the existence of Israel "an insult to humankind" and has predicted that one day, Israel will be "wiped off the map" is proof of the mindset of the Iranian government.
I don't think that the only issue with Iran having Nuclear weapons is that the country happens to lie in an unstable area. The more apparent problem is the fact that Iran is filled with a lot of anti-American sentiment, especially from Ahmadinejad. I also wouldn't consider him to be a particularly rational leader, and he has said himself that he will not rest until Israel is annihilated. If and when Iran invades Israel, the United States would most likely come to their aid, as we are one of their few allies and we are certainly their largest. If Iran had nuclear weapons that would make the ensuing war a lot more dangerous for all involved. I am also of the opinion that Nuclear weaponry is very rarely a good thing. I understand why the US has not gotten rid of all of our Nuclear weapons, as a means of potential defense, especially considering the fact that many countries that we are not allies with have nuclear weapons. I feel that the UN should have more restrictions on nuclear weapons altogether, though I doubt that would have any effect on Iran's plans. I'm not sure that Iran developing nuclear weapons would have any effect on the other countries in the area developing them. The countries that have the resources and a stable enough government to commission them don't need Iran to set the example.
Erin's topic and proposed question is one that is clearly relevant but very difficult to 'solve'. I believe that Iran should not be allowed to expand or obtain nuclear weapons but how to deter or prevent such action is the challenge. The reasons for Iran not to acquire nuclear weapons are because of the threat it poses to Israel, whose security is a vital US national interest, Iran is a volatile region and could lead to a cascade of nuclear tensions in the Middle East and beyond, nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. On today's "Face the Nation", Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Israel, said he is afraid that a US confrontation with Iran could escalate into war. "I'm afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran", Martin stated at the round table of foreign policy experts who were discussing the recent protests in the Middle East. President Obama has stated that the United States' government's goal is to prevent and end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and that he believes that through tough sanctions. As pointed out, sanctions seem to have little effect on Iran. However, diplomacy is still the preferred solution. Pursuing economic, diplomatic then military action against Iran's nuclear proliferation is the route the US government should pursue. According to 'Polling Report', more than 50% of Americans support the US taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Furthermore, 54% of Americans' greatest concern is that the US government will wait too long to take action to deal with Iran's nuclear program. We are faced with the economic possibility of higher fuel prices and the security issue of feeding into the terrorists should the US interfere in Iran with military force. It is unfortunate that the United States can not rationally nor effectively negotiate with Iran but it is my hope that Iran will weigh out all the consequences should they continue to pursue a nuclear weapons program.
What should we do with Iran? That may be, presently, the hardest question anyone could possibly ask. You would think the next step infixing this so-called problem would be to set up sanctions against Iran. But we've already tried that. It's not currently and most likely isn't going to work. When it comes to trying to stop Iran from making nuclear weaponry or nuclear energy plants the real question is - what about the people in that country who deserve and want to feel safe? Iran is a more advanced country - with a better education system, a more effective government - than those surrounding it, and who's to say that the educated, more advanced society of Iran doesn’t deserve to have something to protect it? However, who's to say Iran won’t use it to blow Israel to shreds? Their government is still very flawed. The question still stands - with very good arguments on both sides. Yet another posed issue is the place of the Israeli government in trying to influence the American Elections. As the Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, directly campaigns for the election of Mitt Romney, it bewilders me that people aren’t reacting in disgust. Last time I checked, government officials from other countries are not supposed to directly influence, or thrust themselves into elections that aren't their own. Just as we respect democracies of other countries in not interfering in their elections - they should have the decency to do so to us. Somewhat offensive donchya think?
To begin, I would like to applaud Erin for bringing up a topic other than the election. I appreciate her highlighting the fact that the world does not wait for the US to make a decision on its leaders. Especially in an election like this, where domestic issues seem to be at the forefront, it's refreshing to hear about foreign affairs that often get glossed over. Time to delve into the topic at hand though: 1) First, I'd like to acknowledge that sanctions have had an effect on Iran. Iran's currency is now half the value it was a year ago, and their oil profits have dropped significantly from 9.8 billion as of July 2011 to 2.9 billion this past July (1.) However sanctions alone seem to not have been enough to deter them. The IAEA recently reported that Iran has increased the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity in addition to doubling the number of centrifuges it has installed (2).
2)As of a few days ago, Russia and China have joined with the Western countries in condemning Iran during the last IAEA board meeting. Previously these countries refused to condemn Iran's nuclear activity on the grounds that every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear power development. Will this new condemnation by the worlds remaining super power pressure Iran to respond a little more diplomatically? My guess is no, but only time will tell.
3)Sometimes no action is the best action, but in this case, it is time for President Obama to set the "red line" with regard to Iran and their program that Israeli PM Netanyahu has asked for. If Iran continues to believe its development will go virtually unchecked and unaccounted for with the exception of sanctions,Iranian nuclear proliferation is inevitable.
In response to Mr. Baker's claim that the assasination of the Libyan ambassador does not evidence Obama's weak foreign policy, (pt 2 of his comment), I would like to say that while the president did not cause the death of this man, his administration's reaction to the tragety was unacceptable, and definietly does evidence weakness and lack of control. The American Embassy in Libya released a statement after the ambassador's death that sympathized with Islamic concerns over the American value freedom of speech, as this value indirectly allowed the scandal-causing, anti-Islamic you-tube video to be made (it was made by an Isrealite in an off-Hollywood studio). The press release was innappropritate, and borders on the edge of sympathizing with the murderers. Furthermore, it should not be America's foreign policy to knock the 1st amendment overseas, yet Obama has been apologizing for American values since the week after he became president (he literally went to Prague and a host of other fashionable places, appologizing for the United States). While the White House did claim not to be connected to the Libyan Embassy appology (and probablly wasn't), the buck stops with Obama on diplomatic affairs. As we learned in sophomore gov class, the president of the United States is the Head of State. He is ultimately responsible for our foriegn policy, and if these actions don't portray weakness, I don't know what does. Mr. Baker said that Romney "talks tough" on foriegn policy, but it was Romney who originally called out the President on the Libyan Press release. The message was removed from the Embassy's website within hours of Romney's comment. I think that it is clear that if elected president, we won't see any anti-american web posts from American diplomatin institutions. And as for his "tough talk?" at least it got that awful post removed which was at the least a slap in the face for the family and friends of the murdered ambassador, and at the most, a slap in the face of America and all that it stands for.
Gretchen: It makes total sense that the Prime Minister of Isreal wants to see Obama out of office. Isreal has been one America's greatest allies in the middle east, and has shown responsibility with their nuclear weapons. They have shown restraint by not blowing up Iran's nuclear facilities, which is their ideal solution to the problem. The United Nations, and the United States have urged them not to do this, and they have listened. Iran, on the other hand, has completely disrespected the world community by ignoring the principles of collective security while still remaining members of treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (ironic)?. Dispite Isreal's loyalty, Obama has been hostile to our ally and has refused to meet with Isreal's diplomats. Obama has also rerouted many of America's alliances away from neocolonialist nations (ex. Britain and the Falkan Islands). Isreal is considered by many experts as the neocolonialist nation of the middle east, and Obama told Putin that he "would have more flexibility" with his foriegn policy after the next election. The Isreali prime minister and other government officials can rightly believe that the alliance between the United States and Isreal will be jepordized in the near future, which would threaten Isrealli security, espeically if Iran achieves proliferation (as Sephanie pointed out, Iran would like to see Isreal "blown off the map"). Obviously Isreal would support any man other than Obama, and in this case, that man is Romeny. So no, it is not disturbing to me. It seems totatally warrented by the way Obama has handled the situation in the middle east. By the way, Gretchen is right, the media has ignored this endoresment, as well as most mention of Obama's foreign policy, and as most networks, FOX excluded, are liberal, what does that say about Obama's foriegn policy?
I agree with Tori on Gretchen's stance about Netanyahu's view about the American Election. Since he believes that the best thing for his country is by choosing Romney, he is trying to sway some of the American voters. He believes that Obama is pulling away their alliance with Israel in the Middle East and is inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House, who most want Israel gone. I am not saying Romney's policies will all work, but Netanyahu has seen Obama's policies at work and he believes that they will not help his country. Now back to the topic of if the Iranians should be allowed to make nuclear weapons I still stat my answer as no. They are not to be trusted evident to them not letting UN officials to inspect their "underground nuclear power plant". Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to IAEA verification. In the IAEA's last report, it stated that Iran was closer to creating a nuclear weapon then what most speculated. This is a trying time and I am curious what the presidents actions will be when it is confirmed that Iran has made a nuclear weapon.
I have been reading all the comments with interest. I am surprised and impressed with the level of engagement with a foreign policy question. Isn't it interesting that to this point the economy has absolutely dominated the presidential campaigns. While we know how each candidate stood on the Auto bailout, does anyone know where they stood on the Iraq War? Or how they look at that invasion retrospectively?
Alexandra's comment really struck me. It got me thinking along two different tracks. First of all, what are the limits of American power and influence? It's unlikely that EITHER candidate will articulate this. In other words, we certainly cannot police every region or coerce every country we disagree with. I think some of our preceding discussion implies that we can.
Secondly, one of the great questions in foreign policy involves whether to use morality as a guide in forming policy or adhere more coldly and objectively to determination of national interest. In other words, where is the discussion of the national interest in matters related to the Middle East? Certainly containment of a hostile regime like Iran is desirable. But at what risk. Supposing that a preemptive strike at the plant by Israel initiated a war between the two countries, it would not be in our interest to join the combat, right? But would it be a moral obligation to our ally, Israel, whose current leadership is taken a very tough, even belligerent stance toward its enemies.
Isabelle brought up an interesting and relevant facet of the Iranian nuclear proliferation. The United States still has military presence in Afghanistan, so it would not be wise or beneficial for Americans to militarily invade or instigate war with Iran or any other Middle Eastern country. This strategy was already used once by former President George W. Bush in 2003 with Iraq. Former President George W. Bush cited that his reason for invading Iraq was the apparent threat of weapons of mass destruction under the direction of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, in 2005, the CIA released a report stating that no weapons of mass destruction were actually found. Countless American lives were sacrificed due to that invasion, and the supposed benefit of the downfall of the Hussein regime did not outweigh the consequences, in my opinion. The United States started a war that it could not clean up and it is still dealing with the aftermath. The United States attempted to create a democratic government in Iraq, but was only plagued with corruption. Thus, economically draining Iran would be the civil and diplomatic route to take. It may not be as beneficial for the United States because of the effects it will have on its own economy, but it will avoid dragging other countries into a military conflict. With many European economies in shambles, like Italy, Greece, and Spain, war is the last thing that they need.
I agree with Alexandra’s comment. I don’t think we have the authority to decide who gets to nuclear warheads and who doesn’t, however I believe that it will take more than diplomacy to get Iran to give up their advances in nuclear technology, because they see nuclear technology as a right. As many people have mentioned Isreal has made verbal threats directed at Iran, threatening to annihilate it. Like Mr Baker mentioned I think that if a war were to break out between the two, we would most likely step into help Israel despite the risks and push to avoid getting involved in another war
After looking back and re-reading everyone's post, my stance on this issue still stayes the same. I agree with Gretchen that we have done all we can to stop Iran from its brutal enforcemens, espeically through government sanctions, but they take no heed nor attention towards them. I agree with Madeline that if America wants to stop Iran's enforcements, it will definitely take more than diplomacy to get Iran to stop their advances in nuclear technology. Iran is not a country to be trusted because of their resistance of now allowing UN officials to inspect their "underground nuclear power plant", as stated by Kirsten. I still believe that Iran is not a country to have the right to advance in their nuclear technologies and should be taken away immediately.
Interesting new development: Perhaps diplomacy will play a bigger role than we all expected. After talks between Iran and the UN's Security Councils P5 (US, China, Russia, Britain, France) + Germany originally failed, Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met with the Catherine Ashton, the EU's chief policy maker. According to both Jalili & Ashton the talks were useful and constructive. Ashton plans to brief representatives of the U.S. and the five other world powers next week in New York about her efforts to restart negotiations with Tehran that fizzled in June.
It appears as if Iran is at least trying to put on the facade of cooperation, especially as Israel is considering more so than ever to attack the country's nuclear installations.
After reading everyone's comments I still believe that the U.S. intervening in Iran and setting up sanctions to stop them from growing their nuclear weapon arsenal is not right. In my opinion the best way to stop all of the controversy surrounding this topic is for all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. thinks that making these sanctions will better protect there citizens is logical the aftermath maybe even worse. If radical groups in Iran decide that these sanctions are not fair they may put a target on America. I think that the U.S. may need to give Iran more credit and not believe the worst in a country that has not yet given evidence as to why sanctions maybe the best option.
After reading everyone's comments, my position has stayed pretty much the same on the topic. Although I partially agree with Alexandra that the U.S. cannot be the ultimate authority saying who can and cannot have nuclear weapons, I think that Iran having nuclear weapons is a different case. Israel is considered a close ally of the U.S., so if Israel and Iran were to get into a nuclear war, the U.S. would without a doubt get involved in some capacity on behalf of Israel. Therefore I don't think that the U.S. having some say in the continuation of Iran's nuclear program to be so absurd seeing as how it does in fact impact the U.S. directly. Also another point to think of is the possibility that Iran is further along in their nuclear program than they are letting on. If Iran is putting on the facade of only being in the beginning stages yet they are truly further along in the development of nuclear weapons, it could be disastrous for the U.S. or Israel to get involved militarily.
I think that there's no harm in attempting to peacefully talk to Iran and attempt to scope out the extent of their nuclear program, and if they're willing to cooperate then that's great. However, I agree that the United States should not interfere with other countries in situations like this to a great extent. Until we know more, taking any major action seems unwise. If fighting between Iran and Israel does occur, is it worth the U.S. jeopardizing its own safety and entering into another war just to protect its ally Israel?
Some people have been giving the Iranian government more credit for being honest and forthcoming than they deserve. Claims that very recent talks between Jalili and Ashton were "useful and constructive" is almost laughable based on ten years of the same claims from diplomats. Talking about the issue will get us nowhere, but continuous, heavy duty sanctions may be able to get some results. However, I would not blame Israel for making a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facility based on Ahmadinejad's comments about "wiping Israel off the map."
As to Mr. Baker's comments regarding the limits of America's power and influence, that is a very basic difference between Obama and Romney. While Obama wants to retreat from the world, Romney would like to return us to our prior place of power and influence. It seems as if Obama's philosophy is turning the world into a more dangerous place because there's no cop on the beat. I am not saying that the US needs to engage in more military action, but often times the appearance of power is enough to deter bad behavior by certain countries.
As I stated in my previous post, I do not believe the U.S. has the right to prohibit certain countries from making nuclear advancements. If a group of nations got together and all decided to not make nuclear advances and then a country broke that promise the U.S. would be justified in trying to control that countries actions. However unless, we know for a fact, America's safety is threatened I don't think any military action should be taken. I feel that the U.S. could try and get a group of countries to use diplomacy or other non-violent forms of persuasion, not force, to convince Iran to stop nuclear advancement.
Upon reading and interpreting your guys' comments, I think that, honestly, no harm can come from setting more sanctions on Iran, but as I said before, they're not really doing anything. There's simply not much we can do or say when it comes to this issue. Period. It’s a straight up hard question. Although it may not be convenient for Iran to have nuclear weaponry, who's to stop them? Although Israel is an ally of the US, we certainly don't need another war on our hands - we saw what happened last time the President entered the US in to what now seems like a pointless war. We're pretty much torn. Although I agree with Margaret somewhat that the appearance of power MAY deter bad behavior, I don’t think that's a legitimate and/or intelligent reason or excuse for entering into a war. It's a war not a new hairstyle - you can't really just try it out, see how it goes, and wait for it to grow back - there are lives on the line. As far as Obama "retreating" from the world, I don't see how you can say that's happening. He's following through on promises to end the current war in Afghanistan, which most folks here want to end. Diplomacy makes more sense than "showing power" as far as detering bad "behavior." The issues in this region go back centuries before we even existed as a country, let alone as a world power. I don't think Romney is going to restore us to "power and influence" in the Mideast when he can't even make our allies like England respect him.
I think everyone has made interesting points on the issue and there are good arguments presented. However, I take issue with most of the "anti-Obama" comments such as Obama being weak. Obama's support for Israel's security has been very solid. Obama has provided financial and technical assistance to Israel's Iron Dome (an additional 70 million dollars). If you don't know what the Iron Dome is it's a mobile all weather air defense system throughout southern Israel. He has increased his aid to Israel and helped give access to the most advanced military equipment. The relationship between the United States and Israel has almost never been stronger under President Obama. Although it is irrelevant but was brought up in the other comments the Republican nominee, Romney, has had limited foreign policy experience. As an example Romney has never explained how he would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama has prepared our military with forces in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate his resolve when it comes to the nuclear arms in Iran.
While Erin makes some good points, I DO NOT believe that sanctions will be sufficient to impede nuclear development in Iran for the following 4 reasons:
ReplyDelete1) Iran is not building a nuclear program to boost their hegemony. This is evidenced by their supreme secrecy about their program. They have not allowed UN inspectors (who cannot, by order of the UN charter, order them to suspend or cancel their weapons development). Many officals at the Brookings Institute and other similar policy centers believe that Iran may be very close to creating, or have already created, a nuclear weapon. The fact that they have not flaunted this fact proves that they are not building their program to gain leverage over other nations, by being able to threaten nuclear war (basically what polical hegemony refers to). They have also claimed that their nuclear program is to promote energy development. Iran is situated in one of the most oil-rich areas on the globe. And if they were going green, why wouldn't they want the UN to see that they were going? They would, it would cause the UN to lift sanctions and grant Iran favor in the UN, and in turn positive hegemony within the UN.
2. Iran has not responded to previous sanctions by the United States and the UN security council. Since 2007, the UN has sanctioned Iran's nuclear program, going so far as to suspend the soveriegnty clause, freezing the assests of leading nuclear scientists known to be involved with the program, and withholding aid. The US has also imposed sanctions and threatened further sanctions should Iran continue to oppose UN Security council innitiatives. Iran has ignoring all sanctions. A complete economic embargo of Iran by the United States and her allies would likely be the only sanction strong enough to prompt Iran to respond. However, the US is not in the position to do this until it achieves some level of energy security. A negitive response from OPEC is likely and would cripple the US economy. Until the US produces it's own oil (alternative energy is not capable of fueling the US economy in its present state no matter how much we would all like to think "green" energy is the answer), we cannot embargo Iran.
3. Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-owned weapons dealer/producer, deals weapons to Iran. Many experts are speculating that rosoboronexport is also providing components for missle construction to Iran's program. The weapons trade has placed a major strain on Russian-US relations. Proof of some kind of nuclear trade would likely collapse all relations. This has not been addressed by the US administration; President Obama has actually called for a "relaxation" in US policy towards Russia. Russia is also somewhat politically unstable at the moment; mass-protests and riots of the middle class (featuring speeches by Russian reality-tv stars) over disputed election practices and government transperancy has plauged the former superpower with unrest. An escalation in tensions between the US and Russia would stall all UN security council action against Iran; Russia and the US both have permenet veto power in the security council. During the cold war the US and Russia used this power to block almost every initiative the other nation proposed.
4. Isreal has already made verbal threats directed at Iran should they fail to suspend nuclear activities. Isreal currently has first-stike capacity over Iran. It has been speculated that Isreal has considered bombing Iranian nuclear plants. Doing so would obivously have long term heath costs for the entire region, and an incalculable number of lives would be lost. The US, a supposed ally of Isreal (despite the fact that the President has refused to meet with the Isreali ambassador about the issue this week), would be tied to the conflict by past treaties. A war between Isreal and Iran would force the US to either involve itself in a nuclear war or cut ties with our primary ally in the middle east.
I agree with Tori. Iran has ignored past government sanctions so trying it again will not help. President Obama has a weak foreign policy (which is evident by what is going on in Lybia). I believe that his idea of foreign policy is to be friends with all the nations in the middle east. I believe that these nations see him as weak which in turn makes the US seem weak. I believe that Iran does not see the US as a threat so they will do what they want. As for Israel, there are so many countries in the Middle East that want them gone and since, as Tori mentioned above the president didn't want to meet with the Prime Minister of Israel (not ambassador) Netanyahu, who is a great ally of the US, means that we are almost leaving them to defend themselves. So in conclusion having a stronger foreign policy I believe will help control the conflict better.
ReplyDelete1) I agree with Erin that "strong sanctions" against Iran are preferabel to a military strike against their "pilot" program. However, like Tori I am unsure how responsive Iran will be to sanctions (unspecified by Erin) unless the broader international community is involved. I would also point out that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is a greater threat to Israel. Obviously, the very existence of tiny Israel would be threatened. I think Israel can legitimately ask the United States to specify what "trigger" would allow them to make a preemptive strike on Iran's facility with the tacit support of the U.S.
ReplyDelete2) In response to Kirsten's comment, I am not sure how the assassination of our ambassador in Libya is an example of "weak foreign policy." I think it is an example of a weak regime supported by the U.S., which could not effectively protect our embassy. The United States, however, rightfully supports the post-Gaddafi regime, and I think that generally the Obama Administration should get good grades for not inserting our military directly into the Libyan revolution that toppled a dictator.
I thought Gov. Romney's criticism of the Obama administration's "apologetic" foreign policy was an uninformed cheap shot by a candidate trying to get Kirsten's vote with "tough talk". I think the effectiveness of our diplomacy will be better measured by our relationship with Egypt. But perhaps this can be the subject of another vlog.
Mr. Baker I agree Egypt will be a good test. As President Obama said the new Egypt is not a friend but he does not consider them an enemy.
DeleteAlthough Erin makes some excellent points, I disagree with her position that sanctions will ultimately succeed in preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry. As we have seen in the past, sanctions have had little effect in persuading Iran to open up its nuclear program to international inspection. Iran's maneuvering with respect to its nuclear program is very similar to that of North Korea, which has continuously rejected international attempts to gauge the extent of its nuclear program. Continuous appeasement of North Korea has not resulted in cooperation with the international community and it appears that Iran is utilizing the same strategy. The issue of military intervention in Iran is a tough one due to the extremely complicated dynamics of the Middle East. I disagree with Erin that Iran would use nuclear weaponry against the United States because of our overwhelming military superiority and missile defense systems. So should the United States support a strike by Israel which has a more direct interest in stopping the Iran nuclear program? I believe that the US should support a thoroughly thought out military strategy by Israel, which would attempt to limit any United States and Israeli loss of life. But first, I agree with Mr. Netanyahu that President Obama needs to clearly set forth "red lines" that Iran must not cross. Otherwise, US reluctance to "get tough" merely serves to give Iran comfort to move forward as it is doing. Furthermore, military action of some kind may be necessary to deter others in the Middle East from pursuing nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that the US should support Israel against Iran as long as it is in a well thought out way, I think that Israel making any sort of preemptive strike on Iran could be the worst thing the country could do. Israel has very few allies, and their allies are not in the Middle East. Most of the countries in that region support Palestine in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many, including Iran, feel that it would be best for the area if Israel as a country no longer existed and instead became a Muslim nation of Palestine. If Israel attacked Iran, it is very likely that other Muslim countries in the area would use it as an opportunity to attack Israel. Israel is not equipped to handle fighting against multiple countries at once, so that could be the end of Israel. I think that it would be better to try to stop the nuclear program through diplomatic means and then through the UN, rather than making it the United States' job to get involved where nobody wants us. That way, we would not need to engage in any sort of warfare with Iran.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough in theory, governmental sanctions would be the diplomatic route to take in controlling Iran’s nuclear proliferation, the radical Muslims that populate Iran must be taken into consideration. Ahmadinejad rules under the belief that anyone that is does not follow an Islamic religion should be killed, according to the rules of the Muslim jihad. Although these radicals should not define the Islamic religion and do twist the words of the actual Quran, they are the controlling power in Iran. These groups have an emotional and religious connection to the cause. They preach that they will die for Islam, as shown by the terrorist attacks around the world. If they die, they are considered heroes and martyrs, which only amplify their determination to spread Islam and control the world. As a result, sanctions from a foreign country that radical Muslims view as the enemy are not going to stop them. Consequently, there is no simple solution to the Iranian nuclear proliferation, and war may be imminent. The best way to attempt to delay a violent Iranian conflict is to put pressure on all fronts. By this, I mean the use of the United Nations, third parties, and subversive action to accomplish this goal.
ReplyDeleteAs said before, the United Nations has already tried to reason with Iran, but nothing can be passed without the unanimous vote of the Security Council. Russia and China have veto power, impeding any resolution from passing because of their close ties with Iran. The United Nations must convince Russia and China that their aid is not worth the possible consequences if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear capabilities. Russia may be benefiting from weapons sales now, but who is to say that after it accomplishes its nuclear goals, Iran will not attack Russia because they are not a primarily Islamic country. The same can be said for China. If Iran obtains nuclear power, it will only rededicate themselves to their ultimate goal of controlling the Middle East, now giving them weapons to reinforce their actions.
Another aspect that should be explored in the nuclear conflict is the help of third parties, specifically, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a gateway country between the West and the Middle East. The United States is allies with Saudi Arabia because the current ruling family needs the United States to stay in power. Without the help of the Americans, the ruling family would be overthrown and all their wealth and power would be lost. On the opposite end, the United States values Saudi Arabia because of their oil access. Although it does not receive most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, the United States can control the flow of oil and wealth to the other Middle Eastern countries. Due to Saudi Arabia’s supreme economic and military influence in the Middle East, it would be the ideal country to convince Iran to halt their nuclear operations. They can also relate to the Iranians on a religious level because Saudi Arabia is a primarily Islamic country.
One facet of the nuclear conflict that is hidden from the public eye is the subversive actions of special operations organizations. The goal of these groups is to destabilize corrupt or dangerous governments outside of the United Nations’ or public view. Many of these organizations have already taken action to halt Iran’s nuclear proliferation. Approximately two years ago, an unknown group from the West (either the United States or Israel) tampered with the centrifuges in an Iranian nuclear facility. The unknowns had programmed the centrifuges to malfunction and eventually break, in order to hinder the Iranian’s nuclear success. This group did achieve their goal, setting back the Iranians by about two years. Although democratic countries, like the United States, do not primarily look to these institutions for relief because they are not considered proper foreign policy, they are something to keep in mind.
Personally, I believe that Iranians should not be able to expand nuclear technologies especially for the purpose of nuclear weaponry and nuclear development in Iran because of the massive destruction Iran has inflicted on countries, especially America. I do not believe that they are capable of having the responsibility of nuclear development in their country. This was proved with Erin’s statement of their “secret pilot plant” -nuclear underground facility- that was hidden from the world. If we look around at the world as a whole, usually in which countries do we see terrorism spark the most? The Middle East, not elsewhere. We have seen that the consequences and existences of nuclear weaponry would lead to deaths and injuries, especially in America, where millions of soldiers have died from nuclear weaponry. Though not every Middle Eastern person is a terrorist, countries around the world should still keep caution towards them. Keeping Israel’s sovereignty in mind, America should send protest groups to Iran to explain to the Iranian people about the dangers of nuclear weaponry. This measure would work because if more people are informed, the result would be more people trying to influence the Iranian government against extreme measures like terrorism. Personally, I do not believe that government sanctions would exactly benefit Iranian people or American people because they too expensive and Iran also admits that the sanctions are hurting the economy, meaning that sanctions will have no effect of Iranian people. Iran has also ignored government sanctions. This is seen when the Iranian people were not persuaded to international inspection for their nuclear program. Ali Larijani said that 20 percent of the country’s economic problems are due to sanctions from Europe and the U.S. His statement came two weeks after an oil embargo.
ReplyDeleteThough, Iran would not initiate a firsthand strike on Israel, we cannot expect this to be true. If Iran can have a “secret Pilot plant”, unknown from the world, a strike to other countries could also be presumable, in secrecy. Moreover, if Iran proliferates in nuclear weaponry, they may also dominate the other Middle Eastern countries around Iran. I agree with Erin that with nuclear weaponry, many people would also want to get their hands on nuclear weaponry for the purpose of power.
I agree with Erin that the Iranians should not be allowed to expand their nuclear weapons program because the threat to the area would be immeasurable. Personally, I do not believe that Iranian leadership is looking into a nuclear program for the source of nuclear energy. Mr. Ahmadinejad has called the existence of Israel "an insult to humankind" and has predicted that one day, Israel will be "wiped off the map." That being known, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments make it clear that he, and many in the leadership of Iran, are against the existence of Israel and make a plausible case for the suspicions of a nuclear weapons program being in existence in Iran. I also agree with Erin that military action on behalf of the U.S. would be ill-advised. The U.S. is still involved in the war in Afghanistan, and it would be irresponsible to involve the U.S. in another war based on circumstantial evidence, no matter how convincing. The lives of U.S. soldiers and the lives of those in the Middle East need to be taken into account when thinking of the situation. Stricter sanctions should be placed on Iran. If stricter sanctions are placed on Iran and they cannot export oil or other goods, the value of their currency will go down, bringing their economy down with it, therefore limiting the amount of money that the government could spend on their nuclear program.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both arguments make logical sense. In my opinion I feel that putting sanctions on Iran simply because of what may happen is not a sufficient reason. However, I also understand that fear that many people have towards the topic of Iran obtaining or creating their own nuclear bomb. I feel that if the U.S. did put sanctions on Iran it may make us a target which will put American citizens in harms way as much as the sanction of military intervention. I do not believe that it is in our best interest to get involved in another countries affairs especially when their are doubts about the rationality of its leaders. I agree with others who have added that governmental sanctions would have no affect on Iran and their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons. If there was a way for Iran not to obtain nuclear weapons I would support it, however, I believe that as a country we should not get involved in other countries and especially not put a target on our backs to simply stop something that seems to be inevitable. I feel that putting government sanctions on Iran is not a good idea because it is not based on evidence that is legitimate enough, such as the expression of the Iranian leaders to use their nuclear weapons immediately when obtained. Also, I think that it is more important to make our relations with Iran stronger rather than hinder them because of fear of the unknown.
ReplyDeleteI think that trying to suspend Iran's (supposed) nuclear expansion by military force is completely unadvisable and something that the U.S. should definitely avoid. However, I also feel that attempting to impose sanctions prohibiting their expansion of a nuclear program is probably impractical and would probably be sort of obsolete and simply diminish any relations the U.S. has with Iran. No countries should be allowed to have nuclear weaponry in my opinion, but unfortunately many do and I'm not sure what a clear solution to this would be. A war between Israel and Iran that the U.S. would most likely inevitably become involved in should definitely be avoided at all costs. Perhaps if the U.S. along with other world powers could collectively impose strict sanctions on Iran, it could actually work, but the U.S. on its own is unlikely to make any real impact on what Iran does or does not do in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don’t think that the U.S. government has a right to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Although I do not particularly want Iran to be developing nuclear technologies because it is a potential threat to ours and other countries, I do not believe that we should, or can, try to control Iran’s nuclear advances. I don’t think it is up to America to choose who gets to advance nuclear technologies and who doesn’t. Why should the U.S. get to choose, what gives us the right to dictate over this matter? Maybe there is something I don’t know about this issue, it just does not seem fair to me that the U.S. would try to make decisions for other counties based on its own, and inevitably biased, beliefs about the issue. Utilizing military force in this matter, as many have said, would definitely not be the best way to go about this issue. I feel one way to go about the issue would be to get a group of countries to try and use diplomacy, not force to resolve the issue, if need be. However I feel that perhaps the U.S. could spend its efforts bettering its own defense system, and potentially other military technology for America, instead trying to prevent other countries from doing so. I feel that the American government should only try to control and govern America. I believe that the U.S. really should not get to determine who can advance nuclear technology, if another country tried to do the same to us, I do not think America would take it well. To conclude, it is my belief that America has no place telling other countries what they can and cannot do, and should not intercede and try to enforce their beliefs on another country.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that no country should be able to expand its nuclear technology, including Iran; however, we have no solid evidence that Iran has nuclear warheads, or intentions to build them. Iran insists their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes (although we can’t bank on their word). I agree with Erin that we shouldn’t use military force. We have to consider the fact that we are still involved in the war in Afghanistan. At this point, getting involved in another war, based on a country in supposed possession of nuclear weaponry, could turn the U.S. into a laughing stock, especially if they it turns out Iran isn’t in possession of nuclear weapons. Honestly we don’t need a repeat. Banking and oil embargo sanctions went into effect in July, however they aren’t enough, they are only harming the ordinary people. Iran believes that nuclear enrichment is a legitimate right of every member of NPT (The Non-Proliferation Treaty). Therefore I believe that if harsher sanctions were to be placed on Iran, and if more nations were on board it might work. I really believe that we should avoid getting involved in another war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin, I don't think the Iranians should be allowed to expand their nuclear weapons program. I don't believe sanctions will stop Iran from perusing nuclear proliferation. We should not be focusing on "if" they obtain the means of producing nuclear weaponry but rather "when". This is not the first time Washington has had to face a hostile government attempting to develop nuclear weapons but history does have a tenancy to repeat itself. I think that this makes the government feel rather confident in their efforts to contain Iran if it does become a nuclear power. However, as nuclear proliferation comes to be seen as inevitable, wishful thinking can make its consequences seem less severe and if faith in deterrence grows, incentives to combat proliferation diminish. Many speculators believe that eventually it may be impossible to stop Iran or even other Middle Eastern countries, from getting the bomb. I have done some research and according to various articles , the knowledge of how to build these weapons has become more widespread and the right of parties to Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and plutonium, the argument goes, any foreign government could acquire nuclear weapons will eventually succeed.
ReplyDeleteFor example the 1981 Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq.It may have delayed Iraq's progress however small air strikes would probably not be able to stand up to Iran. That is why I believe that sanctions through the UN Security Council will probably be our best bet. However it will probably only make it more expensive to produce nuclear weaponry but not impossible.
Like Isabelle stated above about President Ahmadinejad calling the existence of Israel "an insult to humankind" and has predicted that one day, Israel will be "wiped off the map" is proof of the mindset of the Iranian government.
I don't think that the only issue with Iran having Nuclear weapons is that the country happens to lie in an unstable area. The more apparent problem is the fact that Iran is filled with a lot of anti-American sentiment, especially from Ahmadinejad. I also wouldn't consider him to be a particularly rational leader, and he has said himself that he will not rest until Israel is annihilated. If and when Iran invades Israel, the United States would most likely come to their aid, as we are one of their few allies and we are certainly their largest. If Iran had nuclear weapons that would make the ensuing war a lot more dangerous for all involved. I am also of the opinion that Nuclear weaponry is very rarely a good thing. I understand why the US has not gotten rid of all of our Nuclear weapons, as a means of potential defense, especially considering the fact that many countries that we are not allies with have nuclear weapons. I feel that the UN should have more restrictions on nuclear weapons altogether, though I doubt that would have any effect on Iran's plans.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Iran developing nuclear weapons would have any effect on the other countries in the area developing them. The countries that have the resources and a stable enough government to commission them don't need Iran to set the example.
Erin's topic and proposed question is one that is clearly relevant but very difficult to 'solve'. I believe that Iran should not be allowed to expand or obtain nuclear weapons but how to deter or prevent such action is the challenge. The reasons for Iran not to acquire nuclear weapons are because of the threat it poses to Israel, whose security is a vital US national interest, Iran is a volatile region and could lead to a cascade of nuclear tensions in the Middle East and beyond, nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. On today's "Face the Nation", Martin Indyk, former Ambassador to Israel, said he is afraid that a US confrontation with Iran could escalate into war. "I'm afraid that 2013 is going to be a year in which we're going to have a military confrontation with Iran", Martin stated at the round table of foreign policy experts who were discussing the recent protests in the Middle East. President Obama has stated that the United States' government's goal is to prevent and end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and that he believes that through tough sanctions. As pointed out, sanctions seem to have little effect on Iran. However, diplomacy is still the preferred solution. Pursuing economic, diplomatic then military action against Iran's nuclear proliferation is the route the US government should pursue. According to 'Polling Report', more than 50% of Americans support the US taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Furthermore, 54% of Americans' greatest concern is that the US government will wait too long to take action to deal with Iran's nuclear program. We are faced with the economic possibility of higher fuel prices and the security issue of feeding into the terrorists should the US interfere in Iran with military force. It is unfortunate that the United States can not rationally nor effectively negotiate with Iran but it is my hope that Iran will weigh out all the consequences should they continue to pursue a nuclear weapons program.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat should we do with Iran? That may be, presently, the hardest question anyone could possibly ask. You would think the next step infixing this so-called problem would be to set up sanctions against Iran. But we've already tried that. It's not currently and most likely isn't going to work. When it comes to trying to stop Iran from making nuclear weaponry or nuclear energy plants the real question is - what about the people in that country who deserve and want to feel safe? Iran is a more advanced country - with a better education system, a more effective government - than those surrounding it, and who's to say that the educated, more advanced society of Iran doesn’t deserve to have something to protect it? However, who's to say Iran won’t use it to blow Israel to shreds? Their government is still very flawed. The question still stands - with very good arguments on both sides.
ReplyDeleteYet another posed issue is the place of the Israeli government in trying to influence the American Elections. As the Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, directly campaigns for the election of Mitt Romney, it bewilders me that people aren’t reacting in disgust. Last time I checked, government officials from other countries are not supposed to directly influence, or thrust themselves into elections that aren't their own. Just as we respect democracies of other countries in not interfering in their elections - they should have the decency to do so to us. Somewhat offensive donchya think?
To begin, I would like to applaud Erin for bringing up a topic other than the election. I appreciate her highlighting the fact that the world does not wait for the US to make a decision on its leaders. Especially in an election like this, where domestic issues seem to be at the forefront, it's refreshing to hear about foreign affairs that often get glossed over.
ReplyDeleteTime to delve into the topic at hand though:
1) First, I'd like to acknowledge that sanctions have had an effect on Iran. Iran's currency is now half the value it was a year ago, and their oil profits have dropped significantly from 9.8 billion as of July 2011 to 2.9 billion this past July (1.) However sanctions alone seem to not have been enough to deter them. The IAEA recently reported that Iran has increased the production of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity in addition to doubling the number of centrifuges it has installed (2).
2)As of a few days ago, Russia and China have joined with the Western countries in condemning Iran during the last IAEA board meeting. Previously these countries refused to condemn Iran's nuclear activity on the grounds that every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear power development. Will this new condemnation by the worlds remaining super power pressure Iran to respond a little more diplomatically?
My guess is no, but only time will tell.
3)Sometimes no action is the best action, but in this case, it is time for President Obama to set the "red line" with regard to Iran and their program that Israeli PM Netanyahu has asked for. If Iran continues to believe its development will go virtually unchecked and unaccounted for with the exception of sanctions,Iranian nuclear proliferation is inevitable.
(1)http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/316676/sanctions-alone-won-t-stop-iran-clifford-d-may
(2) http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/iaea-condemns-irans-continued-nuclear-defiance-russia-and-china-join
In response to Mr. Baker's claim that the assasination of the Libyan ambassador does not evidence Obama's weak foreign policy, (pt 2 of his comment), I would like to say that while the president did not cause the death of this man, his administration's reaction to the tragety was unacceptable, and definietly does evidence weakness and lack of control. The American Embassy in Libya released a statement after the ambassador's death that sympathized with Islamic concerns over the American value freedom of speech, as this value indirectly allowed the scandal-causing, anti-Islamic you-tube video to be made (it was made by an Isrealite in an off-Hollywood studio). The press release was innappropritate, and borders on the edge of sympathizing with the murderers. Furthermore, it should not be America's foreign policy to knock the 1st amendment overseas, yet Obama has been apologizing for American values since the week after he became president (he literally went to Prague and a host of other fashionable places, appologizing for the United States). While the White House did claim not to be connected to the Libyan Embassy appology (and probablly wasn't), the buck stops with Obama on diplomatic affairs. As we learned in sophomore gov class, the president of the United States is the Head of State. He is ultimately responsible for our foriegn policy, and if these actions don't portray weakness, I don't know what does. Mr. Baker said that Romney "talks tough" on foriegn policy, but it was Romney who originally called out the President on the Libyan Press release. The message was removed from the Embassy's website within hours of Romney's comment. I think that it is clear that if elected president, we won't see any anti-american web posts from American diplomatin institutions. And as for his "tough talk?" at least it got that awful post removed which was at the least a slap in the face for the family and friends of the murdered ambassador, and at the most, a slap in the face of America and all that it stands for.
ReplyDeleteGretchen: It makes total sense that the Prime Minister of Isreal wants to see Obama out of office. Isreal has been one America's greatest allies in the middle east, and has shown responsibility with their nuclear weapons. They have shown restraint by not blowing up Iran's nuclear facilities, which is their ideal solution to the problem. The United Nations, and the United States have urged them not to do this, and they have listened. Iran, on the other hand, has completely disrespected the world community by ignoring the principles of collective security while still remaining members of treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (ironic)?. Dispite Isreal's loyalty, Obama has been hostile to our ally and has refused to meet with Isreal's diplomats. Obama has also rerouted many of America's alliances away from neocolonialist nations (ex. Britain and the Falkan Islands). Isreal is considered by many experts as the neocolonialist nation of the middle east, and Obama told Putin that he "would have more flexibility" with his foriegn policy after the next election. The Isreali prime minister and other government officials can rightly believe that the alliance between the United States and Isreal will be jepordized in the near future, which would threaten Isrealli security, espeically if Iran achieves proliferation (as Sephanie pointed out, Iran would like to see Isreal "blown off the map"). Obviously Isreal would support any man other than Obama, and in this case, that man is Romeny. So no, it is not disturbing to me. It seems totatally warrented by the way Obama has handled the situation in the middle east. By the way, Gretchen is right, the media has ignored this endoresment, as well as most mention of Obama's foreign policy, and as most networks, FOX excluded, are liberal, what does that say about Obama's foriegn policy?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori on Gretchen's stance about Netanyahu's view about the American Election. Since he believes that the best thing for his country is by choosing Romney, he is trying to sway some of the American voters. He believes that Obama is pulling away their alliance with Israel in the Middle East and is inviting the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House, who most want Israel gone. I am not saying Romney's policies will all work, but Netanyahu has seen Obama's policies at work and he believes that they will not help his country.
ReplyDeleteNow back to the topic of if the Iranians should be allowed to make nuclear weapons I still stat my answer as no. They are not to be trusted evident to them not letting UN officials to inspect their "underground nuclear power plant". Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, making Iran's nuclear program subject to IAEA verification. In the IAEA's last report, it stated that Iran was closer to creating a nuclear weapon then what most speculated. This is a trying time and I am curious what the presidents actions will be when it is confirmed that Iran has made a nuclear weapon.
I have been reading all the comments with interest. I am surprised and impressed with the level of engagement with a foreign policy question. Isn't it interesting that to this point the economy has absolutely dominated the presidential campaigns. While we know how each candidate stood on the Auto bailout, does anyone know where they stood on the Iraq War? Or how they look at that invasion retrospectively?
ReplyDeleteAlexandra's comment really struck me. It got me thinking along two different tracks. First of all, what are the limits of American power and influence? It's unlikely that EITHER candidate will articulate this. In other words, we certainly cannot police every region or coerce every country we disagree with. I think some of our preceding discussion implies that we can.
Secondly, one of the great questions in foreign policy involves whether to use morality as a guide in forming policy or adhere more coldly and objectively to determination of national interest. In other words, where is the discussion of the national interest in matters related to the Middle East? Certainly containment of a hostile regime like Iran is desirable. But at what risk. Supposing that a preemptive strike at the plant by Israel initiated a war between the two countries, it would not be in our interest to join the combat, right? But would it be a moral obligation to our ally, Israel, whose current leadership is taken a very tough, even belligerent stance toward its enemies.
Isabelle brought up an interesting and relevant facet of the Iranian nuclear proliferation. The United States still has military presence in Afghanistan, so it would not be wise or beneficial for Americans to militarily invade or instigate war with Iran or any other Middle Eastern country. This strategy was already used once by former President George W. Bush in 2003 with Iraq. Former President George W. Bush cited that his reason for invading Iraq was the apparent threat of weapons of mass destruction under the direction of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. However, in 2005, the CIA released a report stating that no weapons of mass destruction were actually found. Countless American lives were sacrificed due to that invasion, and the supposed benefit of the downfall of the Hussein regime did not outweigh the consequences, in my opinion. The United States started a war that it could not clean up and it is still dealing with the aftermath. The United States attempted to create a democratic government in Iraq, but was only plagued with corruption. Thus, economically draining Iran would be the civil and diplomatic route to take. It may not be as beneficial for the United States because of the effects it will have on its own economy, but it will avoid dragging other countries into a military conflict. With many European economies in shambles, like Italy, Greece, and Spain, war is the last thing that they need.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexandra’s comment. I don’t think we have the authority to decide who gets to nuclear warheads and who doesn’t, however I believe that it will take more than diplomacy to get Iran to give up their advances in nuclear technology, because they see nuclear technology as a right. As many people have mentioned Isreal has made verbal threats directed at Iran, threatening to annihilate it. Like Mr Baker mentioned I think that if a war were to break out between the two, we would most likely step into help Israel despite the risks and push to avoid getting involved in another war
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back and re-reading everyone's post, my stance on this issue still stayes the same. I agree with Gretchen that we have done all we can to stop Iran from its brutal enforcemens, espeically through government sanctions, but they take no heed nor attention towards them. I agree with Madeline that if America wants to stop Iran's enforcements, it will definitely take more than diplomacy to get Iran to stop their advances in nuclear technology. Iran is not a country to be trusted because of their resistance of now allowing UN officials to inspect their "underground nuclear power plant", as stated by Kirsten. I still believe that Iran is not a country to have the right to advance in their nuclear technologies and should be taken away immediately.
ReplyDeleteInteresting new development:
ReplyDeletePerhaps diplomacy will play a bigger role than we all expected. After talks between Iran and the UN's Security Councils P5 (US, China, Russia, Britain, France) + Germany originally failed, Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili met with the Catherine Ashton, the EU's chief policy maker. According to both Jalili & Ashton the talks were useful and constructive. Ashton plans to brief representatives of the U.S. and the five other world powers next week in New York about her efforts to restart negotiations with Tehran that fizzled in June.
It appears as if Iran is at least trying to put on the facade of cooperation, especially as Israel is considering more so than ever to attack the country's nuclear installations.
After reading everyone's comments I still believe that the U.S. intervening in Iran and setting up sanctions to stop them from growing their nuclear weapon arsenal is not right. In my opinion the best way to stop all of the controversy surrounding this topic is for all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. Although the U.S. thinks that making these sanctions will better protect there citizens is logical the aftermath maybe even worse. If radical groups in Iran decide that these sanctions are not fair they may put a target on America. I think that the U.S. may need to give Iran more credit and not believe the worst in a country that has not yet given evidence as to why sanctions maybe the best option.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading everyone's comments, my position has stayed pretty much the same on the topic. Although I partially agree with Alexandra that the U.S. cannot be the ultimate authority saying who can and cannot have nuclear weapons, I think that Iran having nuclear weapons is a different case. Israel is considered a close ally of the U.S., so if Israel and Iran were to get into a nuclear war, the U.S. would without a doubt get involved in some capacity on behalf of Israel. Therefore I don't think that the U.S. having some say in the continuation of Iran's nuclear program to be so absurd seeing as how it does in fact impact the U.S. directly. Also another point to think of is the possibility that Iran is further along in their nuclear program than they are letting on. If Iran is putting on the facade of only being in the beginning stages yet they are truly further along in the development of nuclear weapons, it could be disastrous for the U.S. or Israel to get involved militarily.
ReplyDeleteI think that there's no harm in attempting to peacefully talk to Iran and attempt to scope out the extent of their nuclear program, and if they're willing to cooperate then that's great. However, I agree that the United States should not interfere with other countries in situations like this to a great extent. Until we know more, taking any major action seems unwise. If fighting between Iran and Israel does occur, is it worth the U.S. jeopardizing its own safety and entering into another war just to protect its ally Israel?
ReplyDeleteSome people have been giving the Iranian government more credit for being honest and forthcoming than they deserve. Claims that very recent talks between Jalili and Ashton were "useful and constructive" is almost laughable based on ten years of the same claims from diplomats. Talking about the issue will get us nowhere, but continuous, heavy duty sanctions may be able to get some results. However, I would not blame Israel for making a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facility based on Ahmadinejad's comments about "wiping Israel off the map."
ReplyDeleteAs to Mr. Baker's comments regarding the limits of America's power and influence, that is a very basic difference between Obama and Romney. While Obama wants to retreat from the world, Romney would like to return us to our prior place of power and influence. It seems as if Obama's philosophy is turning the world into a more dangerous place because there's no cop on the beat. I am not saying that the US needs to engage in more military action, but often times the appearance of power is enough to deter bad behavior by certain countries.
As I stated in my previous post, I do not believe the U.S. has the right to prohibit certain countries from making nuclear advancements. If a group of nations got together and all decided to not make nuclear advances and then a country broke that promise the U.S. would be justified in trying to control that countries actions. However unless, we know for a fact, America's safety is threatened I don't think any military action should be taken. I feel that the U.S. could try and get a group of countries to use diplomacy or other non-violent forms of persuasion, not force, to convince Iran to stop nuclear advancement.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading and interpreting your guys' comments, I think that, honestly, no harm can come from setting more sanctions on Iran, but as I said before, they're not really doing anything. There's simply not much we can do or say when it comes to this issue. Period. It’s a straight up hard question. Although it may not be convenient for Iran to have nuclear weaponry, who's to stop them? Although Israel is an ally of the US, we certainly don't need another war on our hands - we saw what happened last time the President entered the US in to what now seems like a pointless war. We're pretty much torn. Although I agree with Margaret somewhat that the appearance of power MAY deter bad behavior, I don’t think that's a legitimate and/or intelligent reason or excuse for entering into a war. It's a war not a new hairstyle - you can't really just try it out, see how it goes, and wait for it to grow back - there are lives on the line.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Obama "retreating" from the world, I don't see how you can say that's happening. He's following through on promises to end the current war in Afghanistan, which most folks here want to end. Diplomacy makes more sense than "showing power" as far as detering bad "behavior." The issues in this region go back centuries before we even existed as a country, let alone as a world power. I don't think Romney is going to restore us to "power and influence" in the Mideast when he can't even make our allies like England respect him.
I think everyone has made interesting points on the issue and there are good arguments presented. However, I take issue with most of the "anti-Obama" comments such as Obama being weak. Obama's support for Israel's security has been very solid. Obama has provided financial and technical assistance to Israel's Iron Dome (an additional 70 million dollars). If you don't know what the Iron Dome is it's a mobile all weather air defense system throughout southern Israel. He has increased his aid to Israel and helped give access to the most advanced military equipment. The relationship between the United States and Israel has almost never been stronger under President Obama. Although it is irrelevant but was brought up in the other comments the Republican nominee, Romney, has had limited foreign policy experience. As an example Romney has never explained how he would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Obama has prepared our military with forces in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate his resolve when it comes to the nuclear arms in Iran.
ReplyDelete