Iran is continually defending the legitimate and peaceful nature of their nuclear program to inquiring and concerned global leaders. Though most global intelligence agencies have evidence to support claims for Iran’s plans to build a nuclear weapon, the nation has not budged in their assertions that their nuclear program is only for nuclear power. The point of most interest to me is that this country is willing to endure economic sanctions in order to maintain their economic power. Basically the country is taking a beating from an economic standpoint while also risking a costly war. If Iran continues down this path it is increasingly likely that they will be met with force by one or more international powers.
So why would Iran risk all this for a nuclear power program? The answer is that they would not. No leader in their right mind would endure economic sanctions as well as the prospect for war with the world’s most powerful nations unless there was something truly worth while on the table. Iran is attempting to acquire and develop nuclear weapons for reasons unknown to me. Perhaps they are planning to strike a certain nation. My best guess would be that Iran is hoping to acquire nuclear weapons before the United States intervenes by force. If Iran can build nuclear weapons they will become a much more formidable foe for the United States. Suddenly we would have to pay them more respect and they would have increased bargaining power in diplomatic situations. This nuclear program is simply a level up scenario for Iran. They are attempting to gain more power and influence through weapons procurement to pursue several agendas to benefit the nation and it’s leaders.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:23 am
You make a very interesting argument, as far as it goes. But there are other considerations. First, the history of the last 10 years sends the whole world the clear message that countries lacking nuclear weapons will not get respect, and Iran very much wants respect. If you knew the history of Russian, British, and after 1953 American mistreatment of Iran (perhaps you recall the US navy’s shooting down of an Iranian airliner), you would understand how they feel. Second, Israel dominates the Mideast militarily, breaking all the rules other nations are expected to adhere to, because it follows the policy of strategic ambiguity – “don’t ask, don’t tell” for countries. Iran seems to be working its way toward an equivalent policy. That is, as long as Iran’s enemies have nukes and yet are accepted in regional affairs, Iran is not going to renounce the potential for getting nukes and tolerate being marginalized. Indeed, it probably will not even accept full participation in Mideast affairs in return for giving up all technical capacity at this point. The advantages Israel gains from strategic ambiguity are all too obvious. In fact, Iran has renounced nuclear arms as a legitimate goal, but it does appear to desire either a sincere accommodation (which would no doubt include ending Israel’s rogue status) or strategic ambiguity, which at a minimum would mean the ability to weaponize overnight. Room for compromise exists, but bullying Iran is not the way to get there.