Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Iran and Israel: An Instance of Security Dilemma?
Security dilemmas are related to military operations, arms races, and to a Realist conception of International Relations. Given Iran's desire to possess nuclear weapons and Israel's blatant opposition to it, how do you think this will affect politics in the Middle East? Do you think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Do you think Israel has a legitimate right to stop Iran from acquiring those weapons? This is a broad topic that can encompass many ideas so feel free to tackle the issue from any side you deem is interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
In regards to the Iranian and Israeli conflict in the Middle East it appears that it is just one thing after another. The two countries that at one time had strong diplomatic relations now have none. Iran does not recognize Israel as even being a country rather a, "Zionist entity." So do I feel that Israel has a legitimate reason for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons? Absolulty; there are an abundance of reasons for why Israel is justified in this situation. For one thing Iran does not want Israel to exist, and while Iran and Israel share borders, I would find that to be an issue. Israel is not the only country to dispute that Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons, the United States most recently has refuted that they possess any weapons as well. Although this would undermine Iran's political sovereignty it seems that for the world peace's sake it would be safer for Iran to not have nuclear weapons. I have to admit that I was ignorant to Iran's politics, or at least their administration until I read the speech that the Iranian president delivered at Columbia. In that speech he appeared to be radical and bizarre in most of his claims. All in all I believe that Israel is completely justified in their fear of Iran's proposal for nuclear weapons, and that if they were to obtain them it would mean more unrest for Middle Eastern politics.
-Elizabeth Lodge
I feel any country has a legitimate right to want to stop another country from obtaining nuclear weapons because of the damage that nuclear weapons cause. Though the damage depends on geograghy, the size of the weapon, and the height it is detonated, the damage will still be very large. Nuclear weapons cause a rapid release of energy. The power of nuclear weapons can crush human lungs, destroy buildings, and throw people long distances. When a nuclear weapon is used it also sends out large ammounts of heat which can burn peoples skin and anything near the center of the explosion is completely vaporized. Also nuclear weapons emit tons of light which can blind people. The nuclear weapons alone in Hiroshima killed 300,000 people. I think any country would be worried if another country was trying to receive nuclear weapons. And because of the damage they cause it is legitimate to try to stop them.
Kristin Iorii
Up to this point in history, every country that has ever obtained nuclear weapons has placed the survival of their own nation as their forefront priority. The United States and the Soviet Union, to give two examples, both knew that they could expect mutually assured destruction in the case of a nuclear weapon. It is for this reason that we never saw Soviet (Atheist) suicide bombers. Iran, on the other hand boasts to having thousands of suicide bombers ready to be used in a war. We are talking about individuals in power who have apocalyptic fantasies that they take very seriously in which they believe that if they are killed by Israelis, then they will enter heaven. As a result of this, it is in the interest of the United States as well as Israel and the rest of the Western World to literally do everything in their power to prevent Iran from obtaining and using nuclear weapons. We should not doubt that Iran will use nuclear weapons if they obtain them on Israel. In fact, a member of Iran's government, I forget the name but its something along the lines of Rasfarjari (begins w/ "ras" at least") said that in a nuclear war between the Muslims and the jews, the Muslims will win because they have more people. Naturally, he doesn't represent the viewpoints of most Muslims or middle eastern people, but individuals like him are in power and likely believe they are acting in the interest of others and thus must be stopped.
-Dan Greenbaum
Considering Israel and Iran have shared borders, I do not believe it is out of line for Israel to oppose Iran gaining possession of nuclear weapons. Yet, I think there are other reasons for opposing Iran gaining higher technology weapons. Furtheremore, I do not think it is solely Israel who would oppose this technological advance in Iran, a country who has not proven they have much self resistance, but also other countries as well. If Iran were allowed and able to obtain more powerful weapons, would they abstain from using them? It's highly doubtful that it would be a cold war scenario in which neither side would use their weapons of mass destruction. In other words, I would bet that Iran would choose to use these weapons and potentially destroy, not only Israel, but anywhere else they could reach until they are stopped by a greater super power.
Sorry...last comment was Anna Post.
The two countries of Iran and Israel have been in disput for some time. Israel feels as if the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is wrong, and I completely agree with that. The main reason would be that Iran doesn't belief Israel should be a country, so they will do anything possible to destroy them. I believe this conflict will increase hostility between the two countries, but it is my hope that the United States will help Israel in their fight against nuclear weapons because if Iran gets a hold of these weapons it will not be in the best interest of Israel nor the United States.
-Eric Goodman
In my opinion, the issue between Iran and Israel is definitely an instance of a security dilemma. As we know, Israel is one of the few known countries that possesses nuclear weapons of their own. Although they are considered a sovereign entity by recognition ofthe U.N., many countries in the Middle East are opposed to that notion. Iran has outwardly stated that they do not feel that Israel should be a sovereign state. With Iran's knowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons, they feel threatened. The fact that there is hostility between the two countries, creates a security dilemma. I think Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons to counter its neighbor's "threat". The sheer definition of a security dilemma implies that Iran would build their own weapon supply up if they feel threatened. Once again, I think that Iran and Israel's issue with nuclear weapons is a clear instance of a security dilemma.
--Mike Poznansky
There are a number of statements that have been made thus far that I feel obligated to address.
1. Iran and Israel do not share borders.
2. What Ahmadinejad says is of no consequence. He has no power to bring any kind of destruction to Israel. He is not a popular president, in any event.
3. Many here seem to be making the assumption that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. This is not clear. What is clear is that they are pursuing nuclear energy. If someone has evidence that they are, in fact, planning on building such weapons, please provide evidence. Not only is Iran party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but they have a religious ban against the construction of nuclear weapons (http://www.answers.com/topic/iran-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction)).
I would think that if there were evidence that Iran was trying to build a nuclear arsenal, the IAEA would have information on it (www.iaea.org). Then again, if Iran really were trying to build nuclear weapons, I doubt they would cooperate with the IAEA to the extent that they have.
Now to answer the topic questions. Iran's "desire" to have nuclear weapons seems irrelevant. There are probably Iranians who would like to have them, but what matters is whether or not they are actually pursuing them. Thus far, I have yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case. Hypothetically, if they were pursuing them, it obviously would create a security dilemma that every nation in the region ought to be concerned about. Yes, this includes Israel, the country that has nuclear weapons but will not admit it.
No, I do not believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons, given its international obligations. If it wants to build a nuclear arsenal, it should withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In that case, it would be perfectly legitimate, though not necessarily desirable. One can understand the desire of a country to have such a deterrent. Iran is, after all, next to a very unstable Iraq and is being browbeaten by the United States and some European nations.
I do not see how Israel would have any kind of legitimacy in stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons, if it were in fact doing such a thing. Israel is not a party to the NNPT, has nuclear weapons of its own, and would be violating the sovereignty of Iran. I do not believe that a nuclear Iran would use its arsenal for offensive purposes. It would be too concerned with international retaliation, which would wipe it out. It seems to me that Pakistan's
very real nuclear arsenal should be of more concern. Yet, Pakistan and India have been at each other's throats for years now, and there has been no nuclear war between them.
Good post Andrew. One thing though, do you really think that Iran would be legitimate in pursuit of nukes if it dropped out of the non-proliferation treaty?
I think it would be just as legitimate in doing so as any other nation in history. Perhaps moreso, given its situation. The Iranian government has an obligation to protect its population, and if the only way to deter an attack is by possessing a nuclear weapon, then why not? Some might argue that its support for groups like Hezbollah set it apart from other nations. Iran would just counter that the United States supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Again, I would stress that if Iran were to pass nukes on to some group and those nukes were used to blow up Israeli cities or something, it would be traced back to Iran, which would be summarily annihilated. Also, I really do feel that if the Iranian government were the type to wipe out an entire city, they would have begun taking steps to wipe out or imprison their own Jewish population.
The current crisis with Iran is a response by Iran to Israel's nuclear capability. However, this makes no sense because Israel has never threatened Iran. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatening to destroy Israel. That is a main reason Israel has had to beef up its nuclear production. More likely, Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is more of a response to the U.S. hegemony. A country had the right to advance its security however when countries are obtaining these weapons to cause war instead of preventing it this becomes a problem.
Kaitlin Keelan
For those are are interested, there was an informative interview on NPR with Reese Erlich, who has written a book about US policy towards Iran (http://www.whyy.org/cgi-bin/newwebRTlookup.cgi). The interview is found at the top of the page on 10/15/07.
I think that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. This is because of the physical harm that they can do to any country at any given time. I do not think that any country should have nuclear weapons at any given time because there is no need for them and if they have the capabilities they can always obtain nuclear bombs if it becomes extremely necessary which I do not see it being necessary at this point. Yes I think that Israel has a right from stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, i do not think that they should physically impose something on Iran unless Iran tries to go further in their quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
Robert O'Reilly
If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, it would cause a huge security dilemma for Israel. Israel has great reasons for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons. The two countries share a mutual animosity for one another, and not only does Iran not consider Israel a country, but Iran doesn't even want Israel to exist. Iran's acquistion of nuclear weapons would cause a great panic in Israel and in the Middle East, adding to the list of problems there. Backing up Israel is the United States, who did not condone Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. Given the recent visit the Iranian President paid to Columbia University in New York City and the ludicrous statements he made, I'm not so sure I would trust Iran with nuclear weapons either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071021/ts_afp/usirannucleariraqlebanonsyria_071021195343
In this article, the United States and International Community are expressing intense warnings and fears about what will happen if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. I think that even though Iran still insists that they want to have peaceful nuclear energy and not weapons, the possibility would be more than just a security dilemma for Israel- it would apply to the whole world. George Bush believes that World War III would occur, and I think that the United States needs to be especially careful in accusing Iran of trying to get these weapons because we do not need to invade them and start another unneccessary war. Especially one that would be of such a larger magnitude.
I think people are calling Iran's quest for Nuclear Energy a "disire to possess nuclear weapons" because of the circumstances around that request. My dad posed the question to me: Why would a country, with some of the largest oil and fossil fuel reserves in the world, actively seek out one of the most exspensive and complicated (at least initially), forms of energy in the world, without another motive when they know the bi-products of its production can be used against them in the international community to make a peaceful thing (the aquesition of energy) look like a hostile action in the face of the political instability of the middle east?
As a supporter of Israel, I don't think that Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be a good thing. I know Iran feels threatened from Israel becasue they have nuclear weapons, and they are just using the realist notion of self preservation if they were to actively obtain nuclear weapons.
Based on the inability of the government of Iran to be truthful and forthcoming about its actions relating to nuclear weapons, I think Israel does have a legitimate reason to stop Iran in the event of their obtaining nuclear weapons. The internation community has a legitimate right in stoping Iran also. They are a country that would sell nuclear technology in the event of a conflict with Israel in order to gain allies, and that could create an international nuclear arms race. That is all in my opinion.
By Brendon Butler
In general, I think in regards to nuclear weapons arguments can be made for both the country that wants these nuclear weapons as well as the countries that oppose it. For example, Iran could argue it is their sovereign right to do whatever it pleases within its borders. Furthermore, other world powers have nuclear powers so why should Iran be defenseless if it were to ever be attacked. Additionally, it would be very hypocritical for the United States to oppose Iran because the United States was the first nation to ever use nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, in this situation, I think that Iran is very unstable. It is my opinion that they should not develop nuclear power. Moreover, I think that Israel has legitimate reason to want to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear power. The amount of damage that could be done to Israel serves as motivation to stop Iran from acquiring these weapons. Additionally, the fact that Iran neither denies nor admits they have nuclear weapons is not comforting to Israel.
-Erin Donahue
If you think about it, it really all comes down to mutual recognition. Iran will not recognize the Israelites and consequently this poses a serious security dilemma since they believe they have the right to their own territorial sovereignty. This has caused tension between the two to say the least. I do believe that Israel has the utmost right to want to stop Iran from seeking nuclear weapons. Iran should not be able to have weapons of mass destruction considering they are known as a terrorist area. The United States has expressed the disapproval and has felt threatened by the security dilemma to go as far as setting money aside to build a bunker buster bomb because of Iran’s hostility towards the U.S. and their allied countries. Right fully so, this is leading to more tension with Israel and Iran because the U.S. is defending the Israelites. I believe that Israel has a legitimate right to stop Iran from possessing nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons are a serious threat to any nation, especially Israel because of their blatant opposition to Iran. With nuclear weapons Iran could potentially kill massive amounts of Israelites which would cause serious controversy and therefore spark a war that will bring the U.S. into the mix.
- James Squillante
I think that this is definitely an instance of a security dilemma. Neither side trusts each other and many people in Iran support the destruction of the Israeli State. I think the fact that they wish for Israel to no longer exist is reason enough for the pursuit of nuclear energy to be closely monitored and regulated. Even if they are pursuing nuclear technology for legitimate energy purposes (which i doubt considering that vast oil and fossil fuel resources), such technology is relatively easily adaptable to weapons uses. I think Iran's chemical and biological weapons capabilities should also be taken into consideration. The CIA has reported that Iran has a stockpile of chemical weapons, as well as the artillery needed to deliver such weapons. I can't say that I blame Iran for possibly seeking nuclear weapons due in part to the fact that their enemy Israel possesses these weapons. Although the west mostly supports Israel, can we really say that Iran is wrong in wanting to counter the weapons capabilities (nuclear) of their biggest enemy?
-Mike Werch
Iran and Israel, a security dilemma? The answer is yes, but a week yes. The reason for that is because there are hundreds of security dilemmas in international society today. The thing with this particular instance is that it is blown out of proportion. As I have already said yes there is a security dilemma between the two states, however the media portrays these two in a way that would have the general public assume that WWIII is right around the corner with these two countries on the loose. However the problem is that there are many countries that have such tensions between each other within the world. The thing is that alliances and "MAD" generally stop countries from attacking each other in a way of utter global importance. Yet, for the overall question, yes is the answer. There is a rising of tensions between thee two state which lead them to increasing their weapons systems and capabilities. Although the stated reason may not be due to that specific other nation, when these states are arming themselves they take each other into consideration.
- Christopher Fromme
I came across an interesting article entitled “Anti-Iran Rhetoric Raises UN Concerns” about the speculation of nuclear weapons in Iran. According to the head of the UN nuclear watchdog there is no evidence of working activity to build nuclear weapons in Iran. Mohamed ElBaradei, leader in the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated that there have maybe been studies about possible weaponization however; Iran does not have the nuclear material that can be readily used nor an active program in which to build nuclear weapons. There is however, “hot rhetoric” seen in comments like Condoleezza Rice accusing Iran of “lying” when referring to its nuclear plans, and Vice President Dick Cheney statement of "serious consequences" if Iran were found developing a nuclear weapon that are concerning to the UN. ElBaradei feels “we cannot add fuel to the fire” with rhetoric coming from the US possibly bringing about disaster. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102800719.html
Francesca Carregal
Not that i am searching for things to fill out my ten lines for my comment, but i do not believe nothing more needs to be said in support to Elizabeth Lodge's comment. If i have a kookoo for nuclear puffs dictator for a neighbor, i would definitely want to point out, or throw up an objection to Iran having nuclear weapons. And yes, Iran does not even rocognize Israel as a nation of human beings or a nation at all for that matter. So what happens when you have a armed neighbor with this type of mentality? a security dilemma. Bandwagoning is out of the picture because they clearly do not get a long, therefore the realist foreign policy of balancing comes into play. Israel looks for another powerful nation to throw up a prayer too for help in hopes of an alliance in attempts to alleviate some of the tension of the serious threat that is just over the border. I definitely believe Israel has a right to protect there way of life due to the belligerent impressions of there neighbor. I mean when was the last time you heard of Israelis on the march for world dominance? Who is more likely to cause problems? Iran or Israel? I think Israel is the right nation to back, and that they have a right to explore attack defense systems in order to protect their safety.
-Ryan Harrison
I think that Iran and Israel can be an example of a security dilemma. Both sides are definately insecure and feel threatened. For this reason, nuclear weapons are never appropriate and never a good thing because what could possibly make people more insecure, thus inhibiting diplomatic relations and negotiation, than that much destructive power, especially in the hands of a state that relations are already questionable with. As for Iran's right to own nuclear weapons; as I have stated they should not. However, until it is proven that they intend to create weapons with their nuclear power, action should not be taken. Eventually, relations with Iran will have to mended, so we should make all the effort to do so now. Regardless of what a nut job their leader is, who are we, the only country to ever launch a nuke, to prevent them from perhaps using the power for other reasons. I am not saying Iran should be able to posses nuclear weapons, but we should not prevent them from using nuclear power because of the setback this could create in developing relations with a part of the world that we should be most concerned with furthering diplomacy in.
Brian Del Guercio
I feel that the Iran Israel conflict is certainly an instance of a security dilemma. It is certainly within Isreal rights to take the nessecary steps they feel are nessecary in protecting their nation. No nation would simply stand by and watch one of their close hostile neighbors gain an obscene amount of military strength and take no action. Real question however is what authority does Isreal have to try and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear power? How soverign is the nation of Iran and to what extent does Isreal have to leave them be.
In my opion i belive that Isreal is justified in their efforts even though they may oppose the soverignty of Iran. Their is no doubt nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran posses a direct and possibly deadly threat to the citizens of isreal. I feel this way based on the following quote i read from the CIA “Iran continues to use its civilian nuclear energy program to justify its efforts to establish domestically or otherwise acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran claims that this fuel cycle would be used to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors, such as the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor that Russia is continuing to build at the southern port city of Bushehr. However, Iran does not need to produce its own fuel for this reactor because Russia has pledged to provide the fuel throughout the operating lifetime of the reactor and is negotiating with Iran to take back the irradiated spent fuel.” this fact shows that the circumstances are certainly a security dilemma and justifies Isreal to act in a manner that protects the security of their population.
-Dan Shainker
The different opinions on nuclear weapons can only cause more burdens on the politics in the middle east because of the different agreements and the political viewpoint on whether it is right for Iran to have nuclear weapons or the right for Isreal to stop them. I don't think it is ever a good idea for a country to have nuclear weapons and that it should be the last action taken unless it is necessary as our position was in WWII but again it is the right of that country to decide how they want to create their weapons and ultimately use them. And as another right a country also has the obligation to stop another country from using them as Isreal should do.
-Kelley Thompson
Regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran....I feel that Israel is justified in not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel, along with the US, and Arab states have all supported a nuclear free Middle East. Although Israel is justified in not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons, there is another side of the story. Israel has an arsenal of about 100 to 200 nuclear and chemical based weapons that the United States seems to strategically omit from its semiannual reports of the acquisition of foreign countries because we do not see Israel as a threat. This does not mean that Israel isn’t a threat to its bordering states like Iran and Iraq. This means that even if the efforts of the US are successfully in creating democratic transformations in the Middle East, a new Iraq and a new Iran will still want nuclear weapons as long as Israel has them. This goes back to the basis of Realism and is a perfect example of security dilemma.
Alison Burke
I think that it is impossible to restrict a country from having nuclear weapons. There will always be a security dilemma no matter what because there will always be that insecurity. Iran has that military upper hand and they don't want to be told to retrict that because they are a threat. I see the reasons why other countries want to restrict them because they pose a threat but i do not think being able to limit them will happen. Over time the technolgy and military tactics are advancing more and more and this is just inevitable.
-jessica stecker
I think Iran should be able to obtain military technology and weapons. Israel's objection to this idea is obviously due to the fact that it will rival its own arsenal. Israel has nuclear weapons, the U.S. gives them all types of military technology in exchange for being a strong ally in the Middle East. Why then shouldn't other countries be able to have the same right. This goes back to the idea of sovereignty. Telling a nation it cannot have nuclear arms for its own security is basically the major powers saying "we don't trust you, you're not our friends, you can't have them". Imagine you were Iran and Israel was your neighbor. Your neighbor has a gun. Everyone you know tells you that you can't have a gun for yourself. You're pretty insecure with your own protection aren't you? Israel can shoot you dead whenever they want and you have virtually nothing that will inflict the same damage or pose an equal threat to prevent the situation from happening.
Jordan Naftzinger
The conflict between Iran and Israel over nuclear weapons possession could be one that even more decreases the chance for future peace in this region of the world. A security dilemma such as this proposes the possibility to have drastic affects on politics with in the Middle East. This disagreement could turn into an arms race, a political and or economic feud that would have negative consequence. My own beliefs tell me that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I feel that this entity is not stable enough to possess such a massive weapon and feel that if Iran did have a nuclear weapon the negative consequence on the rest on the region would be extremely detrimental in creating peace and co habitation of this region. I think that is not only in the best interest of Israel if Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons but in the best interest of the entire world if Iran was a nuclear Free State. I believe that the less and less we have nuclear states the more and more the world would be a safer place for the entire world to exist in peace. This is a topic that will continue to grow into a more and more elaborate debate and has the possibility to cause turmoil in the region for centuries to come.
Drew Majerick
Iran has has a security dilemma for quite a while. This is a counrty that encourages anti Americanism and it just so happens that America has the most power. As we saw in class today, when Iran noticed that America tore through Iraq in less than 10 days its first reaction, to ensure its security, was to become America's allie. No more "Death to America" chants over night. When America ignored the request, Iran took the other Realist route and helped terrorism in Iraq. Part of the plan would involve nuclear weapons. It is hard to be a threat when you don't have the power.
Israel has the power to be dangerous. Iran would be dust if it tried to take out Israel, so all it has is talk. Should Iran get nuclear weapons Israel would be in grave danger politically, to say the very least.
Does Israel have the right to stop Iran? Yes, just as Iran has the right to try to get the bomb, just as we have the right to try to stop them. Security is clearly the issue and all nations have themselves at interest. If there was an all encompassing international society that some how got all nations to get rid of their nuclear bombs, than I guess we could say that no one would have the right to gain power for security through nuclear weapons. But this isn't the case. We have bombs, so why can't "they"? And if "they" have them, then why can't Israel try to stop them. Its anarchy!! Yay!!
Stephane Stewart
I believe that this is an instance of a security dilemma. The video shown in class today helped me to better understand the Iranian perspective. America is ignorant when it comes to the Middle East. Rather than respecting culture, most times we are too intent on spreading democracy. It is no wonder why Iran, who publicly admits their disdain for both America and Israel, is an enemy and potential threat. Iranian nuclear weapons would only increase this threat putting innocent lives at risk. If Iran does harbor nuclear weapons, not only does it pose a threat, but it also makes our presence in the Middle East that more sensitive. Lastly, because Iran has called for the destruction of Israel, America's security is at risk. We could be drawn into a nuclear war by trying to defend Israel.
-Heather Starner
Some people stated that there is no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons. While most of the evidence is circumstantial, some is more concrete. I remembered reading about the IAEA findings plans for a bomb and went online and found the link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183336,00.html
Iran is a radical religious theocracy that has long been one of the world’s largest state sponsors of terrorism. There is no guessing what Iran would do with nuclear weapons. Israel has every right make sure Iran doesn’t get a bomb. Israel has no reason to trust Iran not to use its weapons especially since Iran openly talks of the returning of the Mahdi, the 12th Iman and the last days. Iran refuses to recognize the state of Israel and has called for it to be wiped off the map. It funds Hamas which has launched suicide bombings inside of Israel, forcefully took over the Gaza strip and which calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran also funds Hezbollah militants which fought Israelis soldiers in Lebanon and later fired rockets into Israel and capturing Israeli soldiers which lead to a 2006 war.
Britt Chalmers
Although Iran continuously condemns terrorism and terrorist acts, they are not completely free of connection to terrorism. Iran funds numerous terrorist groups and supplies weapons and military aid to certain terrorist groups, particularly those aimed against Israel. As stated previously, Iran refuses to recognize the state of Israel as do most Islamic countries. If Iran were to get a hold of nuclear weapons the threat would be immediatly pointed towards Israel causing even more chaos and unrest in the Middle East. Iran's continuing disagreements and tensions towards the United States do not help Israel much either considering the US is Israel's main alliance and source of protection. Moreover, it is important to control Iran and their possible development of nuclear weapons in defense of Israel, the United States, and other countries worldwide.
-Brittany Monteiro-
I think this is definitely an example of a security dilemma because the idea of Iran possessing nuclear weapons is threatening to Israel. I think it is reasonable for Israel to show disregard to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons because they share a border and it threatens the security of Israel’s citizens. It is difficult to say how it will affect the politics in the Middle East, but the relations between Iran and Israel will be shaken. I believe if Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons, Israel may start to take part in an arm’s race and try to attain nukes as well. Due to their proximity, this would be the most potentially harmful step to take. It would be a lot like The Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, when each country had the atomic bomb. The reason it remained a cold war and did not turn into a hot war was because both sides knew that consequences would be dramatic. I feel like Iran should only be able to have nuclear weapons under the idea that they will not be used and are there for their own country’s security reasons, as opposed to being a threatening force. However, this may be impossible and I don’t think it is out of line for Israel to be opposed. There is always the other side, where Iran uses these nuclear weapons to destroy not only Israel, but other countries in the world. Nuclear weapons in general are so dangerous, but I don’t think one country can actually stop another from getting a hold of these weapons of mass destruction.
-Katy Johnson
I believe that what is occurring in the Middle East is certainly a security dilemma. Iran is reacting to Israel's bulky military, and Israel, in turn, will and has reacted to Iran's desire for nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, this subject is truly difficult, for there can be found rational arguments on all sides. On the one hand, it is a breech on Iranian sovereignty to limit and control the Iranian military. The United States would certainly be defiant if any other country demanded that it limit its military in any way. Therefore, it seems hypocritical to declare that Iran may not have nuclear weapons while the United States (and Israel) possess them. At the same time, Iran's lack of cooperation with the United Nations does not improve relations with Israel or the U.S.
Should any one country, though, have such a dangerous weapon that threatens the livelihood of humanity? The effects that such a dreadful attack can have on a population should be enough justification to limit production and possession of all countries.
--Ashley Mortimer
I do not think that Israel's opposition to Iranian nuclear weapons will really affect Middle Eastern politics because no country in the Middle East really values Israeli opinions and does not treat Israel like it is a country anyway. I don't think it really matters to Iran what Israel thinks. It will not affect Iran's decisions.
Israel has a right to TRY to stop Iranian nuclear weapons if it feels that Iran is a threat to its security. Israel has just as much of a right as every other country to oppose nuclear weapons. However, this does not mean that opposition will succeed. Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons just like every other country. However much I may disagree with them having nuclear weapons, they can really do whatever they want because they have sovereignty.
--Jessica Jackman
I do believe that Iran and Israel create an instance of security dilemma. Politics in the Middle East have been complicated since most of us can remember and don't seem to be working themselves out any time soon. In the idea of the United States safety, of course I think that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, but in the idea of countries controlling their own matters, it is hard from controlling what a country will do within its own borders. In this idea, another country especially one in close proximaty to another should have a concern in its internal matters. With nuclear weapons it defiantly can effect other countries and have detrimental effects if used in certain ways. The Iran and Israel conflict is one of many that have gone on over the years. With this, you never know what Iran will do to Israel, especially with nuclear weapons.
-Kimberly Renner
If all other factors are forgotten, Iran should have the right to have nuclear weapons. Many countries around the world are in possession of nuclear arms, so for their own safety, it would almost be necessary. However, given their past and currents stands on subjects like Israel, it wouldn’t be in everyone’s best interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Israel can certainly object and protest if Iran wants nuclear power, but they don’t actually have the right to stop them. Israel has a big nuclear program itself, so it is obvious why Iran would also want a nuclear program just as strong. Iran claims to want nuclear power to benefit their energy needs, but the truth is unknown. The wishes of Iran have caused other Middle East countries like Egypt want a bigger nuclear power program. This just escalates the nuclear power in the world, which I think cannot be a good thing. If the United States continues to put pressure on Iran to stop them from building their nuclear program, maybe the US should cut back on its own program.
-Katie Dunn
I think that Israel has every reason to feel insecure, and every right to want to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons program. Since Israel became a state in 1948, it has existed under the threat of destruction from her Arab neighbors. No nation in the world is more security conscious that Israel. Now Iran thinks itself under threat from both Israel and the US. It seems natural that Iran would conclude that possession of nukes would tend to mitigate the threat from Israel and the US. Iran is therefore determined to pursue their acquisition. The problem we are concerned with here is arms control. Ultimately, on what basis could one power prevent another power from acquiring weapons of war?
Gordon Lippincott
Iran should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Similarly, Israel should also have the right to protest Iran's right and question their need for nuclear weapons. However, I do not think it is fair for a country that possesses nuclear weapons itself to prevent other countries to do the same. It is no surprise that Israelis wish to eliminate immediate threats to their nation (Iran's nuclear capabilities). But doesn't everyone? Wouldn't it be more realistic and successful if the world were to allow Iran to develop nuclear programs under the close watch of the UN? Rather than cause more conflict in the middle east, shouldn't we look to regulate it?
Kevin Moreno
Oh, the Middle East...what a precarious situation. We have established that what is happening between Iran and Israel is indeed a security dilemma. It is the right of Iran to arm itself, and Israel is justified in not wanting Iran to arm itself. I suppose we could just let Iran arm itself and tell Israel to do the same, hoping for the bloodlessness of the cold war to repeat itself, but I don't think we want to risk that. Of course, Iran knows that the US supports Israel, and would defend it in a war. The biggest problem is that nuclear weaponry has basically been used as only a threat throughout history. There was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but those were at the beginning of nuclear warfare, and showed us just how devastating it could be. I think we, as a world community, have relied on the assumption that no power will actually use its nukes because of fear of retribution. Here, the US has the upper-hand since we have the largest amount of nuclear weapons. The problem with Iran, however, is that it has a religiously fanatic government (unlike the US or the USSR). This presents a real problem because we can no longer assume they will not use their weapons (because they feel religiously justified).
-Meg Gallagher
The problem in the Middle East is that there is no right or wrong answer or easy solution. Yes, Iran should be able to obtain nuclear weapons. Many countries already have nuclear capabilities, including the U.S., so why can't Iran join that group? Also, Israel is justified in protesting Iran be able to possess nuclear weapons. If Iran were to get them it would pose a great danger to Israel. It certainly would be a security dilemma. Iran's gain of nuclear weapons would indeed cause more unrest in the Middle East but honestly, there will always be unrest there and no matter what happens it will continue so in my opinion there is nothing that can be done about that. All in all, Iran should be allowed as a sovereign state to obtain nuclear weapons and Israel is completely justified in protesting that for it threatens their sovereignty. There is no easy solution to the problem. Its one of those things were everyone is right and no one wants to compromise.
-Matthew Atkinson
If the only reason that Iran is privy to building a nuclear weapons program is to end Israel, then Israel has the overwhelming right to oppose this. Iran's mentality is demented. It is a fact that Iran supports terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, that constantly try to destabilize the Middle East. They claim that they want to be left alone to their own islamic principles which supposedly are based on peace, yet they chant "Death to America". Iran is corrupted by a few radical islamic leaders, such ahmadinijad, who are utterly ignorant. So in conclusion i feel that both Israel and the U.S. are justified in opposing an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Such a hot-head, nation state looking to prove itself should be kept on a close watch.
John Dalo
I feel that Israel has right to feel insecure about Iran building up arms and creating weapons of mass destruction, however it is Iran sovereign right to do so. These two nations have had a differences of opinion for years whether it be Iran not wanting Israel to exist or Israel not wanting Iran to have Nuclear Weapons. Even though theses nations do not share borders their conflict with one another effects the rest of the Middle East an the world. If the Iranian Government obtains Weapons of Mass destruction it will be hard to limit that power and the whole effect of how to balance that power comes into play. All in all if the Iranians obtain these weapons it not only becomes a security dilemma for Israel, but for the rest of the Middle East and the World
Andrew Unthank
This security dilemma, is a matter of sovereignty. Iran as a sovereign state should have jurisdiction over whether or not they can acquire nuclear weapons. By interfering and imposing sanctions against Iran, their sovereignty is being infringed upon. But this is not a necessarily bad thing.
Speaking from an American standpoint, we are currently in the Middle East to create general peace. If Iran were to become a global nuclear power, not only would it threaten the Middle East United States, it would also be a threat to the world. Iran hates us, and we should make sure that they will never have an opportunity to fire a nuke. Sure, we have the most nuclear weapons in the world; but we only keep them for security measures. On the other hand, in a neutral standpoint, Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weapons as we do. Because they want security too, right?
Israel is right in opposing Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons because it is a major threat to them. They may be infringing on Iran's sovereign right to obtain the weapons of mass destruction, but I think they would be doing it for a good reason. Anyways, Iran can be a much greater threat if they can obtain these weapons, so I believe that they should be checked.
- Chun (Ben) Choi
I am really not a fan of nuclear weapons. I think that the idea of any one country have so much military power is terrifying. Talk about a security dilemma, when you are dealing with weapons of such gravity it is no joking matter. I don't think that Iran should have nuclear weapons, I don't think that any country should have nuclear weapons. I do however think that at some point Israel will get so nervous that Iran is acquiring those weapons they may do something rash. It could even possibly lead to them opening up nuclear warfare on Iran and that would result into America being dragged into the war. As soon as all three of those countries are in the war then the rest of the world will have a very difficult time avoiding it. This is almost the ultimate security dilemma.
--bethany kravitz
In the middle east arms race, Iran is utilizing its political sovereignty to seek weapons but Israel does have good reason to be concerned. This situation will only continue to escalate in the coming years. If I were Israel I would be very frightened about what Iran is doing. Israel has always been a point of contention, where many countries feel that it was just a political creation. It will be interesting to see what steps, if any Israel tries to protect itself from Iran, either by trying to jump on the bandwagon, or through other alliances.
-Matt Swank
I can guarantee you that Israel will not jump on the bandwagon with Iran. Bandwagoning is when one country is threatening another and the second, weaker country joins in an alliance with the first, assuming that it is safer joining with the threatening country than opposing it. I can't imagine Israel ever joining with Iran. Most likely, Israel will move to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq in 1981. In fact, I believe they will do that relatively soon. Better Israel do it that us. The only problem is that Iran might retaliate against our troops in Iraq.
Josh Shannon
The that fact that one of Israel's enemies will have nucular capability is very threatening. This adds a whole new dimension to the conflict and is one of the reasons that Israel objects to Iran's nucular program so strongly. Israel has had to constantly fight multiple states that do not recognize its existence and would like to make sure it does not. A nucular weapon could help wipe Israel of the map. Although, I still find it hard pressed that either side would use a nucular weapon because of the proximity of the enimies. Also, both are very holy cultures and some of their main religious buildings and sites would be destroyed. I feel that Iran does however have the right to obtain such weapons but hopefully they will realize using them is almost never a good idea.Also, I think that Israel has a right to object since it would like to survive and this directly threatens this.
-Ryan Wallace
Iran has just as much of a right to have nuclear weapons as Israel does. However, Iran having nuclear weapons does create a security dilemma for Israel, but this security dilemma is no greater then the security dilemma that Israel creates for Iran by it having nuclear weapons. A war in Iran seems almost inevitable. Even the European countries are becoming hawkish over this issue. US aircraft carriers are already being moved into position for the invasion of Iran. Even though Bush's approval rating is at an all time low, 52 percent of Americans still think that we should invade Iran. The scary part for me is that I see the stage being set for another large war. Russia has just entered into a military alliance with Iran. China has a million man army, how do we know they have not entered into a secret alliance with the Iranian government. If Israel enters the war this will bring in nearly all of the islamic states that still carry animosity towards Israel. The Europeans need only enter and the stage is set for World War Three.
-Ryan Davenport
As has been previously said, every country has the right to increase their arms, because they are a sovereign state. However, it definitely makes things much more complicated in situations like the one in the Middle East, for obvious reasons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7068478.stm
In this article, both France and the US have basically said they do not believe the claims by the UN that Iran is not trying to further their nuclear capabilities. Obviously, they are doing something with nuclear technology (in their claim, civilian nuclear energy), which is something to always be aware of and alert of. While we can keep imposing new sanctions on what they are allowed to do, I don't see why they would stop because of that. Clearly it's a decently large security dilemma that concerns not only the Middle East but other parts of the world as well, such as Europe and the US. Like the last post said, it could easily set the stage for something along the lines of a WW3, which is why more needs to be done to handle the situation before it ends out getting out of control to the point where it can't be stopped.
As numerous people have already states, every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself from others. The security situation in the Middle East is already one of the most volatile places on the planet that could explode into chaos at any moment. With this said, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran does not would obviously make Iran feel that it has the right to possess such weapons. On the other hand, you don't see Israel's Prime Minister standing in front of an international audience proclaiming that Iran does not even exist as a country and should be blown off the face of the earth. Just that mentality alone would lead me to believe that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, because if you cannot recognize the sovereignty of another country than you are clearly are huge threat to that countries security. And if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, they would certainly have the capability to carry out Ahmadinejad's wish/desire to take Israel off the world map.
-Ryan Pierce
The conflict between Iran and Israel is as almost a perfect example of a security dilemma. Iran feels that it is their right to seek alternative resources (through the means of a peaceful nuclear program). Israel, as well as most of the western world, view Iran's nuclear program as an attempt at creating nuclear weapons, to balance out (what it feels is) the threat of Israel. Granted the current Iranian president has called for the destruction of Israel, the country in no way poses a threat. The media, as well as some countries, vastly overrate Iran's capabilities. A new Newsweek article helps put Iran's powers in a better perspective.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57346
The article states: "Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran."
Not only is Iran largely incapable of most of the things the west claims to be frightened of, the United States is acting extremely hypocritical when it turns a blind eye to the nuclear capabilities of Israel while criticizing Iran for wanting to attempt to balance out the power. Ideally, no country in the middle east would be able to obtain any kind of nuclear capabilities as it is a extremely unstable area that should not be trusted with such deadly weapons.
- Gabe DiPietro
Due to Iran and Israel's lack of mutual recognition problems with sovereignty will inevitably exist. The situation at hand regarding Iran's potential to posess nuclear weapons certainly presents a security dilemma. Israel's attempt to prevent Iran from obtaining these weapons will challenge Iran's sovereignty and in concept is not an acceptable thing to do. With nuclear capabilities a country can greatly advance itself and do many other positive things. Israel is not in a position to deny Iran from doing this. However it is my opinion that in this specific case Iran will use nuclear weapons carelessly and jeopardize the lives of many. As a result of this Iran should be stopped. Because turmoil is commonplace in the Middle East it is hard to predict exactly what will happen if indeed Iran does obtain nuclear weapons.
Ryan Shaw
I do not believe Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. It is not necessarily a fear that the government of Iran would use them I highly doubt they would, they aren't suicidal. I question Iran's ability to hold on to them or the technology involved in producing them. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program ended up giving away some of the technology to states like Libya, North Korea and Iran while Pakistan denies it was complicit. While the government of Iran would likely keep nuclear weapons simply as a deterrent. The potential would remain though for them to fall into the hands of non state entities like a terrorist group which would have much less hesistation in using them.
This worry is present with Pakistan's nuclear weapons as well as Pakistan's president Musharraf seems to be losing some of his power. If Pakistan's government were to fall to more extremist elements they would gain the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan as well.
So while I think Israel obviously has to worry about Iran gaining nuclear weapons the rest of the world has be concerned about the potential risks involved with Iran gaining them as well.
As for the use of force being used to stop Iran from gaining them its a tricky question. The U.S. is bogged down in Iraq with our military stretched. If Israel is involved it could stir up tension with many more Middle Eastern states expanding any conflict.
Charles (C.J.) Augustine
A few weeks ago, Iran's president said that Isreal should be wiped of fthe face of the planet. Next, he re-commences nuclear research for "peaceful" reasons, although the stuff he is using is weapons-grade plutonium. the reason "Iran hates Israel" is because the Israelis are seen by many in the Middle East as foreign agressors. One hundred years ago, there was no Israel. The British decided early in the twentieth century that there should be a Jewish state but the UN was actually the one to set it up and most Arab Nations fully accepted this.
Tommy Luginbill
I believe that anytime a country that does not favor you wants to gain nuclear weapons is a time to be on the defensive. Israel has every right to want to stop Iran from acquiring these types of weapons of destruction. Iran does not believe that Israel should exist, and therefore it is likely that with the power, they would attack Israel in some way. Yet there is also the issue of sovereignty. Does Israel have the right to block nuclear weapons from being developed in Iran? Or, does Iran have the right to do what it wants because it is a sovereign nation. It is a matter of preventive or pre-emptive strikes.
---Kris-Ann Panzella
Israel is a very unique country in a very unique region. They live a lifestyle and are allied to nations that are all very Western. There presence in the Middle East is barely tolerated and they exist by pure military strength. Countries in that are would certainly use any military advantage they possed to remove this perverbial thorn in their side. So as Iran raises their military strength through the aquisition of nuclear technology. This could lead to development of nuclear weapons within the country that could certainly destroy their country.
Through the eyes of Israel this is a definite security dilemma. In the past Israel has taken actions against other countries in the region that have begun similar programs. Israel's strength and security rests on their own military might. Any country in the region that approaches their military prowess creates a very real security delimma for Israel.
~Kevin Wright
This is definitely a security dilemma. If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon it could be used against Israel. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Israel, Iran would only have to make good on its statement that Israel should be destroyed. There is a reason that Israel has the largest military per capita in the world by a large margin. They are in a constant security dilemma with all their neighbors and Iran.
-Geoff Andersen
Personal I don't think Iran or any other nation needs to have nuclear weapons. Once one has it all of its bordering nations are going to want nuclear weapons to. This will then cause the current super powers to jump in and try to stop everybody from getting nuclear weaspons which could lead to war, which could lead to the use of nuclear weapons that results in millions of dead people.
Israel is obviously justified in not wanting Iran to aquire nuclear weapons, especially considering who the President of Iran is. On the other hand, if Iran has the capability and knowledge to obtain nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time before they join the nuclear club. Israel already have nuclear weapons. If one country has nuclear capabilites, then who are they to try and stop another country from obtaining them? It seems a bit hypocritical. Iran is trying to improve its security by gaining access to nuclear weapons. Therefore, unless Iran is threatened by major world forces, they are definetely going to continue in their quest for nuclear weapons.
Roopa Sabesan
I think it depends on which point of view you’re looking from. From the American point of view, Iran is our enemy and by allowing them to produce nuclear weapons, we would be handing them to means to potentially put the lives of Americans in harm. From an unbiased 3rd party stand point; Iran should have the opportunity to produce nuclear weapons for two reasons. One, if America, an enemy of Iran is allowed to produce nuclear weapons, then why can’t they? Also, with countries like Russia, Pakistan, and Israel surrounding Iran, it is left unable to fight back in the case of a nuclear war, in order to reestablish a balance of power; Iran needs nuclear weapons as well.
-John Georges
I do not believe Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. They have made it very clear to the United States and the rest of the world that it desires to become a super power. Iran's president has expressed his hatred towards the United States and George Bush. I believe that if Iran does follow through with its nuclear activities, it will not only worry the rest of the world, but it may also casue a world war.On the other hand, we live in the United States. We believe in democracy and freedom. If we deny them the power to conduct nuclear activity, we can be labeled as hypocrits. It's a very sensitive issue that the United States has been debating on for quite some time. I still believe that as a matter of security for our future, and the world's future that the United States should prevent Iran from aquiring further nuclear weapon activity and inteligence.
-John Nathan Colicchio
Iran's desire to possess nuclear weapons is an example of pulling away from an international society and shared understanding in regards to threats, security, and the handling of nuclear weaponry. Even if Iran would want it for their security, the neighboring nation-states would not be able to feel safe, and the balance of power would split as a result. Certainly the the opposition to the idea, is logical and that Israel as well as the other nation states have a right to oppose this. However the result will lead an already divided Middle East even more divided having to choose sides as well as the United States who support Isreal, whereas Iran and other nation states such as Palestine have an annimosity and tension with Israel. One instance where something like this happened in the past resulted in World War I.
-Michelle Rana
The political situation in the Middle East is currently a very unstable situation. If an extremist country such as Iran was to achieve production of a nuclear weapon or other WMD of the sort, the region could destabilize even further. While Israel may take military action to stop Iran from acquiring atomic weaponry, I feel that it does not have the right to do so. The UN and the many atomic energy watchdog groups around the world have helped to prevent or sanction other countries and delay them from achieving nuclear status. Israel should let the proper authorities handle the atomic situation in Iran. If a country in the Middle East were to become an atomic power now, the potential for armed conflict will be pushed to as high as it has ever been in the region due to the complex politics of the region. If a nuclear weapon were to be used today, the results for not only the Middle East, but the world would be disastrous due to the potential for retaliatory strikes.
Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and Israel and the United State's blatant opposition is going to escalate the security dilemma between Israel and Iran and Iran and the United States. Iran already does not accept Israel as a state and hates the fact the we gave them that land and that we support them. I believe for this reason, being their hatred, that they should not have nuclear weapons. Their current leader is already known to support extremist activity and is a state fund-er of terrorism. Nuclear weapons in the hands of these people would be a huge mistake that the entire civilized world should be held accountable for.
Post a Comment