The Iranian nuclear program was launched in the 1950's with the United States and many western European governments supporting the program. The nuclear program in Iran was launched under the atoms for peace program which focused on providing energy through nuclear power. The United States and European support continued until the 1979 Iranian revolution which overthrew the ruling monarchy. After being temporarily disbanded, the nuclear program restarted with very little western assistance and major aid from Russia.In the recent years the United Nations reporting agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been denied access to certain plants and certain areas.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has declared that there are strong indicators that Iran is trying to develop an atomic bomb. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 which focused on three primary directives; non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. The enforcement agency of said treaty is largely the International Atomic Energy Agency.In 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had repeatedly, and over an extended period of time, failed to meet its safeguards obligations. After just over two years of diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of Governors found that these failures constituted non-compliance. This was reported to the United Nations Security Council in 2006, after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment program.
In response Iran resumed the enrichment program.The current status of Iran's nuclear program remains in dispute, with Iran claiming to have been in compliance the entire time and that it is operating its program for civilian nuclear energy, which is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United Nations has welcomed continued dialogue but the United States has stepped up its efforts to impose a new round of sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. Key Asian powers such as India and China have opposed the proposed sanctions. Amidst the continued talks and Iran's defiance with their continued progress in their nuclear program.Israel has grown suspicious of the program.
The Israeli Prime Minister has said Israel is determined to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons, he also states that he will never let his people live in the shadow of annihilation. Speculation is mounting that Iran will launch a pre-emptive attack sometime in 2012. Taking a look at the situation from a liberalist perspective, Iran would be telling the truth and furthering its nuclear program for civilian uses in order to preserve the oil for sale to other states in order to make a profit.The imposed and threatened sanctions would be a huge deterrent factor for Iran to construct a nuclear weapon under this view. The United States interest in preventing Iran from becoming nuclear war capable could be explained in the sanctions that are currently in place from the United States; a freezing of all property of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian financial institutions in the United States as well as imposing penalties in the United States if actors did business with Iran’s central bank.These sanctions would take the flow of money and goods out of Iran and redistribute them throughout the system, which in theory would benefit the United States by bringing a portion of that business to themselves as well as the fiscal gain of actors paying fines to the government.
When considering the United Nations stance on Iran's nuclear program from a liberalist perspective, they would also wish Iran to be telling the truth in order for more oil to be exported from Iran in order for the many countries that make up the United Nations to benefit from plentiful oil supplies and suppliers.Israel has a liberalist stake in Iran not becoming a nuclear state because of Israel's announced intentions to cease the program before it becomes by military force. If Iran were to come close to becoming nuclear launch capable then Israel would be forced to strike, which would cost them a lot of money in order to fund such a campaign. Under a constructivist approach, the dynamics and intentions of each actor changes, believing that social interaction is how interests are constructed.For instance, Iran's potential interest in nuclear weapons could be fueled by the fact that current nuclear states are the ones who hold seats on the United Nations Security Council or other positions of high importance, as well as the ability to threaten attack on any nation if they do not comply with whatever they wish.
With the backing of a nuclear arsenal these nations threats carry much more weight. Through these social interactions, Iran also wants nuclear missile capability in order to achieve the same level of mpact as the nations that are currently nuclear war capable. The United States being opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear missile wielding state can be explained by the United States conforming to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was signed by 189 states with only four states remaining non-parties to the treaty. With this social interaction in mind, the United States, as well as the other 188 states would also have a strong compulsion to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology as per the treaty they entered into.
Not to mention that the entering of the treaty was more than likely a highly constructivist move, with many states entering into the agreement other states followed suit in the interest of social unity. The United Nations would also function under a constructivist system very well because anything it does is the collective opinion of all nations that are a part of the United Nations or a council set forth by the collective nations. Social interaction plays a huge part in the workings of the United Nations. I would argue that the daily workings of the United Nations are very much run by constructivist theories.
Israel's stance on Iran's potential to become nuclear weapon capable could also be explained as representing the Non-Proliferation Treaty but with a more aggressive approach. Which could simply be because of Israel's proximity to Iran and Israel's capability to strike Iran being so close, as well as Israel providing a potential staging ground for other military operations to be launched from. A constructivist would argue that it is just Israel playing its part in the social agreement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.The outlooks and motivations of the actors involved would once again be altered when looking at the situation from a realism perspective. Iran, being interested in its own security and power, would without question want to develop nuclear missiles.
This would have a tremendous affect on Iran's power especially in the middle east where no other states have the same capabilities. Iran's security would also be bolstered by an incredible amount with the threat of attack from other nations being less likely with the potential of nuclear retaliation.Additionally, the International Atomic Energy Agency poses very little concern to Iran, with the idea of anarchy on the international level, this feeble attempt at international policing is ill equipped to handle defiance. The United States in a realist system has an interest in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state because of the decreased sense of security that would arise as a result of an enemy of the United States possessing such a powerful weapon.
With the great equalizing factor that nuclear launch capacity is, the United States should do everything in their power to destroy any ability for Iran to produce nuclear weapons. The risk of being attacked by Iran is far too high to allow them the ability to destroy entire cities, as well as the potential for terrorists to obtain these nuclear weapons and use them against the United States, the potential of this happening being higher than zero percent is an unacceptable security risk. The United Nations is the laughingstock of the realist perspective.The United Nations' attempt at being a world government is seen as an utter failure, with the rampant anarchy being present, as seen by realists.
The United Nations inability to force its will upon states plays a large role in the construction of the realist perspective. Israel has a very large realist interest in preventing Iran from constructing nuclear weapons. The interests of the United States are mirrored, however, they are amplified by the proximity to Iran as well as the continued hostilities between the two nations.Israel has the largest security risk should Iran construct nuclear weapons.
Under this realist perspective Israel should prevent this from happening at all costs, even more so than the United States. The fact that Israel has let Iran get as far as they have is incredible. With these realist concerns in mind, Israel should attack the nuclear facilities believed to be producing these nuclear weapons immediately, regardless of whether it is backed by any nations.When considering the plausibility of the explanations of actor's intents in this situation, I believe that realism best resonates for Iran, United States, and Israel. Whereas constructivism most resonates with the United Nations, mainly because the United Nations in in direct opposition to the realist perspective.
If the United Nations were a global government with the ability to enforce its sanctions then the anarchy of realism would cease to exist and the entire, is Iran developing nuclear weapons situation would have never happened.With forced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of every inch of the Iranian nuclear facilities likely to be taking place they would spot any attempt at deviation and would cease its production. Instead Iran is able to shrug off any sanctions that the United Nations has attempted to impose with great defiance. Many speculate that the only reason Iran is even humoring the United Nations with peace talks is to stall for more time by skirting attacks from Israel and the United States until the nuclear weapons are active and able to be used in an ensuing war.
Adding to the argument of international anarchy. Another thing that adds to the international anarchy is Israel's threats to take military action against Iran to prevent them from creating nuclear weapons. This lack of external restraint on the use of military force only furthers the argument that realism is the perspective that dictates the actions of states and actors in this situation. In conclusion, this situation has risen because of Iran's desire to increase its power in the anarchical international system, as well as bolster its own security.
The resistance to Iran becoming a nuclear power player has come from primarily three sources; the United States, United Nations and Israel, all who fear that their security will be lessened with the nuclear capabilities of Iran being present. With the presence of brinkmanship from Israel, and many continued sanctions from United States and United Nations proving to be thus far unsuccessful, war seems to be a sure thing. The sooner the outbreak of said war the more the factions opposing Iran would benefit. Therefore, Israel should attack immediately and the United States and United Nations should support this effort in every way possible.
