Iran's Nuclear Program and the West

Nuclear Iran 5

Chapter 1

Introduction to the topic

Iran’s nuclear program that has triggered such a fierce response from the West –

particularly from the United States - was launched not recently, but in 1953. Interestingly

enough, at that time the wisdom of pursing an alternative source of energy was undoubted and

Iran not only received the support of America but also their earnest encouragement. Over time

however, many events took place that led to the serious deterioration of relations between what

came to be known as the Islamic Republic of Iran and today’s superpower. Now, Iranian

President is viewed as the biggest threat since Hitler1 and Iran’s plans of uranium enrichment to

meet their energy needs a suspected conspiracy to promote terrorism.

Uranium enrichment can be used for both peaceful (nuclear fuel) and military (nuclear

weapons) uses. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (since July 1968) and

this permits them to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes2. Any involvement in pursuing

nuclear weapons has not only been denied but also condemned by Iranian officials.

“…We consider the acquiring, development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman,

immoral, illegal and against our basic principles. They have no place in Iran’s

defense doctrine.”3

Despite such declarations, the United States has managed to influence the opinion of the

international community, using the argument that up until the IAEA investigation Iran had not

revealed the uranium enrichment facility constructed at Natanz and a heavy water production

plant near Arak. The NPT requires that countries must declare the existence of such facilities and

keeping the nuclear program secret from the outside world has made Iran’s motives susceptible.

1 German Chancellor, Angela Merkel has compared the Iranian President and warned the world not to appease the

Nazis. www.reuters.com

2 Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to

develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination. (Article IV,

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html)

3 Statement given by Mr. G. Ali Khoshroo, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, in

May 2003 at the NPT PrepCom in Geneva. www.acronym.org.uk/wmd/iranpres.htm

Nuclear Iran 6

The debate now is centered on who should enrich uranium for Iran’s nuclear facilities. The

Iranians have been insisting on their right to continue whereas the West, (primarily America and

the E.U) being distrustful of Iran’s intentions, is pressurizing that the enrichment process should

be done in another country i.e. Russia. This dispute is unlikely to be easily resolved and Iran’s

insistence on its position on the program could serve as a pretext for the USA to take military

action. There have already been two rounds of sanctions imposed on Iran and but for Russian

and Chinese opposition that Iran has a legal right to harness nuclear energy; a third round of

sanctions which are currently under discussion would already have been imposed.

Statement of Problem

Iran has a nuclear program that dates back to the time of the Shah and is currently being

developed to help cope with Iran’s energy needs. Nuclear power plants will save Iran more oil

for export, increasing its oil revenue and will also have a stabilizing effect on the global oil

market by increasing supply. Despite apparent benefits, the program is controversial with the

West as it is suspected that Iran might be pursuing a nuclear weapon under the guise of uranium

enrichment to meet its energy requirements. This paper explores the perceived threat that nuclear

Iran poses to the US and why it is expected of Iran to use a nuclear weapon even if it acquires it

less responsibly than other nuclear states.

Research Questions

Is Iran’s claim to produce nuclear energy justified given its substantial natural energy

reserves?

How do events since after the Iranian revolution justify the two countries current standing

on Iran’s nuclear issue?

Is the US response to Iran’s nuclear program a wise one?

Is Iran really a potential threat?

How is it in American interests to portray Iran in a bad light?

Hypothesis

Nuclear Iran 7

The null hypothesis is that the US has full right to feel threatened by the Iranian nuclear

program and its current position is a reflection of its true state. The alternative hypothesis for this

research will be that there are hidden dynamics to the situation at hand. We expect to find that

US concerns about Iran’s nuclear program is part of political rhetoric, designed for consumption

by the masses. It should be noted that exploring the ‘hidden dynamics’ of the clash between the

two countries is little more than intelligent guesswork on part of the researchers and the

information collected is of such a nature that nothing can be proved or disproved conclusively.

Thus the ultimate thesis is hugely theoretical in orientation.

Rationale for Study

The Middle Eastern region is of undoubted significance in world politics and Iran is

emerging as a major player in this region. The US is responding to this critical situation by

considering either military action or hard-nosed diplomacy against Iran, with focus laid upon

halting its nuclear program. Whatever course of action the US takes, it is clear that the dynamics

of power in the Middle East are influenced by this tension between the two respective states. To

the researchers, the fact that these developments were leading to a major event was of primary

interest.

Rationale for Time Frame

This paper has covered stages of Iran’s nuclear program since its inception in the early

1950s. More emphasis however, has been laid on the severity of the American response after the

Iranian President’s declaration in 2005 regarding nuclear enrichment, as it is this event that gave

urgency to the situation that we see today.

Chapter 2

Nuclear Iran 8

Review of Literature

MacLeod (2006, p.14-17)4 presents an American point of view in a 45-minute interview

with Ahmedinejad published in TIME Magazine. Ahmedinejad’s 1.63 m frame is stressed upon;

he is called a ‘slippery debater… gifted in the art of spin and misdirection’ and ‘serious, smiling

and cocky’. According to the article his efforts for peace are doubtful. The interview begins with

Ahmedinejad’s opinion about the US government and the American people, exploring possible

causes for the conflict between the US and Iran. The general impression given is that the Iranian

government and the Iranian people are unfair in their opposition (display of hatred) to the US.

Ahmedinejad questions US authority:

‘The US government should not interfere in our affairs. They should live their

own lives.’

These lines emphasize important points about the way the Iranian Prime Minister thinks.

First of all, he is questioning US authority and secondly, he does not want to believe that the

world is increasingly interdependent. Iran’s nuclear program and Ahmedinejad’s Holocaust

denial are discussed in one paragraph, designed to emphasize how dangerous the combination is.

Ahmedinejad has better opinions about Americans than Israelis, making room for dialogue with

Bush and praising the American people. Ahmedinejad’s meetings with Chavez, Mugabe and the

Cuban President are also cursorily mentioned, linking him with the ‘irritants to the West’. When

questioned about nuclear arms, he replies that every country should be disarmed. Ahmedinejad

makes statements like, ‘The US administration is not the entire world’ and consequently says

that he does not need to build US confidence over the nuclear issue and that he is not afraid of an

attack. When questioned about Israel, he says that Zionists are different from Jews and that he is

against the Zionist regime but not against Jews.

Michael Duffy (2006, p.20-24)5 examines the geo-political position of Iran, how the US

army could possibly attack it and whether such attacks would be feasible or not. The article

states at the outset that military planning at the Pentagon does not prove that the US is going to

attack Iran; ‘it is nothing more than a prudent step’. Iran is in an important position in the Middle

4 MacLeod, S. (2006, September 25). A Date with a Dangerous Mind. Time, 14-17.

5 Duffy, M. (2006, September 25). What Would War Look Like?. Time, 20-24

Nuclear Iran 9

East. It can control the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 40% of the world’s oil

has to pass, it is close to Israel and opposed to its existence, in addition it ‘bids for dominance in

the world’s richest oil region’. Another war after Iraq and Afghanistan seems absurd however

failure of dialogue could lead to war. This war is going to have dire consequences and the

chances that it might succeed in dulling Iran’s nuclear ambitions are just as high as chances of

igniting anti-American rage. ‘Asymmetrical relations’ with Iran will be a nightmare because Iran

could wreak havoc in the neighboring states of Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq, all crucial to

American interests. Iran could cause a raise in oil prices and events could ultimately lead to US

troops invading Iran. The article maintains that an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities has a

chance of succeeding but at a high cost. A nuclear Iran would also be a problem because it could

incite other Middle Eastern countries to pursue nuclear technology, making the region unstable.

Nuclear Iran would also be bolder than it is now, influencing the politics of the world’s richest

oil region to a great extent. The two options of whether to accept Iran’s nuclear capability or to

cripple it are equally formidable, creating a dilemma for the US government. Ending the conflict

through dialogue seems to be the best available option but for all the diplomatic work that has

been done, little has been achieved. Imposing continued sanctions increasingly poses a problem

since Russia and China have signaled that they are opposed to the action. So the US is left

secretly hoping for a change in government. ‘Distrust runs both ways’ the article states in the

end. If diplomacy fails, war will have to follow and that war might not go according to plans.

A similar article in the Economist6 presents a more conservative point of view to an

attack on Iran. It is harsher on Iran’s position as a regime, quoting the words of Israeli former

Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu,

‘The Iranian regime is basically a messianic apocalyptic cult’.

It presents three scenarios that might unfold keeping present circumstances in mind: Iran

could acquire nuclear weapons and spark off a war with Israel, Iran could be attacked

preemptively but such an attack would have grave consequences or an attacked and enraged Iran

could retaliate and be all the more defiant in its chase for a nuclear weapon. It states that false

intelligence is not leading to war in this case, all is out in the open and attacking Iran is well

within the reach of America and Israel. But this attack would be too much of a chance to take as

6 ‘The Riddle of Iran’, Anonymous, July 21, 2007, the Economist.

Nuclear Iran 10

could worsen relations between the US and the Muslim world, ignite a hard to control retaliation

and stopper oil traffic. The ‘containment’ of a nuclear Iran is seen as a better option than

attacking Iran and counterproductively strengthening the regimes resolve to acquire a nuclear

weapon. The scenario where Iran has a nuclear bomb could easily worsen Middle Eastern

politics as Iran would be able to follow a more aggressive foreign policy and cause other Muslim

countries to follow in its wake of acquiring nuclear weapons, making ‘one of the world’s least

safe neighborhoods’ into ‘a cat’s cradle of nuclear tripwires’. Since imposing sanctions or

diplomacy is not working, an internal rebellion that overthrows the Iranian regime might just be

the key to the solution.

There is also a special report on Iran in the same issue of the Economist7 that examines

and analyses the present government’s construction of power and its functioning. Among the

important areas it discusses are Ayatollah Khomeini’s supreme authority and Qom, a city of

religious activity that has considerable influence over the country’s politics. The report also

discusses the state of the economy under Ahmedinejad and the sanctions imposed, bringing to

light that the economy is almost solely functioning on oil revenue and foreign investment is

dwindling fast. The last in the series of articles presents a view of the nation’s youth; even

though finding a job is increasingly hard, there is little possibility that the youth of Iran will turn

against their own government. They might have no immediate memory of the Revolution but it

not likely that they will rebel against the present government, and in doing so side with the US.

In his book Tehran Rising: Iran’s Challenge to the United States, Ilan Berman8 examines

US policies toward Iran. It is divided into two parts, the first focuses on how Iran has behaved

and the second focusing on how America has responded. The first chapter starts off with

recording Khomeini’s rise to power and the anti-American sentiment that resulted. The record is

not very complete since it does not mention US policy blunders that resulted in the same

sentiment. The Mossad had been involved in setting up the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) and

the US had sponsored an $18 million program to install a dictator. The irony here is that the very

7 Special report on Iran, the Economist, July 21, 2007.

8 Berman I. (2007) Tehran Rising: Iran’s Challenge to the United States. Rowman and Littlefield.

Nuclear Iran 11

same person, who proposed the program, reviews the book on its back, talking about democracy.

The chapter also fails to mention that the US sold Shah Iran’s first nuclear research reactor and

in fact approved uranium enrichment during his regime. The chapter studies how Khomeini’s

radical ideas about Islam, oppression and its position in the world began to appeal to like minded

Muslims. It then follows to cover Hezbollah’s rise in Lebanon, an area with thousands of

displaced Palestinian refugees. Iran’s funding of militia groups is also covered in addition to

Iran’s relations with Syria. The book goes on to somewhat exaggeratedly state what

consequences the ‘terrorist’ network that Iran sponsors combined with the radical ideology at its

roots could result in. The second chapter covers the threat of a nuclear Iran and US concerns over

the issue. Post 9/11, American foreign policy changed to incorporate Iran’s growing threat as one

of its major issues. Here it is mentioned that Iran’s nuclear program started under the Shah and

that the US and the West were comfortable with it because Iran had signed the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). A complete picture is not presented in the chapter as many

details about American action are left out. It is not explained why relations suddenly turned sour

after the Shah and such reasoning for explanation is left to the imagination of the readers. The

next chapter is designed to talk about Iran’s sphere of influence in the Middle East. After the

Iran-Iraq war, Iran began to build up its military but its efforts were not as successful as they

could have been with American help. Iran was being ‘isolated and sidelined’. It covers Iran’s

economy and the effects oil trade and relations with Russia had on its armament. It contains

details about Russian, North Korean and Chinese sale of military equipment to Iran. All this

helped Iran consolidate its influence in the Middle East. The fourth chapter covers how Iran

wants to spread its Islamic Revolution to countries in its north and rid them of American

philosophy. It also claims that the remnants of nuclear Soviet Union in the Central Asian

countries helped Iran to pursue its nuclear program. Chapter five examines the response of the

Clinton administration to Iran’s early nuclear ambitions under Khatami. The author is of the

view that the Bush administration has handled Iran better than the Clinton Administration and

expresses approval for Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech. In following chapters the book becomes

heavily, and almost irresponsibly, biased. Exploring the sentiments of the Iranian people who

want peace and dialogue with America, the author assumes that the public is not with its

government. The chapters goes further on to examine Iran’s poverty and unemployment,

unwittingly ignoring that Iran is a developing country and unlike America it is bound to have

Nuclear Iran 12

people unemployed and living below the poverty line. But all of this is taken and heaped upon

Iran’s theocratic regime. Similar claims in the chapters are hard to believe. Overall, the book is a

selective memory account, even viewing present events as beneficial and spelling out victory for

the Americans with disregard to the true state of affairs. It is very hard to believe that Iranians

will side with a foreign power that has meddled with them in the past and is trying its best to

overthrow their current regime even now, not to mention the sanctions it is pushing for and the

economic hardship it has caused to Iran.

An article published online in digitaljournal.com (David Silverberg)9, examines the cause

of tension and distrust that has built up at both sides. It makes similar points as all previous

articles with the exception that it states: in 1996 the US sponsored $18 million, covert program to

overthrow the Iranian regime. Relations have been strained ever since. It says that talks are not

likely to produce viable results very soon but does not stress the urgency of the situation. Other

articles nearly always mention that time is precious, and diplomatic talks should produce definite

results soon or Iran would acquire a nuclear weapon10.

The BBC News website contains a special series of articles on Iran. Amongst these is

‘Iran: Energy Overview’. According to this article, Iran has the second largest reserves of oil and

natural gas both. Iran is a key player in the energy world. Iran has not been able to make optimal

use of energy since the revolution. Oil revenues make up 50% of the Iranian budget. Iran

supplies 5% of the world’s oil. US sanctions have undermined Iran’s oil and gas sectors. These

sanctions have shut doors to foreign investment. Petrol subsidies in Iran have led to smuggling

and high consumption. A shortage of refineries and high consumption induces Iran to actually

import oil. There is disagreement amongst experts as to whether Iran needs nuclear technology

or not.

9 Digital Journal. (2007, July 29) Rebel Nation: Inside Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions and Why a War Could Spell

Disaster. www.digitaljournal.com

10 Public opinion presented beneath the article offers interesting insight into the situation, questioning Israel’s right

to occupy foreign land and says that Iran’s policies grow out naturally out of ‘abuse’ from the west.

Nuclear Iran 13

Another article on the site examines the lost opportunities for ending the conflict and how

the US missed these. It starts with the missed opportunity of 9/11 where the Iranian public felt

sympathy for the American. Bush’s 2002 ‘axis of evil’ speech followed this opportunity

nullifying any chances of cooperation that the two nations had. The invasion of Baghdad led

Iran to write a letter to the US, offering ‘to bring everything on the table’, including its nuclear

program. The letter was ignored in Washington. The article goes on to state that America’s

rejection shifted the balance of power in Tehran towards the ‘hardliners’11.

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

11 The Tehran Times article, ‘Iran Voices Concern over Israeli Clandestine Nuclear Program’, dating back to 1990

states that Israel is the only country in the region that has not signed the NPT.

Nuclear Iran 14

This paper is primarily an analysis of what the researchers have gathered from different

book, papers and articles. The approach was analytical and an attempt has been made at

incorporating different points of view of journalists, professors of political theory and of the

forces governing the two countries. We begin with a brief history to make the reader familiar

with the sequence of events that has led to the currently hostility and distrust between the two

countries. The paper then goes on to answer the other questions which were set initially in

context to the prevailing situation.

Qs: Is Iran’s claim to produce nuclear energy justified given its substantial natural energy

reserves?

Iran has the fourth largest oil presence and the second largest natural gas reserve in the

world. The latest figures put Iran’s crude oil reserves at 137 billion barrels, 11.6% of the world’s

total reserves. It also has about 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas. In light of these

figures, the argument against Iran’s nuclear energy programme seems to be a fairly valid one.

The irrefutable reality, however, is that since the revolution the population has more than

doubled to 70 million, while the oil production is now about 70% of the pre-revolutionary level.

Iran’s need for increased energy production can be gauged by a set of figures given by energy

experts:

“...Since the early 1990s, Iran’s consumption of oil has increased eight percent. If

this trend continues Iran will become a net oil importer by 2010 a gigantic

catastrophe for a country which relies on oil for thirty percent of her foreign

currency and forty-five percent of the total annual budget.”

Iran’s known uranium ore reserves can produce as much electricity as 45 billion barrel of

oil. The country’s ability to produce nuclear energy rather than rely solely on its natural energy

reserves will not only enable it to pay for the county’s economic development for the next

several decades but will also have a positive side-effect for oil and gas consuming countries. The

more Iran can produce nuclear energy for its domestic consumption the more it can export oil

and gas to the West, thus better stabilizing the prices of these commodities and assuring a higher

level of employment in the ever-increasing energy demands in the industrialized world.

Nuclear Iran 15

Qs: How do events since after the Iranian revolution justify the two countries current standing

on Iran’s nuclear issue?

The Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been installed on his throne by a

CIA-backed coup in 1953, was regarded as an ally of the West. Iran had 2000 miles of common

border with the USSR and it was as an important shield against communism in the region and

also as amour against the Arab nationalism at the time thought to be a threat to Israel’s security,

just as the Islamic Republic is at present a threat to Israel. During much of the cold war era, Iran

was a pillar of Western power in the Middle East and also a reliable supplier of oil. In short, the

Shah was, from Western perspective, a deserving candidate for assistance in acquiring the

technology necessary for providing nuclear energy and thus reducing its own energy needs for

oil reserves.

Iranian revolution – Hostage Crisis

The Iranian Revolution however, transformed Iran from a monarchy under Shah

Mohammad Reza, to an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Khomeini. During this revolution,

supporters of Khomeini invaded the embassy compound and took 52 American hostages.

Khomeini supported the hostage-taking not only out of his enmity for the ex-Shah but to advance

the cause of theocratic government. The American had to give in to many of the conditions put

forward Iranian leader while negotiating the return of these hostages. On April 7, 1980, the

United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran.

Iraq’s invasion of Iran (1980-1988)

During the eight years that Iraq invaded Iran; the west not only did not condemn Saddam

Hussein’s aggression against its neighbor but in fact helped Iraq. Iran felt isolated, aggrieved and

betrayed by the West. Adding insult to injury was that Western politicians and media blamed

Iran for the war and thus vindicated Iraq from its aggression. The war left an indelible negative

impact and bitter memory on the psyche of the Iranians.

Iran’s position as an Islamic Republic

Nuclear Iran 16

If it is true that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons, then the reason for its doing so

might be that Islamic regime has since its inception been under constant military threat, even

nuclear threat from the USA and Israel. The US military victory in the Gulf war of 1991; the

invasion of Afghanistan; and the occupation of Iraq in 2003 has made Iranians feel ever more

vulnerable to external threat. Fred Halliday12 believes that if Iran wants a nuclear capability, or at

least to be in the position of “nuclear ambiguity”, then the reason has less to do with launching

missiles against its foes and more with strengthening its political and diplomatic hand across

west Asia.

Apart from this, when Iran reactivated its nuclear energy program after the end of the

war, the Iranian leadership was conscious of the West’s distrust of Iran and of its negative image

abroad, particularly in the USA. It was inevitable, the Iranian reasoned, that the West would

react with enmity by making a big issue about Iran’s intentions in restarting the program. To

neutralize such a reaction, Iran invited Americans and Europeans to participate in the

construction and development of the nuclear reactors in Bushehr. The invitation was ignored. It

was then that Iran turned to Russia for help.

Furthermore, Iran’s president in his speech at the UN General Assembly in September

2005 reiterated Iran’s earlier invitation to the private and Public sectors in the West to participate

in the country’s nuclear program. Again the invitation was ignored. If the invitation had been

taken up, the West would have had a chance to influence the direction of Iran’s nuclear program

and at the same time the opportunity to test Iran’s sincerity and truthfulness in claiming that it is

engaged only in civilian use of nuclear energy. A major stumbling-block, however, in the

resolution of Iran’s nuclear issue is US mistrust of Iran engaging in any kind of nuclear

technology, whether or not it is conducted under regular and very intrusive inspections of the

IAEA. The following comments by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would support the

above assertion. In rejecting Russia’s argument that Iran has the right to nuclear technology as

long as it is for civilian purposes, she said:

“…this is not an issue of rights but of whether or not Iran can be trusted.”

12 Fred Halliday is the author of the book “Myths about the Middle East”

Nuclear Iran 17

This implies that the West finds it more convenient, politically speaking, to distrust the

Islamic Republic on most issues other than giving it the benefit of the doubt. Iran’s international

image is devastatingly negative and this makes it easier for Western policy makers and the right-

wing think-tanks to brush off its compromises and assurances, such as accepting additional

IAEA safeguards, as ingenuous, devious and a political ploy.

Qs: Is the US response to Iran’s nuclear program a wise one?

The American President declared Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’ in his famous speech in

2002. This was after Iran had experienced a bout of cooperation with the US over the Taliban

issue. After the 9/11 event Iranian people had lit candles and observed minutes of silence at the

Tehran football stadium to demonstrate the respect and sympathy they felt for the Americans. A

letter was also sent to the US in which Iran offered to hold talks about everything, including its

nuclear program. Iran received a cold response.

Iran’s efforts at reconciliation were met with suspicion and consequently turned down. The

American President is quoted to have said (about Ahmedinejad), “I’m not going to meet with

him.”13.

Thus the US-Iranian relationship unfolds into a series of missed opportunities and tacit

diplomacy. The BBC website14 says ‘The US and Iran almost never talk to each other.’

After the actions of both states, sponsored regime change from the US and a revolution that

spread ideas that opposed American interests from Iran, mistrust runs deep on both sides. To add

to the superficial political situations of both countries there is a deeper divide that separates the

two. Ever since the Iranian revolution, Iran has proved hard to influence, both politically and

ideologically. The divide of cultures, of ideology that comes near to clashing, has shaped the

people of each country. What is significant about this situation is that people in power in both

governments are almost diametrically opposed to each other. Iran is a hindrance to the

globalizing power that, whether deliberately or not, brings every other country into its influence.

It alters their cultures and effects their modes of thinking.

13 MacLeod, S. (2006, September 25). A Date with a Dangerous Mind. Time, 14-17.

14BBC News (2007) Middle East: Iran’s Gulf of misunderstanding with the US. www.bbc.co.uk

Nuclear Iran 18

The issue at hand is that of American foreign policy towards Iran, the factors that have helped to

shape it and whether such policy is beneficial to the state of both countries.

America under the Clinton administration and Iran under Khatami never experienced the

problems that the present day America and Iran face. Iran is a rich cultural civilization that has

never seen the oppression of colonizers and thus has, what other developing countries

increasingly lack, a sense of identity. Iran is clearly not used to be treated rashly and hence has

responded to American mistrust and hostility with almost equal measure. The image that the US

has built abroad in Iran is not a very positive one, in fact the US has felt little the need to rectify

its image abroad. The Americans were responsible for installing a dictator and helping Iran’s

enemy in a state of crisis. Iran on the other hand does not have, for all high claims that are made,

the capability to influence the US like the US can influence Iran.

Consequently Iranian foreign policy has largely been defensive. Iran is not in a position

to be able to pursue expansionist or offensive foreign policies; security is much too important.

Iran’s behavior can easily be explained. It is not used to bending or bowing when pressurized.

Iran retaliates. It can be concluded from the above arguments that Iran’s aggressive position can

be attributed to America’s failed foreign policy in the region.

Qs: Is Iran really a potential threat?

Iran is a developing country. In the present world, Iran’s economy, all shortcomings

aside, cannot be crippled because it relies on oil which is a commodity in demand. Foreign

investors have shied away from Iran and petrol subsidies given by the government have

adversely affected the economy15. Iran’s economy may be functioning but it is nothing compared

to the booming economies of China, India or Russia.

There is of course the possibility that the Iranian funded Hezbollah will acquire nuclear

technology via Iran, making the Israel’s position in the Middle East more instable. The Iranian

President has let known to the world that he thinks Israel should not exist. In addition to this if

Iran does acquire a nuclear weapon it would pursue a more aggressive foreign policy and would

15 Special report on Iran, the Economist, July 21, 2007

Nuclear Iran 19

be in a position to raise oil prices. A nuclear Iran would also incite neighboring Muslim states to

follow suit, upsetting the regions balance of power.

Iran and the US experience an ideological divide that is deepened by past events and the

foreign policies of both countries. Whether they like it or not both countries are wary of each

others moves. Thus when Iran tests surface-to-ship missiles, it is followed by the discussion and

evaluation of possible scenarios of attacks on Iran in the Pentagon16. In light of the mistrust that

is being cultivated in the situation it safe to say that the US response to Iran’s nuclear program is

motivated, not by rationalism, but a caustic form of mistrust that the Iranian government finds

hard to swallow.

The IAEA has repeatedly told the International community that Iran has shown no signs

of developing nuclear weapons. Khomeini has passed a fatwa making Weapons of Mass

Destruction (WMDs) forbidden17. The Iranian President mentions over and over in his interview

that his problems lie with the US government only and not the US people18. Ahmedinejad’s

holocaust denial and his refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist might appear harsh statements but

they are not out of place once his situation is re-examined. Ahmedinejad lives in a region where

thousands of Palestinians were displaced to create room for a people that did not belong there.

Ahmedinejad stresses the fact that Zionists are different from Jews. The Zionist regime occupied

land that was never theirs and in doing so created a problem of instability that rocks the Middle

East even now. For all portrayals the Western media has given the Iranian President, he is a

rational man. And on a more serious note, very unlike Hitler – very unlike the Americans, the

only ones guilty of having used the atom bomb.

A nuclear weapon is never actually used in today’s politics. Rather it is a used as a threat

to deter enemies and make them think twice before an attack. Even if Iran does acquire a nuclear

weapon there is very little possibility that it will actually use it.

16 What Would War look like?, Michael Duffy, time, September 25 2006

17 Special report on Iran, the Economist, July 21, 2007

18Date with a dangerous mind, Scott Macleod, Time, September 25, 2006

Nuclear Iran 20

The only perceived threat that has any form of truth in it is that a nuclear Iran would affect the

Middle Eastern balance of power. The Middle East is the world’s richest oil region in addition it

houses Israel, a country the US has unexplained ties to. So the US interest in this region’s

balance of power can be understood.

Qs: How is it in American interests to portray Iran in a bad light?

Looking at the state of affairs today, a new world order seems to be emerging. The US

seems to be tied up inextricably to every nation’s culture, politics and economics. Though it is

not given much emphasis in the international media, the fact that lies beneath the surface is

almost common sense: the US is fast becoming the ruler of the uni-polar world. Americans are

aware of this position and accordingly formulate their policies, using their influence in regions

far from their homeland to meet their needs.

These needs are usually disguised under causes that appear just to the mind unfamiliar

with the US. The US does not believe in democracy enough to fight another nation’s war for

them. If the US truly did believe in democracy and liberation enough to fight for it in every

corner of the world, it would have invaded many countries in addition to Iraq and would not have

installed a dictator in Iran. The bitter fact of the matter is that the US is not ideologically driven;

materialism is what lies behind most moves that the US makes, and there is very little subtlety to

their actions. It is famously said that as millions starve in Africa, the US dumps wheat into the

sea (to stabilize its price).

For Iranians, Americans have been very little help; imposing sanctions on their economy,

barring their progress, planning military attacks against them and openly discussing how to

topple their theocratic regime. The US pressurizes states that offer help to Iran to take a harsher

stance on the ‘rogue’ state19. It is little wonder then that Iran would view the US as an enemy.

Nuclear weapons or not, there are three main factors that make the Iranian situation what it is.

The first of these is the position of the US in the uni-polar world. The second, Iran’s deep

mistrust for the US (that makes the US speculative of Iranian action) and third, the ideological

and cultural divide that both countries experience.

19 As was advised to the Russian President after his visit to Iran.

Nuclear Iran 21

Oil is an important resource in today’s world as it is a form of energy that runs most

vehicles. Controlling an oil rich region, or at least pursuing that position seems very likely on the

part of a super power. At this point it may be argued that Iran is vying for the same position. This

might be the case and is consistent with argument posed. The US and Iran clash over who will

control the Middle East and in doing so control oil supply.

Chapter 4

Conclusion

The conflict between the two states goes beyond the nuclear issue. The hostility is likely

to continue even if Iran’s nuclear program is dismantled. The real situation is perhaps best

summarized by Adam Tarock:

Nuclear Iran 22

“…there is a clash here between a super power intolerant of a perceived dissident

and rouge state and an assertive and old, but glorious civilization that has had the

temerity to challenge that super power in a region where Washington demands

submission.”20

Since the establishment of Islamic Republic more than a quarter of a century ago, the

hostility between Tehran and Washington has hardly abated: sometimes it has been more intense

than it other times as at the present. USA in the past three years has been using Iran’s nuclear

energy program as a pretext for achieving its long cherished objective: to replace the present

regime with a “Washington friendly” one. Iran has been put under pressure on two fronts:

keeping the military option on the table and launching anti-Iran propaganda worldwide. Judging

by the polls published recently, the administration’s tactic seems to have been successful. A poll

shows that over the past 15 years, an average of only about 6% of respondents rated Iran as the

greatest threat to the USA but a survey in January 2006 found the percentage had increased to

27%, much higher compared with China, Iraq, North Korea and Al-Qaeda. According to the new

polls the image is now worse than ever and this makes it easier for US government to make a

case for yet another war.

The present conflict between Iran and the USA seems not so much about Iran’s alleged

intention to become a nuclear state but more about the type of regime that governs Iran.

Beginning from the 1950s to the fall of the Shah in 1979, Western Europe and the USA helped

Iran’s nuclear program; and although there was a possibility that the Shah’s might try to acquire

nuclear capability, there is no evidence to suggest that the West discouraged, let alone prevented

him from pursuing that ambition. That is a vastly different stance from the one the West is now

taking towards Iran. There are media reports that USA might take military action against Iran.

Occupying all of Iran which is much larger than Iraq, is something that the Pentagon may find

very difficult to achieve considering that the US military is over-stretched in Afghanistan and

Iraq. Also, Muslim hatred across the globe would deepen and retaliation is possible. However, if

an attack is carried out, the reasons would have less to do with the spread of nuclear weapons

and more with the superpower’s fixation with maintaining its control over the Middle Eastern

20Tarock, A. (2007), Iran’s Nuclear Program and the West

Nuclear Iran 23

countries. The reason would be that Israel and America are exposed to the possibility of an

emerging nuclear power which might Israel’s position in the region tough. The reason for

conflict is the hostage crisis of the Iranian revolution which serves as a reminder of the threat of

an Islamic theocracy and to the capitalistic system of the West.

Results from Hypothesis Testing

The conclusion we have derived, rejects the null hypothesis. This means that the US is

posturing and Iran’s doubtful nuclear program is just an excuse for reasons that are not apparent.

The origin of the clash is clear but why it is gaining momentum is a question that has no correct

answers.

Recommendations

A realistic approach to Iran is not to change the regime through military action but to

offer the Iranians prospects of integration into the international community by supporting its

accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), unfreezing Iran’s assets in the USA, lifting

sanctions and respecting its sovereignty.

Nuclear Iran 24

However, that sort of approach to a Third World country like Iran would be contradictory

to the principles of American sovereignty. In the words of the author of “America Right or

Wrong” the NSS (National Security Strategy) maintains that all real power and freedom of action

must remain in the hands of the USA. By insisting that it is exercising its rights under the NPT,

Iran too is insisting that the enrichment of uranium must remain in its own hands. Reconciling

these conflicting positions, arising from strong religious and nationalistic sentiments on both

sides, is unlikely in the near future.