Best Approach to a Nuclear Iran Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Best Approach to a Nuclear Iran - Essay ExampleDore Gold writes, externally Iran wanted the peaceful use of nuclear energy, plainly its hidden intention, according to Ramezanzadeh, was to engage in some other activities.(15)The international community is not willing to believe Iran and remains skeptical astir(predicate) its nuclear plan. scrub administration takes a tough stance and warns that production of nuclear weapons is on the agenda of Iran and that concern is shared by Obama administration. Gold argues virtually the administrations initial attitude and writes, Obamas neutrality on the developments in Iran reached its height when he declared Its important to understand that although there is some deform taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised.(5) But the position is not the same now though Iran consistently denies allegations that it owns intention to develop a bomb. G old further tenders details that .intelligence data indicating that Iran was also working(a) on a nuclear warhead that could be fitted on its ballistic missiles.(35) How do the authors innovate these issues? The authors present the issues in a logical manner tendering facts in support of their arguments. Both of them share concern about Americas political and economic interests. They differ in details as for approach but both agree that Irans nuclear weapons program ambitions must be contained without further delay. What are their assumptions? Christopher Hemmer argues that patient diplomacy is the best approach to contain Irans nuclear program. According to him, Iran with nuclear weapons will commence challenges for the United States, but it is prudent to meet them by a policy of deterrence actively pursued, through containment and engagement and with active deliberations with Americas allies in the region. It is better to talk to Iran across the remit on a perennial basis, t han challenge it through arms. Norman Podhooretz answers this question in a plain and straightforward style. He is not willing to trust Iran under any circumstances. According to him a nuclear-armed Iran is formidable for all concerned countries and disastrous for America. Use of arms to checkmate Iran is less risky than allowing it to go scot-free with its weapon-development program. He advocates direct array intervention and destruction of Irans nuclear capabilities. What are their arguments? According to Hemmer, in chase the path of peaceful negotiations, America needs to look out for options like change of regime, preventive military strike, economic sanction and make appropriate evaluations about cost of action vs. costs of inaction. In any case, America cannot remain a silent spectator about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and need to take actions on an ongoing basis. Christopher Hemmer argues, The United States has three strategic interests in the Persian Gulf maintaining the flow of oil onto homo markets, preventing any hostile state from dominating the region, and minimising any terrorist threat.(Parameters) Norman Podhooretz writes, I argued that deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime rules by Islamafacist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about