The Iranian Nuclear Crisis

     Tonight was one of the best speaker sessions that I have attended since I have taken part in World Affairs Council events. It was titled, "The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Roundtable Discussion" and was based on Iran's nuclear program and its involvement in international politics. It gave me a better, broader perspective on the issues regarding the arguably most volatile state in the Middle East.

     The panel of experts began by building the background of the issue. Evidently, President Obama was on an Israeli radio station recently, saying that at the rate of which it is currently developing its nuclear capability, Iran is a year away from having a nuclear weapon. Next, the moderator brought up the P5+1 and its discussions with Iran. The P5+1, I learned, is the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany and the principal organization in discussing international politics with the Iranian government. This led to the topic of Iran's economy, which has seen a great deal of sporadic changes and instability over the past few years. Also, over the last seven years, Iran's government has collected sixty percent of the nation's oil revenue, which is absolutely colossal compared to other oil-producing countries. 

     Subsequently, the moderator asked the panel the ultimate question about this issue, "How can the issue of the Iranian nuclear crisis be solved practically while guaranteeing the safety of other nations?"                 Inevitably, the state of Israel was mentioned and a discussion about its position toward Iran's nuclear program ensued. Apparently, many members of Israel's government oppose using military force in an effort to discontinue the nuclear program. Citing the counterproductive 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq to halt their nuclear development, many believe that military action against a nation's nuclear program can act as a catalyst, speeding up the process of research and development.

     Most countries are obviously reluctant to allow the Iranian nuclear program to continue. At a conference, Vice President Biden declared, “Let me make clear what that commitment is: It is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, period. Period. End of discussion. Period. Prevent — not contain — prevent.” The experts tackled a serious barrier that prevents us from being able to reasonably communicate with Iran: the fact that the United States, as well as the P5+1 for that matter, does not treat Iran as a sovereign state. A member of the Reagan administration pointed out that the United States needs to stop its policy of talking with Iran's leadership only when Iran complies with U.S. regulations and requests. This prevents many conversations that could potentially lead to agreements between Iran, its neighbors, the United States, and Europe. He also acknowledged that there is a high possibility that Iran does not want to develop a nuclear weapon to use offensively, but rather to use as a shield and a deterrent of attacks from Israel and Saudi Arabia.
     Additionally, the panel dismissed the commonly accepted idea that North Korea and Iran are working very closely to collaboratively develop nuclear weapon technology, despite the fact that Iranian scientists have likely observed North Korean missile tests.