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. 
     

On Andrew Guzman's WAC Presentation

     Last night, a few colleagues and I went to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco to listen to  Harvard Law graduate and esteemed economist Andrew Guzman. The topic was climate change. before yesterday, I was steadfast in my stance on global warming. I was certain that changes regarding air pollution in America were needed , but I was insistent that the government should should limit its involvement to existing laws and regulations. A high degree of regulation is expensive and generally does not align with my views on what the role of government should be in the United States.
     The main idea of Guzman's speech was that global warming's effects are more than a rising ocean level (although he emphasized on the seriousness of rising oceans by bringing up the Maldives as well as the fact that Bangladesh would lose 17 percent of its land if the global temperature went up 2 degrees Fahrenheit). Climate change depletes people's access to fresh water, which has a directly negative effect on food supply. Guzman described the decrease of fresh water as a "danger multiplier" in areas of conflict such as India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine that are already relatively deprived of water. Wars may eventually be fought over rivers and reservoirs as access to glacier water decreases dramatically. In the two aforementioned conflicts, the risk of nuclear proliferation is always existent. A decrease in water would bring this risk to an entirely new level.
     Needless to say, I changed my view on government involvement. While I do not believe that cap-and-trade and carbon credit programs should be overly burdensome and have the ability to kill small businesses, the government should create reasonable regulations that allow future generations to live comfortably without as much war and suffering.
     Citizens have a commitment to this as well. By living on Earth and reaping its benefits, humans make a negative impact on the environment. They always have. We can lessen our impact slightly, however. It does not hurt to recycle more or drive a little less. We don't have to live off the grid or sell our cars. Just acknowledging our impact on the world and slightly changing our habits accordingly makes a monumental difference.