One of the most contentious issues in the world today is Iran’s nuclear program. The issue presents great challenges to the international community. Any nuclear program around the world is perceived to be a huge threat to peace and development. In this regard, Iran’s nuclear initiative is not an exception.
In spite of the allegation that the country’s main objective of producing nuclear energy is to enhance electricity production, most countries around the world believe that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons of mass destruction, and therefore, the issue of producing nuclear energy for peaceful reasons is highly doubted (Stephens, 2009). It is in this light that this report highlights the position that the U.S. President will take regarding the nuclear disputes between Iran and Israel.
Position Taken by the President
As the U.S. President, a decision on the appropriate approach will be guided by careful consideration of various issues. Before making a decision, it is therefore important for the USA to consider the peace of the two countries, the potential interference with the survival of humanity, and the negative effects of war (Slackman, 2010). The resolution taken by the president should not promote the interest of one party at the expense of the other. In this case, the United States should promote shared benefits between Israel and Iran. Therefore, despite the fact that Iran’s nuclear programs may interfere with Israel and the U.S., the President of the United States should not support Israel’s move to launch a limited nuclear strike since this may not solve the problem in Iran (Jahn, 2012).
Negative Effects of Israel’s Nuclear Strike
Nuclear strikes from Israel against Iran will not help in solving the situation. Nuclear strike or military intervention of any kind will interfere with the peace and security of the two countries and subsequently replicate to the neighboring countries. Should Israel strike Iran, the latter will react by building more nuclear weapons through increased investment in uranium extraction. Military intervention in Iran will also increase the rate of terrorism around the world. Iran is one of the countries in the world that is famous for sponsoring terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. The country also provides protection to the leaders of terrorist groups around the world (Strobel, 2010).
Allowing Israel to attack Iran may also lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and especially in the Arab world. The initiative will also strengthen Iran’s proxies of terrorism, such as Hamas and Hezbollah (Jahn, 2012). For instance, in the year 2011, Hezbollah had more than 60,000 missiles and rockets that were hidden in Lebanon. The weapons were made with the main intention of attacking Israel from the south. Military intervention by Israel on Iran will also interfere with the development of the oil trade around the world. Iran’s strategic location in the Middle East plays an important role in influencing the oil trade around the region (Sciolino, 2007).
Based on the observations, the U.S. President would give diplomacy and economic sanctions a chance. This approach would be very ethical in solving the problem between Iran and Israel. Moreover, diplomacy would provide a valuable opportunity for the U.S. and the international community to assess Iran’s nuclear programs and progress. Despite the fact that Iran’s military program is a great threat to Israel, military intervention may not yield the expected benefits. Moreover, Israel is not very sure if it can pursue a military intervention on its own, without any foreign assistance. The outcomes of the war may have negative effects on Israel and interfere with its economic development and military organization (Slackman, 2010).
Military plans or threats will also strengthen Iran’s nuclear programs. For example, in the year 2012 after Israel had raised concerns about military interventions in the country, Iran’s President Mr. Mahmud Ahmadinejad went ahead and launched three nuclear projects. The three projects were established to enhance uranium enrichment in the country from 10% to 20%. Therefore, military intervention should be considered as the last option at hand.
In this regard, as the US President, I will consider economic sanctions as the best solution to the problem. Such sanctions should be imposed based on some conditions in the country to control nuclear programs and the development of dangerous weapons. Sanctions imposed by the U.N. will play an important role in ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programs are tamed for the sake of world peace and security (Jahn, 2012).
Such arrangements will also require the country to state clearly its nuclear objectives. For instance, the government should be able to answer the questions raised by the international community on its military involvement in nuclear production. The production of uranium energy in the country should be subject to the supervision of an international body, such as the IAEA. The country should enable the entity to investigate and supervise the production facilities, manufacturing sites, reactors, centrifuge programs, miles, and production facilities. The conditions for economic sanctions will also require Iran to disclose its current and past nuclear activities.
The country would also be expected to produce uranium below 5% to ensure that uranium production in the country can only accommodate energy production. This step will require the international community to determine the appropriate scale, which will be used in regulating Iran’s nuclear program. Any changes on the agreed scale must be in tandem with the needs of the civilians in the country and not the military requirements (Strobel, 2010).
Another condition that will enable Iran to comply with the requirements of the international community is an agreement between the country and the U.N., which will ensure that Iran does not spread the nuclear programs to other countries in the Middle East. Economic sanctions on important elements, such as trade, education, tourism, and health care, will enable the country to comply with the requirements of the international community. Agreements will be signed to make the gradual withdrawal of the sanctions possible after Iran has complied to the requirements. Economic sanctions will yield more benefits as compared to military intervention.
Therefore, as the U.S. President, I would not support Israel’s decision to strike Iran. The strike will result in negative effects, which may affect Israel and other countries of the world (Stephens, 2009). From the above observations, it can be concluded that military action will not yield any benefit and may not solve the problem in Iran. However, it should be considered as the last option after diplomacy has failed to yield the expected results. Military intervention should be pursued after the U.N. has given consent to Israel. Moreover, Israel should be not be allowed to pursue military action on its own (Jahn, 2012).
Jahn, G. (2012). IAEA Iran nuclear weapon capabilities closer: Report. Associated Press, p. 32.
Sciolino, E. (2007). Report raises new doubts on Iran’s nuclear program. New York Times, p. 23.
Slackman, M. (2010). Iran boasts of capacity to make bomb fuel. The New York Times, p.14.
Stephens, B. (2009). The Tehran-Caracas Nuclear Axis Ahmadinejad and Chávez: New evidence of a radioactive relationship. Wall Street Journal, 24(2), 26-29.
Strobel, W. (2010). Iran may be seeking nuclear warhead, U.N. watchdog says. McClatchy News, p. 34.