The nuclear power, which was seen as a possible reason of a war between superpowers during the Cold War period, didn’t cause a war but provided emergence of a stabilized order. As the Soviet threat in the Cold War; rogue states, arbitrary leaders, terrorists and mass destruction weapons became the dearest notions of post-September 11 period. In this time zone, the nuclear weapons were associated with global terrorism and they became the privileged subject of international politics again.
In 2002, Alireza Jaferzadeh from Iran National Resistance Movement brought out the secret nuclear efforts of Iran and this condition carried the USA-Iran relations that were really high-strung ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 to a new and imbroglio situation. After 1979-Islamic Revolution, as a result of national pride and anti-Americanism, the American Embassy in Tehran was raided by Iranian students and 66 American people was taken as hostage. This event passed into history as Hostage Crisis. 444 days lasting action gained a new extent after the unsuccessful rescue operation of US Special Forces in 1980 and by affecting the presidential elections in USA caused the triumph of Reagan against Carter.
Accused by USA from building “axis of evil”, in 1957 Iran began its nuclear “cruising” with the support of USA as irony of fate. It took the first step by signing the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement during Shah Era. In following years, USA provided light water reactor and laboratory materials for Iran to be used in Tehran Nuclear Research Center. As 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War mitigated the Iran’s efforts in its nuclear energy program and harmed the development of nuclear energy, interests of Iran in nuclear maintained by the supports of states such as Russia, China and Pakistan. However; the emergence of secret missions of Iran, it drew all attention towards itself.
Why Iran wants to be a nuclear weapon producing power and why USA is against it? When we look from the Iranian side, although there are several political groups from various political spectrums, a consensus appears in nuclear energy issue. Iran approaches the nuclear energy as its long term strategy and as a security requirement. Being a contained state by Sunni-Arab neighboring states and “archenemy” Israel discomposes Iran, which is both Shiah and Persian. With the impact of anti-Americanism, Iranian government and majority of Iranian people think that if Iran has nuclear weapon, no state can assault to it. Moreover, having nuclear will give superiority Iran against Turkey and Egypt, which are Muslim populated rival states in the region. The mainstream in Iran is withdrawing from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which there is Iran’s signature under it and not giving attention to the world public opinion. Since war is a non-expected probability by Iranians, Iran’s main strategy and priorities are negotiating and using diplomatic ways. Iran sees Israel’s nuclear weapons as a big threat to itself and wants international laws to be applied in Israel issue. Unluckily, what weakens Iran’s strategy is that Iran accepted these laws by signing and Israel did not.
When we look from the side of USA, not interestingly Democrats and Republicans have similar strategies about Iran’s nuclear issue. American public opinion opposes Iran’s “nuclearization” as a whole. USA, who paid the bill of Iraq War heavily by itself because of not bearing in mind the others, cannot act similarly in Iran. There are several options in front of Obama Administration:
-Application of political and economic enforcements,
-Striking Iran’s nuclear power plants,
-Limited invasion of Iran in terms of time and space,
-The most interesting one for me, changing the regime in Iran.
How many of these can be implemented completely? How economic sanctions and limitations can be applied to people, who live under very low living standards? How waging a war can be effective against an administration, which declared that if there will be a strike against Iran, it will be reciprocated by counter strikes in anywhere in the world? After all these, the best and only option is to make a regime change in Iran by supporting the opponents of status quo. The repressive environment after elections, which Ahmedinejad won, is a basis for this view.
Finally, I want to mention that there are many American military bases and deployed soldiers in Iraq, Turkey and Gulf states. This military existence is a big security problem for Iran. As a result Iran gravitates to nuclear armament to securitize itself. I think maybe the best solution to reduce the tension between both USA-Iran and in the region is to make some suggestions about Iran’s security. This is the life ring of not only the regional peace but also the alliance of civilizations.
Nail ELHAN