Nuclear Activities and Iran

        The nuclear activity of a Middle Eastern country sparks great controversy

and provides a serious threat to not only the region, but also the rest of the world.

There are various opinions as to what the result would be if Iran developed nuclear

weapons, but it is hard to see the result as a positive one. Kenneth Waltz, a Senior

Research Scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, believes that if

Iran obtained these nuclear weapons it would have a positive effect on the Middle

East. I disagree with Waltz because he assumes that people will be rational mainly

because of the history relating to nations developing nuclear weapons.

While I can understand Waltz’s points, I don’t agree with the supporting

claims he makes for his argument. When dealing with foreign policy and the

possession and use of nuclear weapons, it is not in our best interest to take matters

lightly. Throughout his writing he provides the possibilities of Iran developing

nuclear weapons, but tends to support his claims with assumptions. I would like to

believe that we could all live in harmony, but it’s simply not realistic. It is important

to understand historical trends, but it doesn’t change the fact that there could be

large consequences to the “weaponization” of Iran. If these weapons and advanced

technology got into the wrong hands, it would be disastrous. The potential to act

aggressively is greatly increased when nuclear weapons come into play. Also, It is a

realistic fear that it could support the efforts of terrorists and terrorist groups in the

Middle East, and even be directly provided to these people. Waltz persistently

claims that they would not act irrationally in order to avoid retaliation, but if a

terrorist group were to get involved it makes retaliating difficult. As we’ve learned

and discussed, there is no return address for terrorist groups. It threatens every

single nation including Iran itself. Self-destruction and internal conflict could arise

at any moment, so it is bad for everyone involved. 

It is understandable to think that a nation would never strike with a nuclear

attack due to the fear of retaliation. For example, Waltz states that “Maoist China

became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and

Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. “ This may be true,

but Iran’s nuclear development differs from the aforementioned nations. In terms of

becoming a nuclear power, it is a case-by-case basis in terms of possibilities it

presents. Each nation and regime is characterized differently, and I believe this is

the case for Iran. Iran is seen as irrational throughout the world, and the threats of

terrorism would rise significantly if they were to develop these weapons. Waltz

makes the argument that they are not irrational as a whole. Whether they are or not,

the fact that they have this reputation speaks volumes. The negatives greatly

outweigh the positives in my mind, and to say the fears of Iran as a nuclear threat

are “unfounded” is ignorant.

While nuclear weapons serve as a form of national security, it also has the

ability to destroy a nation. I see that history has shown that stability has often

stemmed from nuclear capabilities, yet I don’t take comfort in that on its own. A

nation with constant issues developing nuclear weapons is a disaster waiting to

happen.  There are other methods that could increase security that are much less

threatening to the world and Iran. We can’t have faith solely based on the past, and

we need to be aware of the potential issues that can and will arise from this crisis. 

Nuclear Free World

In Thomas Schelling’s article, “A World Without Nuclear Weapons,” he shares a concept that embodies just that: what would the world be like without nuclear weapons? Although this idea sounds ideal to work towards a safer world, it actually contains many flaws. Since nuclear weapons became a potential resolution to war in the middle of the 20^th century, we have attempted to find ways to stabilize the amount and the usage of these weapons of mass destruction. However, the idea of a nuclear free world goes directly against the world’s way of thinking for the past sixty years. The idea of “nuclear free” would is an interesting idea worth discussion; however, it is merely a hypothetical idea rather than an actual solution towards a safer world.

            The first flaw of this concept is that it relies too much on assumptions. If you are a state with nuclear weapons that agrees to disband the owning of nuclear weapons, how can you be sure that others will follow your lead? Also, once following the initiative to either declare or to sign a document to rid your state of all nuclear weapons, actually taking them down reveals a large vulnerability in your national security. Not only do not have these weapons as leverage between yourself and another country, but you would also leave the country open to nuclear attack. If your country does not have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, then what would stop another country from attacking you with one?

The main problem with this idea is that it focuses too much on having trust in other countries. How can it be determined that all nations truly do not have nuclear weapons? It cannot, because they can only rely on trust, which is very skeptical. Even if there were some sort of international nuclear inspection, who is to say a nation could not simply just hide their nuclear weapons in a remote location. Simply put, they could not enforce checking the entire world for nuclear weapons. Schelling makes a point on how easily nuclear weapons can be made, “…enough plutonium to make a bomb could be hidden in the freezing compartment of my refrigerator, or to evade a radiation detection could be hidden at the bottom of the water in a well” (Schelling, 126). Schelling’s argument is that the only way to stop nuclear weapons is through whistle blowers or the belief that all “responsible” governments will also take action in ridding their nations of all nuclear weapons. The problem with this thinking is that not all other nations are “responsible” and therefore will not follow this. Even if a nuclear power did rid themselves of all said weapons, how could we know that they will not simply recreate the same weapons in times of crisis or war. Since they already have all of the resources, it would be easy for them to rebuild them at a rapid pace. Therefore, no power would truly be nuclear free, for they could just as easily become a nuclear power once again.

            The concept of a nuclear free world is hypothetical and in the real world not a possible solution in dealing with the control of nuclear weapons. At this point in time, we must realize that dealing nuclear weapons in international relations is inevitable. However, we must also know that this is an issue that deals with control rather than destruction. In this concept, there will still need to be trust between nations that they will not use their weapons lightly and without reasonable grounds to even use them as a threat to other nations. However, there is much more room for trust in the nuclear deterrence, which allows the trust between nations to actually work.

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World Without Nuclear Weapons.” Foreign Affairs. p. 124-129. file:///Users/markyp923/Downloads/Schelling%20Daed%202006%20(1).pdf.

Weaknesses of NAFTA and Free Trade

Throughout the years, the United States has been involved in a number of trade agreements with nations around the world, based on different necessities and different opportunities. Some of these trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, involve the use of free trade among states. This North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and its free trade system is an arrangement that has had many positives and negatives for the US economy and social system. The basis of this trade agreement is centered on a trade bloc between the three countries, removing tariffs and blocks, allowing for economic, environmental and agricultural interactions.[1] Though good and bad, in my opinion, the negatives that come out of this free trade agreement, and free trade agreements in general, for the United States far outweigh the positives of such treaties.

            First off, I believe it is important to make it clear that the North American Free Trade Agreement has certainly had its successes, and has brought in a good amount of profit for the United States. Specifically, the agreement has sparked exports, and has led to a 45% increase in exports to both Mexico and Canada in the year 2011, which is an astronomical number.[2]  Furthermore, there is speculation that NAFTA has influenced as much as .5% increases in the US economic output yearly, leading to the assumption that NAFTA has improved the American economy. Another statistic that I think is important in describing economic success of this agreement is that the combined output of this agreement is over 17 trillion USD.[3] Just to make it easier to understand how much that is, compare it to the US national debt. That 17 trillion dollar number is nearly identical to the amount the United States owes around the world. It is without question that free trade agreements, specifically involving Mexico and Canada, have netted certain positive economic benefits for the United States. However, in my opinion, the negative affects on US and International Businesses, and the various problems that these free trade agreements create are not worth it. NAFTA and other free trade agreements should not be so prevalent, as they cause many significant issues.

            One of the major cons of certain free trade agreements, including NAFTA, is centered on the idea of domestic job opportunity, specifically in the manufacturing sector of the economy. One of the basic principles of NAFTA allows US businesses to outsource manufacturing and industrial sector jobs to Mexico, because of cheaper labor and easier opportunity for production. Domestically, this hurts the US more than it helps. As jobs leave the country, unemployment and opportunity do also, leaving Americans jobless while others are benefiting from American businesses. In 2011 it was estimated that the United States shipped over 791,000 jobs in manufacturing to Mexico, and caused the loss of over 680,000 American jobs domestically.[4]  With the job market already in a steady decline, this sharp job loss of over half a million American opportunities cripples the economy, and hinders and individual development that Americans could hope for. The outsourcing of American jobs has not only hurt the economy, but has had negative repercussions in every facet of American life. I am not saying that it is just NAFTA or other free trade agreements to blame for this phenomenon, but they have certainly contributed to the problem.

            There are not just domestic issues that are found in the United States, but also problems that have arisen throughout Mexico because of this agreement. According to a US Economy article, “NAFTA allowed government-subsidized U.S. farm products into Mexico, where local farmers could not compete with the artificially low prices.”2 Because of this, Mexican farmers have gone out of business by the thousands, forcing them to abandon their livelihoods and seek job opportunities elsewhere, including illegally migrating to the United States. One of the biggest things that NAFTA was supposed to accomplish for Mexico was the development of a real middle class. In my opinion, the opposite has occurred. Because of the presence of US subsidized farms, a significant portion of the Mexican workforce is out of work, and a large part of the working aged men and women are leaving the country in search of minimum wage jobs in the United States. This has crippled the development of the Mexican economy, doing the exact opposite of what was originally intended. 

            It is without a doubt that NAFTA and numerous free trade agreements among states around the world have their positives in terms of economic growth. However the negatives of some of these agreements, including the example of NAFTA, usually are more indicative of the reality of various situations. In my opinion, free trade agreements, specifically NAFTA, should be revisited and altered to make sure that everyone’s economy, citizens and social structures are thriving the way they were meant to be.

---

[1] Bravo, Eduardo. "NAFTA Has Fueled Job Growth." My San Antonio. Hearst Newspapers, 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/NAFTA-has-fueled-job-growth-4044746.php>.

[2] Amadeo, Kimberly. "NAFTA Pros and Cons." About News. About, 23 Aug. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/24/nafta-pros-and-cons.htm>.

[3] Aguilar, Julian. "Twenty Years Later, Nafta Remains a Source of Tension." New York Times. The New York Times Company, 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/twenty-years-later-nafta-remains-a-source-of-tension.html?_r=0>.

[4] Strachan, Maxwell. "U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says."Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 12 May 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

2

Should Iran Get the Bomb?

Should Iran get the bomb? This has been a question of great debate for many years. I believe that if Iran gets the bomb, the balance of power that we have in the world will shift for the worse, leading the world to yet another Cold War.

Kenneth Waltz, a professor of political science at Columbia University, argues that Iran should get the bomb since it will lead a balance of power in the world. He argues that although Iran may have a negative reputation in the global community, they should be trusted with a bomb. The logic of nuclear deterrence will hold and Iran will not launch their missiles to any country.

However, I argue that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, the world could potentially enter another Cold War. Iran has a history of hating the West and Israel. The Iranian revolution ousted the pro-American Shah and brought in a leader who strongly opposed America and the West. The Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 further revealed their hatred towards America. Their Supreme Leader, Khomeini, has disdained America and even called America the Great Satan (Katz, 2010). In Iran, there is negative propaganda towards America on their buildings—messages that encourage taking down America and a skull face for the Statue of Liberty. The same message of destroying Israel and America is repeated in their religious services as well. With all these allegations and past experiences with Iran, can we truly trust them with nuclear weapons?

First, if all countries obtained nuclear power, would the world be at peace? During the Cold War, there was constant tension between the US and USSR. Although each had enough nuclear power to destroy each other many times over, they continued the arms race. Their mistrust in each other lead to an air of fear and hatred amongst the people. This example reveals that nuclear power does not create peace but fear, havoc, and confusion.

Now, let’s say that Iran obtained technology to create nuclear weapons. First, they would continue the arms race that America had with the USSR several years ago. Although they know it is in the best interest of the world to hold back, they will not since their ultimate goal would be to destroy America and Israel. Second, there would be more confrontations like that of the Cuban Missile Crisis. There would be an increase in threats of launching missiles as well as missiles pointed at us and Israel. With their increase in power and their hatred towards the West, MAD would not keep them from launching missiles. They would launch them and annihilate cities and peoples. Their irrational past would place us, and the world, in harm’s way.  

Given the situations in the Middle East at this very moment, if Iran obtained nuclear power, the fear of being attacked is greater since their hatred towards America and Israel only grows as each day passes by. Iran would be irrational and would launch their missiles at America, which would threaten our safety and security.

Hence I argue that, considering Iran’s past with America and their hatred towards Israel, if they obtained nuclear power, there would be chaos and fear since such great power has fallen into the hands of an irrational country.