Strike or not to Strike Options on the Table to Stop Iran from Going Nuclear
Latterly, various experts and political analysts have been hotly debating in the world press whether the West should strike Iran in order tostop its nuclear program. The first part of the article deals with argumentation whether to strike Iran in order to stop its nuclear programand simultaneously presents variant viewpoints on what specific threat nuclear-armed Iran poses. The second half of the article discussesa possible course of action the United States might take to curb Iran and consequential events. The article aims to arrive at a less destructivesolution to the problem.The article directs to the conclusion that Iran’s aggressive foreign policy bears defensive nature driven by the self-survival instinct of anisolated country. The nuclear program also serves this very purpose to provide more security guarantees for the regime, minimize therisk of external strike and increase its bargaining power during the negotiations. Currently, the regional spoiler role is the only one to beplayed by Iran, enabling this developing and unformed economy country to resemble a great power player. Thus, if the United States doeswish to neutralize nuclear-armed Iran and consequential threats, it should stop to isolate the latter from regional politics and let it becomeone of the building blocks of regional political security architecture, as this could assure Iran in the possibility of maintaining its securitywithout going nuclear.
Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.
Iran's Regional Policy: Between Radicalism and Pragmatism
The Islamic Revolution of 1979 was a major turning point in the modern history of Iran, with reverberations far beyond its borders. Twenty-eight years on, the new regime is still searching for an appropriate approach to cope with the challenge of governance while it contends with domestic disenchantment, perpetual struggle for power between competing tendencies and grave regional and international challenges. (1) Since the mid-1990s, the pro-reform camp has gained popular support and sustained control of the elected bodies of government. This is evident from Mohammed Khatami's presidency (1997), the reformists' dominance of the local councils (1999) and the Majlis (2000) and Khatami's reelection (2001). However, the conservatives have maintained their control over the non-elected institutions (such as the Council of Guardians, Council of Experts, Expediency Council and numerous extra-governmental bodies, in addition to the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah All Khamenei, who succeeded Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini), thus preserving their ability to thwart crucial political, social and economic changes. Since then, the conservatives consolidated their control of the local councils (2003) and the Majlis (2004), culminating in 2005 with the ascendancy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who demonstrated adherence to the original revolutionary dogma more than any of the contesting candidates to the presidency. As a result, the policy of dialogue between civilizations, promoted by Khatami, was replaced by an eventual clash of civilizations; the process of reform gave way to growing conservatism, and the policy of detente--in regional and international relations--gave way to a growing tension. Iran's involvement in Iraq, in Lebanon and within the Palestinian Authority, combined with a determination to pursue its nuclear program, and the current president's incendiary statements (against the United States and Israel and regarding the Holocaust) have led Iran to stir up conflict with both its immediate neighbors and countries far from home. This brief survey seeks to examine Iran's regional policy in the framework of the revolutionary experience and the recent changes in the domestic and international arena. Some key issues, such as Iran's nuclear policy, relations with the United States and the relative power of the different domestic factions--despite their direct bearing on our discussion--will be mentioned only briefly. Other important questions, like Iran's strategic alliance with Syria, the impact of the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and developments in the Gulf area are similarly not discussed. The first part of this essay focuses on the general trend of pragmatism in past Iranian regional policy, while the second part is limited to an examination of some of the main areas in which Iran has been recently involved--the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Iraq. IRAN AND ITS TROUBLED NEIGHBORHOOD The Islamic Revolution led to a dramatic change in Iran's foreign outlook and its international relations. For the new leaders of Iran, the Islamic Revolution was not just a title for a movement, but an ideal they wished to put into practice throughout the Muslim world. The Islamic regime viewed its victory as one stage in and an instrument of an overall change in the world of Islam--a model for imitation by other Muslims. "Our movement is for an Islamic goal, not for Iran alone," Khomeini said upon taking power. Iran was only "the starting point." Muslims "are one family," he added, "even if they live in regions remote from each other." (2) Even being Shia or Sunni "is not the question." (3) For many revolutionaries, the ultimate goal remained to launch an ideological crusade aimed at bringing the genuine messages of Islam to people everywhere. Assessments by Mohammed Javad Larijani (former Iranian deputy foreign minister) highlight the centrality of such a worldwide mission. Following the fall of the USSR, he stated that "the cresting of the Islamic movement will soon transform the face of the world" in the same manner the Renaissance changed Europe. …