Iran has finally announced the opening this Saturday of its first nuclear power plant, leaving many Western nations and Israel nervous about possible forays into nuclear weapons.
Iran considers the ability to build and operate a nuclear power plant its right. The project has been underway with much opposition since 1974. Russia has supported the endeavor with money and technology, while at the same time supporting UN sanctions over the years. As of right now Iran is purchasing fuel for the plant from foreign sources, but has plans to begin production of its own fuel. Herein lies the danger for Iran’s foes. The uranium enrichment sites can be used for producing weapons grade uranium as well as enriched uranium for power production.
The question is not whether Iran will gain nuclear capacity, but what role in this other nations play. No advance in civilization, particularly in war, can remain a secret indefinitely. And though Iran has been known for its aggressive behavior in the Middle East and its outspoken opposition to Israel and many Western nations and policies, it is still a sovereign nation. If there is individual freedom is there freedom for nations? Do foreign nations have any authority to oversee Iran at all, as the United Nations are doing right now? If so, from where does this authority originate?
The authority to oversee nuclear plants in certain nations is claimed by the UN and it is backed up by threat of force. The authority only exists so long as the UN can and will use the force it threatens. It is a right of might, not an inherent one. The inherent rights of man would suggest that a foreign nation has the absolute right to govern themselves as they see fit. If what nations choose is aggression, then they must expect to be met with aggression in return. But there is nothing immoral in simply having weapons and armies; it is the way in which they are used that raises moral questions.
The Nuclear Age however poses certain problems never before known. A nuclear missile might be launched from a distance and its destructive power dwarfs all previous human attempts at annihilation. Therefore prevention is much more desirable than retribution. Does the right of self-defense trump the right of self-determination in this case? Perhaps. Especially if the claim of right comes from a nation of unrepentant antagonists. For now, the UN will be inspecting and overseeing the nuclear projects of Iran.
Every country should be able to have nuclear power though for obvious, and very understandable reasons, we’re all pretty nervous about certain countries developing it. I wouldn’t blame Israel, for instance, if it decided to play safe and bomb some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Thing is, such an air strike, whether it’s Israeli, American, or a joint undertaking, is only likely to make things worse.
For one thing, it’s nigh impossible to take out all of Iran’s nuclear sites in a single strike, meaning a longer campaign, which only increases the likelihood of it blowing up into a fall scale war.
Second, a Western attack would likely diminish any chance at internal reform for decades. There’s a strong, and still thriving opposition movement in Iran while the regime in Tehran is increasingly restrictive and oppressive. I don’t think the Iranian people will stand it much longer. No matter Ahmadinejad and his crazy ayatollahs in the background, the people of Iran have become accustomed to democracy and civil society and won’t let it slip out of their hands. Not unless their country comes under foreign attack.
A lot of worry about Iran’s nuclear programme although the track record of Iran shows that it has never acted irresponsibly visavis it’s neighbors and have scant regard of demarcated boundaries unlike Israel who time and again disrespects the sovereignity and integrity of International borders in the name of security and self defence..The best example of state terrorism in the world today!justifies the killings in the name of safety..The world should be worried regarding such a country possessing Nuclear Warheads.Is the U.N listening and daring to act against the illegitimate child of the West?
Really? It never has? I’m quite every state in the region, possibly with the exception of Syria, begs to differ.
Iran has been funding terrorism, effectively waging a proxy war on Israel; it is probably developing nuclear weapons which has neighboring countries as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE so scared, they now want nuclear weapons as well.
And that’s not even mentioning what Iran’s been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq; its two closest neighbor states.
Let’s not forget just how difficult it is to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons and the sites for their production. Iran may develop nuclear sites, but to militarise those sites, build silos and nuclear munitions themselves, the necessay infrastructure and so on, would take a very long time, unless done so at an excellerated rate of some emergency and thus bringing the spotlight of western intelligence to rest upon their dubious actions. (Iran is the most watched state in the region, I wager) any strike by Israel or whoever in the near future could remove the hostile nuclear sites that Iran could make, without any serious risk of nuclear retaliation. A conventional retaliation would be more likely to be the only tool then left, and whether against the US or Israel, the odds are against Ahmadinejad
— a scenario entirely dependent on whether Iran DOES militarise its nuclear technology.
I’m no nuclear physicist so I honestly wouldn’t know. I do know the Israelis have been crying for close to a year now that Iran is “on the verge” of weaponizing its nuclear program. Obviously, it’s in their own interest to characterize the Iranian nuclear threat as more imminent than it might be….
Looking at the trouble that the US had initially, and also Britain, India, Russia, Pakistan, Israel and Germany, with their start-up nuclear programs, even in those cases where external assistanc of an existing nuclear power was present, it seems that its no easy thing to develop an effective nuclear arsenal. Iran would have to either acquire a lot of existing weapons, develop their own, or a combination of the two, and all of these scenarios would take a long time if they were to be done on the sly. A swift build up would attract a lot of attention, not that this hasnt been the case of late with the nuclear program thus far. I’d like to know if Iran could, after weaponising its nuclear sites, produce enough weapons for a serious exchange, and then to place these strategically throughout Iran in silos, or airfields, without attracting a lot of attentions, and within the next 2 years. It takes a lot of time and money to develop the ability to strike and use nuclear weapons, even after the ‘hard part’ of nuclear bomb making is done. Then to keep up production to a meaningful stockpile of weapons is another difficulty. The CIA and Mossad are probably watching any all potential sites which aren’t just nuclear plants, but also likely deployment bases and so on.