The Pros And Cons Of Iran's Nuclear Weapon

On November 4th, 1979 a violent mob of young Islamic insurgents attacked the American embassy in Iran and took over 60 hostages (The Iranian Hostage Crisis). Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has been anti-American, with rhetoric that paints the United States as the “Great Satan” and chanting the phrase “Death to America.” It could not be more clear that, currently, Iranian values are incompatible with American values. Because of this, it is imperative that Iran does not acquire weaponized nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would catalyze and arms race between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and many other countries in the Middle East (To Stop Iran’s Bomb). “If Iran has the ability to enrich

This strive for nuclear capabilities is evident in Saudi Arabia’s nuclear agreements with China, France and South Korea over the past few years, that would expand Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program to include 16 reactors by 2030 (To Stop Iran’s Bomb). Iran advancing its nuclear capabilities would lead to increased instability in an already unstable region. However, there are actions that can be taken and policies that can be invoked that will promote global safety from the threat that Iran poses. First of all, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” more commonly known as the “Iran Deal” must be revoked as many of the preventative clauses are simply unenforceable ("Trump Needs to Reverse the Iran Deal). Secondly, the United States must severely hinder Iran’s obtention of nuclear weapons by using military strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure (To Stop Iran’s Bomb). These two policies alone do not offer a stable, long-term solution to the threat Iran poses. Only an Iranian regime change can provide a long-term resolution to the problems with

The terms that hinder Iran’s nuclear program are not imposable, as I have said before, trying to enforce the Iran Deal would be like trying to nail Jello to a wall, it is simply impossible (Trump Needs to Reverse the Iran Deal). The provisions of the Iran Deal that actually aim to halt Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons, are full of weak, ambiguous language. For example “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”(Trump Needs to Reverse the Iran Deal) Notice that Iran is simply “called upon” to end ballistic missile testing, not required to. Furthermore, the wording “ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons” (Trump Needs to Reverse the Iran Deal) leaves room for Iran to deny that their missiles are “designed” for nuclear payloads, they are merely capable of utilizing them. The Iran Deal’s failure to slow Iran’s progress in becoming a nuclear threat is empirical when earlier this year, Iran conducted a missile test. Iranian officials claimed that this test was executed to practice launching satellites (Trump Needs to Reverse the Iran Deal). The missile flew 600 miles, however it failed to reenter the Earth's atmosphere (Sanger, David E). This is suspicious as, there would be no need to test the missile’s ability to reenter the atmosphere, if the goal of this test was