Introduction
Over many years, the debate on how to solve issues related to Iran nuclear program have been on the rise and has since gained the attention of many countries across the globe. Though countries like Germany, France, and United Kingdom have shown considerable efforts towards solving these issues, United States have proved fervent and eager towards finding a long lasting solution or rather solutions to issues regarding the nuclear program of Iran. For this reason, debates, and differing perceptions, regarding the best solutions to adopt have being brought to the table. Though no apparent solution have been found as of now, this paper seek to present the background information about this issue, ways in which different political parties, ideological views, and political figures view this issue, and finally establish how the solutions differ and concur.
Summary of the Issue
Issues surrounding the Iran nuclear program remain an imperative political “hot topic” owing its aptitude to affect the stability of the world community particularly the political enemies of Iran. Apparently much have been proposed from the United States and other concerned parties. Though the concerned countries aspire to make a credible solution for once, there existing various opposing views that will likely impede the process of adopting a dependable solution in the aftermath. Based on the objections to the proposals brought to table in the past years, it is imperative and of utmost significance to mention that the opposing views in regards to this issue emanate from the differing political interests between Iran and the countries aspiring to stabilize and bring a long lasting solution to this issue (Calabresi, et al. 33). Firstly, Iran have since dismissed many proposals from United States and its counterpart countries owing the fact that the proposal required them to suspend their reprocessing and enrichment-related activities, this according to Iran would not offer a credible solution but rather demean them economically and politically (Oren 671)
United States have since dismissed many proposals by the Iranian government. For instance, the former president of United States, George Bush dismissed the proposal by the Swiss ambassador to Tehran with the main reason being to inculcate pressure to the Iranians prior to making a credible solution regarding the issue. Additionally, other opposing views emanate from the aspiration of countries like United States to disgrace Iran using the nuclear program issue. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose the Iranian nuclear program owing the fact that they perceive the program to strengthen Iran economically and develop their regional politics (Aljazeera n.p). The contradicting views on the Iranian nuclear program between powerful countries act a major impediment to finding a credible solution in the end.
Apparently, this issue remains relevant and of utmost significance to United States and its citizens because the nuclear will negatively affect the geopolitical issue negatively, giving Iran the power they apparently don’t deserve. Though it will strengthen them economically by diversifying the use of their oil products, this will pose a huge threat to the globe owing the power Iran will be having at their disposal.
The pros of this issue is that, United States and other countries with utmost influence have the power to stop the nuclear program from advancing, and that they have considerable influence on the geopolitical issues related to the same. The cons of this issue include poor cooperation from countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the involvement of political ambitions into contentious and critical matters (Calabrese et al. 25).
The Proposed Solutions
In the preceding years, diplomatic initiatives to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue have been proposed, with the main intent being to establish a negotiated settlement in regards to this issue and the aftermath ascertain that Iran coexist well with the international community. Up till now, no apparent proposal have gained acceptance from the parties involved in the negotiation process. Therefore, the debate regarding Iran nuclear program remains a profound issue of concern to the international community particularly the United States. A considerable number of the proposal have been brought to the table in regards to this issue. In spring 2003 proposal, Swiss ambassador to Tehran called for negotiations, with United States apropos the contentious issues between the two countries. The main agenda was to find credible solutions to matters surrounding the Iran nuclear program and other issues that include regional security, disarmament, and economic cooperation (Davenport n.p). Though the aforementioned agendas were key and imperative towards finding credible and long-lasting solutions to the difference emanating from the Iran nuclear program, George Bush who was the United States President by then dismissed this proposal with the main intent being to instill more pressure on Iran.
The 2003 spring proposal incorporated a number of solutions to the issue, according to the former Swiss ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann the possible solutions proposed include relieving the United States sanctions on Iran, permitting Iran to have a full access to peaceful nuclear technology, ascertaining transparency over the nuclear program in Iran, showing full cooperation to stabilize the then politically unstable country, Iran’s acceptance to fight against all forms of terrorism emanating from their country particularly the al-Qaeda and Mujahedin-e (Davenport n.p). Though these solutions seemed accredited and practical, the United States President George Bush dismissed them in favor of instilling pressure to Iran’s government. After United States had withheld the 2003 spring proposal, they were ready and willing to negotiate with Iran in June 2006 with their counterparts being Russia, China, and three EU3 countries (Hirsch 20). From the proposal, the key solutions defined included suspending Iran’s reprocessing and enrichment-related activities, developing a memorandum that would in essence assess their moratorium, suspend the discussion of Iran’s negotiation with UN in regards to their nuclear program, establishment of a framework that would work to unite United States telecommunications, civil aviation, high technology and many other areas of imperative concern between United States and Iran. Again, the aforementioned proposed solutions were withheld by the Iranian government arguing that though the proposed solutions had apparent useful foundations not clearly defined by the ambassador, they were forced to dismiss the proposal owing the fact that he proposed solution required Iran to suspending its reprocessing and enrichment-related activities (Oren 675).
Owing the weight of the issue, the citizens of United States and those of other countries that have particular interests in this matter have proposed their solutions. Though a majority the United States citizens are against the nuclear program, some feel that their country has involved itself disproportionately into the issue without a particular consideration to the negative impacts that may affect the country in the future.
Subsequent to a meeting of officials from Iran, United States and Switzerland, earlier this month, all the involved parties agreed to limit Tehran’s nuclear program within a span of 15 years leaving a few specific issues untouched prior to meeting again in June (Gordon and Sanger n.p).
Comprehensively, the possible solutions in regards to the Iranian nuclear program have been revolving around the following issues:
Suspension of uranium production to a considerable amount
Abolishment of enrichment facilities
Research pertaining enrichment to be done under a close watch by IAEA
Abolish nuclear advancements in the enrichment plant at Fordow, the Arak heavy water reactor, and Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant.
Enhanced monitoring of activities related to nuclear program (Davenport n.p)
Conclusion
I have learnt a lot subsequent to researching issues about the nuclear program in Iran. Subsequently, I have been able to enlighten myself with the reasons behind the heated difference between United States and Iran. Apparently, Iran perceives the nuclear program to be imperative towards developing their economy and giving them the power in the regional economics. Apparently, many countries have since brought to the table the many possible solutions to the heated debate on Iran nuclear program. Many countries perceive the nuclear program to be a considerable threat to United States but also to the international community at large. Apparently, it is evident from the research regarding this issue that the issue will likely affect the regional politics for a considerably long time before a credible solution if adopted.
Works Cited
Al Jazeera. Why Saudi Arabia and Israel oppose Iran nuclear deal. Aljazeera, 14 April 2015.
Web. 21 April 2015.
Calabresi, Massimo, et al. "Caught In the CrossFire." Time 185.13 (2015): 24-27. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Calabresi, Massimo, Naina Bajekal, and Kay Armin Serjoie. "Diplomacy of Distrust." Time
185.11 (2015): 30-35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Davenport, Kelsey. History of Official Proposals on the Iranian Nuclear Issue. Arms Control
Association. January 2014. Web. 21 April 2015.
Gordon, Michael and Sanger David. Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline, First Step toward
A Wider Deal. New York Times, 2 April 2015. Web. 21 April 2015.
Hirsch, Jordan Chandler. "How America Bamboozled Itself About Iran." Commentary (2015):
16-22. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
Oren, Ido. "Why Has The United States Not Bombed Iran? The Domestic Politics of America's
Response To Iran's Nuclear Programme." Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24.4 (2011): 659-684. Academic Search Premier. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
