By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
About this sample
About this sample
Words: 653 |
Page: 1|
4 min read
Published: May 24, 2022
Words: 653|Page: 1|4 min read
Published: May 24, 2022
Many people see Iran as a hostile country due to a combination of concerns over development of ballistic missiles and nuclear capabilities threatening the region, the Iran hostage crises, where the US embassy was violated, and Americans were held hostage illegally under international law. Those just a few examples of what some Americans see Iran as. This article is informative and persuading on why we the reader should be convinced that Iran should get the bomb. Waltz explains that the Iranian nuclear program crisis could end in three possible outcomes. The first is that Iran would give up its nuclear items because of the increased international sanctions and diplomacy. Second, is that Iran develops breakout capability and tests one quickly. The third is that Iran just plainly openly tests the nuclear weapon.
Waltz explains how diplomacy and some sanctions can convince Iran to give up on its nuclear weapons, but it is more than unlikely it will. Waltz also states that if you continue to add more sanctions then they will be even more pressure on them to make more nuclear weapons. I agree with this point that because take North Korea into a factor, they been sanctioned since the mid 1900’s, they still have been able to build and test their nuclear weapons. North Korea succeeded in building its weapons despite innumerable rounds of sanctions by the U.N.
The second point Waltz point out was their breakout capabilities. The term “breakout” refers to a situation in which a non-nuclear-weapon state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, decides to build a nuclear weapon, abandoning its obligations under the treaty. Iran wouldn't be the primary country to get a complicated nuclear program while building an actual bomb. They also wouldn’t be the only country to break away from the treaty. The U.S main concerned is with weaponization, in order that they will accept for a scenario during which Iran stops in need of a weapon of mass destruction. North Korea has withdrawn in 1985, but still has managed to build and make weapons. Iran's nuclear program is clearly supposed to develop a nuclear weapons capability. For eighteen years their weapons was kept secret but just in 2002 Iran's nuclear program was exposed.
Thirdly, the third is that Iran just plainly openly tests the nuclear weapon. If they do, then that would be considered a power war and you know no one wants to get into a war with the United States. while every president from Nixon to Obama has accepted Israel's nuclear weapons, at some point the United States would prefer to see a Middle East that's entirely free of weapons of mass destruction. The most tough task is to discover a 'sneak-out' violation within which Iran uses nuclear it’s facilities. A sneak-out might involve each declared and undeclares facilities.
In conclusion, Waltz’s argues that we vastly overstate the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran. At this point the United States is trying to prevent not an Iran that is actually armed with nuclear weapons, but an Iran that would in theory be physically capable of building a nuclear weapon at some point down the road. In my opinion, I do not think Iran should get the bomb in general. They are still an unstable country, The United States has decided to concentrate its foreign policy efforts in East Asia, and reduce its direct involvement in the Middle East, in doing so it has severely weakened its ability to manage crises. What is we have another 9/11 caused by a nuke, but instead of just hitting certain people it hit a whole country, that is what a nuclear war can do.
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled