In recent years, the international buzz regarding nuclear weapons has revolved around North Korea and Iran, two nations who are suspected of creating nuclear power plants and who the U.S. is strongly against acquiring nuclear weapons. The U.S., despite controlling the second-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (10,700 to Russia's 20,000 and China's (the next largest producer's) 410), desperately wants to limit the ability of other nations to manufacture and sell their own nuclear weapons. (Cirincione 2002, p. 43) But these nations, especially Iran, have valid reasons for desiring nuclear projects.

The U.S. specifically wants to limi

In addition to this financial rationale behind creating an Iranian threat, the interventionist tendencies of the United States administration come into play. Descriptions of the U.S. leaders as "idealistic," that is, wanting the entire world to conform to their ideas of freedom and democracy, lend credence to the theory that the United States wants Iran to abandon its nuclear program as an exercise in "democracy" and "peacekeeping," believing that a non-nuclear Middle East is the best way to promote peace and stability in the region. Scholars attribute this behavior by U.S. leaders to "idealism and retribution: American presidents think they have the moral obligation to punish wrongdoing. In addition to using coercive sanctions against Iran, the United States has sought retribution-punitive action without regard to changing Tehran's behavior." (Tanter 1999, p. 61) Tanter also notes that this policy is not new to the presidents of the U.S.; "from Carter to Clinton [presidents] have believed they were entrusted with the charge of transforming Iran's behavior." (Ibid)

For all of these reasons and undoubtedly many others, Iran's nuclear program should be encouraged, not sanctioned.

In light of the instability in the Middle Eastern region and the widely accepted fact that at least one nation (Israel) already possesses nuclear capabilities, it is a reasonable foreign policy for Iran to wish to develop a second-strike capability to deter any potential nuclear threat from Israel. Israel has not openly admitted the existence of their nuclear program, although "this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986 (for which Vanunu was abducted and imprisoned in Israel for 18 years)." (Wikipedia online cite)

Punishing Iran for its noncompliance with U.S. ideals, however, accomplishes nothing other than further eroding relations between the two countries and worsening the economic situation in Iran. By "inflicting harm on Tehran," the United States has achieved its domestic goal of appearing tough on weapons regulation, but accomplished nothing toward achieving a compromise or understanding with Iran as to why and how it wants to create a defense system. (Ibid) Tanter stresses that this type of international condemnation, through sanctions, has both "an instrumental rehabilitative function-to change Iran's behavior-but also a symbolic retributive purpose-to signal Tehran and the pro-Israel community that wrongs were being righted." (Ibid)

Iraq's situation is separate since the United States has already taken severe action against it. That leaves, in the "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea. Why is the U.S. concerning itself so with Iran and essentially recusing itself from the North Korean negotiations? The United States says that its adamant opposition to Iran's nuclear program is due to Iran's known association with terrorist groups. Many scholars, however, note that "Iran may be less likely than North Korea to sell fissile material to terrorists to earn money...[however] if it had a nuclear deterrent, if might not fear American (or Israeli) retribution as acutely and might even be less constrained about unleashing [terrorist groups]." (Levi 2005, p. 106)

The United States obviously thinks that it and a handful of other nations are the only ones capable of handling nuclear power. But many academics refute this belief-they argue that nuclear power makes nations more responsible, not less, and that this added responsibility is what prevents invasions and unpredictable behavior. If a nation is secure in the idea that its neighbor does not possess nuclear weapons, a rogue nation will feel more confident and be more likely to invade or attack its neighbor; with the threat of nuclear defenses, a rogue state would think twice about inciting the anger of a nuclear power. The risk of retaliation quickly begins to outweig

Some common words found in the essay are:
Cold War, Middle East, Al Queda, Ibid United, North Korea, Middle Eastern, North Korea's, Korea Iran, Granted Iran, Treaty Israel, nuclear weapons, nuclear program, north korea, nuclear power, iran's nuclear, weapons mass destruction, mass destruction, weapons mass, nuclear programs, nuclear capabilities, iranian threat, iran's nuclear program, possessed weapons mass, articles non-proliferation treaty, nuclear power plants,
Approximate Word count = 3169
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)