Thomas Schelling, in his book Arms and Influence, describes the way the threat of war can be used in negotiation, to coerce another country to abide by the demands of another. In this case, the United States and the European Union, among others, have been trying to negotiate, even coerce, Iran into giving up its nuclear arms program. For the most part, Iran has not been willing to negotiate much. In fact, Iran is often described as being defiant against the world. Will this defiance cause a war to be started with Iran? The chances are good that a war could take place, but the chances are just as good that political leaders will find another way to deal with Iran’s relations with the world, especially after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the book Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling, he points out that when diplomacy and bargaining are taking place, there has to be a common interest, even if the common interest is to avoid mutual damage. In order for bargaining to work, there must be “An awareness of the need to make the other party prefer an outcome acceptable to oneself” (Schelling 1). In much of the language reported from Iran, however, it does not appear that Iran is willing to negotiate, maybe because it does not feel that damage will be inflicted by not bargaining. Iran may be correct. Unless Iran openly inflicts violence on another country, it may be able to develop its nuclear arms and continue to make threats in spite of what other countries have tried to force Iran to do. This opinion seems surprising considering that Iraq was invaded and Saddam Hussein taken down, even though the nuclear threat from Iraq was not as clear as the nuclear threat coming from Iran. But as argued by Ivo Daalder (2006), the cont...
... middle of paper ...
...ut like Thomas Schelling says, it is unlikely that the country would do something that would guarantee its total destruction (such as using a nuclear weapon). On the other hand, that does not mean it will not cause harm to others.
Works Cited
Daalder, Ivo. "Is War With Iran Inevitable?" Brookings Institute, April 21, 2006. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2006/0421iran_daalder.aspx (accessed September 24, 2011).
Eckman, Jim . "Iran v. Saudi Arabia." Issues in Perspective, April 30, 2011. http://graceuniversity.edu/iip/2011/04/30-2/ (accessed September 24, 2011).
Pollack, Ken & Takeyh, Roon. "Doubling Down on Iran." Washington Quarterly. 34. no. 4 (Fall 2011). http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/09_iran_pollack_takeyh/09_iran_pollack_takeyh.pdf (accessed September 24, 2011).
Schelling. T. Arms and Influence. Yale University. 1966.
Dodds, Joana and Ben Wilson. "THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR: UNATTAINABLE OBJECTIVES1." Middle East Review of International Affairs (Online) 13, no. 2 (06, 2009): 72-94. http://search.proquest.com/docview/220899524?accountid=8289.
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Although the United Sates and Saudi Arabia present the United States and Saudi Arabia’s relationship as excellent, there are actually two nations who have bitter disagreements but who allies through oil. The only thing that has held this alliance together is the US dependence on Saudi oil. The United States has felt and still fells that it is a necessity to have bases present in the Middle East to protect oil, and silently to protect Israel. The relationship began in 1933 when Standard Oil of California signed an agreement with the Saudi government. In 1943 FDR affirmed that the defense of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States and moved troops into the region. Future presidents would emulate this declaration and mobilization of troops to Saudi Arabia. Again in 1945 Abd al Aziz, the Saudi king, and FDR would cement this alliance, on a US warship in the Suez Canal. Soon after, airfields were constructed at Dhahran and other spots over Saudi Arabia; beginning a long tradition of US military facilities in Saudi Arabia. Abd al Aziz was the first of his line of successors to meet with US presidents. The relationship was only strengthened with the onset on the Cold war, as the US used the bases in Saudi Arabia as potential air force launch sites to the USSR and constructed more military facilities. In 1941 Harry S. Truman made another assertion of Americas protection and alliance with Saudi Arabia to Abd Al Aziz. Truman stated that “support for Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States.” (Countrystudies.com) Another stipulation of this pact was that the US established a permanent military training mission in the Saudi Arabia. That mission lasted until 1992. Soon after the pact between Truman and Aziz was agreed upon the US-Saudi relationship would endure its first major disagreement. On May 14th, 1948 Israel was declared an independent state in the former Arab dominated Palestine. Israel’s independence was backed the United States. Saudi Arabia refused to acknowledge the country of Israel and to engage in any relations with them. The Saudis concerns of the Israel-US relationship were reinforced in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the US sold arms to Israel, but refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. In some cases congressional leaders refused to sell arms to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that Saudi Arabia might use them against Israel.
Roberts, M. R. (2011, September 08). "A broad terrorism plan". American City & County, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com.
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Iran’s leaders have always emphasized a set of “red lines,” vowing not to stop enrichment, which has been demanded by five United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Iranians also refuse to temporarily halt enrichment.
Gerner, Deborah J., and Philip A. Schrodt. "Middle Eastern Politics." Understanding the contemporary Middle East. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 85 -136. Print.
Iran has a nuclear program that is very devious to say the least, and therefore is a huge risk to everyone. Experts say that their nuclear program has expanded into a mature operation and has the capability to produce nuclear warheads in less than a year (Jahn).
The loss of motivation to keep fighting was the main reason Iran accepted the United Nations Security Resolution 598 in 1988 that ended the war between Iran and Iraq. The combination of allegations of terrorism from countries, the lack of support from other nations, and the death toll of the Iranian people were the factors that support Iran’s loss of motivation to keep fighting in the
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a country of volatile politics in the Middle East, participating in numerous minor disputes and full out wars during its history. Its participation in a bloody and indecisive war with Iraq, its sponsorship of terrorist groups such as the Hezbollah and Hamas (Bruno 2011), and its controversial election have all made international bodies raise their eyebrows in the past. However, it is Iran’s nuclear ambitions that truly captured the attention of all nations in the recent months.
...nd Politics." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Philip Mattar. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 890-895. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.
A similar problem may arise with another regional actor, Saudi Arabia. Any rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran will unnerve the Saudi Kingdom, which views the Islamic Republic as arch-rival and may consider such development as tipping the balance in the region in Tehran’...
According to Stouten, John the author of the article the likelihood of a nuclear attack is greater than ever says that countries in the Middle East and Korea are building nuclear arms every day” (15). The Middle East won’t stop making weapons of mass destruction until someone or the US comes in there and destroys or seizes all of their weapons. We should be concerned about Weapons of mass destruction and never let it just float by us. Some Politicians don’t understand the threats of other countries and there weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out a great and big city like San Francisco or New York, New York and it could kill millions of people and a lot more than that. All we have to do is look at places that have experienced this like Hiroshima, Japan or Chernobyl. We don’t want this to happen to us because the toll of the damage would be unbearable to see or hear about. Are country hasn’t experienced something like that before except 9/11.