• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21

US President George Bush labelled Iran and Iraq as part of an "axis of evil". Bush claimed that these two states are developing weapons of mass destruction and that they are supporters of terrorist organisations and a threat to world peace and stability -

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

On September the 20th, 2001, US President George Bush labelled Iran and Iraq as part of an "axis of evil". Bush claimed that these two states are developing weapons of mass destruction and that they are supporters of terrorist organisations and a threat to world peace and stability. This research project will attempt to outline what evidence exists in the public domain that supports this claim. North Korea was also included as part of Bush's "axis of evil". However, due to word restrictions and the lack of information about the secretive state, I will concentrate my research project on Iran and Iraq. Ever since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the United States has waged a "War on Terrorism". Shortly after the terrorists attacks in the US, the US invaded Afghanistan in an attempt to flush out the Al-Quida terrorist group, accused of master minding the attacks on September 11, and the Taliban government who were accused of sponsoring Al-Quida. After a seemingly decisive victory in Afghanistan, the United States has now turned its attention to other potential threats to the United States and its allies, particularly Iraq. In his State of the Union speech on January 29, 2002, George Bush accused Iraq, Iran and North Korea as been part of an "axis of evil ... arming to threaten the peace of the world". President Bush justified his comments arguing that these states "could provide" arms to terrorists. That these states are developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and these weapons "could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States".1 Condoleeza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, claimed that Iran and Iraq are a "clear and present threat to us and to all of the responsible and civilised world". She claimed that Iranians "spread and support terror... and that Iraq makes the entire Middle East region "unstable"2 There was a great deal of opposition from around the world to Bush's comments. ...read more.

Middle

sites would be difficult because "back ups" sites have been built and if one site is detected "or is in danger of discovery all activity is immediately transferred to the back-up facility"47. Hamza also claims that Iraq distributes its nuclear infrastructure amongst Iraqi corporations to disguise its real intent.48 Hamza's evidence to Congress suggests that not only has Iraq continued and rebuilt its nuclear programme, but that Iraq may have also developed multiple production sites. Iraq has also retained many of its experienced nuclear scientists and technicians and has retained much of its past nuclear documentation and data.49 The recent assessment by the British Government on Iraq's nuclear programme stated that indeed Iraq was still attempting to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.50 German Intelligence suggest, and collaborated by Hamza, that Iraq has in its possession "more than 10 tons of uranium and more than one ton of slightly enriched uranium", which means that Iraq has enough to generate the needed bomb grade uranium for three nuclear weapons by 2005"51. Other indications of Iraq's continued involvement in producing nuclear weapons is the fact that Iraq has no civilian nuclear programme and therefore would have no use for uranium. What Iraq does not have is the equipment to turn this uranium into weapons grade material. However, there are reports that Iraq has been attempting to buy equipment that is used in the enriching of uranium.52 Such activity is certainly indicative of a country attempting to build a nuclear weapon. How close Iraq is to building a nuclear weapon is the subject of conjecture. The US Department of Defense estimates that if Iraq had foreign aid it could produce a weapon in 5 years53. Other reports have suggested anywhere from 2-5 years. Dr Khidhir Hamza's evidence to congress is the only information from a source that had direct involvement with Iraq's nuclear programme. Other reports are based upon conjecture. ...read more.

Conclusion

20 54 op.cit CIA Unclassified Report to Congress 2000 55 ibid 56 op.cit If We Fight Iraq 57 op.cit Hamza, K 58 ibid 59 The Fedayeen, founded b y Saddam's son, Uday, in 1995, with a total strength reportedly between 30,000 and 40,000 troops, is composed of young soldiers recruited from areas loyal to Saddam. The unit reports directly to the Saddam himself, rather than through the army command, and is responsible for patrol and anti-smuggling duties. Often improperly termed an "elite" unit, the Fedayeen is a politically reliable force that can be counted on to support Saddam against domestic opponents. Sabah Khodada claims that the Fedayeen now only seek to train and destroy American targets and American interests. 60 Interview with Sabah Khodada. Gunning for Suddam PBS Frontline. November 8, 2001. www.pbs.org 61 ibid 62 Author Unknown. Abu Nidal UK Telegraph. 20th August 2002. www.news.telegraph.co.uk 63 Interview with former CIA Chief, James Woolsey. Gunning for Suddam PBS Frontline. November 8, 2001. www.pbs.org 64 Mylroie, L. The World Trade Centre bomb: who is Ramzi Yousef? And why it matters. The National Interest, Winter 1995 No. 42 65 Goldberg, J. The Great Terror The New Yorker. March 25th, 2002 66 Kratzman, K Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and US Policy Congressional Research Service. Revised September 20, 2002 67 op.cit Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction 68 ibid 69 op.cit Kratzman, K 70 ibid 71 Ritter, S The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament Arms Control Association. June 2002 72 Ritter, S (Congressional Testimony) Committee on International Relations. Hearing on "Disarming Iraq: The Status of Weapons Inspections" September 15, 1998. 73 Arab Media Watch. Who We Are www.arabmediawatch.com 74 UNSCOM Report to the UN. 1998 75 Chretien, J. PM wants proof before backing attack on Iraq. CBC News. September 6, 2002. www.cbc.ca 76 op.cit Steinberg, J 77 Cordesman, A (Congressional Testimony). Iraq and the Risk Posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction Centre for Strategic and International Studies. February 27, 2002. www.csis.org 78 ibid 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Free essay

    Did America drop the bomb in revenge, to prevent the USSR spreading, so Truman ...

    Furthermore, if the Americans had been motivated by racism they would not have stated in the Potsdam declaration that Japan would not be "enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation". The fact that the USA even warned Japan to surrender is evidence in itself that they were not

  2. Should Britain eliminate its nuclear arsenal?

    Thus the case for abolition is by no means foolproof and conjures up further more additional risks and problems. These include states cheating, blackmail and the fact that conventional war becomes a possible eventuality. It would also be myopic to exclude rouge leaders from the nuclear equation.

  1. Coursework on discussing whether television was an important reason why the United States lost ...

    Probably the turning point came in January 1968 with the Tet Offensive. The US public had been told that America was winning the war. However, when the VC attacked (and held for 3 weeks) most of South Vietnamese cities and towns Americans began to question whether the war could be won at all.

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    than of Western hostility, since greater cooperation with the noncommunist world could well lead to a dismantling of the rigid totalitarian control he previously had exerted. For those American diplomats who were veterans of service in Moscow before the war, Soviet actions and attitudes seemed all too reminiscent of the

  1. Were contemporaries correct in regarding President Kennedy as the Saviour of The Western World ...

    A direct telephone line, known as the hotline was established between Washington and Moscow to enable the leaders of the super-powers to communicate with each other. There was now an eagerness to avoid confrontation and instead pursue d�tente. Despite these more relaxed relationships the super-powers maintained their mutual hostility and the Cold War continued.

  2. To What Extent Have The Attempts For A Palestinian State Been Blocked By The ...

    mere humanitarian problem, not worthy of political status and all but diminishes the hopes of transferring the current Palestinian state which became helpless to the Israeli onslaught, into full independent and sovereign statehood. Carrying on from the effects of occupation on the Palestinian economy, the role of the methods of

  1. Is the Nuclear Family a universal social unit?

    Many people now decide to either not have children or too wait until they are older and have progressed further in their jobs. Some people don't have children now as they don't see it necessary to and are not under any pressure form society to have child.

  2. International Relations Assess the arguments for and against the proliferation of nuclear weapons

    Indeed, a state may have no defenses, but it is entirely possible (though highly improbable) that a state in this situation may indeed have a massive nuclear arsenal. iii) Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Defense improve the prospects for peace. NWs are not weapons that humans have historically, and even recently, chosen to use.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work