Should Iran have nuclear weapons? The global and regional implications

Despite protests from numerous international groups, including the IEAE, alongside countries such as the UK, France and Germany, Iran has insisted on pursuing nuclear technology, allegedly purely for the purpose of providing energy to its fast-growing population. On many occasions, Iranian officials have declared that WMDs are essentially against Muslim values, and as such their development of nuclear technology would never progress to creating nuclear weapons. In the words of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form." 

However, in 2001, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, a leading Iranian Cleric, stated that “If one day, the  is also equipped with weapons like those that  possesses now, then the  strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one  inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” Iran has never formally recognised Israel’s right to exist, and many senior statesmen have openly called for its destruction. Therefore, stability in the Middle East, particularly with regards to Israel, is high up on the agenda with many international bodies when the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is discussed.

Similarly, should Iran develop nuclear weapons, it would put great pressure on other nations in the area to do the same. There is already much tension among Arab countries in the area that Israel have nuclear capabilities, and should Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, but also Egypt or Syria, find themselves between a nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear armed Israel, they would be likely to feel it necessary to advance their nuclear capabilities accordingly. Thus a regional arms race would likely escalate, putting yet more pressure on an already unstable area.

It can therefore be argued that geopolitics is one of the major reasons against Iran developing nuclear weapons, particularly from America’s point of view. America’s influence in the Middle East has always been apparent, and with its recent takeover of Iraq, Iran is now one of very few countries in the Middle East over which America has little or no control. A nuclear armed Iran would dramatically change the balance of power in the Middle East, weakening US influence. Also, the increase of other Middle Eastern states having nuclear capabilities, as would be likely to occur, would further weaken American influence in what remains a crucial region.

However, to what extent should the weakening of American influence in this area be a global factor against Iran’s right for nuclear weaponry? Although Iran has often put forward worrying statements regarding Israel, even Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani later backtracked from his earlier statement about the destruction of Israel, stating, “Allah willing, we expect to soon join the club of the countries that have a nuclear industry, with all its branches, except the military one, in which we are not interested. We want to get what we're entitled to… Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but it will not give up its rights. Your provocation will not make us pursue nuclear weapons. We hope that you come to your senses soon and do not get the world involved in disputes and crises.” Similarly, American claims that Iran is a member of the Axis of Evil provoked much debate from scholars around the world, particularly concerning the view that America was using sweeping generalisations, along with tarring Iran with the same brush as other, more dangerous countries.

As already mentioned, America exercises much influence in the Middle East. Iran now finds itself surrounded by pro-American or American controlled countries. America has military bases in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kuwait, among others. American relations with Israel have long been the cause of much discomfort in the area. Israel is the only state in the Middle East known to have nuclear weapons, and an array of missiles capable of delivering them. America obviously sees Israel as a non-threatening state, and as such omit them from a number of important regulatory committees regarding nuclear weapons and the Middle East. For example, in the semi-annual report to the U.S. Congress requiring the intelligence agencies to prepare on "the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding six months of dual-use and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction”, Israel is never mentioned. Similarly, according to Joseph Cirincione, “the 2003 report on the ballistic and cruise missile threat from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center lists 18 nations with missiles, including U.S. allies Bulgaria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Yemen, and Egypt — but not Israel.” 

However, although America does not see Israel as a threat, other nations in the area clearly do. Israel has the capability to launch nuclear missiles at Iran, and  the situation escalated with the purchase of Dolphin Submarines from Germany. Eight years ago, The Washington Post put forward in an article that “submarines could give Israel second nuclear strike capability." The article stated that "if Arab forces succeed in striking the nuclear reactor at Dimona, ground-to-ground missiles and air force bases, Israel could still respond with a cruise missile launched from a submarine."

In an argument against Iran’s right to have nuclear capabilities, the president of Pakistan, General Musharraf, stated that "Every country has the right to defend its security if its security is threatened. So, technically, I would say if Iran's security is threatened, then they have the right to go nuclear. Under the present circumstances, I don't think their security is threatened. Therefore, I presume they need not go nuclear," It could easily be argued of course, given the circumstances both with Israel and with American influence in the area, that Iran has every reason to see its security directly threatened.

One can appreciate Iran’s point of view in many instances, particularly when one examines the world as viewed by Iran. Since George Bush’s State of the Union Address, in which he singles out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats to the US, the American government has defied almost universal opinion and commenced a war against one of these three ‘evils’, and surrounded Iran with aforementioned American military bases.  It would obviously be impossible for Iran to challenge America directly, but were Iran a nuclear state, they would have a massive deterrent against what they must see to be a logical progression for American foreign policy. There is clearly no love lost between the two nations, but it is imperative that channels of communication be established and maintained in order to prevent the situation escalating. Iran must believe that America will not turn its military powers their way, and America in turn must either believe Iran’s protests that its nuclear advances are for civilian and not military use, or find a more successful appeasement for their demands for nuclear power.

 Overall, of course, one must not forget that to this day, no evidence of nuclear weapons development has been found in Iran. In 2004, a confidential UN report was leaked, stating that “all nuclear materials within Iran have been accounted for and there is no evidence of any military nuclear programme”. It does not, of course, discount the possibility of such a programme because it does not have perfect knowledge. If it is indeed the case that no nuclear weaponry is being developed, Iran would no doubt feel increasingly bullied by the international system. However, although Iran is a signatory of the NPT (the nuclear non-proliferation treaty), it has persistently breached this treaty, and dodged IEAE regulations. This forces countries to become more suspicious of its intentions. Transparency is therefore crucial, and trust must be established between Iran and other leading nations in the world, as it will eventually come to the stage where either Iran will have developed nuclear weapons, and the world will have to cope with the consequences, or Iran continues to protest innocence, and we take them at their word.