Who owns and possesses a nuclear weapon is an issue of great concern for most countries. Essentially, most countries in the West get concerned when nations express the desire to own nuclear weapons because such weapons are capable of causing massive destruction to both property and human life if not properly controlled. In effect, who owns and manages the weaponries is a critical issue. It is assumed that authorizing some countries to have the possession of such weapons would spell massive destruction of their opponents and war enemies. Such is the argument against Iran’s possession of nuclear power. Secondly, some governments are said to be irrational decision makers through their collaboration with terrorist groups over the years. This is a replica of what Iran has been doing; supporting and financing the Shia terror groups in Syria.
In effect, giving governments the power to operate nuclear weapons would only imply that terror groups control innocent lives. It is using these propositions that I support Sokolski’s argument that Iran should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
In support of Iran’s proposition to own nuclear weapons, Waltz argues that denying the power of making and owning nuclear power in Iran is baseless, as the decision would not be rational. It is not prudent to assume that Iran would behave irrationally should it be given the power to own nuclear weapons. Waltz suggests that such an assumption is incorrect, as the country’s policy is stipulated by sane ayatollahs and not mad people that would compromise the safety and position of the country at the slightest opportunity. Further, Waltz argues that opponents of Iranian’s agenda to acquire nuclear weapons propose that the country would use the weaponry for terrorism purposes. The argument is based on the first assumption of irrational decision making, which suggests that the weapons would be used on the offensive.
Essentially, Israel is Iran’s most hated country, owing to the way it goes against its opponents and any other country that tries to attain nuclear strength like it does. Thus, it is assumed that Iran would wage war against Israel and its supporters if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Waltz opines that it is not possible to strike Israel, as any attempts for Iran to do so would mean that it is willing to compromise everything valuable to the country.
Further, it is not possible that the country would want to gain the wrath of the United States as an opponent in war should it take such an action. Therefore, to argue that Iran would use the weapons to support terror activities is also far-fetched, as the country is very rational. Waltz suggests that Iran would not take up such an activity without being discovered. As it is, the country would not put its efforts to waste by handing over its most powerful weapon to a group that is not manageable.
While Waltz argues that there are numerous reasons why Iran should own nuclear weapons, Sokolski refutes the arguments by citing Iran as a potential danger. Essentially, Iran would even become more dangerous to the United States and its allies due to the United States interfering with Iran’s affairs. In effect, ownership of nuclear power would not only give a license of ownership to Iran, but also perpetuate nuclear proliferation in the region as the other countries like Syria and Turkey would also desire to acquire the power. Further, it would lead to an escalation of the oil prices in the region, particularly in Iran. Sokolski suggests that one of the things that Iran has done since time immemorial is trying to get power and ownership of the Middle East region so that it can mitigate the influence of the United States.
One way of making this possible would be using its resources as a crucial oil supplier. Thus, ownership of the nuclear weapons would enhance Iran’s position in threatening other countries exploiting oil in the Gulf and at the Strait of Hormuz so that it can be an independent owner of the oil reserves. Overall, Sokolski opines that ownership of nuclear weapons would accelerate the position of Iran against the United States at war, and gain the influence of its allies in the Middle East. It is no doubt that Iran would mishandle the new found power owing to its previous behaviors of supporting terror activities. Therefore, it is no different that Iran would exploit its ownership of nuclear power by engaging terror groups in attacking the United States, as they would now have more power and sophisticated weapons.
I do not support that Iran should be given the privilege to own nuclear weapons. My decision stems from their previous conduct and support of terrorist activities over the years. Further, it is possible that such ownership would increase radicalization and terrorism, owing to a strict belief in jihadist activities, just like the Shia in Syria, whom Iran has been supporting for a long time. In effect, Iran cannot be trusted with such weapons of mass destruction.
Currently, there are ongoing talks about Iran nuclear program, though Iran is showing less flexibility on issues. The talks are an indication of a possible nuclear deal, given that the negotiators are insisting that the centrifuges be limited. However, the United States insists that the sanctions placed on Iran should be lifted gradually to allow the United States’ intervention in Iran’s matters, such as the nuclear power issue. In conclusion, therefore, Iran should not be permitted to own nuclear weapons as it is likely to use the power as a source of harm than good.