Since 2009, Iran has been in the global spotlight because of its controversial actions regarding its nuclear program. Placed in the middle of one of the most volatile regions of the world and possessing an uneasy military and diplomatic history, Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear capabilities has unsurprisingly sparked worry and anxiety in the Western world. The country’s leaders have claimed that they are creating fuel for nuclear power, while Israel, the UN and the U.S. suspect the fuel will be used for nuclear weapons once the process of creation is complete. The controversy has resulted in the placement of various sanctions by the U.S. and UN on Iran, directly affecting the country’s economy in detrimental ways. Even with these crippling sanctions, Israel has repeatedly pushed for further action to force Iran to completely halt the progress of their program, worrying about the repercussions if Iran is able to develop their program to extent where it could be used to generate atomic weapons. However, Iran has leverage over the U.S. because of America’s significant reliance upon oil imports from the Middle Eastern country. Iran has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. and Europe take further action against its nuclear program. (Iran, 1) The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway that acts as an entrance to the Persian Gulf, and one-fifth of all the crude oil traded worldwide passed through the Strait in 2011.
If closed by means of Iranian military blockade, the global market of oil would be majorly disrupted, resulting in incredibly high prices that would damage world economies. (Strait, 1) In August 2012, inspectors of Iran’s nuclear program reported that the country had already installed three-quarters of the centrifuges needed to generate nuclear fuel, a wake-up call to the UN and the U.S. Since 2009, diplomatic attempts to resolve the issue between the UN and Iran have been unsuccessful, with both sides being apprehensive and oppositional. While Israel warns that the program will be capable of producing nuclear weapons by spring or summer of 2013 without military intervention by itself or the U.S., the issue remains as to how to deal with Iran without sparking an all-out war or the damaging of the world economy. (Iran, 1)
Aerial View of Iran's Centrifuges from New York Times Article on Iran's Nuclear Program The policy of the U.S. towards Iran prefers peace over military action. However, UN conferences and meetings involving and focusing on Iran have proven that diplomatic resolutions to the nuclear issue have so far been mainly ineffective. Attitudes have shifted back and forth, with Iran complying with UN and U.S. requests at one point and then withdrawing and remaining oppositional at another. The main objective of America’s efforts is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through the use of their own fuel and means. This includes employing America’s economic, political, and if necessary, military power to hinder Iran from accomplishing this. In an idyllic world, military effort would be the last option, as peace is always preferred over violence. However, the primary goal of the policy towards Iran is to protect the safety of the U.S. and its allies. Military force will be necessary if Iran openly and completely violates the sanctions placed onto the country and makes a mad dash to develop a nuclear weapon. (Should, 1) Other actions by Iran would constitute U.S. military intervention, such as the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. (Strait, 1) The policy aims to protect the Western world from the danger of Iran’s possible atomic efforts, while not producing bloodshed or global and political turmoil if it can be avoided through diplomatic means by Iran’s compliance. The current policy of the U.S. towards the Iran issue conforms to my own views. (Should, 1) My opponent, Mitt Romney, claims that my actions and decisions towards Iran have been too docile and ineffective.
He says that if he is elected, Iran “will not have a nuclear weapon,” while the country will if I am reelected. I have stated before that I will take the necessary military action towards Iran if they begin developing a nuclear weapon, which is a possibility. However, unlike my Republican opponent, I realize that such important decisions cannot be made off of a hunch or off of indeterminable means. To this point in time, Iran has not openly shown proof of using their nuclear fuel to construct a nuclear weapon. Mr. Romney also fails to address the unavoidable repercussions that the UN and our country face in the event of a military effort. (Should, 1) The blockading of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian military would immediately raise oil and gas prices by approximately fifty percent. (Strait, 1) In an economy that is slowly recovering, spiking oil prices would be horribly detrimental to the common American. Also, my opponent fails to recognize that China, arguably one of the greatest powers of the modern world, is Iran’s number one buyer of their oil. China has said that it is strongly against an America-based military initiative, as it would disrupt their supply and market. (Iran, 1) Thinking globally, the U.S. needs to be on the best terms that it can be with a nation as powerful as China. The U.S. remains to be engaged in active military operations in the Middle East, and the last things our country needs is another controversial military action under our belt. The recent drone strikes in Pakistan have already put America under fire for endangering the lives of civilians, and an immediate attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undoubtedly constitute further criticism. While my opponent wishes to act on whim and execute a hasty military operation against Iran without proper grounds and intent, I recognize the importance of peace and diplomatic resolution. My plan aims to preserve the safety of the U.S. while also dealing with Iran forcefully if necessary, while Mitt Romney’s would undoubtedly initiate thoughtless violence and political backlash for the U.S. and the world.
BARACK OBAMA - IRAN
Obama on Iran
Since 2009, Iran has been in the global spotlight because of its controversial actions regarding its nuclear program. Placed in the middle of one of the most volatile regions of the world and possessing an uneasy military and diplomatic history, Iran’s ambition to develop nuclear capabilities has unsurprisingly sparked worry and anxiety in the Western world. The country’s leaders have claimed that they are creating fuel for nuclear power, while Israel, the UN and the U.S. suspect the fuel will be used for nuclear weapons once the process of creation is complete. The controversy has resulted in the placement of various sanctions by the U.S. and UN on Iran, directly affecting the country’s economy in detrimental ways. Even with these crippling sanctions, Israel has repeatedly pushed for further action to force Iran to completely halt the progress of their program, worrying about the repercussions if Iran is able to develop their program to extent where it could be used to generate atomic weapons. However, Iran has leverage over the U.S. because of America’s significant reliance upon oil imports from the Middle Eastern country. Iran has also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. and Europe take further action against its nuclear program. (Iran, 1) The Strait of Hormuz is a waterway that acts as an entrance to the Persian Gulf, and one-fifth of all the crude oil traded worldwide passed through the Strait in 2011.
Space View of the Strait of Hormuz from a New York Times Article About the Waterway
If closed by means of Iranian military blockade, the global market of oil would be majorly disrupted, resulting in incredibly high prices that would damage world economies. (Strait, 1) In August 2012, inspectors of Iran’s nuclear program reported that the country had already installed three-quarters of the centrifuges needed to generate nuclear fuel, a wake-up call to the UN and the U.S. Since 2009, diplomatic attempts to resolve the issue between the UN and Iran have been unsuccessful, with both sides being apprehensive and oppositional. While Israel warns that the program will be capable of producing nuclear weapons by spring or summer of 2013 without military intervention by itself or the U.S., the issue remains as to how to deal with Iran without sparking an all-out war or the damaging of the world economy. (Iran, 1)
Aerial View of Iran's Centrifuges from New York Times Article on Iran's Nuclear Program
The policy of the U.S. towards Iran prefers peace over military action. However, UN conferences and meetings involving and focusing on Iran have proven that diplomatic resolutions to the nuclear issue have so far been mainly ineffective. Attitudes have shifted back and forth, with Iran complying with UN and U.S. requests at one point and then withdrawing and remaining oppositional at another. The main objective of America’s efforts is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through the use of their own fuel and means. This includes employing America’s economic, political, and if necessary, military power to hinder Iran from accomplishing this. In an idyllic world, military effort would be the last option, as peace is always preferred over violence. However, the primary goal of the policy towards Iran is to protect the safety of the U.S. and its allies. Military force will be necessary if Iran openly and completely violates the sanctions placed onto the country and makes a mad dash to develop a nuclear weapon. (Should, 1) Other actions by Iran would constitute U.S. military intervention, such as the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. (Strait, 1) The policy aims to protect the Western world from the danger of Iran’s possible atomic efforts, while not producing bloodshed or global and political turmoil if it can be avoided through diplomatic means by Iran’s compliance. The current policy of the U.S. towards the Iran issue conforms to my own views. (Should, 1)
My opponent, Mitt Romney, claims that my actions and decisions towards Iran have been too docile and ineffective.
He says that if he is elected, Iran “will not have a nuclear weapon,” while the country will if I am reelected. I have stated before that I will take the necessary military action towards Iran if they begin developing a nuclear weapon, which is a possibility. However, unlike my Republican opponent, I realize that such important decisions cannot be made off of a hunch or off of indeterminable means. To this point in time, Iran has not openly shown proof of using their nuclear fuel to construct a nuclear weapon. Mr. Romney also fails to address the unavoidable repercussions that the UN and our country face in the event of a military effort. (Should, 1) The blockading of the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian military would immediately raise oil and gas prices by approximately fifty percent. (Strait, 1) In an economy that is slowly recovering, spiking oil prices would be horribly detrimental to the common American. Also, my opponent fails to recognize that China, arguably one of the greatest powers of the modern world, is Iran’s number one buyer of their oil. China has said that it is strongly against an America-based military initiative, as it would disrupt their supply and market. (Iran, 1) Thinking globally, the U.S. needs to be on the best terms that it can be with a nation as powerful as China. The U.S. remains to be engaged in active military operations in the Middle East, and the last things our country needs is another controversial military action under our belt. The recent drone strikes in Pakistan have already put America under fire for endangering the lives of civilians, and an immediate attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undoubtedly constitute further criticism. While my opponent wishes to act on whim and execute a hasty military operation against Iran without proper grounds and intent, I recognize the importance of peace and diplomatic resolution. My plan aims to preserve the safety of the U.S. while also dealing with Iran forcefully if necessary, while Mitt Romney’s would undoubtedly initiate thoughtless violence and political backlash for the U.S. and the world.
Works Cited