May 30, 2016

Homework Help: college english

Posted by christy on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 10:42am.

Please help revise !! thank u sooo much!!

Direct military action against Iran would only agitate the Middle East particularly Islamic governed countries. Disturbing this region would damage Americaís interest towards the fight against terrorism. Consequently, increasing the threat of terroristís attacks against the United States and its allies. Military action would also encourage movements of support and unity for the current regime in Iran, thus further indoctrinating Anti-American influence.
In addition, Iraq and Afghanistan are important interests to the United States. Preventing Iran from a nuclear program through military force would encourage Iran, to retaliate by making things difficult for the United States. The current attempt of nation building in both countries cannot be undermined through Iran creating challenges to block U.S. efforts. The United States cannot afford a regime change in Iran. Hence, its current resources are allocated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nevertheless, the United States efforts should not include eliminating Iranís regime. Not because the United State lacks the capability of eliminating a regime like in Iraq, but rather the needed resources to do so are much higher. Thus, Hemmer explains that Iran is much larger and in some way a more nationalistic nation than Iraq. An obligation like that goes beyond Americaís resources. Eliminating the regime is not the challenge. However, installing a new government is an expensive test. In addition, the United States military action for regime change is extremely more dangerous in Iran than in Iraq.
Indeed, a military approach against the regime can in fact induce Iran to use its nuclear weapons, against the United States in order to defend itself from regime overthrow. Even so, Hemmer exclaims that it is now common within the international community that once a government acquires nuclear weapons, regime change by an external actor is no longer an option. Hence, the risk is too high. Iran then would even feel justified as regards to its last hope for survival under United States invasion.
As a result, the United States must use patient diplomacy in dealing with Iranís nuclear program. According to Hemmer, the United States must set in place policy alternatives than preventive military action or regime changes. Moreover, a better policy must include deterrence, containment and engagement of Iranís government nuclear weapons program. The United States must engage in policy that will discourage Iran from not using its nuclear weapons under any circumstances. In fact, the United States main anxiety is the thought that Iranís nuclear weapons can be used against the United States or its allies. Nuclear deterrence is a strategy that can eliminate the threat of nuclear retaliation against the United States. The threat of obliteration as a result of American retaliation is a powerful deterrent.
The power of nuclear deterrence lies in the fact that the costs of a nuclear exchange are devastating. Thus, in addition, this suggest that to a certain level Iranís leaders are rational enough to understand that any use of nuclear weapons against U.S or its allies would result in an overwhelming and unacceptable response in the global community. Iranian leaderís use of deterrence demonstrates a realist notion among Iran leaders in its actions to protect national interests. For example, Iran supported the American intervention in Afghanistan allowing the United States the use of airfields and ports. Thus, Iran engaged in foreign policy steering away from the religious ideologies and more towards national interest. Therefore Iranian leaders demonstrate sufficient rationality to understand the use of nuclear weapons against America would not be in their national interests.
Moreover, the United States strategy toward a nuclear Iran should be a policy of containment. Containment will prevent Iran from using its nuclear status to increase its authority in the region. It is important for the United States to implement a containment policy rather than military action and not allow Iranís nuclear capability to coerce diplomacy against the United States or allies. Within the region Iranís decision making lies in its national security and the requirement of continuing its status quo of a historical superpower in the Middle East.
Still, rather than the United States isolating Iran from the global economy it must take the initiative to engage Iran in the global market. Hemmer suggests that this can establish a direct diplomatic relation and persuade Iranís involvement in the global economy. Therefore the United States should take the initiative to engage Iran in international relations, while improving United States long term national security. Economic sanctions against Iran can be useful in dissuading the development of nuclear weapons, but this will not move forward US foreign policy interests.
Furthermore, the United States strategy toward a nuclear armed Iran should focus on convincing Iranís neighbors that the American commitment to the security remains strong. The American strategy regarding regional allies must focus on assuring individual state that as long as Iran is contained, the United States will not take any military action. It is clear that Americaís strategy toward a nuclear armed Iran should be the development of a security style based on deterrence and containment. Instead, of the United States perusing sanctions against Iran and isolating it from the global market , the strategy of deterrence, containment, engagement, and reassurance provides the structure to achieve Americaís long term regional objectives. This will minimizes disruptions to the international oil flow, Iranís regional authority, stabilizing US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and countering global war on terror.

Answer This Question

First Name:
School Subject:

Related Questions

More Related Questions