Could Iran Be The Next International Crisis?

During the U.S. election process, Joe Biden made that statement that President-elect Barack Obama would be tested with an international crisis, opening the door for nations to cause strife throughout the world. In time since that comment, Israel was forced to defend themselves against radical terrorists and Russia closed off gas lines that transported vital gas to other countries. However, there have been some – including China, North Korea and Iran – who have not begun their tests.

For many years, Iran has been wanting to be a part of the elite who are armed with a nuclear arsenal. With holding a high level of influence in the Middle East, it would come as no surprise that a nuclear armed Iran would quiet the numerous tensions in the area. So, one would then ask how could they quiet tensions.

At YaleGlobal, Arch Roberts Jr. offers an answer in saying[1]:

[quote]The model Iran may follow is China, which pursues a policy best described by Jeffrey Lewis and others as “minimum deterrence.” Apart from fielding the largest army in the world, China maintains perhaps 200 nuclear weapons and declares a no-first-use policy. China enjoys a level of respect and consideration Iran’s leaders have never enjoyed, but to which the logically aspire.[/quote]

Certainly this concept of “minimum deterrence” could be Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s agenda for his country. As proud and as ancient the nation of Iran is, they have continued to be a subject of Western meddling.[2] In so much that, during the election process, Obama made clear he would be willing to negotiate without preconditions with the Iranian government over its nuclear ambitions.[3] Certainly, this communication would be an understanding that a nuclear possessing Iran would be to avoid conflict through deterrence.

As far as communication to this point, Iran has been able to communicate one thing: They are within 6 months to a year from obtaining enough enriched uranium for nuclear weaponry.[4]

How has Iran obtained fuel for their uranium enrichment program?

Mr. Roberts at YaleGlobal says[5]:

[quote]The fuel for its first nuclear reactor at Bushehr [was] provided by Russia, with a requirement that spent fuel, full of weapons-usable plutonium, will be returned to Russia. Plans for future reactor construction are well in the distance. So the non-bomb uranium Iran has produced to date has no purpose besides that of a nuclear “breakout” option: kick out the inspectors, run the uranium through the centrifuges several more times, work on missiles and other delivery means, and finish up with a couple of bombs.[/quote]

With Iran diligently working toward acquiring enough enriched uranium, and a newly elected Barack Obama, communication lines seem more important than ever before. As Iran looks to be the most important problem the Administration faces, the people of Iran are communicating one thing: They want international integration rather than isolation.[6]

As the culture of Iran feels threatened by globalization, one way to open talks with Iran would be to provide external assistance to drive reform internally.[7] Diplomatically speaking, this approach would put much needed pressure on Iran from within. As Reagan was influential in bringing down the wall, Obama could bring a voice to the people of Iran that they have never experienced before. Iranians need greater opportunity to interact with the international community, as history has shown that people-to-people exchanges have served as the backbone of the promotion of democracy.[8]

If Iran was to adopt a more democratic society, its influential stance in the Middle East would be heightened beyond measure and would be on a more equal playing field with larger nations such as Russia, China and the United States. These nations have gained super status, not by making unattainable sanctions, but by taking a step-by-step approach. By attaining a higher position, Iran must also adopt a give-and-take approach.

In a give-and-take step-by-step take on things, this is not by any means an answer to all the problems that Iran and the U.S. may encounter, but a more diplomatic way of things. Far too many people forget that the people of Iran are the ones affected. A major level of success for the incoming Administration, like the Reagan Administration, must take firm but diplomatic approach.
[1][2][5] [url=http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=11793 t=_blank]http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=11793[/url]
[3][4] [url=http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2008/15/berman.php t=_blank]http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2008/15/berman.php[/url]
[6][8] [url=http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2008/15/denehy.php t=_blank]http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2008/15/denehy.php[/url]
[7] [url=http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0105_middle_east_memo.aspx t=_blank]http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/0105_middle_east_memo.aspx[/url]