Mediating Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Weapons in Iran

               Thankfully, the world has never known nuclear war, though eight sovereign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. These nations reside outside of the Middle East, but should Iran gain nuclear capabilities, the dynamic could shift dramatically. There are many potential problems with the Iran becoming nuclearized, especially regarding Iran’s oil stakes and vehement hatred of Israel and the United States. However, there is hope that the widely known theory of mutually assured destruction could help mitigate this threat. International relations scholar postulate that reciprocated nuclear weapons prevent any drastic action, as even ‘mad men’ in history have failed to detonate truly world ending weapons. Sadly, the threat of weapons in Iran oversteps the supposed benefits of mutually assured destruction, and any kind of nuclear weapons in this region will have negative repercussions for the United States.

                Iran, one of the strongest powers in the Middle East, is already a considerable source of conflict for the United States. In Henry Sokolski’s article Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran, he argues that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, they will encourage nuclear programs in neighboring countries, raise oil prices, and increase terrorism in the region. These results pose a variety of risks to the United States for obvious reasons, and Iran’s overt and passionate hatred of Israel is yet another cause for concern. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not just Iran, would severely upset the balance of power and influence of the United States, as well as escalate the numerous terrorist threats in the region. There are obvious concerns regarding nuclear weapons in Iran, and it is definitely an issue requiring delicacy and attentiveness.

                The theory of mutually assured destruction maintains that two nations with similar nuclear capabilities will be frozen in a state of inactivity, as any acts of aggression will be matched and the world may never be the same. Integrating this theory with nuclear weapons in Iran is interesting, as Iran currently does not have any nuclear weapons, let alone an arsenal similar in nature to the United States. Part of the MAD theory is having second strike capabilities, or the capacity for a nation to launch an offensive attack after being attacked itself. Iran is nowhere near close to having automatic second strike capabilities, which threatens the delicate balance of MAD. This puts the United States in an advantageous position, as our arsenal is incredibly impressive and definitely superior to any Iran could develop in the near future.

                Sadly, the negative repercussions of Iran’s potential nuclear arsenal greatly span beyond the physical damage of nuclear weapons. Iran has massive political influence in the Middle East, and acquiring nuclear weapons could be the catalyst for many Middle Eastern countries nuclearizing. Continually, Iran surpassing Saudi Arabia in weapons could upset the balance of OPEC and drive oil prices up, which would severely upset the US economy. Finally, terrorism, the perpetual threat to the west, would inevitably strengthen through nuclear weapons in this region. Overall, MAD may ensure that Iran will not physically attack the United States with nuclear weapons, but the economic and political repercussions of WMDs in Iran will have vast effects on international relations in the region.            

Importance of the structure of the UN General Assembly

       The United Nations General Assembly in my opinion has a very efficient structure. Each member gets one vote. Matters of importance need to have 2/3 vote to determine a solution and all other less important matters just need majority vote. The problem I see with this is that what actually determines weather a matter is important or non important?

        They meet once a year for two weeks, in that time each member of the committee has a chance to address something. I personally think that once a year for two weeks is not enough to be 100% efficient. I believe that twice a year for two weeks at a time would be a lot more efficient. In my opinion the positives from extra time outweighs the factor of the increasing cost of doing so. 

Also I believe there should be another committee that decides whither topics are important or not. This could greatly impact the decisions of things due to the different vote criteria. 

       I believe that the current structure of the United Nations general assembly is very efficient and needs minimal changes in order to make it more efficient. I believe that the frequency of the times they meet would be the absolute best change that could be made. This change would increase efficiency drastically.

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian Intervention can be defined as a states use of force to stop a mass atrocity. The three pillars of the “responsibility to protect” are first, it is the sovereign states responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens. Second, the international community has a responsibility to assist the other states that chose to intervene. Third, the international community must use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes.  

As kind as this form of intervention may seem, states also have ulterior motives. One theory is they only want to spread their own democratic ideals. Although many would believe that is not a harmful goal to have, there are certain consequences that may follow. Diplomatic interventions aggravate anti-American sentiments and encourage terrorist hostility. Terrorist organizations thrive in poverty stricken areas due to the growing dislike of their corrupt governments. When we provide funds to support their governments, we quickly become their next target of hated. It is also hard to take away funds once they are given, even if the leaders use them un-democratically. In a way, American taxpayers are funding a dictatorship.

Another ulterior motive may be that states are only looking to personally gain from assisting foreign countries in need. Of course many underdeveloped countries are in need of our support, but countries that we aid are not just chosen out of a hat. Many are chosen because of their resources such as Bosnia for their minerals and arable land, and Iraq for their petroleum and natural gas. I see humanitarian intervention as the United States way of buying the government’s official support. This backfires on the United States when the government does not share their riches with their citizens.

The essay titled, “Achieving Diplomatic Goals through Humanitarian Means,” by University of Maryland student Michaela Gramzinski created a simple solution to prevent these harmful effects of humanitarian intervention. She says, “To gain popular support of U.S.-funded programs, programs must be centered on community demands, and ultimately must be run by the community.” In other words, funding local programs in poverty stricken areas would achieve more than throwing money at corrupt governments. This policy would also work towards preventing terrorist groups from forming. Aiding local communities “creates a generally positive association between the humanitarian programs and the U.S. as a donor.” Also, there is a possibility that the children whose community was helped would one day grow up and work as a government official who backs the United States. Gaining support of the people through soft power is more effective than any other militaristic or economic action we could take. Community programs that reflect the interests of the common people can start the growth of democracy in foreign states.