Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Growing Fear of Nuclear Iran

Amit Pyakurel - 4/15/2007

Nuclear disaster is unimaginable, but threats could still be tackled peacefully. As there has been one step forward in terms of alleviating tension upon the North Korea's nuclear program, following the recent talks that concluded with some initial positive signs, there hasn't been any satisfying outcome regarding the Iran's nuclear program that is believed to be gaining momentum, "in a dangerous manner," perceivably towards the process of building the nuclear weapons as believed by the opposers.

At the one side we have debates that who should and who shouldn't have the right for nuclear weapons. Besides this, one thing appears quite evident and fearsome at the same time. Looking at the seemingly growing competition of the countries on acquiring nuclear weapons, be it by the "rogue" states as termed by the West or by other states, we might be heading towards a more vulnerable world regarding the protection of mass number of civilian lives from the nuclear disaster. One could not even comprehend the possible humanitarian disaster that could be caused by the nuclear weapons, be it by accident or by intention.

The world has already witnessed the huge humanitarian catastrophe in the two World wars, and the subsequent Cold War when the history observed indescribable calamity of nuclear bombs. But yet, we not able to breathe our sigh of lasting relief as we still foresee the imminent danger of nuclear arsenal hanging like a bare sword above our vulnerable heads. It's estimated that there are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and among them more than one thousand of them are ready to be launched in a short notice. It's known that there are over 400 reactors in warships and nuclear submarines circulating the earth.

According to the Greenpeace, more than 2,000 tests of nuclear weapons till date has resulted into regional and global contamination. People living near the test sites have suffered the illnesses like cancers, stillbirths, miscarriages and other health hazards, and they continue to suffer even today. In order to protect themselves from such contamination and exposure to the radioactive materials, many people had to leave their hometown or islands.

Though some analysts suggest that the threat of the nuclear weapons has become predominantly reduced after the Cold War, there still some emerging factors to be feared. The "threat" from the comparatively radical or "rogue" states has always been prominent, but it may be equally worthwhile to take heed on one of the most tangible cause for these nations to contest on nuclear proliferation. This cause could be the virtual approval given by the U.S. and its allies for the states like India, Pakistan, and Israel, for them to proliferate nuclear energy and even acquire nuclear weapons. If the West had refuted and averted these "non-enemy" nations to acquire the nuclear bombs before, then the current escalation of proliferation from the comparatively radical and less-democratic countries like Iran and North Korea wouldn't have ensued so vibrantly.

The attitude that "no nation that itself acquires nuclear weapons has the right to oppose the same for other nations" is undoubtedly posing as a fundamental hindrance to convince or to pressurize the newly emerged nuclear developers or the "probable" nuclear weapon developers in future. This has set an ambiguous interpretations, as on what strong ground the new threat of possibility of acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran or North Korea should be refuted and confronted, observing that the other nations already having nuclear weapons had in some extent discredited the international non-proliferation norms while building their own weapons?

We may not be ethically right that every other nation, moreover those having stern undemocratic setup or radical identity, should acquire nuclear weapons because some other nations have already acquired it by not adhering significantly to the non-proliferation treaty. But, as other nations who had acquired nuclear weapons in history as per their not-so-disciplined manner towards the nuclear proliferation treaty , it has definitely added challenge to refute the newly emerging nuclear threats. Yes, there is a threat that Iran might develop nuclear weapons.

But, Iran has always refuted this claim through its high officials, including the president Ahmadinejad. And recently, the Iran's Secretary of Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, reiterated that "Iran does not intent to produce nuclear weapons," in an interview given to the German daily, Suddeutsche Zeitung. Iran has also recently hinted that it is prepared to "limit" its nuclear program "to a certain level" and the regime's officials has also claimed that "Iran is ready for the negotiation." However, it's not being enthusiastically heeded by the U.S. and the lingering distrust towards the Iran's "real" aspiration still remains high.

If a diplomatic solution to the Iran's nuclear crisis is the significant focus, then the U.S. alone may not stand well despite of having the super military might. Moreover, the camaraderie between the U.S. and Iran doesn't look easily feasible regarding the U.S. authority's less flexible approach towards Iran and intricate enmity between these two nations. For a peaceful and diplomatic way-out, the key players like Russia, China, and India could play a big part. And yet, non of these nations have green signaled for a military offensive against Iran.