KD00LS
May 5th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Well, I just finished my paper on comparing a past event to a current or recent one. Here she is. Tell me what you guys think. Keep in mind I'm a chemistry major not an english or history.:D
Kyle DiLeo
World History II
Final Report
Iran Strategy Concerning Nuclear Weapons Resembles Cold War
George Santayana once proclaimed that “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” With new age diplomacy, especially with foreign disputes and controversy, this concept applies a surprising number of times with conduct between countries, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. Some actions, more important and dangerous than others, should be further examined to see if the course of operation at hand is best for both sides. Recently in news, strategies over how to remove potentially dangerous weapons from the Middle East have sparked a lot of controversy and questions about which side, either Iran or the United States, is withholding or distorting information about this very serious topic. This paper will discuss the crisis between these two countries, background information on the Cold War that started between the Soviet Union and the United States, and how these two events link together.
All across the country, media has been broadcasting the problems the United States is facing concerning the Middle East and potentially dangerous and well known phrase, ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Recently a new topic arose, what to do about Iran and their nuclear weapons. The conflict started on April 26th, 2006. The Unites States claims to have knowledge about nuclear bombs and supplies to make them in Iran, and they want to take immediate action in removal or supervision of these weapons. Although there is no hard evidence that Iran has these weapons, “…according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, [Iran] has been successful in gradually blinding the agency’s inspectors, increasingly denying them access to crucial sites and steadfastly refusing to answer questions that look into suspected links between Iran’s civilian nuclear program and its military.” (Sanger 1) This and other similar evidence and reports is what drives the United States into believing that Iran is concealing the truth.
The United States has tried threats of “sanctions, including economic and transport measures or the severance of diplomatic relations.”(Freeman 1) These attempts at sanctions seem to have no demoralizing threat on Iran due to the fact that they have control and access to oil fields and refineries, which could paralyze the economy of the United States. As a member of OPEC, Iran can raise the oil barrel prices, or even refuse to sell to the United States and order a trade embargo. On April 17th, just after the fiasco reached a verbal altercation climax, oil prices reached $80 a barrel, which was a record high for an eight month period. With the threat of the well being of its own economy, the United States is almost powerless.
The thought of the U.S. even attempting to be involved in such a situation seems ludicrous compared to what is at stake with so little information, yet the notion of the possibility still lingers due to other reasons. Just like kids in a playground, Iran seems to be bragging to the United States on the progressiveness of their nuclear plan. Although the ‘plan’ seems to only involve technology concerning powering cities, the use of vocabulary and within context it seems as if Iran is flaunting a secret, but the United States has no probable cause to take military action. Iran uses terms such as ‘unstoppable’ and ‘irreversible’ to describe their progressiveness in nuclear technology, which seem somewhat threatening to an almost oblivious country on what their actual intentions are. Iran has not actually admitted to having weapons or the technology to create these weapons, but political analyzers of the situation claim that Iran is “…clearly drawing on the diplomatic playbook of a country that has – North Korea- to the point of boasting about, and perhaps exaggerating, its nuclear prowess in an effort to convince the West that its program is now unstoppable.” (Sanger 1)
To take a step back in time, we dwell on the post World War II relations between the West, mainly the Unites States, and the Soviet Union. The uneasy nuclear tension between these two superpowers caused a global stalemate. Using nuclear weapons as a means of trying to temporarily balance this situation, this conflict lasted decades. With both sides weighing equally on either side of the scale, it would only be a short period of time before different approaches to try and gain a step on the adversary. Events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which missiles were imported to Cuba and targeted at major U.S. cities, were attempts to either break the stalemate or bring victory to one side.
Although the more dangerous part of the Cold War involving active nuclear weapons and the influence and prevention of communism ended before the 1970’s, a lesser tension still survived up until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Politically, the western powers attempted to boycott Moscow from the Olympics due to the invasion and attempt of communist influence in Afghanistan. Although nuclear SS-20 missiles were created as a means to reignite the fire of the first part of the Cold War, N.A.T.O. created a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in order to disperse any military tension.
Like a virus, communism either had to spread or die. Due to the fact that it spread only to remote, and often thought of as weak countries, the Soviet Union didn’t have the funding to keep up with its military demands and the economy fell apart, spiraling into an economic depression. With the lack of funding, the Soviet Union could not possibly keep up with military technology of the western hemisphere, and had to take an imminent ‘defeat.’ The action taken by the Soviet Union “was ultimately Mikhail Gorbachev's decision, publicized in 1988, to repudiate the Brezhnev doctrine.” (Wikipedia 1)
These two events, when looked over briefly, seem to have little to no bearing between each other. In reality these two events have monumental similarities. The most important factor that both of these events share is that nuclear warfare remains as a key component in causing these international altercations. This staple in the two related events go to show that at all times, each nation is in a discreet arms race. No nation will allow for another to get an upper hand and become a threat to possibly even the rest of the world.
Another major similarity is the use of sanctions against each other in order to try and cut the moral legs out from each other. During the Cold War, actions such as the Berlin Blockage, the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the detonation of an atom bomb were all used as a mental and physical drain on the opposing nation. In the recent Iran strategy, the United States and Iran also plan on using sanctions in order to reduce the morality and drive of each other. The United States, and previously mentioned, has announced that it will not hesitate to impose trade embargos and blockades upon Iran and alliances. Iran refuted the idea by revealing that they can, at any given time, cut the massive oil supply off from the United States, rendering it progressively handicap as a nation.
Iran and the U.S. have come to a gridlock, attempting to “rewrite the rules on the fly, using every tool available” to try and gain an upper hand in a battle which seems to be impossible to gain political ground in. Considering the Cold War and how history has seemed to repeat itself once again, it only seems inevitable. (Sanger 1) Like a disease with no cure, when the problem, or Cold War, arose the first time and no real solution was compromised between the two nations, it was destined for another similar event to take place. The first time a nuclear stalemate ensued the world, it was by luck that no military action was used due to the lack of funding. Considering each nation during the current nuclear struggle is well funded, the outcome could be very different. A solution must be attained and agreed on by both side, or military action must be put in affect.
Works Cited
“Cold War.” Wikipedia. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War (29 Apr. 2006)
Fauclonbridge, Guy. “US expect to press for sanctions against Iran.” The Boston Globe. 2006. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/04/18/us_expected_to_press_for_sanctions_against_iran/ (18 Apr. 2006)
Freeman, Simon. “US renews push for sanctions against Iran.” Times Online. 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2134784,00.html (14 Apr. 2006)
Sanger, David E.; Sciolino, Elaine. “Iran Strategy: Cold War Echo.” The New York Times. 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (30 Apr. 2006)
Kyle DiLeo
World History II
Final Report
Iran Strategy Concerning Nuclear Weapons Resembles Cold War
George Santayana once proclaimed that “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” With new age diplomacy, especially with foreign disputes and controversy, this concept applies a surprising number of times with conduct between countries, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. Some actions, more important and dangerous than others, should be further examined to see if the course of operation at hand is best for both sides. Recently in news, strategies over how to remove potentially dangerous weapons from the Middle East have sparked a lot of controversy and questions about which side, either Iran or the United States, is withholding or distorting information about this very serious topic. This paper will discuss the crisis between these two countries, background information on the Cold War that started between the Soviet Union and the United States, and how these two events link together.
All across the country, media has been broadcasting the problems the United States is facing concerning the Middle East and potentially dangerous and well known phrase, ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Recently a new topic arose, what to do about Iran and their nuclear weapons. The conflict started on April 26th, 2006. The Unites States claims to have knowledge about nuclear bombs and supplies to make them in Iran, and they want to take immediate action in removal or supervision of these weapons. Although there is no hard evidence that Iran has these weapons, “…according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, [Iran] has been successful in gradually blinding the agency’s inspectors, increasingly denying them access to crucial sites and steadfastly refusing to answer questions that look into suspected links between Iran’s civilian nuclear program and its military.” (Sanger 1) This and other similar evidence and reports is what drives the United States into believing that Iran is concealing the truth.
The United States has tried threats of “sanctions, including economic and transport measures or the severance of diplomatic relations.”(Freeman 1) These attempts at sanctions seem to have no demoralizing threat on Iran due to the fact that they have control and access to oil fields and refineries, which could paralyze the economy of the United States. As a member of OPEC, Iran can raise the oil barrel prices, or even refuse to sell to the United States and order a trade embargo. On April 17th, just after the fiasco reached a verbal altercation climax, oil prices reached $80 a barrel, which was a record high for an eight month period. With the threat of the well being of its own economy, the United States is almost powerless.
The thought of the U.S. even attempting to be involved in such a situation seems ludicrous compared to what is at stake with so little information, yet the notion of the possibility still lingers due to other reasons. Just like kids in a playground, Iran seems to be bragging to the United States on the progressiveness of their nuclear plan. Although the ‘plan’ seems to only involve technology concerning powering cities, the use of vocabulary and within context it seems as if Iran is flaunting a secret, but the United States has no probable cause to take military action. Iran uses terms such as ‘unstoppable’ and ‘irreversible’ to describe their progressiveness in nuclear technology, which seem somewhat threatening to an almost oblivious country on what their actual intentions are. Iran has not actually admitted to having weapons or the technology to create these weapons, but political analyzers of the situation claim that Iran is “…clearly drawing on the diplomatic playbook of a country that has – North Korea- to the point of boasting about, and perhaps exaggerating, its nuclear prowess in an effort to convince the West that its program is now unstoppable.” (Sanger 1)
To take a step back in time, we dwell on the post World War II relations between the West, mainly the Unites States, and the Soviet Union. The uneasy nuclear tension between these two superpowers caused a global stalemate. Using nuclear weapons as a means of trying to temporarily balance this situation, this conflict lasted decades. With both sides weighing equally on either side of the scale, it would only be a short period of time before different approaches to try and gain a step on the adversary. Events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which missiles were imported to Cuba and targeted at major U.S. cities, were attempts to either break the stalemate or bring victory to one side.
Although the more dangerous part of the Cold War involving active nuclear weapons and the influence and prevention of communism ended before the 1970’s, a lesser tension still survived up until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Politically, the western powers attempted to boycott Moscow from the Olympics due to the invasion and attempt of communist influence in Afghanistan. Although nuclear SS-20 missiles were created as a means to reignite the fire of the first part of the Cold War, N.A.T.O. created a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in order to disperse any military tension.
Like a virus, communism either had to spread or die. Due to the fact that it spread only to remote, and often thought of as weak countries, the Soviet Union didn’t have the funding to keep up with its military demands and the economy fell apart, spiraling into an economic depression. With the lack of funding, the Soviet Union could not possibly keep up with military technology of the western hemisphere, and had to take an imminent ‘defeat.’ The action taken by the Soviet Union “was ultimately Mikhail Gorbachev's decision, publicized in 1988, to repudiate the Brezhnev doctrine.” (Wikipedia 1)
These two events, when looked over briefly, seem to have little to no bearing between each other. In reality these two events have monumental similarities. The most important factor that both of these events share is that nuclear warfare remains as a key component in causing these international altercations. This staple in the two related events go to show that at all times, each nation is in a discreet arms race. No nation will allow for another to get an upper hand and become a threat to possibly even the rest of the world.
Another major similarity is the use of sanctions against each other in order to try and cut the moral legs out from each other. During the Cold War, actions such as the Berlin Blockage, the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the detonation of an atom bomb were all used as a mental and physical drain on the opposing nation. In the recent Iran strategy, the United States and Iran also plan on using sanctions in order to reduce the morality and drive of each other. The United States, and previously mentioned, has announced that it will not hesitate to impose trade embargos and blockades upon Iran and alliances. Iran refuted the idea by revealing that they can, at any given time, cut the massive oil supply off from the United States, rendering it progressively handicap as a nation.
Iran and the U.S. have come to a gridlock, attempting to “rewrite the rules on the fly, using every tool available” to try and gain an upper hand in a battle which seems to be impossible to gain political ground in. Considering the Cold War and how history has seemed to repeat itself once again, it only seems inevitable. (Sanger 1) Like a disease with no cure, when the problem, or Cold War, arose the first time and no real solution was compromised between the two nations, it was destined for another similar event to take place. The first time a nuclear stalemate ensued the world, it was by luck that no military action was used due to the lack of funding. Considering each nation during the current nuclear struggle is well funded, the outcome could be very different. A solution must be attained and agreed on by both side, or military action must be put in affect.
Works Cited
“Cold War.” Wikipedia. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War (29 Apr. 2006)
Fauclonbridge, Guy. “US expect to press for sanctions against Iran.” The Boston Globe. 2006. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/04/18/us_expected_to_press_for_sanctions_against_iran/ (18 Apr. 2006)
Freeman, Simon. “US renews push for sanctions against Iran.” Times Online. 2006. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2134784,00.html (14 Apr. 2006)
Sanger, David E.; Sciolino, Elaine. “Iran Strategy: Cold War Echo.” The New York Times. 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (30 Apr. 2006)