Introduction
Today’s international system as a whole has a distinct and independent existence and identity of its constituent units and creates particular behavioural constraints. As far as the foreign policy of the countries is concerned, national security is regarded as a high priority. Therefore, the realists and neo-realists place a special emphasis on the issue of “security.” They believe that the security of the system of governing is built on the basis of power. Kenneth Waltz says: “the international system is a system in which all its members seek to increase their power and since all of them follow the same path then one cannot have his power increased and dominated the system.” (Askarkhani, 2004: 273)
In order to maintain security, governments would try to achieve tools for defending themselves, sometimes get united, and even fight with each other. But these activities and actions can cause more insecurity; this is due to the arms race and the reciprocal actions to which other governments will recourse in order to maintain their security. (Moshirzadeh, 2004: 83)
The distribution of power within the international system would create a hierarchy that determines the position of each country. Different behavioural constraints are imposed on various international systems according to their nature and structure and subsequently, the autonomy and freedom of action in such countries will differ; on the other hand, the nature of the political system of countries and the legitimizing ideology and orientation of their foreign policy, have a decisive role in determining the limits of the international system for them.
Security has become the main concern of governments in the international system of anarchy; because the principle of survival is a prerequisite for achieving any other goal. Thus, recognizing the nature of the international system would shed light on many realities about the capabilities and deficiencies of each unit of the international system. For example, it becomes clear why a government like the Zionist regime can acquire nuclear weapons whereas Iran faces a challenge in terms of having the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not the only country that peruses nuclear technology; there is a long list of such countries: The United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Pakistan, Japan, China... are officially working on the civilian nuclear energy program as well as the military nuclear weapons program. Nowadays, there are 31,000 nuclear warheads in the world of which a total of 14,000 warheads are operational and 441 nuclear power plants are producing plutonium. (Mousavi, 2006: 18) The countries and number of nuclear warheads they possess are as follows: The United States: 2200; Russia: 2,800 to 3,000; the United Kingdom: 150 to 200; France: 200 to 300; the Israeli regime: 100 to 200; China: 200; Pakistan: 60 to 100; India: 60 to 100; North Korea: 5 to 10.
Today, the world’s public opinion is seeking a reasonable answer to the question of why Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are subject to security and the case was referred to the United Nations Security Council? Why the Zionist regime has acquired nuclear weapons contrary to international standards and is perusing nuclear programs without international monitoring or verification? And why great powers and international assemblies do not show any reaction despite the Israeli Prime Minister admitting that this regime possesses nuclear weapons? Moreover, the question is that why great powers are trying to prevent Iran from acquiring peaceful nuclear technology whereas this country has been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and remained adherent to this agreement for a long time.
As long as the issue of security in Iran is concerned, some believe that the situation is necessitating the acquisition of nuclear weapons. But the security threats around Iran are such that nuclear weapons will not easily diminish them and even they might cause the country to experience the situation of vulnerability. In this situation, reaching a level of nuclear capability may be regarded as a policy that should be perused. In addition, the Iranian nuclear program has set the setting for having interactions with the West and made it possible for Iran to act on the international level. West is now ready to interact with Iran and the main driving force of such a decision is the nuclear program of the country. In the meantime, a strategy that would simultaneously address the goals of the nuclear activities and the medium-term goals of the country’s foreign policy is adopting the policy of an all-out interaction. (Hadian, 2010: 181)
The nature of the international system and its structure through which the governments or international actors should work together, play a decisive role in the fulfillment of the objectives of the states; because it is the nature of the distribution of power on the global scene that determines the sources, origins and level of threats, the possibility of deterrence, security issues, the possibility of the intensification of the crisis, type of military operation, and the importance of having or lacking allies.
The Different Strategies of the Zionist Regime and Iran and the Different Perspectives of the Great Powers
Zionist regime has continued to support the great powers in light of its political, economic, and economic involvement in the current international system. As a cultural-political manifestation of the West in the region, an informal NATO member and strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East where there is a potential for crisis and destabilization, the Zionist regime is a part of this system in the eyes of the world’s ruling system, and this regime should be equipped with the nuclear weapons in an attempt to moderate the behaviour of hostile countries with respect to the ruling system.
Relations between the United States and the Zionist regime have been unsurpassed in terms of complexity, strength and political implications for domestic and international policies of both countries. In fact, these relations have been formed on the basis of providing a balance of threats with the aim of confronting the governments that are regarded as the most threatening. (Jafari, 2007: 104-120)
As a result, the superpower, the United States, has given a part of its responsibility of exercising military power to the Zionist regime so that the global capitalist system will become stabilized, and this regime has successfully prevented the victories of nationalist and Islamist movements in Lebanon, Jordan, Yemen, and Palestine. (Green, 2007: 222) The integration between the United States and Israel is formed based on a balance of threats to confront states that they consider as the sources of threats. (Jafari, 2009: 104-135)
The United States-Israel agreement on energy cooperation signed on February 22, 2000, paved the way for Israeli scientists to use the nuclear technology of the United States. Based on this treaty, both governments are required to exchange equipment, experiments and promote other types of cooperation. The agreement will not make any changes to the policy of the Zionist regime regarding “NPT” or another military nuclear program of this regime. According to the agreement, the United States would announce that since the Zionist regime is at risk in the Middle East, hence it will not join and sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (Jafari, 2009: 137)
The Zionist military capabilities have provided this regime with the opportunity to assist the United States intervention forces in the Middle East and serve as a key factor with respect to the United States interests in the Middle East. (Mitchell-Bard, 1998: 4-7)
The Zionist regime has been trying to expand its nuclear relationship with many countries and organizations in recent years. These efforts have been carried out partly with the aim of breaking down Israel’s nuclear isolation, as well as its need to attract foreign aid in order to ensure the safety of activities in the Dimona reactor.
It had been said that the Dimona reactor, which was built about five decades ago and is relatively old, is used in support of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Nuclear specialists are worried about the old equipment of the Dimona Atomic Base since this may cause an unfortunate event especially because the base is not under international control. Nonetheless, the Zionist regime has stated that the reactor has been updated in recent years and its safety equipment is in accordance with the highest international standards.
Although Israel has not officially admitted the possession of nuclear weapons unofficially it has confirmed possessing such weapons. Moreover, in recent years, this regime has adopted a more transparent policy in order to break down its isolation in this regard. What would highlight the significance of such a phenomenon is the fact that the Arab countries’ objections to the Zionist regime have decreased and even turned into common interests in some cases.
Meanwhile, the United States has helped the Zionist regime to build some plants for cooling light-water in Nahal Sorek, which has equipped with fifty kilograms of uranium for enrichment. In addition, Norway, despite being informed of Israel’s intention to produce nuclear weapons, has sold twenty tons of heavy water to this regime, which would be used in the process of producing nuclear weapons. The Zionist regime possesses more than 200 nuclear bombs that are enough for killing humans and destroying the plants in the Middle East. (Abdollahkhani, 2005: 272)
American officials argue that when non-proliferation laws and treaties have failed to be effective and countries such as Iran, North Korea and Iraq that are called “the axis of evil” seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the preventive war will be justified because of the possibility of an attack against the United States and its allies in the Middle East; because the issues of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction have become a source of fear for both United States and Israel administrations.
The contributions of the Zionist regime to the ruling international system and the democratic ideals and common religious heritage of this regime and the West, have made the Bush administration call the United States and the Zionist regime “siblings.” (George, 2000: 1-4)
The former United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright states that from the United States perspective the criterion for democracy is the way countries are dealing with the Zionist regime. (Va’idi, 2004: 2) This view has ensured great powers about the security implications of Israel’s activities in the region since this regime will not violate the normative principles and values of the liberal order, but rather justify and interpret its policies within the framework of such values; therefore, the world’s leading powers do not recognize the necessity to utilize their available mechanisms in order to force Israel to explain and clarify its nuclear activities. Nevertheless, measures taken by such countries show that they call for Iran’s dynamism and simultaneously confronting this country in perusing nuclear energy through a framework that will result in reinforcement of the international order and strengthening its values and norms.
While the United States and its allies on the basis of their common interests have partly resolved some of the threats by the means of diplomacy, economic pressure, and military attack, but the most important threat to the interests of strategic allies in the Islamic Republic of Iran which continues to peruse peaceful nuclear energy technology. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference between Iran and the Zionist regime, and that is, as much as the Zionist regime adheres to liberal values, Iran emphasizes opposing such values and introduces the notion of injustice that is rooted in the dominance of such values and the superpowers over the fate of humanity as the most important problem of today’s world. In the meantime, Iran would present its ideal international system which is a justice-based system that acknowledges the equal rights of humans as well as equality of nations in terms of the right of sovereignty.
In the view of the world capitalist system, Iran is an unrestrained and disruptive member of the international order, and the ideology of its Islamic revolution has always focused on the constant struggle with the liberal values of the international system. Given the ideological nature of Iran, this country is seen as an anti-world system that seeks to disrupt the current global system. (Shafiei, 2004: 12)
However, before the Islamic Revolution of Iran, the issue of Iran’s access to and use of nuclear technology had drawn full support from the United States in a way that the White House officials were seemed to favour Iran possessing nuclear weapons; because the geopolitical position of this country during the period of the Cold War and its nuclearization could have advanced the interests and improved the security of the United States and its allies, especially the Zionist regime in the region. That is why the Shah founded the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization in 1974 and soon after the negotiations for constructing the nuclear power plants were initiated. Accordingly, a network of 23 nuclear reactors throughout Iran would be operating by the mid-1990s. The United States experts believe that the Shah carried out a research project at the Nuclear Research Center of Amirabad, Tehran, which covered different areas such as studying, designing weapons and nuclear reprocessing. (Golshanpazhouh, 2005: 97-102)
From the perspective of the West, Islam holds an aggressive stance and Iran is trying to instill the idea of political Islam in the countries of the region and intends to organize and lead a bloc of power under the name of the Islamic world by spreading the radical Islam. In addition, this country is seeking to act as a modernist and reformist country in the international arena and challenge the existing international order that is dominated by the United States. (Shafiei: 2005: 3)
Thus, the goals of the United States strategic allies in fighting against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East can be evaluated through the following elements: maintaining the supremacy, the American and Israeli policy of deterrence in the Middle East, preventing the creation of a nuclear domino in terms of nuclear weapons in the region, reducing the power of challenging governments whom would maneuver against Israel and the United States, as well as the expansion of hegemony and dominating the energy resources of the Middle East. (Jafari, 2009: 152) However, American domination requires that global institutions would act as the agents of the United States’ strategic agendas and the American norms would be regarded as the dominant criterion in the international system.
Archive of The Enemies of the Islamic Revolution
leave your comments