Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
preemptive force in Iran after the event of September 11. It has 11 sources.
Though the United States would have to bear the economic repercussions of pursuing another invasion, a preemptive effort in Iran would be in their best interest if they endeavor to rid the world of terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.
In recent times there have been great concerns over countries that possess weapons capable of mass destruction. Particular concern has been prompted over countries that hold grudges against the United States. This is because of the fact that in recent times the United States has fallen prey to such countries. Countries in the past that had been considered a threat to western interests have in recent times proven to be dangerous. Examples of these are countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. In the past they warned and threatened the United States that they would have damnation upon them, and on the 11th of September they meant what they said, as individuals mostly from these countries participated in one of the most gruesome massacres.
After the attacks on the WTC on September 11, 2001, the United States and its allies have taken proactive role in uprooting such threats that lead to massive destruction of American property and life. Right after the event of September 11, a coalition led by the united Sates invaded Afghanistan and Iraq subsequently to track down the perpetrators. However, these are not the only countries that are risks to the interests of the United States and other Western countries, as Countries such as Syria, Iran and North Korea are also threats.
Though North Korea also possesses nuclear capability, Iran is thought to be more volatile at the moment and capable of launching attacks on the United States and other western countries. This is because of the fact that Iran may share more sentiments with other Muslim countries even though they belong to a different sect, while the Iraqis and the Afghanis belong to the same sect. Under one religion there are greater chances of them uniting, and therefore it is suggested that preemptive measures should be taken timely enough to inhibit any possible attack on the United States and other countries (Chubin & Litwak, 2003).
The problem that the United States faces in considering attacks on Iran is that it has not won enough support for the effort. It would be a high-cost effort for them to go at an invasion of Iran single-handedly, and so they need a coalition to help them at least initially. The economy in the United States will probably not be able to withstand the load, as it is already weakened with the ongoing efforts of the United Sates forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (A Decade of Deception and Defiance, 2002). Funding the forces abroad is by no means easy, as millions of dollars of the taxpayers are being spent in this direction.
The allies of the United States that supported the invasion in Afghanistan and later in Iraq are now not willing enough to assist the United States in another invasion. This is because of the relative failure that United States and others have faced in their efforts here. Two reasons why they have failed include the fact that they have lacked uncovering any significant weapons of mass destruction or traces, and they have also largely failed to control the political and military situation in Iraq.
So, if the United States still endeavor venturing into Iran they would probably have to go at it themselves because the United Nations also seems reluctant to reveal and evidence that is incriminating enough for anyone to accuse the Iranians of disregard of the UN laws. However, inspections and surveillance keeps track of nuclear activity there (Chubin & Litwak, 2003).
If the United States wished to invade Iran single-handedly in spite of their precarious economy, they would have to make several military and political calculations to do so.
First of all, the U.S. needs to calculate the size of the Iranian military and their mobile weaponry. According to what has been witnessed in the past from previous wars fought in the region along with analysis it has been ascertained that Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war, though Iran had an army large enough to take the lead the Iraqis dominated, and succeeded in destroying or seizing about 40-60% of Iran's land order of battle. During the Iran-Iraq war Iran possessed mostly slow moving infantry. Military co-ordination in the past war with Iraq was not what it should have been because of the fact that the army was composed of young Shiites and Kurds who were not satisfied with the regime (Sestanovich, 2003).
Iran is expected to have continuing problems in military spending due to the fact that its economic situation is most likely to deteriorate in the near future. Since oil is the major source of income for the country and its prices are also most likely to rise, it is expected that the country will have a tough time coping with supporting military action.
In addition to this, its current spending on military will be difficult to sustain. However, the current regime is still financing its unconventional military endeavors, which include nuclear weapons, stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, and purchasing or manufacturing rockets and missiles to use them. Since this country is a signatory of the (NNT) Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty their activity is resented (Sokolski, 2003).
Furthermore, if Iran can take so much liberty and ignore its agreements with the UN and pose threats to the United States and other western countries the United States too may take liberty of defending itself and ignore the UN too. This is because it might be too late before the UN can do anything to prevent harm coming to the United States once attacks take place (Chubin & Litwak, 2003).
Though it is not clear how far the Iranians have come to produced nuclear warheads, it is known that they have the ability to produce several hundred tons of chemical agents annually. They have the potential to output as much as 2,000 tons of agents till very recently, which includes blister (mustard), choking (cyanidal), and possibly nerve (sarin) agents. It is also known that Iran produces bombs and artillery rounds filled with these agents and perhaps the have deployed chemical missile warheads. Toxins such as anthrax and botulin are thought to be among the chemical interests of Iran too.
In addition to the nuclear and chemical endeavors, the core of Iran's strategic missile force consists of 200-300 North Korean produced SCUD-B and -C missiles. These have ranges of 320 km and 500 km respectively. They also possess 200 or more Chinese CSS-8 missiles that have a range of 150 km. These are fitted with conventional or chemical warheads (Iranian Military Capabilities and Intentions, 2002).
The missiles are capable of reaching targets such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Arab Gulf states. Also, Iran is currently financing North Korea's development of the Nodong-1 missile. This missile has 1,300-km range, and will be able to reach Israel.
Though countries such as Russia, China and North Korea in the past have contributed to Iran's nuclear capabilities and missile armory, it is highly unlikely that they would assist Iran in case of a U.S. invasion (Peterson, 2003). However, it is feared that other Muslim countries such as Egypt and Syria might support Iran in case of attack by U.S. Or coalition forces (Mlling & Neuneck, 2003).
This is assumed on the basis that they would naturally fear being invaded next, as there is a euphoria that Muslim countries are at the receiving end of the American Imperialist movement. However, the United States needs to make it clear that the reason that they are going to invade Iran is purely because they are a risk to stability in the region where there are western installations (Kerr, 2002). If this is made clear it would surely mitigate the chances of allies of Iranians participating in the conflict. This is essential because of the fact that the United States most probably would have to go after the Iranians independently (Gorce, 2003).
If the United States were to go after the Iranians independently, it means that they would have to recruit more military power of their own, which means more expense for the country. However, they would have total control of the situation there with no interference in the way that they want to deal with the country. Of course, in such an independent operation the United States might be exposed to much attack in the international media.
Though it would be difficult for the U.S. To engage in an invasion of Iran single-handedly, it must be asserted that it is a preemptive effort that they would be successful in. This is because of the fact that their goals are clear they are militarily capable of success here.
In carrying out an operation in Iran and being…[continue]
"Use Of Preemptive Force In Iran" (2003, November 24) Retrieved December 4, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/use-of-preemptive-force-in-iran-156959
"Use Of Preemptive Force In Iran" 24 November 2003. Web.4 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/use-of-preemptive-force-in-iran-156959>
"Use Of Preemptive Force In Iran", 24 November 2003, Accessed.4 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/use-of-preemptive-force-in-iran-156959
Iran and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty George W. Bush has labeled Iran part of the three nations which most threaten United States security as a nation, along with Iraq and North Korea. He based this statement on the premise that these three nations were developing "weapons of mass destruction," specifically, nuclear arms. Iraq, it has already been established, does not have weapons of mass destruction. North Korea might, and is currently
Iran Instability in Iran In talking about the influence that Iran's nuclear program has on the overall stability in the region of Middle East, it is essential to tell apart between the cycles of time relevant to Iranian quest for nuclear weapons acquisition as well as the Iranian realization and application of nuclear weapons systems. Both cycles should be thought about distinctly simply because they are very different when it comes to
Iran's nuclear program began during the era of the Shah, and blossomed into a plan that included the building of 20 nuclear reactors. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, two of these unfinished reactors were bombed in Bushehr, while through the 1979 revolution, the Iranian nuclear program has gone through stops and starts, its current guidelines seem to include the building of 15 power reactors and 2 research facilities. Since 1992, Iran
In the event the intelligence detailed by the Israeli administration proves to be accurate with respect to nuclear weapons development, this office is reminded of the words of the late President John, F. Kennedy, spoken almost exactly 45 years ago to the day, on October 22, 1962, addressing the Soviet threat in Cuba: We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient
Post War Iraq: A Paradox in the Making: Legitimacy vs. legality The regulations pertaining to the application of force in International Law has transformed greatly from the culmination of the Second World War, and again in the new circumstances confronting the world in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Novel establishments have been formed, old ones have withered away and an equally enormous quantity of intellectual writing has
history of events in the twentieth century, one might surmise that the twenty-first may not be all that different. Why? Because human nature and the pursuit of self-interest has not changed from one century to the next. To explain what drives international relations, Joshua Goldstein provides a brief history of the world, in addition to information about the geographical features and the consequences of different nation's economies. (Goldstein, 2003)
First of all, the U.S. should "actively deter nations from "aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Second of all, preemptive force should be used to prevent countries from developing weapons of mass destruction and, third of all, the United States should "act alone if necessary." Clearly, all of these correlated ideas have been implementing in Iraq. Further more, all of ideas would be laid out in the