Flint 1

Lucas Flint Instructor: Malcolm Campbell English 1103 November 8, 2012 Peer Reviewer: Hannah Luke Why a NUCLEAR Iran is a STABLE Iran Iran is currently a very sensitive subject in American politics. The Islamic Republic has made several bold maneuvers in the political realm, the most controversial of which being the proposition to develop nuclear technology. Nuclear technology? The statement obviously alludes to nuclear warheads. False. Firstly, Iran claims to be creating a domestic nuclear program, meaning that its purpose is to create energy -- not weapons. Secondly, who is to deny another nation the right to a technology they are using their own resources to develop? The United States, along with most of its allies, have imposed crippling trade sanctions on Iran in order to prevent them from acquiring nuclear technologies, blatantly sabotaging their economy in the process. It is unethical to punish a nation for pursuing a technology that would make us uncomfortable. Even though Iran claims to have no desire to acquire a bomb (admittedly a statement of questionable validity), I am going to propose what would happen if Iran were to develop a bomb. Then I will argue why they should develop a bomb. Who can we trust? The Islamic Republic of Iran has made it clear that it is going to continue its nuclear program. The intended purpose of the nuclear program is the disputed matter. Regardless of whether or not Iran has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program, the United States and its

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:25 PM Comment [1]: Very engaging title. I can tell you are going to make an argument in your essay. I would have never thought of a nuclear Iran a stable Iran, but now Im interested to see what you have to say about it. Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:43 PM Comment [2]: You have a really, excuse the pun, explosive topic. I think you can make your opening statement more interesting and really grab the readers attention

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:38 PM Comment [3]: I am not well informed on the topic of nuclear technology. If I were you I would think about including some more information on what nuclear technology is to help readers understand the difference between a domestic program and other nuclear programs. Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:39 PM Comment [4]: What kinds of nuclear program does the US have? Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:32 PM Comment [5]: Just a minor grammar fix. Have to has

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:33 PM Comment [6]: I think its interesting how you are incorporating an argumentative essay and an exploratory essay into one work.

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:44 PM Comment [7]: What evidence do you have to back this statement up?

Flint 2

allies have punished Iran with extensive trade sanctions. For what reason? There is an irrational xenophobia that plagues America. We hear of these distant lands from the other side of the world from secondary sources and then develop prejudices and slanted opinions without having a firm grasp of the concept or problem at hand. This is what has happened to the U.S. in regards of our opinion of Iran. Who tells us about Iran? The most relevant source influencing the decision makers in America is perhaps Irans most hated enemy: Israel. Israel shares an intimate dislike of Iran and has strong diplomatic ties with the United States. On the other hand, Iran stormed the U.S. Embassy during Jimmy Carters presidency, taking several Americans hostage. Israel: 1, Iran: 0. So given the history between the U.S. and either of the other two nations, we can see how the United States would be more friendly towards Israel while expressing animosity towards Iran. We need to establish for ourselves what is going on. Sure, Israel is a U.S. ally. But at the same time, can they really give us a non-biased assessment of Iran? This becomes particularly significant when it comes to somebody threatening Israels monopolistic hold on a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. Israel does not like to share. There is an imbalance of power in the Middle East. Israel is the only regional holder of a nuclear arsenal. Nowhere else in the world does this occur (Waltz). When there are multiple nuclear arsenals in a region, deterrence keeps the peace and prevents nuclear war; it is evident that should two nations launch nuclear missiles at each other, both nations would face a substantial loss. However, when a state can hold that power over all of the other states in the region, that puts them at a strategic advantage. Israel holds that power over all of the other Middle Eastern nations. Not only does it hold this power over other states, they destroy any state that tries to become their equal in terms of nuclear capabilities. In 1981 Israel bombed Iraq in

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:47 PM Comment [8]: Maybe include information about what kind of trade sanctions? Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:48 PM Comment [9]: Fragmented question

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:50 PM Comment [10]: What caused the hatred?

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:51 PM Comment [11]: I like this statement a lot. It adds a level of connection with your readers.

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:55 PM Comment [12]: I think the information you have presented is accurate and interesting, but in order to strengthen your paper, I would incorporate evidence to back up your statements that are not common knowledge.

Flint 3

order to assure the dismantling of their nuclear program (Waltz). Iran is now attempting what Iraq tried in 1981. Israel is steadfast in preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. Israel has proposed an invasion of Iran; a direct attack on their nuclear facilities. Iran has made clear that should Israel attack them, Iran will launch a full counterattack on Israel as well as the United States, which happens to have several military bases in the Middle East within range of Irani missiles (Rayment). Tensions were very high in September. As a precautionary measure, the United States and its allies held naval war games outside of the Strait of Hormuz, which is the narrow opening at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Had events escalated between Israel and Iran, the United States would have been able to quickly intervene and defend its military bases and aid Israel. Thirty-five percent of global oil resources travel through the Persian Gulf, and subsequently the Strait of Hormuz. That makes it a very strategic spot to hold that cannot be blockaded by Iran at any costs, else the price of oil would skyrocket globally (Rayment). Israel is willing to go to war in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology, even though it poses a direct threat to U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It is a very selfish scheme for Israel to do whatever it takes to prevent another nuclear arsenal from materializing in the Middle East, especially since it poses a threat to its largest ally. Israel simply does not like to share. Bringing balance to the Middle East Were Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb, which is still months or even years away (Iran Watch), it would bring balance and peace to the Middle East. It would be filling a void and assume a role of nuclear deterrence with Israel (Waltz). Israel would no longer be able to bully and pressure other nations by pulling the I-have-a-nuclear-bomb-and-you-dont card. Iran would check Israel, just as all nuclear nations always have and always will. Pakistan and India are enemies to the same degree that Israel and Iran are, and they have yet to blow each other up

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:58 PM Comment [13]: Great use of an example to back up what you are saying

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:58 PM Comment [14]: Because of September 11th?

Flint 4

even though they both possess a nuclear arsenal (Waltz). That is because deterrence works. When Iran gets the nuclear bomb, the civil unrest and general chaos in the Middle East will cease. A balance of power is important; without that balance, there is chaos (Waltz). What not to do at a stoplight The world is at an important crossroads right now. How the world acts now will dramatically affect the lives of people in every corner of the globe. Here is what we should not do: invade Iran, start another global conflict, and provoke another global recession. According to some, we are approaching a critical time when it may be too late to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Their solution: invade and destroy. In his article, Time to Attack Iran, Mr. Kroenig is not enthused at the prospect of invading Iran, but he describes it as the least-bad option. The ultimate worst-case scenario, in his eyes, is a nuclear Iran. However, there are several potential pitfalls with invading Iran. First of all, there is the possibility that the invasion would fail and Iran would maintain its nuclear facilities. In addition to a botched military invasion, it could provoke an all-out war and plunge the world into another global economic crisis (Kroenig). In contrast to the hawks, the doves propose diplomacy in the forms of economic sanctions, covert operations and other nonmilitary endeavors that they deem more efficient for dealing with Iran. News Flash: Iran is not crazy Contrary to popular belief in America, Iran is, in fact, rational. Iran has no desire to see its nation destroyed; Iran is not self-destructive in nature. Developing an offensive nuclear arsenal would suggest that Iran is not concerned with its own security, which would be an utterly false assumption (Waltz). Iran is just as much concerned with security as the United States is concerned with its own security. Another concern to the global community is that Iran might

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:05 PM Comment [15]: What is deterrence?

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:08 PM Comment [16]: This is a very basic way of presenting information. Maybe reconsider how you introduce what the United States should not do Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:08 PM Comment [17]: Who are the some?

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:11 PM Comment [18]: A little repetitive after stating Iran has no desire to see its nation destroyed

Flint 5

hand off their technology to another nation, or even worse - a terrorist organization. No country could ever do such a thing without running a high risk of being found out, which the United States is more than capable of doing (Waltz). In addition to having to circumvent intense monitoring (which is guaranteed), there is a huge price tag on building a bomb, which is a highly dangerous task in itself. Handing away such advanced technology to an untrustworthy organization, such as Al Qaeda, that could not be controlled by the vendor would make little sense (Waltz). What happens now? Irans nuclear program will be resolved in one of three ways. First, the crippling trade sanctions put in place by the U.S. and allies could discourage Irans pursuit of nuclear technology. However, economic sanctions are not necessarily guaranteed to dissuade any country of obtaining nuclear arms should they be truly determined to achieve their goal of nuclear armament (Waltz). Take North Korea for instance. Despite numerous sanctions and U.N. resolutions, they still managed to manufacture a nuclear weapon. In fact, should such harsh sanctions be put into place, Iran could potentially feel even more vulnerable than it currently is and feel obligated to develop a nuclear weapon in order to give it leverage in the international community again (Waltz). The second way Irans nuclear program can resolve itself is by attaining a breakout capability. What this means is that Iran may stop short of developing an actual nuclear bomb and settle for a civilian nuclear program instead. Should Iran need to quickly procure a nuclear weapon on the spot, it would be able to divert its civilian program into one that could swiftly produce a weapon. Japan has a civilian nuclear program and is speculated to have the ability to create a nuclear bomb on short notice. If Iran were to attain breakout capability, it would be able
Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:15 PM Comment [19]: Is this information included in the (Waltz) citation a few lines down?

Flint 6

to enjoy the benefits of a nuclear program while avoiding the risky, dangerous components. Iran would have greater national security while avoiding international denunciation and isolation (Waltz). The downside to breakout capability is that it could fail should a bomb need to be developed on the spot and the facilities prove incapable of producing a nuclear weapon (Waltz). The third possible way in which Iran can bring its nuclear program to a close is by continuing to pursue its current course of action and complete and test a nuclear bomb. While both Israel and the United States have stated that such an act is intolerable, the chances that either nation would do anything about it are pretty slim. In the past whenever a new state gained nuclear weapons, other states accepted their nuclear status and decided to just live with it rather than take military action. By filling the void and balancing military powers in the Middle East, a nuclear Iran would bring more stability to the region, not less (Waltz). Reflection It is truly an exciting time to be alive. Iran is developing technologies that make other nations squeamish and uncomfortable because they feel that their military superiority is at stake. The United States and allies have taken it upon themselves to impose incredibly harsh trade sanctions on Iran in order to slow and hopefully stop their nuclear program. In my opinion, I do not feel that it is up to the United States or any other nation to decide what a country can or cannot do within its own borders with its own supplies. It is unjust and nearly tyrannical. The propaganda presented to Americans portrays Iran as the enemy, when in reality America is the one bullying Iran. People everywhere need to be exposed to this knowledge. They do not have to agree; they just need the exposure so that they can have both sides of the story, rationalize what the consequences of any of the available options would entail, and then make a fully informed decision.
Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:21 PM Comment [23]: Your final paragraph is the strongest thus far. You take on an authoritative tone that makes me believe what you are saying. Edit for passive voice in the rest of your paper to make your essay sound more aggressive. Show that you know what you are talking about through active voice and evidence. Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:18 PM Comment [22]: Since your essay is partially exploratory, I think you could place yourself in it a little more. Why does nuclear technology fascinate you? What about it and new technology make you feel excited to be alive? Maybe include some personal information in the beginning of the essay to help your readers understand why you are writing this essay Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:16 PM Comment [20]: Does this source have any page numbers that could be cited? Hannah Luke 11/11/12 3:17 PM Comment [21]: Do you need the previous citation if this sentence is included in the previous source as well?

Flint 7

I believe that a nuclear Iran would be a stable Iran. They would never be so bold as to actually launch a nuclear missile. A nuclear arsenal serves the diplomatic purpose of deterrence; creating stability where there was once chaos. Even just attaining breakout capability would be a win-win situation all around. It would be a middle ground between the United States and Iran, thus relieving a lot of the pressure put on Iran by trade sanctions. Our current trade sanctions will accomplish nothing but fueling Irans resolution to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is time that the United States stopped imposing itself on other nations and gave Iran the opportunity to progress as it wishes. We have no right to dictate what another state can or cannot do. A nuclear armed Iran will finally bring long-awaited peace to the Middle East.

Hey Lucas! You have a really interesting topic! I enjoyed reading about nuclear technology from your perspective. Just a few grammar mistakes and uses of passive voice are scattered throughout the paper, but with some editing you can take care of these issues easily. If your intention is to merge argumentative and exploratory essay styles, add some more information at the beginning about why you are so interested in nuclear technology. Add a little more evidence throughout to strengthen your argument. Overall, great job! By adding some other information to clarify what some terms mean and more evidence, you can easily reach the 7-page mark required for this assignment as well. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments or anything. -Hannah

Flint 8

Works Cited Kroenig M. Time to Attack Iran. Foreign Affairs 91.1 (2012): 76. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 2 October 2012. Rayment, Sean. Armada of International Naval Power Massing in the Gulf as Israel Prepares an Iran Strike. The Telegraph. The Telegraph, 15 September 2012. Web. 4 October 2012. Tracking Irans Mass Destruction Weapon Capabilities. Iran Watch. Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, n.d. Web. 10 October 2012. Waltz, Kenneth N. Why Iran Should Get The Bomb. Foreign Affairs 91.4 (2012): 2. MasterFILE Complete. Web. 3 October 2012.