Policy Options Towards the Nuclear Programs by Iran

Executive Summary

The nuclear programs that Iran has maintained over the years have put the international community into a dilemma. The United States is particularly concerned with Iran’s nuclear programs because it perceives that the ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons. The body called International Atomic Agency has never communicated any viable proof that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons through its nuclear program. However, the agency has expressed concerns over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The United States and Iran have never had pleasant relations since the US-backed government in Iran was overthrown in 1979. Iran’s program of nuclear that attracts the concern of the United States due to several factors such as accusing the Asian country of sponsoring terror through radical Islamic groups. Another factor is that Israel, a close ally to the United States has been a victim of Iran’s hostility. The United States can solve this nuclear puzzle in Iran if it can implement an effective policy.

There are various policy options that the United States can use to mitigate the nuclear programs and stop Iran from developing dangerous weapons. For instance, the United States can destroy the nuclear facilities belonging to Iran. Successful destruction of the nuclear facilities can affect Iran’s plans of creating nuclear weapons. The United States can collaborate with other international communities, but this can lower the process. Taking action on its own before Iran develops nuclear weapons. Another option that the United States can think about is to standardize its association with Iran. Although the two countries have had a compromised relationship in the past, this can be an effective option if it can be possible. This is a peaceful diplomatic policy that can work if both countries cooperate. The last policy option is that the United States should scale back as a way of avoiding war with Iran. This option is founded on the point that having nuclear weapons does not mean that Iran will use them against any country. This option also has its shortcomings because the international community does not trust Iran’s aspirations with its nuclear program.

Out of all the policy options mentioned, the most reliable one is normalizing association between Iran and the United States. This policy entails broad diplomatic and economic ties that will benefit the two nations. The United States is therefore the biggest rival of Iran, and if they establish good relationships, there will be no need for Iran to get weapons to protect itself. The first policy option has a shortcoming because Iran has not shown provocative behaviors with its nuclear mission to warrant the destruction of its facilities. Eliminating the whole nuclear facility may also be difficult because some may be planted underground. The policy suggesting that the United States should scale back and avoid war will also encourage such other countries as Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to get nuclear weapons in case Iran succeeds to develop its nuclear weapons.

The United States policy options towards the nuclear programs of Iran

The Iranian nuclear programs have attracted international concerns, and the United States, similar to its ally nations, is so much concerned about this issue.^[1] At times the world can have the perception that the United States and Iran are about to go to war because of the Nuclear program. Today, the association between Iran and the United States is not pleasant, considering the tensions that have escalated over the past and present regimes.^[2] However, this was not the case in the past because for many years, the two countries have been close allies. Notably, it was through the support that the United States offered to the Iranian government that they started their nuclear program to produce nuclear fuel in the 19060s.^[3] Iran signed an international treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968.^[4] This was aimed at regulating nuclear activities and limiting the distribution of nuclear weapons.

The relationship between Iran and the United States started shaking when the Iranian US-backed government was overthrown through a popular revolution in the year 1979 to establish the purely Islamic Republic.^[5] The new political system would grant Iranians an opportunity to elect their leaders including the president and legislators, but all the government decisions would be made by Islamic clerics. By the end of 1979, American diplomats were held hostage by Iranians; this further led to the deterioration of the relationships between the two countries.^[6] Arguably, this relationship has never gotten better until today because the two countries have never established formal diplomatic relations.

After the popular revolution in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continued to regularly monitor the country’s nuclear programs. However, in 2003, the Iranian government admitted that it had been enriching uranium secretly; this is a step that necessitates the creation of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.^[7] These actions were condemned internationally until Iran suspended the enrichment program voluntarily. However, it was like the country just wanted to fool the world because the suspension was short-lived. Iran resumed the uranium enrichment program again in 2006 after the international community deal collapsed. Even in 2019, Iran continued to breach the nuclear agreements until a top nuclear scientist called Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated in December 2020.^[8]

Although IAEA had expressed numerous concerns over the nuclear enrichment program by Iran, it has never communicated any definitive proof that the country intends to develop nuclear weapons. However, the United States and other jurisdictions have repeatedly expressed their worry that the major intention of Iran is to develop nuclear weapons out of its nuclear enrichment program.^[9] The former Iranian president Ahmadinejad defended the right of his country to nuclear program stating that the intention of developing nuclear materials is for peaceful purposes. The international community continues to remain suspicious because it cannot trust the assertions of Iran and its leaders concerning nuclear weapons.^[10] It is not easy to distinguish between good and bad atoms for either peaceful or military purposes. Many foreign leaders have tried to push Iran not to produce nuclear fuel but to obtain it from other countries.

Several crucial issues tie the United States’ response to the nuclear program of Iran. Different United States governments have accused Iran to be sponsoring terrorism because Iran has been supporting radical Islamic groups such as Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.^[11] Moreover, the United States has been accusing Iran of continuously abusing the Iranian people’s human rights. The human rights abuse was especially prevalent during the contested 2009 elections when thousands of Iranians protested in the streets against the government.^[12] The security forces did crackdown, killed many people, and even arrested even more. The government later admitted that some of the Iranian protestors that were arrested were tortured in prison. The former United States president Obama condemned the violence and put blames on Iranian leaders.

Additionally, the United States has been invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq in the past decades.^[13] These are close neighboring countries to Iran, and their US invasion must draw attention from Iran. Observers have, however, cautioned the United States that it must take lessons from the recently transpiring events. For instance, in 2003, the United States stated that its invasion of Iraq was justified in that Iraq had been developing weapons for mass destruction.^[14] However, it was later proven that such claims were false. During the invasion, the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein and installed a new government. The invasion led to the insurgence of violence that led to the death of hundreds of people. The U.S. troops that had stayed in and occupied Iraq for nearly eight years withdrew in December 2011.

Iran has also maintained a hostile stance against Israel, making its security to be a big concern for the policymakers of the United States. The Israeli leaders have considered Iran to be a bigger threat to the security of their country.^[15] Some observers have stated that Israelis may launch attacks on the nuclear facilities belonging to Iran if the United States stays reluctant towards Iran’s nuclear programs and ambitions. Given that the United States is a key ally to Israeli, it has to get involved in the military conflict with Iran that could cause a bigger regional war. Notably, the approach that the Trump administration used almost pushed the United States to the edge, and a regional war between U.S. and Iran was looming on two occasions.^[16] It was reported that President Trump ordered the U.S. forces to strike Iran in 2019, but pulled back just some minutes before the strike. The second attempt came in January 2020 when Trump ordered the assassination of one of Iran’s prominent officials, Qassem Soleimani.^[17] This was after he was accused of planning to attack U.S. forces. In case the assassination was done, the Iranian government vowed to strike back.

Following the past and present tension between the United States and Iran, the U.S. policymakers have to consider what effects their policies towards Iran may have. The United States’ foreign policies towards Iran’s nuclear program are key issues. Several aspects complicate the choice of policies that the United States has to use. For instance, how can the United States confirm its aspirations concerning its nuclear enrichment programs? Can the United States vividly confirm that Iran is carrying out the program to develop nuclear energy, for peace, or to build nuclear weapons? The policies chosen will depend on the intentions of Iran concerning its nuclear weapons.

What would be the possible consequences in case Iran develops nuclear weapons? In case Iran only wants to develop nuclear energy, should the United States and other jurisdictions allow it to enrich its uranium, or should they continue pushing it to obtain materials for nuclear energy from other countries? Will Iran attack the U.S., Israeli, or other U.S. allies? The United States must also consider how Iranian citizens view the whole issue and how they view the United States. The views about U.S. policies towards Iran also differ widely within the borders of the United States. The views differ based on the interests of the United States that are at stake concerning the issue, the U.S. long-term goal, and the important values. There are three distinct policy options for Iran’s nuclear program that United States policymakers can consider. Each option represents diverse values, risks, trade-offs, and concerns towards the whole nuclear program issue.

Policy Option 1: Destroy the Nuclear Facilities Belonging to Iran

Iran’s nuclear programs pose a real and immediate threat. Iran inevitably plans to build nuclear weapons. The United States being the world’s most powerful country has to act on its own if necessary and destroy the nuclear production facility that Iran has been building in defiance.^[18] What Iran can do with nuclear weapons should not be underestimated. It might use the weapons to target its close rivals such as the United States, Israel, and their allies. Iran has been accused to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and if given a chance, they can transfer the nuclear weapons to radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.^[19] In case Iran succeeds in its nuclear program mission, its neighboring states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, among others, may need to acquire nuclear weapons as well for their protection. The United States must take a forward step to stop this threat with immediate effect.

While doing this, the United States must take note and avoid the shortcomings of the previous invasion and occupation of its military. The United States’ experience in Iraq exposed the uncontrollable negative consequences that wars can cause in a country and beyond.^[20] The United States’ mission should only be limited to ending Iranian’s nuclear program and avoiding the domestic affairs of that country such as establishing a new government as it did in Iraq. The United States can achieve this if it focuses on surgical and strategic military actions solely projected at destroying nuclear facilities. With the targeted drone and military attacks, as well as cyber warfare, the United States can permanently stop Iranian’s nuclear program advances.^[21] The success of this policy will make Iranian leaders think and possibly abandon their nuclear programs. Moreover, it will send signals to other countries that plan to imitate Iran that the world is not ready to tolerate nuclear proliferation. The United States will destroy all the achievements that Iran has made in its nuclear program and set it back for many years. There will be more time for other diplomatic, military, and economic actions.

The United States can collaborate with other international communities to facilitate this policy, but there may be inadequate time to plan for successful negotiations concerning the matter. If it takes long until Iran develops nuclear weapons, it might be too late to stop them. It would be better if the United States takes prompt military action aimed at destroying Iranian’s nuclear facilities.^[22] This policy option might be valuable, considering the timing of events. The nuclear weapon crisis might come sooner and this would be the quickest way to reverse the situation. Focusing only on the nuclear facility rather than the internal affairs of Iran would help to prevent political instability because the region has been in wars for a long time. Although the United States should enact this policy on its own, it would be important if Israel knows the mission to ensure its safety because it is not on good terms with Iran.^[23]

Policy Option 2: the United States to Normalize its Relations with Iran

Iran’s nuclear programs are not only a concern to the United States but the whole world. The United States as a country has many allies such that if the U.S. launches a war against Iran, any of its allies will be facing security threats from Iran. There are slim chances that any policy supporting war will solve this nuclear problem. Instead, diplomatic policies and economic incentives can be effective in convincing Iran and its leaders to drop their nuclear ambitions aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. Arguably, the United States’ transition from Trump to the Biden administration brought a point of agreement, something unusual, in the relationship between Tehran and Washington. Previously, President Trump had exited the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015.^[24] Biden and Blinken (Iranian President), concurred that there was a need to restore the key elements in the deal such as relaxing the U.S.’ monitoring of the nuclear programs by Iran.^[25] The two administrations started by addressing factors that cause the tension between them. Arguably, it is undeniable that the United States has propagated ineffective and provocative campaigns of isolation and intimidation towards the Iranian government. As a result, the revolutionary Iranian governments have benefitted from the United States’ threatening attempts to justify their representation in Iran.^[26] The more United States threatens Iran, the more tension escalates between them, and the final result may not be pleasant to the whole world.

The covert actions and military attacks by the U.S. in Iranian territories can only intensify the problems and can allow Iran to justify its claims that it requires nuclear weapons for its protection. Working with other nations and normalizing relations with Iran so that they can also come back and join international communities. This may not be an easy task because it may be hard to work with the hostile Iranian government. However, it may be the only fruitful attempt in the short term as a way of halting the nuclear ambitions pushed by Iran. The ultimate long-term solution to the nuclear program will involve the constitution of a democratic government in Iran. But as events unfolded in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has been costly for the United States to attempt to change the governments of other nations without success.^[27] The consequences have also been severe to the governments and innocent citizens.

The United States can help to foster an environment that will allow Iranian citizens to successfully push for democracy. If the U.S. can manage to reduce the existing tension that Iran has with the international community, the Iranian government will not ignore its domestic concerns by using outside threats. These diplomatic policies should be part of the extended effort aimed at reducing nuclear weapons all over the world, United States included.^[28] The debate around nuclear weapons makes the world appear so much unsafe. A positive engagement between the United States and nuclear powers while the U.S. is committed to its nuclear stores can convince all world leaders that nuclear weapons are not necessary for jurisdictional protection. The United States engaging with the Iranian government can communicate a clear signal that the U.S is committed to ensuring a secure and peaceful world at the same time.^[29]

This will be a “carrots and stick” approach such that if Iran complies with the International agreements such as trade agreements, it will get rewarded. Otherwise, the sanctions towards the government will be pushed as punishments for non-compliance.^[30] The sanctions should not cause severe harm to civilians but should target the government officials who are hardliners. This policy can be fruitful because a large percentage of the youth population in Iran favors progressive United States policies, and they form the biggest ally that the United States has in Iran. This diplomatic policy will also allow the United States to lend support to Iran’s neighbors; hence, sending a message that the United States is not ready to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, but wants their people to determine their future. A policy that promotes increased corporation between the United States and Iran is less costly and does not involve dangerous military actions.^[31] Iran and United States need to avoid war because it is their people who will suffer from the negative consequences.

Option 3: the United States to Get Less-Involved and Avoid War with Iran

The United States does not have to blow the threat posed by Iran with its nuclear program into proportion. Iran having nuclear weapons should not pose a scenario that the United States and other international communities are determined to make it look like. The major risk for the United States is not that Iran owns nuclear weapons; the risk is that the United States will get involved in a costly war in a region that is already volatile. The results of war between the United States and Iran will be catastrophic, and would even outweigh the risk of Iran having nuclear weapons.^[32] Notably, IAEA had already confirmed that there is no tangible proof that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons from its nuclear program.^[33] On the other hand, the potential threats relating to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are manageable and have fewer risks compared to engaging them in an endless war that has more devastating effects.

In the past seven decades, the number of countries that have acquired nuclear weapons has risen to ten but none of them has managed to use such weapons. The last nuclear weapon was used in 1945 when the United States raided Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two of the Japanese major cities.^[34] What does this tell the world concerning the United States worries about Iran’s nuclear weapons? Perhaps, it shows that the fears that the United States has are not all about nuclear propagation. Maybe it is because the United States opposes the Revolutionary governments in Iran. The United States has, for many years, labeled Iran as a hostile state. In fact, in 2001, the United States referred to Iran as a “member of axis of evil.”^[35]

United states can scale back from aggressive policies and instead use economic incentives to reduce the tension that exists between it and Iran. The Persian Gulf has been a great supplier of oil to the United States and some of its key allies. If the Middle East experiences any form of instability, the oil markets around the world can be affected negatively.^[36] This can in turn affect the economic recovery of the United States and other countries. The United States must not focus on promoting a perceived threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but rather focus on ending the Regional War among the Middle East nations that trade war with one another.^[37] The regional war in the Middle East can pose a devastating threat compared to unconfirmed threats of Iran owning nuclear weapons. The United States can make things work in a better way if it changes the position it has maintained towards various Iranian governments. It should also encourage its allies such as Israel to embrace the same policy. Using covert actions or force against the Iranian regimes may only cause more problems because Iran will be motivated to accumulate more nuclear weapons for its protection. When a country accumulates many enemies, it also feels threatened, and to feel safe it must acquire lethal weapons for foreseeable emergencies.^[38] Therefore, the military policies that would probably lead to wars and mass destructions will escalate tensions between Iran U.S and its allies.

The Policy Recommendations

All the three policy options discussed above can be impactful in different ways but may not all lead to the same outcome. The second option that allows the United States to normalize its relations with Iran appears to be the most reliable. One factor that has to be acknowledged is that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to the world because the international community does not trust the claims that the nuclear program is done for peaceful purposes. The United States has verified that Iran has the industrial and technological capacity to develop nuclear weapons but does not have the full technology required to build the weapons.^[39] It is unclear whether or not Iran has a viable design that can be used to build a nuclear weapon. In case Iran acquires full technology and capacity, they may go contrary to their claim and build nuclear weapons. The policy that supports normalizing relations between the United States and Iran can be fruitful because there are no associated risks and viable final results.

This policy entails broad diplomatic and economic ties that will benefit both countries. Good relations will promote commercial ties that would benefit the economy of Iran and American companies can tap into the consumer market in Iran. The United States President, Joe Biden believes that in case JCPOA is fully restored, it will be possible to block the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. ^[40][41][42] One year after Trump exited JCPOA, Iran maintained that it shall no longer comply with the core restrictions as per the agreement, and even warned that it could exceed the uranium limits unless the remaining parties protect it from the U.S.^[43] The United States can also benefit from large energy reserves in Iran that have higher investment potentials. America has a strategic interest in Central Asia and the Middle East, and constructive bilateral talks between them and Iran will bring in more gains. Concerning nuclear weapons, bilateral relations between Iran and USA will mean the need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself. Arguably, it is the only United States and Israel that have emerged to have compromised relationships with Iran. Other countries, including some of the European nations, have been trading with Iran. The puzzle remains with how Iran relates to the United States, and normalizing the relationships can solve the puzzle. Iran will no longer have enemies if the United States succeeds in normalizing the relations, hence the nuclear program to develop weapons will be meaningless. A good bilateral relationship will also foster a conducive environment that will facilitate political reforms in Iran and achieve the democratic space that Iranians have been yarning for many years.^[44]

The first option suggested that the United States should employ military action and destroy the whole nuclear facility in Iran. This is not a viable option because up to date there are no provocative behaviors that Iran has extended to any nation. Therefore, there is nothing that warrants military action to destroy what has not been fatal. Secondly, it may not be easy to eliminate all the nuclear sites that Iran has accumulated. Some of these sites may be underground and destroying them is near to impossible. This operation process may also cause great harm to Iranian civilians. The United States military intervention may be counterproductive; it may not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.^[45] This move may trigger Iran to try and acquire nuclear weapons promptly. Iranian leaders have been recorded in the past saying that any military action by the United States will not go free without retaliation.^[46] Therefore, destroying nuclear weapons will escalate the conflict to higher points, given that Iran is already located in a volatile region. It will fuel anti-US feelings not only in Iran but in the whole region of Asia and the Middle East. This is an operation that may require the support of the international community that may be hard to convince. However, if the U.S. goes alone, it will lose the respect it has earned over the years with its allies.

The last policy option recommended that the United States avoid war by scaling back tensions. This policy option was based on the fact that accumulating nuclear weapons does not mean that the country is planning to strike its rivals.^[47] This option also argued that none of the ten countries that have acquired nuclear weapons have ever attacked anywhere, and the last nuclear attack was done by the U.S., the same country opposing Iranian’s nuclear plans. These facts are true, but no one trusts Iran with its nuclear programs. What Iran can do with its nuclear weapons once it succeeds in building them is unimaginable. The close allies of the United States such as Israel that are also not on good terms with Iran already feel threatened.^[48] In the case the United States scales back, Israel a sovereign state may take action and this may spark a tense regional war and eternal enmity.

Additionally, if the U.S. scales back and Iran develops nuclear weapons, the neighboring states such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia will also seek to acquire nuclear weapons. This will mean that five nations in the Middle East, including Israel, will have nuclear weapons. This region significantly has economic, social, and territorial tensions and if five of them acquire nuclear weapons, it will be the recipe for a catastrophic regional war. Therefore, the nuclear issue in Iran requires a peaceful international solution that resonates well with the second option of normalizing relations between Iran, the United States, and other allies such as Israel.

Bibliography

Ahmed, Ehraz. “Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Redirected from Hiroshima Day).”

Albright, David, and Andrea Stricker. “Iran’s nuclear program.” The Iran Primer (2010): 7.

Bahay, Mahmood, and Michael J. Pisani. “Iranian consumer animosity and US products: a witch’s brew or elixir?.” International Business Review 18, no. 2 (2009): 199-210.

Bahgat, Gawdat. “Nuclear Proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran.” Iranian Studies 39, no. 3 (2006): 307-327.

Bill, James A. “The politics of hegemony: the United States and Iran.” Middle East Policy 8, no. 3 (2001): 89.

Brookes, Peter. “Iran Nuclear Deal: Next Steps.” The Heritage Foundation, January 29, 2020. https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/iran-nuclear-deal-next-steps.

Bush, George W. The national security strategy of the United States of America. Wordclay, 2009.

Carafano, James Jay. “All a Twitter: How social networking shaped Iran’s election protests.” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 2300 (2009).

Carpenter, Ted Galen. Iran’s Nuclear Program: America’s Policy Options. Cato Institute, 2006.

Ceylon, Martina. “444-day showdown: the Iran hostage crisis (1079-81): the catalyst for a new Muslim identity.” (2020).

Chapman, Duane, and Neha Khanna. “The Persian Gulf, global oil resources, and international security.” Contemporary Economic Policy 24, no. 4 (2006): 507-519.

Cirincione, Joseph. Bomb scare: the history and future of nuclear weapons. Columbia University Press, 2007.

Daalder, Ivo, and Jan Lodal. “Logic of Zero-Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Foreign Aff. 87 (2008): 80.

David, Steven R., and Steven R. David. Catastrophic consequences: civil wars and American interests. JHU Press, 2008.

Edelman, Eric S., Andrew F. Krepinevich, and Evan Braden Montgomery. “The dangers of a nuclear Iran: The limits of containment.” Foreign Affairs (2011): 66-81.

El-Khawas, Mohamed A. “Iran’s nuclear controversy: prospects for a diplomatic solution.” Mediterranean quarterly 16, no. 4 (2005): 20-41.

Falk, Richard A. “The United States and the doctrine of nonintervention in the internal affairs of independent states.” Howard LJ 5 (1959): 163.

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali. “Why sanctions against Iran are counterproductive: Conflict resolution and state–society relations.” international journal 69, no. 1 (2014): 48-65.

Haass, Richard N. “From Sanctions to the Soleimani Strike to Escalation: Evaluating the Administration’s Iran Policy.” (2020).

Islam, Md Thowhidul. “The logic behind Iran’s uncompromising nuclear policy.” Asia Journal of Global Studies 4 (2012): 2010-11.

Jeffrey, James, and Denis Rose. “The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t the Problem. Iran Is.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, June 29, 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/iran-nuclear-deal-middle-east/619307/.

Katouzian, Homa. Iranian history and politics: The dialectic of state and society. Routledge, 2012.

Katzman, Kenneth, and Paul K. Kerr. Iran nuclear agreement. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016.

Katzman, Kenneth. Iran: US concerns and policy responses. DIANE Publishing, 2010.

Kemp, Geoffrey. “Assessing the Iranian Threat.” Fighting Proliferation: New Concerns for the Nineties (1996).

Kimball, Daryl G. “Trump’s Failing Iran Policy | Arms Control Association.” Arms control Today, June 2019. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-06/focus/trumps-failing-iran-policy.

Kotch, John Barry. “The axis of evil” revisited.” Korea Observer 34, no. 3 (2003): 613.

Kroenig, Matthew. “Time to Attack Iran: Why a strike is the least bad option.” Foreign Aff. 91 (2012): 76.

Mousavian, Seyed Hossein. The Iranian nuclear crisis: a memoir. Brookings Institution Press, 2012.

Muir, Thomas M. The United States Experience In The Balkans and Its Implications For Post-Conflict Operations In Iraq. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA, 2004.

Njølstad, Olav, ed. Nuclear proliferation and international order: challenges to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Routledge, 2010.

Njølstad, Olav, ed. Nuclear proliferation and international order: challenges to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Routledge, 2010.

Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. “President Trump’s ‘Maximum Pressure’Campaign and Iran’s Endgame.” Strategic Analysis 44, no. 6 (2020): 570-582.

Sapiro, Miriam. “Iraq: the shifting sands of preemptive self-defense.” American Journal of International Law 97, no. 3 (2003): 599-607.

Sechser, T. S., & Fuhrmann, M. (2017). Nuclear weapons and coercive diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.

Singh, Michael. “Biden’s Iran Dilemma.” The Washington Institute, February 2021. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/bidens-iran-dilemma.

Springer, Paul J. “Thinking about Military History in an Age of Drones, Hackers, and IEDs.” (2015).

Squassoni, Sharon. “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Recent Developments.” Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service, 2005.

Torabian, Saba, and Marina Abalakina. “Attitudes toward war in the United States and Iran.” Iranian Studies 45, no. 4 (2012): 463-478.

Udoh, Israel J., Michael O. Oladejo, and Hycienth O. Orapine. “Assessing the effectiveness of “carrots and sticks” approach on terrorists’ strength and sustainability: A mathematical deterministic model.” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Applied Science–IJRIAS. 2019b 4, no. 2: 11-27.

United States Institute of Peace. “New Talks: U.S. Statements.” The Iran Primer, 2021. https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2021/apr/02/new-talks-us-statements.

Valbjørn, Morten, and André Bank. “The new Arab Cold War: rediscovering the Arab dimension of Middle East regional politics.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (2012): 3-24.

Views from the Region. “A Region on Edge as the US Considers Its Approach to the Iran Nuclear Deal.” Middle East Policy Council, October 2, 2021. https://mepc.org/commentary/region-edge-us-considers-its-approach-iran-nuclear-deal.

Waltz, Kenneth N. “Why Iran should get the bomb: Nuclear balancing would mean stability.” Foreign Affairs (2012): 2-5.

Wolf, Lawrence A. “America Held Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979–1981 and US-Iranian Relations.” OAH Magazine of History 20, no. 3 (2006): 27-30.

Young, Michael. “Chronicle of a Flawed Accord Foretold?” Carnegie Middle East Center, June 14, 2021. https://carnegie-mec.org/diwan/84720.

Zambakari, Christopher. “Executive Powers and the Targeted Killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani.” Georgetown Public Policy Review: International Policy, National Security (2020).

Zanotti, Jim, Kenneth Katzman, Jeremiah Gertler, and Steven A. Hildreth. “Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities.” LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2012.

[1] Kemp, Geoffrey. “Assessing the Iranian Threat.” Fighting Proliferation: New Concerns for the Nineties (1996).

[2] Torabian, Saba, and Marina Abalakina. “Attitudes toward war in the United States and Iran.” Iranian Studies 45, no. 4 (2012): 463

[3] Bahgat, Gawdat. “Nuclear Proliferation: The Islamic Republic of Iran.” Iranian Studies 39, no. 3 (2006): 307.

[4] Njølstad, Olav, ed. Nuclear proliferation and international order: challenges to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Routledge, 2010.

[5] Ceylon, Martina. “444-day showdown: the Iran hostage crisis (1079-81): the catalyst for a new Muslim identity.” (2020).

[6] Wolf, Lawrence A. “America Held Hostage: The Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979–1981 and US-Iranian Relations.” OAH Magazine of History 20, no. 3 (2006): 27.

[7] Squassoni, Sharon. “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Recent Developments.” Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service, 2005.

[8] United States Institute of Peace. “New Talks: U.S. Statements.” The Iran Primer, 2021.

[9] Albright, David, and Andrea Stricker. “Iran’s nuclear program.” The Iran Primer (2010): 7.

[10] Njølstad, Olav, ed. Nuclear proliferation and international order: challenges to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Routledge, 2010

[11] Jeffrey, James, and Denis Rose. “The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn’t the Problem. Iran Is.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, June 29, 2021

[12] Carafano, James Jay. “All a Twitter: How social networking shaped Iran’s election protests.” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 2300 (2009).

[13] Haass, Richard N. “From Sanctions to the Soleimani Strike to Escalation: Evaluating the Administration’s Iran Policy.” (2020).

[14] Sapiro, Miriam. “Iraq: the shifting sands of preemptive self-defense.” American Journal of International Law 97, no. 3 (2003): 599-607

[15] Waltz, Kenneth N. “Why Iran should get the bomb: Nuclear balancing would mean stability.” Foreign Affairs (2012): 2

[16] Nuruzzaman, Mohammed. “President Trump’s ‘Maximum Pressure’Campaign and Iran’s Endgame.” Strategic Analysis 44, no. 6 (2020): 570

[17] Zambakari, Christopher. “Executive Powers and the Targeted Killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani.” Georgetown Public Policy Review:

[18] Bush, George W. The national security strategy of the United States of America. Wordplay, 2009.

[19] Edelman, Eric S., Andrew F. Krepinevich, and Evan Braden Montgomery. “The dangers of a nuclear Iran: The limits of containment.” Foreign Affairs (2011): 66.

[20] Muir, Thomas M. The United States Experience In The Balkans and Its Implications For Post-Conflict Operations In Iraq. ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA, 2004.

[21] Springer, Paul J. “Thinking about Military History in an Age of Drones, Hackers, and IEDs.” (2015).

[22] Zanotti, Jim, Kenneth Katzman, Jeremiah Gertler, and Steven A. Hildreth. “Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities.

[23] Islam, Md Thowhidul. “The logic behind Iran’s uncompromising nuclear policy.” Asia Journal of Global Studies 4 (2012): 2010-11

[24] Kimball, Daryl G. “Trump’s Failing Iran Policy | Arms Control Association.” Arms control Today, June 2019

[25] United States Institute of Peace. “New Talks: U.S. Statements.” The Iran Primer, 2021.

[26] Carpenter, Ted Galen. Iran’s Nuclear Program: America’s Policy Options. Cato Institute, 2006.

[27] Falk, Richard A. “The United States and the doctrine of nonintervention in the internal affairs of independent states.” Howard LJ 5 (1959): 163.

[28] Sechser, T. S., & Fuhrmann, M. (2017). Nuclear weapons and coercive diplomacy. Cambridge University Press

[29] Mousavian, Seyed Hossein. The Iranian nuclear crisis: a memoir. Brookings Institution Press, 2012.

[30] Udoh, Israel J., Michael O. Oladejo, and Hycienth O. Orapine. “Assessing the effectiveness of “carrots and sticks” approach on terrorists’ strength and sustainability

[31] Katzman, Kenneth, and Paul K. Kerr. Iran nuclear agreement. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016

[32] David, Steven R., and Steven R. David. Catastrophic consequences: civil wars and American interests. JHU Press, 2008.

[33] El-Khawas, Mohamed A. “Iran’s nuclear controversy: prospects for a diplomatic solution.” Mediterranean quarterly 16, no. 4 (2005): 20-41

[34] Ahmed, Shiraz. “Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Redirected from Hiroshima Day).”

[35] Kotch, Jothe in Barry. “The axis of evil” revisited.” Korea Observer 34, no. 3 (2003): 613.

[36] Chapman, Duane, and Neha Khanna. “The Persian Gulf, global oil resources, and international security.” Contemporary Economic Policy 24, no. 4 (2006): 507

[37] Valbjørn, Morten, and André Bank. “The new Arab Cold War: rediscovering the Arab dimension of Middle East regional politics.” Review of International Studies 38, no. 1 (2012): 3-24.

[38] Katouzian, Homa. Iranian history and politics: The dialectic of state and society. Routledge, 2012

[39] Daalder, Ivo, and Jan Lodal. “Logic of Zero-Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Foreign Aff. 87 (2008): 80

[40] Young, Michael. “Chronicle of a Flawed Accord Foretold?” Carnegie Middle East Center, June 14, 2021.

[41] Singh, Michael. “Biden’s Iran Dilemma.” The Washington Institute, February 2021.

[42] A Region on Edge as the US Considers Its Approach to the Iran Nuclear Deal | Middle East Policy Council

[43] Brookes, Peter. “Iran Nuclear Deal: Next Steps.” The Heritage Foundation, January 29, 2020.

[44] Bahay, Mahmood, and Michael J. Pisani. “Iranian consumer animosity and US products: a witch’s brew or elixir?.” International Business Review 18, no. 2 (2009): 199-210

[45] Fathollah-Nejad, Ali. “Why sanctions against Iran are counterproductive: Conflict resolution and state-society relations.” international journal 69, no. 1 (2014): 48

[46] Kroenig, Matthew. “Time to Attack Iran: Why a strike is the least bad option.” Foreign Aff. 91 (2012): 76.

[47] Cirincione, Joseph. Bomb scare: the history and future of nuclear weapons. Columbia University Press, 2007.

[48] Bill, James A. “The politics of hegemony: the United States and Iran.” Middle East Policy 8, no. 3 (2001): 89.