Should the United States Invade Foreign Countries to Establish Friendly Regimes - Research Paper Example

Should the Unites s invade foreign countries to establish friendly regimes? Introduction The United s has documented through various publications and national announcements that she would like to work with the Muslim regimes given that they support her in unmasking terror groups and kicking hostile regimes out of power. Considering that Iran exercises power within the Muslim mandate of anti-west stereotype, should the US invade Iran or other Iran-like nations to establish friendly regimes? Depending on the scope of threat Iran can create through its Nuclear Program, possibility of international peace resides in USA’s exercise of diplomacy and finally war if diplomacy fails. Iran’s Nuclear Program remains one of the most debated political issues in the West. Among these debates involve questions raised on whether to attack, sanction, or maintain a status quo to resolve the escalating terror threat. The USA, through her Foreign Policy get involved in the matter trying to negotiate with Iran to drop the Nuclear Program (Gerecht 46). Considering that a similar situation with Iraq failed under Bush’s administration, the USA faces hardships in assuming that any decision she embarks on has merit. (Broad, and Fathi 6). For example, the Iraq situation started with a diplomatic approach which failed under Saddam, then followed Bush’s ultimatum for Saddam to leave Iraq – this failed as well. Lastly, the USA resolved to attack Iraq with the aim of intercepting the ongoing Nuclear Program. Saddam’s capture in Iraq did not yield any fruits of recovering nuclear weaponry – becoming yet another failed attempt. In this paper, analysis on the best option to deal with Iran’s situation develops through consideration of moral, ethical, and legal constraints facing diplomatic or violent approaches to the Iran situation. While attacking and maintaining status quo options have varying effectiveness levels, sanctioning Iran depicts a better option that has the potential to establish a friendly regime. BODY Following the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979, the US embassy in Iran has remained closed since then, hence, decapitating diplomatic relations between the two nations. The presence of the US embassy building in Iran has resulted to mixed reactions by Iranian extremist groups and citizens. Some of the Iranians call the US embassy building the Espionage Den as a way to reflect on the purpose served by the US ambassador prior to the crisis (Lindsay, and Takeyh 35). The Iranian government believed that the US embassy acted as a spying den on Iran in particular as well as the Muslim community in general. Following these developments, the USA has not direct representation in Iran. The US uses indirect representation through the United States Interests Section of Switzerland. With the prevailing tensions between the American government and the government of Iran, the representation through the Switzerland Embassy does not allow diplomacy as classified information would probably have to trade through a third party (Lindsay, and Takeyh 37). Currently, the lack of a US embassy in Iran prompts the likelihood of years of dead diplomatic relations as negotiations may not work between various Secretaries of State that come with every US regime and the solid Iranian government regime that does not revise its stand on its association with the US (Lindsay, and Takeyh 40). With a diplomatic stalemate, the likelihood of Iran giving in to the demands of the USA and the international community will probably require a mending mechanism between the two nations to rectify their dented diplomatic relations. In theory and practice, the cause of closure of the US-embassy in Iran resulted from the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. However, it remains difficulty todetermine which side wronged the other. With regards to classified shredded documents that resurfacedafter the collapse of the US embassy, a probability remains that the US could have her reputation dented to the international community regarding her stand on Iran (Franklin 45; Lindsay, and Takeyh, 39). POLICY OPTIONS Maintaining Status Quo One of the policies that US government, under the Obama administration, can opt for includes letting Iran exercise democracy to develop anything she pleases. Iran’s Nuclear Program represents an Iran initiative of developing Nuclear weapons like the USA, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and other nations. Iran’sintention of developing nuclear weapons remains a mystery to the US and the US has no right to intervene in Iran’s developments if unmarked as a target. This gives the US government the option of letting Iran develop the weapons it wishes to develop without interference as long as the project does not violet the United Nations Treaty on Nuclear Programs. The diplomatic relations between the US and Iran remains tense and all thesefor the bad reasons. In this case, several government administrations have passed and the situation has not improved. For the case of Obama administration, if the relations change, a certain political price requires settlement. This price encompasses dealing with Republican criticism and the effect of its previous negative campaigns against the Obama administration. Choosing to maintain a status quo remains both a threat to the Obama administration as it reflects to the international community that does not support Iran’s Nuclear Program. This stands because anti-Obama administrations will result from the Republicans’ arguments that Obama would make half-cooked decisions potentially able to put the world in danger (Bruce, and Christopher 30). Attacking Iran Like Iraq, Iran has no rights of developing Nuclear Weapons if she remains a threat to the United States or the international peace. In this case, the US government, through the Obama Administration, has the option to wage attacks on Iran as a way of interrupting the advances of Nuclear Program development. The US believes that the Iran government failed to establish itself a friend of the United States and logically, the development of weapons of mass destruction registers as a way of preparing for revenge attacks or terrorism attacks against the USA, hence, the justification for the use of force (Gerecht 46). The option of US to attack Iran bags more negative consequences than positive if the Obama’s diplomatic approach remains upheld. The US government operates on information that Iran has operations in developing a Nuclear Program but the specific locations of these projects remain anonymous. Attack on Iran would require thorough inputs so that it will destroy the strong holds of Iran government. However, the fact that the location of the projects remains unknown, air strikes, which in all considerations stand as the only option, would lead to massive civilian deaths. Secondly, the attacks may fail and may change the motives of the Iran regime of developing the Nuclear Weapons to specifically targeting the USA (Gerecht 204). Sanctioning Iran The government of Iran generates up to 80% of its revenue from the sale of crude oil to nations sympathetic to its regime.Therefore, it has the ability to fund its nuclear programs through a continuation of this trend (Sanger 74). As a way of cutting the generating factors of revenue to Iran sanctioning her in terms of international business association as well as encouraging allies to follow suit will paralyze the revenue generating variables. Sanctions will not only involve business associations only, but also the servicing of Iranian airplanes and provision of technological expertise. One disadvantage of sanctioning Iran remainsthe incurrence losses in terms of oil importation from other nations that produce remarkably lower volumes. However, with the concern of international peace at hand, sanctioning Iran in terms of trade, service, and cutting diplomatic relations with all US allies will push Iran to an economic and financial turmoil whereby she would abandon the Nuclear Programs due to financial constraints (Sanger 168). Secondly, the sanctioning of Iran by the US will encourage other non-allied nations to impose sanctions of their own, hence, narrowing the revenue generating activities to almost unsustainable levels. This would either push the Iran government to drop the development of nuclear weapons or halt the process until the current regime surrenders power. “The economic situation in Iran seals itself from disturbance ofsanctions as the small nation produces up to 3.6 million barrels of oil each day throughout January of the year 2012which remaining an equivalent of 11 percent of the OPEC’s total (Nicolson 67)”. The information given by Bloomberg whose investigative journalists compiled data on the economic status of Iran. The economy of Iran clocked $73 billion in 2010 as a result of oil sales and in total accounted for more than 50% of Iran’s government revenues and about 30 percent atop in exports;US Energy Department provided this information (Chomsky 252). Currently, the US and some EU members havetightened the sanctions against Iran as a way of pressuring the government to abandon its course on nuclear weaponry development. Although Iran suffers from similar sanctions, the amount of revenue she gets out of oil-products supposes 75% inspite of a declining trend recorded by the Iranian Central Bank (Chomsky 253). So far, these sanctions have had their better share of effects on the Nuclear Program as the government will fail to acquire specialized materials and advanced technology necessary for the development of the nuclear projects. With the sanctions imposed by the EU in accordance to the Iran Nuclear Program, the social and economic impacts have entered considered by some anti-sanction individuals like John Bolton as effective, tough, and in some cases, brutal. US Invasion: An analysis Assuming that the US would set examples to hostile regimes by invading them, the likelihood of uprising regimes against this approach remains possible. War creates relevance in political misunderstandings by distorting leadership patterns and use of violent means to protect one political community’s policies. The irrelevance of war remains the fact that it cannot guarantee friendly regimes, regardless of whether it completely destroys hostile regimes. Friendly regimes result from creating a purpose in either protecting the world peace or promoting and sustaining trade relations (Bulley 280). For example, the US does not have any political, economic, or social interests that it would like to protect in nations such as Chad, Africa. In addition, successful invasion and replacement of unfriendly regimes has the potential of undermining their economic strengths resulting to immigrations into the US – additional budgetary liabilities to further wreck the already inexpert management of the national debt. For situations related to Iran’s, the US has no obligation to handle them by invasion in order to guarantee friendly regimes. Assuming that friendliness between the US and other nations does not count in matters of immediate national or international threats, the US remains justified in invading other nations. However, detaching the purpose of befriending other nations from reasons of invasion, the US can invade other nations to ensure cautionary regimes(Robert, & Trujillo 87). Conclusion Depending on the scope of threat Iran can create through its Nuclear Program, it remains safe for the USA to exercise diplomacy and finally war if the former option fails.While attacks and maintaining a status quo options have varying effectiveness levels, sanctioning Iran settles as a better option that has the potential to establish a friendly regime.Most options that stand out in governance start with diplomatic talks and negotiations to secure political policies while violent approach remains an important last resort. However, the use of invasion to secure friendly regimes remains an option that the USA should not implement or consider as an option before otheroptions sought. 1. Should the Unites States invade foreign countries to establish friendly regimes? Rogers, P. Military Action against Iran: Impact and Effects. Oxford Research Group, July 2010. Pro In this reference, Rogers refers specifically on the Iran issue and reflects on military action to combat the threat of nuclear weaponry in the hands of Iran. In this case, Rogers showcases the importance of USA invading Iran so as to secure the Muslim leadership regimes that sympathize with terror gangs responsible for launching attacks in the USA. Through Roger’s take, invasion of nations to maintain friendly regimes settles as a sizeable strategy. Bruce, W. and Christopher, A. Who ‘Won’ Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy, International Security, #3, 2006, pp.30. Con After the UN, led by the USA invaded Libya regarding atrocities committed by late president Gaddafi, the invasion aimed at combating the then ongoing atrocities. However, given the amount of resources destroyed in this invasion, it deduces that Libya and other nations like Syria have not learned or changed their regimes to befriend USA or her allies, according to Bruce and Christopher (2006: 30). 2. Should the government increase access to, and regulate, the cost of health care. Gastmans, C. (2006), TheC Perspective in Health Ethics. London: Churchill Livingstone. pp. 56-119. Con Gastmans (2006, 56-119) takes the health care issue from a clinical perspective in which he discusses the stakeholders responsible for the health care of the society. However, with regards to C, Gastmans argues that the government takes the responsibility of funding and implementing health care policies but has no direct mandate to control how the community accesses health care or how health care facilities and personnel in manageability terms. Therefore, the government, according to Gastmans, should fund but allow health care facilities and personnel to manage the sector. Hall, A., Ellman, M. (1990), Health Law and Ethics. West Publishing Company, p 98. Pro Hall and Ellman (1990,98) argue that the government has the mandate to draft health care facilities, fund them, and control how these institutions operate regarding the access and utilization. Having to fund health care, the government resolves obligated to ensure that service administration to all upholds while strategically positioning facilities to ensure public access. In addition, the access to health care, regardless of whether the government funds the sector or not, should manage and control primitive practices. Therefore, should increase access to, and regulate, the cost of health care. Works cited Broad, W. and Fathi, N. Iran’s Leader Cites Nuclear Progress, New York Times, November 15, 2006. p. 6 Bruce, W. and Christopher, A.Who ‘Won’ Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and Its Implications for Theory and Policy, International Security #3, 2006, p. 30. Franklin, W. Slave Society in Cuba during the Nineteenth Century. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1970. p. 45 Gerecht, R. Should Israel Bomb Iran? Better Safe than Sorry, Weekly Standard, July 2010. p. 46 Lindsay, J. and Takeyh, R. After Iran Gets the Bomb: Containment and Its Implications. Foreign Affairs, 89:2 March-April 2010: 33-49. Rogers, P. Military Action against Iran: Impact and Effects. Oxford Research Group, July 2010. Slavin, B. Strategically Lonely Iran. Atlantic Council, March 2011, pp. 211-225 Nicolson, H. Diplomacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. pp. 67. Chomsky, N. Deterring Democracy. New York: Hill And Wang, 1992. Pp. 251-253 Bulley, D. Foreign terror? London Bombing, Resistance And The Failing State. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10, 379-394. 2008. Richardson, W. Effects of Debt on Budget and How to Control Deficit. Cengage Learning, 2012, (pp. 116-18). Robert, D. Trujillo: The Life and Times of'a Caribbean Dictator. New York: Macmillan, 1966, pp-87-86. Read More