On Tuesday, September 25 President Barack Obama gave a speech to the U.N. in which he preached international unity and diplomacy, but was clear in his belief that Iran must cooperate to avert conflict. Besides Iran, the President also discussed slain Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, the conflict in Syria, and the role the United States has in the Middle East.
Although all the things the President discussed are incredibly important international issues, many in the media and international community were focused on his message to Iran. The Iranian conflict is essentially perpetually escalating, because every day that there is no deal made about Iran's nuclear program is one more day closer to Iran having the technology to build a nuclear weapon.
In his speech, the President explained why he believes the international community needs to prevent the possibility of a nuclear Iran. "It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region."
While it is never in the interests of the international community for any oppressive and authoritarian regime to have weapons of mass destruction or large military capabilities, President Obama has failed to explain why the use of force would be justified.
It is frequently stated that a nuclear Iran could lead to the destruction of Israel. Although this conclusion might seem to make sense, it doesn't hold up to questioning. The assumption is that if Iran could destroy much of Israel with a single bomb, they would. In reality, even a regime as crazy and militaristic as Iran would not be stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon. As much as the Iranian government might hate Israel, if they were to drop one it would probably mean a nuclear Armageddon, and in lieu of that it would definitely mean the end of Iran.
No matter how much a government is based on fundamentalist and reactive ideas, across all nations and ethnicities people in power have a highly vested interest in retaining that power. The use of a nuclear weapon would guarantee an almost complete annihilation of the nation of Iran.
If Iran wouldn't use a nuclear weapon then the only reason to actively make sure they don't acquire one is to avoid having to deal with a nuclear Iran. Once a nation has nuclear capabilities the role they play in the international community increases overnight. The way America and Europe would have to treat nuclear Iran is much more complex. The terrorist funding and hate-mongering that Iran has aided would be met with no potential recourse from the international community, and there is no way the horrible regime could be changed or overthrown as easily.
Iran's regime is undoubtably an oppressive, reactive, and hate-based government, but if the U.S. and Israel want to justify the use of force they need to explain what they believe would happen if Iran had a nuclear weapon.