Global Studies Annotated Bibliography

Nuclear Programs: Iran

Matthias Bell
Information:
            Zakaria, Fareed. "Containing A Nuclear Iran." Newsweek 12 Oct. 2009: 1-4. Print
Author’s credentials-Zakaria has written various New York Times best sellers as well as write
periodically for Time Magazine and Newsweek and makes appearances on the Daily Show.
                 Scope and purpose of the work- To inform people on people about people
Intended audience- People who are interested in the developing nuclear climate in the Middle
East and those who are conscious of the current tensions between the US and Iran.
                           
Summary:
            Identify the author’s thesis- “It is time to put up or shut up on Iran.”
What are the main arguments? “There are three basic options that the United States and its allies
have regarding Iran’s nuclear program. We can bomb Iran, engage it diplomatically, or contain
and deter the  threat it poses.”                                         
           
Evidence -
Section 1: A militaristic approach would be wildly ineffective in attempting to completely stop the
nuclear program of Iran. Though it seems like the easiest and most controlled solution, the
thought of military action to end the nuclear threat of Iran is a dangerous and reckless idea that
would not only lead to the strengthening of the Iranian regime, but also to the deaths of
Americans in another foreign war. First is the near certain retaliatory strike that would be fired if
the United States was to bomb all known and suspected nuclear facilities. Before we get to this
first issue, another problem arises. It is a virtual certainty that the United States does not know
the extent of Iran’s nuclear facilities, thus any strike against all facilities would most likely be
unsuccessful in fully eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The retaliatory strike that would follow
these bombings would begin a conflict with another country in the Middle East, bringing more
instability to the region following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On top of this, Iran has a very
strong relationship with Afghanistan and Iraq, further harming the United States’ presence in the
region, and leading to more loss of life. Next is the issue of strengthening the current regime in
Iran due to the bombing of their nuclear facilities. As has been documented in instances such as
Germany’s invasion of Russia in WWII, the 1980 invasion of Iraq into Iran, and the tragedy of
September 11th, 2001, it is clear that in times of crisis, the people rally around their government,
and this would be a similar situation. A strike against Iran would act as a catalyst to bring the
people together to rally around the government, which is in complete opposition to what is desired
by the United States, given the current division within the nation of Iran following the most recent
presidential elections. These issues leave this option of bombing Iran as very unplausible, and, if
done, foolish.

Section 2: The only way something is going to get done is if both sides, the US and Iran, make
concessions. The US has made mistakes in the past, from ignoring Iran after they helped us oust
the Taliban or when the president that we actually liked (Khatami) was still in power, to “never
really understanding Iran’s concerns and never negotiat[ing] in good faith with the regime,” the
CIA funding groups to overthrow the current regime, and ignoring Iran when they recently
suspended their nuclear program for two years to talk and develop international relations. Our
neglecting of Iran and their sincere attempts to change have led for them to thoroughly believe
that we are in no way going to help them or be their ally. There are two sides though; the US
supported Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran has fears that all of the surrounding nuclear powers
are out to get the when they are not, and they cannot seem to be able to even open up their
economy to the world. Zakaria says that if the US even changes their outlook a little bit, then the
lessening of Iran’s fears and concerns will allow them to feel more secure and actually be willing
to compromise. If this happens then instead of Iran possibly being able to reach a “Russia Option”
with its economy and keeping its politics shut out from the rest of the world, they quite possibly
 could concede to a “China Option” where the economy and politics would be out in the world but
not under international control like they fear. Still, “until the government of Iran makes a decision
that it is interested in a rapprochement, no set of words or gestures, however clever, is going to
break the logjam.”

Section 3: The United States and United Nations must continue to institute financial sanctions in
order to diminish their ideals of proliferation. This need is made evident by the fact that even
Russia and China do not want to seem connected to Iran due to the negatives associated with
proliferation and world repercussions. How ever they should not institute extravagant new
sanctions. The issue deepens given their geographical placement. Ahmadinejad has created a
wall between his country and not only Israel, but now with other Arabic nations as well. They have
begun to dislike the bully Iran has become abusing their religious connections to influence the
other Arabic nations which in turn could lead to the proliferation of nuclear advances. Everyone
should not be overly worried about their usage. Iran can not compare to the United States or
potentially Israel in terms of nuclear power. The fact that we are hyping this up to the world is
giving me them more power which they are desperate to hang on to.

Evaluation:
Evaluation of research - The work is logical and clear because it goes over 3 completely viable
options to deal with Iran’s nuclear program. It is well researched because Zakaria looks at both
sides of the table, evaluating the US and Iran points of view, and how they both need to make
concessions.
           
Evaluation of scope Has the topic been adequately addressed?
Section 1: Throughout this section of the article, the author provides evidence from research that
adds to the validity of the report and helps adequately address the issues facing the United
States and the current standoff with Iran and their nuclear program. He demonstrates a
knowledge of historical, international attacks, and uses statistics and specific examples to point
out the fact that acts of aggression toward a country generally leads the people to further support
their government. He also points out, using evidence, the instability in the region, and the
increased instability that would be brought by the United States attacking Iran. This section was
adequately addressed for both sides of the issue and uses evidence to demonstrate a thorough
knowledge of the material.

Section2: There was evidence of research from the very beginning of the topic. All of the author’s
points were backed up, and he fully addressed each possible side of the issue and even talked
about neutral points. He shows the background to the situation and all that has happened
diplomatically between the US and Iran and what could possibly affect their relationship. He also
says the possible outcomes of different types of agreements they have. Overall, the topic was
fully addressed and supported with evidence.

Section 3: The author does adequately project his view of the best possible solution and why
there is a need to contain the development that Iran has made. He also shows the importance of
deterring them from developing further and using the nuclear weapons they may already have. All
ideas were backed with evidence to support their need.
                           
            Evaluation of author bias -
Does the author take an objective stance, or is he/she motivated to argue a certain position?
Section 1: In this section, the author takes an objective stance in explaining the prospect of
bombing Iran. Though it is obvious he supports the United States in his writing, he does
not allow his opinion to affect the bias in his writing, and he presents both sides of the argument
equally and accurately.
 Section 2: The author is objective for the most part. In fact he starts by criticizing the US’s efforts
which would not be expected considering he is not from Iran. He gives both sides their credit and
also explains their downfalls. He says what both sides need to do and nothing is too far fetched.
There are a few places in which the author displays bias about the current situation as he
criticizes Iran a little more than the US about how the current situation could be going. He almost
puts all the blame on Iran for not being able to compromise in the slightest.

Section 3: The author does take an objective stance on the issue in this part of the article. He
brings forth evidence for both sides of the argument and also makes sure each sides
faults are known as well.

                            Reflection:
            Is this source helpful to your research?
                            What did you learn from this source?
                                         What evidence does the source provide to support your argument?
                                         How did the information in this source help you develop your argument?
Section 1: This source helped me to better realize all the consequences of a military action
against Iran. It showed me the danger of bombing such an opponent and the challenges that
follow a military strike. Also, this source demonstrated evidence that supported their theory that a
military strike would merely set back the Iranian nuclear program by a few years, while
strengthening the popularity and support for the current Iranian regime. This resource showed
that it is counterproductive for the United States, because an Iranian regime with a large support
of the people is far more dangerous than the current situation. This source also described that a
retaliatory strike would be in order if the US was to attack, and thus, the United States would once
again be engaged with an Arab nation in a serious, and dangerous, conflict.

Section 2: This source helped me further understand the possibly solutions to the tension
between Iran and the US. It gave me insight into the situation and how just wanting to be peaceful
may be harder than it seems. In reality, Iran and the US have both made great mistakes, and are
both willing to make strides but can not coordinate them with each other. They are both extremely
stubborn. This source gave me insight into the non-western point of view and how flawed the US
is. The background in this article was essential to my understanding as I had not known the
extent of the two countries’ relationship. Overall this article helped my understanding of the topic
grow vastly.

Section 3: This source would give good insight into a possible solution in terms of dealing with
Iran and their somewhat insane leader. I learned that Iran has become not only unpopular with
western nations, but Arabic nations as well. They are furthering the problems that Israel faces
when dealing with these nations due to the bad reputation Iran portrays of them. Also that even
countries like China and Russia are unwilling to deal with Iran due to the extreme sensitivity of
nuclear proliferation and the fact Iran can not be trusted to secure these secrets. Now it is
possible to see that Iran while it may seem just to try and protect themselves from the likes of
Israel and the United States the chance at nuclear proliferation far outweighs that.