UCLA community reacts to Iran’s nuclear program
By Daily Bruin Staff
Nov. 4, 2009 9:00 p.m.
Amid global concern about a potential nuclear threat, the Iranian government maintains that its burgeoning nuclear program is a peaceful civil endeavor.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on Oct. 29 of his willingness to work with the global community. But to some members of the international community, Ahmadinejad’s government has not proven itself trustworthy.
Some doubt Iran’s assertions of peace in light of the discovery of an undeclared second uranium enrichment facility in late September.
Responding to pressure from the United Nations, the Iranian government has expressed willingness to cooperate. Western nations have called for the shipping of Iran’s low-enriched uranium to nations overseas in exchange for enriched uranium, the idea being to halt enrichment on Iranian soil.
However, Hossein Ziai, director of Iranian studies at UCLA, has his reservations. To Ziai, a government with a “history of despotic behavior,” is not to be taken at face value.
Much of the dispute over a nuclear Iran centers around an alleged military motive. In the 2006 U.S. National Security Strategy, the Bush administration declared that Iran has failed to guarantee that its nuclear programs are solely for peaceful purposes.
The document adds that Iran may pose the single greatest threat to the U.S. than any other nation.
Ziai remains suspicious as well. “This regime seems to be hellbent on creating havoc … and (perpetuating) their military ideology,” he said.
Ziai added that an administration spending vast amounts of money on nuclear technology when a purported 40 percent of the population live below the poverty line is undoubtedly cause for concern.
Chris Nguyen, a fourth-year political science student, is not too quick to condemn. Nguyen likened America’s current situation with Iran unto that between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
“There’s a lack of communication,” he said.
He added that this security dilemma hinders the U.S. from properly anticipating Tehran’s intentions. Much like with the Soviet Union, American fears of an aggressive nuclear Iran may be somewhat shortsighted.
There is virtually no disagreement, however, regarding what an Iran with nuclear weapons would mean to the international community.
“Israel would lose their mind,” Nguyen said.
A nuclear Iran could only destabilize inflamed Middle Eastern politics, he said. American interests are at stake, he added, so long as the U.S. is heavily vested in Israel.
“A nuclear Iran means a very aggressive and unwilling-to-negotiate Israel,” said Joelle Gamble, co-president of the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network at UCLA.
The second-year global studies student expressed concern over the potential threat Iran’s nuclear program poses to peace in the Middle East.
According to Ziai, Iranian nuclear military capability would spark a new arms race and foster turmoil in the surrounding area, furthering the Cold War parallel.
Despite escalating pressure from the global community, Iran continues to assert its “sovereign right” to nuclear technology if used for peaceful purposes. Ahmadinejad has called the international skepticism against Iran a “nuclear apartheid.” This “sovereign right” has met with considerable opposition.
“Considering the political atmosphere in Iran, it’s not necessarily safe for the surrounding communities for (Iran) to be equipped with nuclear energy at that degree,” Gamble said.
Both Nguyen and Gamble agree that as of yet, diplomacy and negotiation are the best course of action for the U.S. and the rest of the Western world to pursue to address a nuclear Iran.
Gamble’s hope in diplomacy lies in Iran’s newfound compliance with international protocol.
“They’re being more open about what they’re doing. At least they’re communicating with the (International Atomic Energy Agency).”
Worries about the nuclear program mostly involve Iran’s failure to disclose details of its operations to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In response to the global community’s demands for Iran to cease its uranium enrichment, Ahmadinejad has offered to allow greater agency inspection to regulate what he avows is a peaceful, legal program.
In 2005, Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a decree declaring Islam and Iran opposed to the violent use of nuclear power.
As for negotiations, Ziai expressed doubts for what he characterized as a “dangerous game.”
“They’ve been playing with Western negotiations for 20 years, going in circles.”
Ziai said that in the past, negotiations have been weak and exploitable by the Iranian regime.
“We need clear resolve to prevent Iran from going nuclear.”
