By any means necessary

When President Obama said last week in his State of the Union address that he would “take no options off the table” to “prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” he was stating a truth about international politics and diplomacy that is, for some, hard to bear.

The use of force, whether a politician or some other person says it’s force or isn’t, is always a possibility. As long as people threaten the peace and impede on the rights of others, forceful military action will continue to be a legitimate means to stop them.

The Iranian leaders’ nuclear weapon policy is one such instance.

According to a Bloomberg Businessweek article, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran attempted to “shrink a Pakistani warhead design to fit atop its ballistic missiles” and “some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003.”

This blatant disregard for international treaties and opinions does nothing but destabilize the region, international relations and world economics. Think about the Pakistani-Indian nuclear arms race surrounding Kashmir but with a huge chunk of the world’s known oil reserves.

If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabian politicos, namely prince Turki al-Faisal, have said they would consider producing their own nuclear weapon.

And who could blame them for not wanting to be the only kid on the block without a big stick? After all, most analysts believe that Israel also has multiple nuclear weapons.

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be akin to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, triggering a large-scale conflict.

Most of the rising oil prices, in recent years, have been the outcome of the volatile situations in the Middle East.

Professor Kent Moors, an oil policy expert, estimates that gas prices in the U.S. alone would go up “about 30 cents to 40 cents on the gallon almost immediately” if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

So, what would happen if the same country, which continues to edge closer to a waterway protected under International Maritime Law through which 20 percent of the world’s oil is exported, also has nuclear weapons to deter the international community from attacking it in prevention or retaliation to the strait’s closing?

While the IAEA has not explicitly said Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the evidence continues to point to the fact that Iran continues to not cooperate with inspectors. The fact they built airstrike-proof nuclear facilities is also damning evidence.

And if the U.S. and NATO don’t step in, who will? China? Russia?

The world would suffer more if the U.S. reinstituted a policy of isolationism without the international community and its institutions (e.g., the United Nations) being able to use forceful intervention effectively.

— nsobecki@indiana.edu