Opinion: Iran: a second look

Bruce Walton

Bruce Walton

Bruce Walton is a sophomore news major and columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at [email protected]

This column is a response to my previous one about the matter of Iran’s nuclear program. I was contacted and reminded that the views I had in my article were one-sided and distorted. I felt so humbled from my discussion that I had to write another column providing the other side of this topic. As I read more on the topic not just from well-known news sources but also lectures on the history of Iran and its nuclear program, I found that Iran deserves a second look.

First, I have to say that Iran’s nuclear program was promised to it half a century ago by the United States. In 1957, President Eisenhower’s program to find peaceful uses for nuclear energy found one of its interests in Iran. At the time, Iran was an ally to the U.S. in the Middle East. But now, here we are in 2012 sanctioning off as much as we can to prevent Iran from getting any more development in nuclear technology. How did we get here, and why is this brief history lesson important? From Iran being a good friend to a reluctant nemesis, it was mostly because of a change of heart.

When Iran turned on its head and denounced its westernization, the United States got wise and began to turn on Iran. This was because of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that changed the regime of Iran’s government and, most importantly, its foreign policy. On one hand, I can see why the U.S. turned away when Iran was under new management, but you can’t just try to take it over for the money and control of the area’s resources. Iran, now having America as an enemy in multiple wars with the new regime since the revolution, has made America greatly regret its nuclear program there. And although there are no take-backs in nuclear programs, the U.S. has been giving out sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program to stop progress as much as possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said with just a bit more time, Iran could develop nuclear weapons with its program. This, however, doesn’t mean Iran will. Iran’s inner organizations may be a bit extreme, but its government doesn’t show any signs of nuclear aggression. Israel may be right about its potential, but the Iranian government doesn’t want to start a war right now. Terrorists might want to use such nuclear technology, but it’s a good thing they don’t have any say in the government.

All in all, Iran had the program first, and even though it may have the potential of nuclear weapons, it mostly just wants power to keep Iran afloat in the world and using its resources accordingly.

But still, given those points, my opinion still stands that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons. Not because it is an enemy or that it doesn’t have a history of recent violence towards its neighbors — because we need to stop trying to have more countries level the playing field in this nuclear arms race. It is unfair for the countries that are already developed to keep their weapons, but it does not help to add on to the mayhem.