This situation has subsequently put undue pressure on countries such as Iran. In addition, nuclear terrorism can be a good starting point for regional cooperation. In this respect, the West's recognition of Iran as a nuclear state would encourage Tehran to offer comprehensive cooperation in tackling the threat of nuclear terrorism, especially at the regional level. Iran is situated at the center of the region in which most of the nuclear terrorist activities by groups such as al-Qaeda would presumably take place.
Such an approach would undoubtedly lead to trust building, marking a turning point in regional and global cooperation. Over the past three decades, extensive international measures have been adopted to counter nuclear terrorism. Nuclear Posture Review, in , under Bill Clinton's administration.
Simultaneously, documents advancing the positive international impact of disarmament were brought up, leading to the indefinite extension of the NPT at the Review and Extension Conference in Later, in the process of extending the NPT, the Clinton administration issued a declaration stating that the NSA excludes three groups of countries: The second turning point goes back to the U. Nuclear Posture Review under the George W. Bush administration, 7 which embarked on the production of new nuclear weapons.
The NPR can be considered a step backward in U.
The document explicitly declared Washington's readiness to deploy its nuclear weapons against those players posing threats to the national security of the United States and its allies. Subsequently, the arrangement of U. The deed provided no security assurances to states lacking nuclear weapons. From that point forward, the issue of countering al-Qaeda's attacks as well as those of similar violent groups became deeply embedded in American policy-making academic and research circles.
Graham Allison's book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe for the first time pointed to the imminence and gravity of the threat to U. Following the Washington Nuclear Security Summit, the leaders of 53 countries represented at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit reinforced their determination to counter the threat of nuclear terrorism as a key world challenge through firm domestic policies and international cooperation. However, some observers have highlighted the summit's contradictions as the conference urged that "on the one hand, countries such as Iran and North Korea should not possess nuclear stockpiles.
On the other hand, the existing nuclear powers such as the U. As far as the definition of nuclear terrorism is concerned, and in light of the increasing number of countries achieving nuclear technology, the issue of preventing terrorists' access to nuclear materials is under consideration. Some Western views allude to evidence suggesting that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Chechen rings and some Japanese gangs seek to gain access to nuclear materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium in an attempt to carry out terrorist operations.
Opponents of this perspective mainly criticize the exaggeration of the threat. They argue that the four scenarios have never happened and are very unlikely. Knowing the hazards of nuclear weapons, every nuclear state exerts the most stringent supervision of its nuclear materials; they downplay the seriousness and imminence of the threat of nuclear terrorism and dismiss the theory as a tool its advocates can manipulate. Critics contend that, without the terrorists' access to nuclear materials, nuclear terrorism is impossible.
On the other side, proponents argue that the four scenarios cannot be ruled out simply because they have not happened yet. They point to the catastrophic ramifications, including the devastating impact on large populations, of a nuclear terrorist attack and urge the international community to take preemptive steps to avoid such consequences.
Nuclear Terrorism: An Iranian Perspective
For example, the explosion of a "suitcase" nuclear bomb in a populous area could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands. From a conceptual point of view, nuclear terrorism is a turning point in studies of terrorism and nuclear deterrence. In fact, a synthesis of the two concepts presents a new challenge to the world whose scope will differ from one country to another.
The controversy is not over the existence of the threat, but the extent of such threats. While the United States considers nuclear terrorism dangerous and imminent, and despite Washington's success in assembling more than 50 countries for the Washington and Seoul summits, other countries, such as Russia and China, view the gravity and imminence of nuclear terrorism differently.
The views of countries such as Iran towards nuclear terrorism involve attention to the political aspects, double standards and exploitation of the issue as leverage against certain countries. One of the main issues at the nuclear-security summits was Washington's new pledge not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states except for Iran and North Korea. Therefore, Iran considers the imminence of the threat of nuclear terrorism a grave challenge, leading to an escalation of U.
From Iran's perspective, if the threat of nuclear terrorism is serious and imminent, countries like Iran that possess nuclear reactors and materials should have been invited to those conferences to offer cooperation in the campaign against nuclear terrorism. Here, of course, the ignoring of Iran's peaceful nuclear-energy capabilities and the fact that Tehran has not been considered a part of the game reveals a blatant contradiction in Washington's management of the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Meanwhile, Iran believes that nuclear terrorism has been turned into leverage against Tehran in an attempt to link nuclear terrorism to Middle East security. If Iran accepts the imminence of nuclear terrorism but cannot take part in the policy-making process, this will be unacceptable. The issue becomes even more sensitive for Iran as the United States links nuclear terrorism to the Middle East, simultaneously describing groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran.
Attributing a military dimension to Iran's peaceful nuclear program and linking it to nuclear terrorism challenges Iran's regional and international position and undermines the country's security. Iran has officially denounced its exclusion from the Seoul summit as due to South Korea's "prejudiced behavior and its breach of the ratifications of the previous nuclear security summit. Iran's problem stems from the West's unfair stance towards the country.
Following the emergence of the concept of nuclear terrorism in U. President Obama at the Washington Nuclear Security Summit explicitly described the access of Middle Eastern terrorist groups to nuclear weapons and materials as the single threat to America's national security. It is considered the major underlying threat. The other challenge is that the battle against global terrorism and the concept of interdependent security carry an ideological weight due to their link to U. They can enable the United States and the West to adopt a broader interpretation of the use of force and a preemptive strike.
The strategy of fighting global terrorism also aims at maintaining global and regional security. This started in Iraq and Afghanistan, based on the ideological framework of a zero-sum decisive war with an emphasis on the absolute victory of the United States and the West. Today, these wars — which have no winner or loser — continue mainly due to the ideological resistance of regional opponents, such as the Taliban, who mobilize local forces to fight against the foreign occupiers. Therefore, Iran believes that emphasis on the concept of interdependent security can pose a severe threat to Tehran.
The United States could use this pretext to convince the international community, including the EU, China and Russia, that Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat to global security. The major challenge here is the manner of convening the nuclear conferences in Washington and Seoul. In the past, such coalitions were cemented on the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. As long as tension continues in Iran-U. Iran does not oppose the nature of the coalition or even its leadership.
Tehran's problem is that the coalition has been forged against Iran because of its independent nuclear program. From Iran's perspective, the United States and the West are seeking four major objectives regarding nuclear terrorism.
Regional Perspectives on US Policy in the Middle East
First, superpowers have a right to monopolize the use of force. Some Western opinion holds that the United States is forging a campaign against nuclear terrorism under the auspices of the five major powers to divert world attention from global nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, Iran believes that the West, particularly the United States, spotlights the risk of nuclear proliferation in an attempt to monopolize the use of peaceful nuclear energy.
This runs counter to the fair use of nuclear energy for the achievement of sustainable development. Iran believes that there should be a balance among the three major pillars of the NPT: Second, there is a maximalist definition of supervision of nuclear issues. One may argue that the United States and the West are exaggerating the threat of nuclear terrorism in an attempt to control, manipulate and define nuclear trends.
Nuclear Terrorism: An Iranian Perspective | Middle East Policy Council
By portraying the threat as imminent and grave — and assuming that Iran is part of it — the West legitimizes its full supervision of Iran's nuclear activities. At present, one of Iran's major challenges with the IAEA is the agency's maximal definition of its responsibilities and supervisory role under Western pressure.
This approach is not applied to the other member states. Iran believes that the IAEA has gone beyond internationally accepted regulations by exerting tight control over Tehran's nuclear activities. Iran even claims that the agency and its inspectors are not safeguarding Iran's nuclear information adequately; the information has sometimes been used by Western countries to exert political pressure on Tehran.
Third, the West dominates and controls the technical and political trends within the IAEA, particularly through monopolizing nuclear fuel. Even Russia, which has different views from those of the West on some nuclear and global issues, shares the view of the United States on this matter and is not completely in favor of Iran's independent uranium enrichment. It would deprive Moscow of a monopoly over the economic benefit of selling nuclear fuel to Tehran. One of the major problems between Iran and the IAEA is Iran's independent model for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
This model, which has some advocates in the international community, especially among the members of the nonaligned movement NAM , is a new phenomenon for the IAEA. One may argue here that the agency's problem is how to find a way to adapt this new model to Western expectations.
Last but not least, there is the double standard regarding the West's nuclear cooperation with the Arab states in the region. Over the past years, Iran's nuclear policies, aimed at establishing sustainable development and technological advancement as well as acquiring international prestige, has attracted the attention of some of the Arab countries of the region.
This issue will indirectly endanger the interests of Western powers. At present, the West is providing technological know-how and nuclear materials for the reactors under construction in Arab states in the region. In other words, while the West is exerting a great deal of political pressure on Iran through sanctions, it is helping the Arab countries achieve nuclear technology. This paradox imposes a fundamental challenge to the campaign against nuclear terrorism.
One of the reasons for the so-called imminence of the threat of nuclear terrorism is the issue of "nuclear deterrence. One may argue that a major objective behind this strategy is to maintain a grip on the political and security trends in the Middle East and to control the development of its nuclear programs, especially in Iran.
Some American strategists even believe that controlling the world means holding on to the Middle East — an impossibility without controlling Iran. Another point with regard to deterrence, as discussed earlier, is the argument about a possible transference of nuclear weapons to resistance movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which Washington regards as terrorist entities.
Follow Us:
One of the key U. This report provides a description of Iran's neighbors' policies and interests, options for Congressional consideration, and an analysis of potential regional implications. This report is part of the collection entitled: It has been viewed 24 times.
- Bullied.
- Iran: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy!
- Antología (Spanish Edition).
More information about this report can be viewed below. People and organizations associated with either the creation of this report or its content. Serving as both a federal and a state depository library, the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department maintains millions of items in a variety of formats. Descriptive information to help identify this report. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library. Unique identifying numbers for this report in the Digital Library or other systems. This legislative branch agency works exclusively for Members of Congress, their committees and their staff.
This collection includes CRS reports from the mid's through the present--covering a variety of topics from agriculture to foreign policy to welfare. What responsibilities do I have when using this report?
Dates and time periods associated with this report. Geographical information about where this report originated or about its content. Regional Perspectives and U. Policy , report , January 13, ; Washington D. Description This report provides a description of Iran's neighbors' policies and interests, options for Congressional consideration, and an analysis of potential regional implications. Physical Description 54 pages.