Iran Instability in Iran

In talking about the influence that Iran's nuclear program has on the overall stability in the region of Middle East, it is essential to tell apart between the cycles of time relevant to Iranian quest for nuclear weapons acquisition as well as the Iranian realization and application of nuclear weapons systems. Both cycles should be thought about distinctly simply because they are very different when it comes to implications for stability and regional conditions. Iranian quest for nuclear weapons is really an undermining aspect in the Middle East since it assists in maintaining the present uncertainty element in regional circumstances caused through the initiation of the 'War Against Terror' by the United States which resulted in the removal of Iran's usual regional counter, Iraq[footnoteRef:1]. [1: Blankfield, J. (2010) Iran's Nuclear Programme & Regional Stability. Xiphias Consulting. This brie-ng argues the case that completed Iranian nuclearisation, and specifically military nuclearisation can be a stabilising influence on the Middle East though current Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology is destabilising for the region.]

This uncertainty is especially concerning regarding Israel, which is much more responsive to any regional energy change and more positive than other states in the area. Menachem Begin, who came up with the Begin Doctrine that has influenced the majority of defensive Israeli tactics since its beginning, correlates the ideas of both formats of war -- anticipatory and defensive. Its influence could be observed evidently within the Osiraq incursion back in 1981 whereby Israel initiated a pre-emptive hit in opposition to Iraq's nuclear structure and growth[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Ibid]

Israeli regional frivolity and destabilized eastern edges further leads to a heightened level of insecurity for the country as well as its growth of nuclear capacity, which even though measured to be dormant, proves to be its greatest liability. Regional frivolity inspires the Begin Doctrine's support of anticipatory hit and defensive tactics fought against and adversary within the adversary's region. It might simultaneously assist in evaluating and understating Israel's inclination towards creating buffer districts surrounding its own territory; good illustrations of this include the creation and sustenance of Golan Levels and the West Bank which was created back in 1967. The primary apprehension when discussing regional stability in the Middle East is that if Israel proposes to launch strikes against the established nuclear sites in Iran on the justification of an anticipatory launch, Iran would most likely reply in the form of forceful strike as well, leading to a possibly intricate and durable regional conflict[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Ibid. Here the author mainly refers to how past experiences can perhaps teach other countries in the Middle East to deal with Iran's nuclear proliferation without engaging in a war. The author hopes to establish a ground for peaceful, diplomatic and preventive measures that don't provoke retaliation from a nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East which could easily lead to further long-standing instability in the region.]

This really is not saying that pre-emptive measures will be the only strategy that the Israelis could adopt simply because they have prevented such action in some cases. Illustrations of this fact include

Iraq's purchase of chemical and biological weapons after they had been tried and tested at the Kurds in Halabja back in the year 1988

Pakistan's quest for acquiring WMDs earlier on during the 1970's and 1980's

Syria's quest for other explosive devices and nuclear bombs between the years 1973 and 1990

Israel's muted response against Iraq's reconstructed entry into the nuclear industry back in the year 1991 before the Gulf War began[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Ibid]

It is thus important to note here that the use of a pre-emptive strike remains more unlikely, in accordance with what most experts think and propagate. This, on the other hand, does not automatically mean the area is moving towards stability or the like. The fact is that the world is facing a progressively assertive Iran liberated from the factor of Iraqi power growing in authority inside a region vulnerable by U.S. intrusion or political involvement. Aside from this particular aspect, the truth is that an apprehensive Israel and guarded Gulf countries are progressively responsive to any and all Iranian strategies and implementations. Any proposition where the Israelis could potentially evade pre-emptive battles will still continue to be welcomed by the political parties not only in the Middle East but also in the United States. This is primarily because a pre-emptive battle or hit will lead the unstable condition in the country towards a major global crisis[footnoteRef:5]....

[5: Blankfield, J. (2010) Iran's Nuclear Programme & Regional Stability. Xiphias Consulting. This brie-ng argues the case that completed Iranian nuclearisation, and specifically military nuclearisation can be a stabilising influence on the Middle East though current Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology is destabilising for the region.]
In certain aspects, the geographic location coupled with Iranian nuclear dismissal procedurals can serve as stabilizers within the structure of the area, since Israeli fleets don't presently possess the range that is required for definitively striking Iranian nuclear marks and centres at the primary locations like Natanz, Arak and Esfahan without the aid of aerial refuelling. Even with aerial refuelling and aims to strike the three primary Iranian nuclear locations, the overall damage that they could cause to Iran's nuclear programs will be minimal to negligible, and thus an Osiraq-style hit will most likely be a futile, and nearly impossible, effort when speaking in logistical conditions. A total of 75 bombers from Israel could potentially be needed to provide the army sent for the attack a reasonable likelihood at accomplishing its aims and the truth of the matter is that Israel doesn't have the aerial support needed refuel all of the bomber planes required. This is where their dependency on the U.S. support comes into the picture; however, the intentions of the U.S. are to attempt avoiding actions that will increase instability in the area and thus any support for Israel from the U.S. is highly unlikely. It's also worthy of observation that the nuclear program in Iraq really acquired speed and a reinvigorated boost following the Israeli attack on the Osiraq base. The fact is that a ballistic missile hit from Israel is one of the other option available for a possible attack on Iran. However, the overall Iranian nuclear dismissal procedural and the requirement for pinpoint precision or use of nuclear warheads can make the use of a ballistic missile strike another unlikely alternative[footnoteRef:6]. [6: Ibid. Here, the author's apprehension and lack of support for an Israeli strike on Iran is evident. He supports this by providing support for how the development of nuclear plants in Iran could lead to nuclear proliferation in the neighbouring countries as well. He thus asserts that a pre-emptive strike will only boost efforts in Iran and inadvertently lead to increased efforts for nuclear proliferation in the entire Middle East region. ]

Blankfield (2010) asserts that effective Iranian nuclearisation would result in nuclear proliferation in the neighbours. On the other hand, an Israeli pre-emptive hit will most likely just strengthen the apprehension and add to the Arab awareness of Israel being an aggressor in the region which may also in turn encourage the Arabs to instigate a redesigned limit to the regional standing on nuclear programs and systems. The fact is that Arab countries have for a while now feared the introduction of a 'Shia Crescent' over the entire Middle East and therefore are cautious about Iran since its efforts to spread and transition the Islamic revolution across the region back in the 1980's[footnoteRef:7]. [7: The writer writes this from the point-of-view of the Sunni population in the region who will obviously and understandably fear a serious conflict of religious interest and investment if the Shia philosophy were to become a dominant feature in the region. Furthermore, this apprehension leads to another situation, aside from the Israel-Iran conflict, that could lead to tremendous instability in the region. ]

Another potential apprehension that could be cause for instability in the region is the anxiety over Iranian efforts to get to be the sole and successful Gulf hegemony. This coupled with many resulting influences of Iran's potential dominance on the Oil Industry that dominates the Gulf import and export activities could very easily lead to the possibility of strengthening of nuclear countries in the region as well as increased anxiety amongst many governments like the Arabs and the U.S. These particular governments will not try to stablizie or counter Iran's efforts by using Israel which can then lead to the creations of an Arab or Sunni domination within the nuclear profliferation structures present in the Middle East. This is why the Iranian quest for nuclear proliferation thus remains the destabilizing factor for the Middle East as it proposes the creation of dubious and uncertain circumstances within a previously unsteady area[footnoteRef:8]. [8: Blankfield, J. (2010) Iran's Nuclear Programme & Regional Stability. Xiphias Consulting. This brie-ng argues the case that completed Iranian nuclearisation, and specifically military nuclearisation can be a stabilising influence on the Middle East though current Iranian pursuit of nuclear technology is destabilising for…