lucas flint peer review

7/30/2019 Lucas Flint Peer Review

1/8

Flint 1

Lucas Flint

Instructor: Malcolm Campbell

English 1103

November 8, 2012

Peer Reviewer: Hannah Luke

Why a NUCLEAR Iran is a STABLE Iran

Iran is currently a very sensitive subject in American politics. The Islamic Republic has

made several bold maneuvers in the political realm, the most controversial of which being the

proposition to develop nuclear technology. Nuclear technology? The statement obviously alludes

to nuclear warheads. False. Firstly, Iran claims to be creating a domestic nuclear program,

meaning that its purpose is to create energy -- not weapons. Secondly, who is to deny another

nation the right to a technology they are using their own resources to develop? The United

States, along with most of its allies, have imposed crippling trade sanctions on Iran in order to

prevent them from acquiring nuclear technologies, blatantly sabotaging their economy in the

process. It is unethical to punish a nation for pursuing a technology that would make us

uncomfortable. Even though Iran claims to have no desire to acquire a bomb (admittedly a

statement of questionable validity), I am going to propose what would happen if Iran were to

develop a bomb. Then I will argue why theyshoulddevelop a bomb.

Who can we trust?

The Islamic Republic of Iran has made it clear that it is going to continue its nuclear

program. The intended purpose of the nuclear program is the disputed matter. Regardless of

whether or not Iran has peaceful intentions for its nuclear program, the United States and its

Hannah Luke 11/11/12 2:25 PM

Comment [1]: Very engaging title. I can

tell you are going to make an argument in y

essay. I would have never thought of a nuc

Iran a stable Iran, but now Im interested to

what you have to say about it.


Comment [2]: You have a really, excuse

the pun, explosive topic. I think you can m

your opening statement more interesting and

really grab the readers attention


Comment [3]: I am not well informed on

the topic of nuclear technology. If I were y

would think about including some more

information on what nuclear technology is t

help readers understand the difference betw

a domestic program and other nuclear

programs.


Comment [4]: What kinds of nuclear

program does the US have?


Comment [5]: Just a minor grammar fix

Have to has


Comment [6]: I think its interesting how

you are incorporating an argumentative essa

and an exploratory essay into one work.


Comment [7]: What evidence do you ha

to back this statement up?


2/8

Flint 2

allies have punished Iran with extensive trade sanctions. For what reason? There is an irrational

xenophobia that plagues America. We hear of these distant lands from the other side of the world

from secondary sources and then develop prejudices and slanted opinions without having a firm

grasp of the concept or problem at hand. This is what has happened to the U.S. in regards of our

opinion of Iran. Who tells us about Iran? The most relevant source influencing the decision

makers in America is perhaps Irans most hated enemy: Israel. Israel shares an intimate dislike of

Iran and has strong diplomatic ties with the United States. On the other hand, Iran stormed the

U.S. Embassy during Jimmy Carters presidency, taking several Americans hostage. Israel: 1,

Iran: 0. So given the history between the U.S. and either of the other two nations, we can see

how the United States would be more friendly towards Israel while expressing animosity towards

Iran. We need to establish for ourselves what is going on. Sure, Israel is a U.S. ally. But at the

same time, can they really give us a non-biased assessment of Iran? This becomes particularly

significant when it comes to somebody threatening Israels monopolistic hold on a nuclear

arsenal in the Middle East.

Israel does not like to share.

There is an imbalance of power in the Middle East. Israel is the only regional holder of a

nuclear arsenal. Nowhere else in the world does this occur (Waltz). When there are multiple

nuclear arsenals in a region, deterrence keeps the peace and prevents nuclear war; it is evident

that should two nations launch nuclear missiles at each other, both nations would face a

substantial loss. However, when a state can hold that power over all of the other states in the

region, that puts them at a strategic advantage. Israel holds that power over all of the other

Middle Eastern nations. Not only does it hold this power over other states, they destroy any state

that tries to become their equal in terms of nuclear capabilities. In 1981 Israel bombed Iraq in


Comment [8]: Maybe include informatio

about what kind of trade sanctions?


Comment [9]: Fragmented question


Comment [10]: What caused the hatred?


Comment [11]: I like this statement a lo

It adds a level of connection with your reade


Comment [12]: I think the information y

have presented is accurate and interesting, b

in order to strengthen your paper, I would

incorporate evidence to back up your

statements that are not common knowledge


3/8

Flint 3

order to assure the dismantling of their nuclear program (Waltz). Iran is now attempting what

Iraq tried in 1981. Israel is steadfast in preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities. Israel

has proposed an invasion of Iran; a direct attack on their nuclear facilities. Iran has made clear

that should Israel attack them, Iran will launch a full counterattack on Israel as well as the United

States, which happens to have several military bases in the Middle East within range of Irani

missiles (Rayment). Tensions were very high in September. As a precautionary measure, the

United States and its allies held naval war games outside of the Strait of Hormuz, which is the

narrow opening at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Had events escalated between Israel and Iran,

the United States would have been able to quickly intervene and defend its military bases and aid

Israel. Thirty-five percent of global oil resources travel through the Persian Gulf, and

subsequently the Strait of Hormuz. That makes it a very strategic spot to hold that cannotbe

blockaded by Iran at any costs, else the price of oil would skyrocket globally (Rayment). Israel is

willing to go to war in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear technology, even though it

poses a direct threat to U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It is a very selfish scheme for

Israel to do whatever it takes to prevent another nuclear arsenal from materializing in the Middle

East, especially since it poses a threat to its largest ally. Israel simply does not like to share.

Bringing balance to the Middle East

Were Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb, which is still months or even years away (Iran

Watch), it would bring balance and peace to the Middle East. It would be filling a void and

assume a role of nuclear deterrence with Israel (Waltz). Israel would no longer be able to bully

and pressure other nations by pulling the I-have-a-nuclear-bomb-and-you-dont card. Iran

would check Israel, just as all nuclear nations always have and always will. Pakistan and India

are enemies to the same degree that Israel and Iran are, and they have yet to blow each other up


Comment [13]: Great use of an example

back up what you are saying


Comment [14]: Because of September

11th

?


4/8

Flint 4

even though they both possess a nuclear arsenal (Waltz). That is because deterrence works.

When Iran gets the nuclear bomb, the civil unrest and general chaos in the Middle East will

cease. A balance of power is important; without that balance, there is chaos (Waltz).

What not to do at a stoplight

The world is at an important crossroads right now. How the world acts now will

dramatically affect the lives of people in every corner of the globe. Here is what we should not

do: invade Iran, start another global conflict, and provoke another global recession. According to

some, we are approaching a critical time when it may be too late to stop Iran from developing a

nuclear bomb. Their solution: invade and destroy. In his article, Time to Attack Iran, Mr.

Kroenig is not enthused at the prospect of invading Iran, but he describes it as the least-bad

option. The ultimate worst-case scenario, in his eyes, is a nuclear Iran. However, there are

several potential pitfalls with invading Iran. First of all, there is the possibility that the invasion

would fail and Iran would maintain its nuclear facilities. In addition to a botched military

invasion, it could provoke an all-out war and plunge the world into another global economic

crisis (Kroenig). In contrast to the hawks, the doves propose diplomacy in the forms of economic

sanctions, covert operations and othernonmilitary endeavors that they deem more efficient for

dealing with Iran.

News Flash: Iran is not crazy

Contrary to popular belief in America, Iran is, in fact, rational. Iran has no desire to see

its nation destroyed; Iran is not self-destructive in nature. Developing an offensive nuclear

arsenal would suggest that Iran is not concerned with its own security, which would be an utterly

false assumption (Waltz). Iran is just as much concerned with security as the United States is

concerned with its own security. Another concern to the global community is that Iran might


Comment [15]: What is deterrence?


Comment [16]: This is a very basic way

presenting information. Maybe reconsider

how you introduce what the United States

should not do


Comment [17]: Who are the some?


Comment [18]: A little repetitive after

stating Iran has no desire to see its nation

destroyed


5/8

Flint 5

hand off their technology to another nation, or even worse - a terrorist organization. No country

could ever do such a thing without running a high risk of being found out, which the United

States is more than capable of doing (Waltz). In addition to having to circumvent intense

monitoring (which is guaranteed), there is a huge price tag on building a bomb, which is a highly

dangerous task in itself. Handing away such advanced technology to an untrustworthy

organization, such as Al Qaeda, that could not be controlled by the vendor would make little

sense (Waltz).

What happens now?

Irans nuclear program will be resolved in one of three ways. First, the crippling trade

sanctions put in place by the U.S. and allies could discourage Irans pursuit of nuclear

technology. However, economic sanctions are not necessarily guaranteed to dissuade any

country of obtaining nuclear arms should they be truly determined to achieve their goal of

nuclear armament (Waltz). Take North Korea for instance. Despite numerous sanctions and U.N.

resolutions, they still managed to manufacture a nuclear weapon. In fact, should such harsh

sanctions be put into place, Iran could potentially feel even more vulnerable than it currently is

and feel obligated to develop a nuclear weapon in order to give it leverage in the international

community again (Waltz).

The second way Irans nuclear program can resolve itself is by attaining a breakout

capability. What this means is that Iran may stop short of developing an actual nuclear bomb and

settle for a civilian nuclear program instead. Should Iran need to quickly procure a nuclear

weapon on the spot, it would be able to divert its civilian program into one that could swiftly

produce a weapon. Japan has a civilian nuclear program and is speculated to have the ability to

create a nuclear bomb on short notice. If Iran were to attain breakout capability, it would be ableHannah Luke 11/11/12 3:15 PM

Comment [19]: Is this information inclu

in the (Waltz) citation a few lines down?


6/8

Flint 6

to enjoy the benefits of a nuclear program while avoiding the risky, dangerous components. Iran

would have greater national security while avoiding international denunciation and isolation

(Waltz). The downside to breakout capability is that it could fail should a bomb need to be

developed on the spot and the facilities prove incapable of producing a nuclear weapon (Waltz).

The third possible way in which Iran can bring its nuclear program to a close is by

continuing to pursue its current course of action and complete and test a nuclear bomb. While

both Israel and the United States have stated that such an act is intolerable, the chances that

either nation would do anything about it are pretty slim. In the past whenever a new state gained

nuclear weapons, other states accepted their nuclear status and decided to just live with it rather

than take military action. By filling the void and balancing military powers in the Middle East, a

nuclear Iran would bring more stability to the region, not less (Waltz).

Reflection

It is truly an exciting time to be alive. Iran is developing technologies that make other

nations squeamish and uncomfortable because they feel that their military superiority is at stake.

The United States and allies have taken it upon themselves to impose incredibly harsh trade

sanctions on Iran in order to slow and hopefully stop their nuclear program. In my opinion, I do

not feel that it is up to the United States or any other nation to decide what a country can or

cannot do within its own borders with its own supplies. It is unjust and nearly tyrannical. The

propaganda presented to Americans portrays Iran as the enemy, when in reality America is the

one bullying Iran. People everywhere need to be exposed to this knowledge. They do not have to

agree; they just need the exposure so that they can have both sides of the story, rationalize what

the consequences of any of the available options would entail, and then make a fully informed

decision.


Comment [20]: Does this source have an

page numbers that could be cited?


Comment [21]: Do you need the previoucitation if this sentence is included in the

previous source as well?


Comment [22]: Since your essay is

partially exploratory, I think you could plac

yourself in it a little more. Why does nucle

technology fascinate you? What about it an

new technology make you feel excited to be

alive? Maybe include some personal

information in the beginning of the essay to

help your readers understand why you are

writing this essay


Comment [23]: Your final paragraph is

strongest thus far. You take on an

authoritative tone that makes me believe wh

you are saying. Edit for passive voice in th

rest of your paper to make your essay sound

more aggressive. Show that you know wha

you are talking about through active voice a

evidence.


7/8

Flint 7

I believe that a nuclear Iran would be a stable Iran. They would never be so bold as to

actually launch a nuclear missile. A nuclear arsenal serves the diplomatic purpose of deterrence;

creating stability where there was once chaos. Even just attaining breakout capability would be a

win-win situation all around. It would be a middle ground between the United States and Iran,

thus relieving a lot of the pressure put on Iran by trade sanctions. Our current trade sanctions will

accomplish nothing but fueling Irans resolution to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is time that the

United States stopped imposing itself on other nations and gave Iran the opportunity to progress

as it wishes. We have no right to dictate what another state can or cannot do. A nuclear armed

Iran will finally bring long-awaited peace to the Middle East.

Hey Lucas! You have a really interesting topic! I enjoyed reading about nuclear technology

from your perspective. Just a few grammar mistakes and uses of passive voice are scattered

throughout the paper, but with some editing you can take care of these issues easily. If your

intention is to merge argumentative and exploratory essay styles, add some more information at

the beginning about why you are so interested in nuclear technology. Add a little more evidence

throughout to strengthen your argument. Overall, great job! By adding some other information

to clarify what some terms mean and more evidence, you can easily reach the 7-page mark

required for this assignment as well. Let me know if you have any questions about my

comments or anything.

-Hannah


8/8

Flint 8

Works Cited

Kroenig M. Time to Attack Iran.Foreign Affairs 91.1 (2012): 76.MasterFILE Complete.

Web. 2 October 2012.

Rayment, Sean. Armada of International Naval Power Massing in the Gulf as Israel Prepares an

Iran Strike. The Telegraph. The Telegraph, 15 September 2012. Web. 4 October 2012.

Tracking Irans Mass Destruction Weapon Capabilities.Iran Watch. Wisconsin Project on

Nuclear Arms Control, n.d. Web. 10 October 2012.

Waltz, Kenneth N. Why Iran Should Get The Bomb.Foreign Affairs 91.4 (2012): 2.

MasterFILE Complete. Web. 3 October 2012.

lucas flint peer review

Documents