Final Exam Review 2015
Final Exam Review 2015 Ps 399
Popular in Nuclear Politics of the Middle East
Popular in Political Science
This 10 page Study Guide was uploaded by Talia Davis on Wednesday April 8, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to Ps 399 at University of Oregon taught by Dr. Jane Cramer in . Since its upload, it has received 157 views. For similar materials see Nuclear Politics of the Middle East in Political Science at University of Oregon.
Reviews for Final Exam Review 2015
Lectures notes?? Yes please! Looking forward to the next set!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/08/15
Nuclear Politics of the Middle East Final Review 0 Explain all of the reasons why Israel should join the NPT How would this bene t Israel How would it be good for the Middle East How could Israel be safer without nuclear weapons 0 Validates Israel s pressure and fight against a nuclear Iran 0 Doesn t give them a negative stigma I Special case 0 Could stop other countries from wanting the bomb I OTHER SIDE there are no other nuclear countries in the middle east and Israel has had bomb for decades 0 Explain why many people believe that an Iran nuclear deal is better than no deal 0 Believes that the alternative of the deal is worse 0 No deal means I No inspections I Iran leaves the table I Growth in their nuclear project I Leads to a bomb 0 Without a comprehensive deal there could be no constrains on Iran s enrichment capacity which would increase the likelihood of military action National Interest 0 In US were to With hold for a maximalist demand it would be blamed for failures of talks and the international coalition who is putting pressure on Iran would fracture 0 Good deal to the US I Limiting Iran s capacity to enrich uranium I Limiting number of centrifuges Iran operates 0 Currently Iran has more operating than necessary for energy yet have enough for weapon capabilities I P51 should press a formula that would heavily reduce Iran s capacity 0 Reducing operating centrifuges 0 Limiting RampD 0 Reducing stock pile of low enriched uranium 0 Goal is to make the breakout time long I Right now at about one year I Argued that they can stop Iran if they starting putting bomb together but 0 Cut plutonium output by 95 making the breakout time about 10 years 0 More intrusive international inspections O I IAEA Snap inspections 0 No sanction relief until investigations are resolved Good deal to Israel and some republicans I Dismantle centrifuges 0 Many say that this is unrealistic 0 Dismantling doesn t take away knowledge 0 Dismantle heavy water reactor 0 Or convert to light water Explain why some people like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believe that accepting a nuclear deal that allows Iran to have any signi cant nuclear infrastructure is a bad deal 0 O Believes fully that Iranian regime is dedicated on killing the Jews and eliminating Israel Any nuclear ability is a threat because can be easily transformed into weapons I Re ects the threats that Iran poses to the US now Fears the relationship of ISIS and Iran I What Iran could do for ISIS 0 to defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapon would be to win the battle but lose the war The deal that have drafted currently I Leaves Iran with vast nuclear infrastructure providing them short breakout time 0 Breakout time the time it takes to amass enough weapon grade uranium o plutonium for bomb I No sites will be destroyed or dismantled 0 Centrifuges will keep spinning Doesn t trust inspections I Only documentation not action to stop 0 NK I Iran s secret nuclear facility 0 Natanz and Qom Deal has a deadline once it expired Iran has the ability to build bomb Doesn t believe that the alternative to the deal is worse I Regime is not changing for the better at this deal I Believe Iran will use deal as a bargaining tool to get more in the future from the US I Iran will become more aggressive and sponsor more terrorism with a growth in its economy I Nuclear arms race in the ME 0 Saudi Arabia claimed they will get a bomb if Iran does Can nuclear power be made safe from nuclear weapons proliferation How could this work What happens now What would have to happen to make it safe I 5 steps to prevent proliferation while keeping nuclear energy 1 Tighten NPT withdraw provision 0 Make it impossible to withdraw 0 Right now when countries violate the treat they can quit 0 Need to make it so this isn t possible 0 That is they violate the treaty they are punished 0 Right now countries can sign the treaty get the material for a nuclear energy program enrich uranium and plutonium then quit the treaty and build a bomb 2 Limit access to nuclear explosives 0 There is a degree of technology control but it needs to be increased 0 Right now monitored in the US by Nuclear Supplier Group but needs to have tighter regulations 0 Need to deal with the language of the treaty 0 Access to Plutonium 0 Until we can face the security threats of plutonium we should stop using it I Energy wise hard to discard I Dangerous when enriched 3 Special inspection rights by IAEA 0 Nuclear power means forgoing some sovereignty and agreeing to full inspections snap inspections 4 Enforcement 0 NPT 0 Real and immediate consequences for countries who break the treaty Obama speech in Prague 0 The world has been punishing Iran with economic sanctions 0 Never punished NK 0 Israel India Pakistan Shows what you can get away with 5 Universalize treaty 0 How to get to these steps 0 End support for nuclear power 0 Stop outlining the NPT as three pillars 0 Focus on the main principal of nonproliferation 0 For nuclear energy to be full effective need l000gt centrifuges which means dozens of new countries would be acquiring the capabilities I Argued that most countries don t make nuclear weapons out of their energy programs I Argued that nukes aren t that useful and countries will stop trying to get them 0 Only good as a deterrent I Defense only no offense 0 Inspections are KEY I Civilian nuclear cooperation causes a cutback in cost and makes it more likely for states to therefore create weapons program Did cooperation get Libya to give up its bomb Use Sagan s models to discuss Libya s history of nuclear pursuits Did coercion make Libya give up its bomb What role did the George W Bush administration play Jentleson and Whytock reading 0 Overturn Qaddafi I Not coercion when using only force because there is no room for diplomacy I Page 63 O Reciprocity proportionality O In 2003 Libya agreed to abandon their program dismantle centrifuges and international inspections 0 Some argue that Qaddafi was intimidated by Bush and his administration to invade Iraq 0 Coercive Diplomacy I Reagan Sanctions and military force I Bush SrClinton Sanction based I Clinton Bush Jr Secret negotiation military economic sanctions 0 1Didn t work 0 2 Kind of worked I 3 Worked O 2 and 3 worked because I Balance in coercers state and combination of credible force taking into account of international and domestic constraints I Vulnerability of target state as shaped by domestic politics and economy I Superior military force and economic position isn t enough I Coup in 1969 brought Qaddafi to power I Libya signed NPT I Qaddafi went straight to work acquiring nuclear power Sought help from China Russia Indian and Pakistan but they all refused O Soviet Union provided them with equipment and research Libya was ranked the third leading state of state terrorism Oil made their economy grow Sanctions beginning soon after Qaddafi came to power With the escalation of terrorism specifically against the US and Israel US closed their embassy in Tripoli 1980 heightened their pursuit of WMD Under Reagan the US placed embargo on crude oil imports Despite the US coercion diplomatic economic and military Qaddafi continued military strikes and terrorist attacks I The third round of coercion worked Greater balance of US strategy and a change in Libya s domestic politics 0 Led to Qaddafi s compromise on Lockerbie I UN sanctions suspended O Negotiations focused on terrorism not WMD I After 911 Qaddafi was one of the first Arab leaders to condemn the attacks I Disagreement within Bush administration Libya despite their high terrorist activity was not included in Bush s axis of evil speech Some argued they should focus on democratization and human rights not just WMDterrorism O Argued that sanctions shouldn t be lifted only because Lockerbie agreement I British were broker of the final deal Full disarmament Agreement came 6 days after Saddam s capture 0 Argued that Qaddafi was in support of regime change because of Bush admin use of military force I Military force in Iraqdemonstration effect Military force wasn t only factor I UN participating in sanctions legitimized the US and provided coercive credibility KEY focused on policy change not regime change Diplomacy offered reciprocity They focused on politics and economy I Made Qaddafi s regime more susceptible to US coercive diplomacy I Overall Reagan coercion failed 0 Bush SrClinton had mixed results with some Libyan moderation but they still continued the pursuit for WMD 0 Combination of threat of force and sanctions through the UN and the international community enhanced the credibility of coercion 0 Clinton Bush Jr was successful with the Lockerbie settlement 0 All three factory were in place I Military force was key factor I Sagan three models 0 Security Feel threatened 0 Domestic politics national interest of state I Norms More legit and secure I NIT reading I Qaddafi state that there was rumor that Israel had a bomb 0 Regional actors inspired him to peruse nuclear capabilities I Security I Norms to be more powerful 0 yet argued that nuclear capabilities were peaceful 0 What lessons from Israel s bombing of Osirak and Syria s nuclear facility apply to Iran Would a preventive attack on Iran s nuclear facilities work Discuss fully in detail 0 o Raas and Long Reading Possibilities of a US strike on Iranian nuke site I Ongoing involvement in Iraq makes the US less willing to attack Iran I Israel has more to fear from a nuclear Iran I May feel need to attack if diplomacy fails 1981 Israel attacked Osirak under PM Begin I Precision strike I Political repercussions I Overall success totally destroyed nuclear site with no damage to surrounding areas Iranian target harder than Osirak to strike I More advanced than IAEA knows 0 Therefore attack would not significantly delay program only cause retaliation Raas and Long argue I No covert program because id so Iran has two programs separating their uranium and plutonium production I Repercussions of an attack would be huge in terms of diplomatic condemnation and Iranian retaliation 0 Iran learned from the attack on Osirak I Program is big concealed and have 3 locations I Signed NPT allowing for peaceful production of nuclear technologies 0 Country growing in the need of more energy 0 BUT I Technologies to bomb a hard target have improved 0 Braut explains I Although Israel s attack on Osirak halted Iraq s process it overall forced and motivated Saddam to work harder and fast to get the bomb I In 1990 Saddam attacked Israel with SCUD missiles I States need to take precautions before preemptive strikes for it could speed up their program and large retaliation attacks 0 Bombing Syrian site I Operation Orchard 0 2007 I USCIAIsrael all claim that site was for weapons although Syria still denies it 0 US didn t want to strike so Israel did under PM Olmert 0 Despite the predictions of retaliations 0 The attack DID NOT create an international outcry like Iraq I Israel was very quiet about the attack I Syria did not cooperate with the IAEA justifying the attack 0 Begin Doctrine I 1981 I Term used for Israeli government preemptive attack to counter proliferation Short answer NPT Nuclear non proliferation treaty Aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technologies Fosters the peaceful use of nuclear energy Further goal of disarmament Treaty establishes the safeguard system under watch from IAEA 1968 forced entry in 1970 Treaty recognizes 5 states as nuclear powers 191 states have joined I NK signed but didn t fall into compliancy I 4 UN member states have never signed and have nuclear power OOOOOOO IAEA 0 International Atomic Energy Agency Seeks to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy Established autonomous organization in 1957 I Reports to the UN Poorly funded Saudi Arabia s bomb Washington institute reading 0 O O O Ratified NPT in 1998 Concluded comprehensive safeguard agreement in 2009 I Has not signed additional protocol to allow more inspections by IAEA Announced in 2009 that the kingdom need nuclear energy because of the size of their population 2011 spent 80 million on 16 nuclear power reactors 1999 relationship with A Q Kahn I May have nukes on order from Pakistan Trevor Peterson Saudi Arabia has declared that if Iran succeeds at getting a bomb they will get one too Stated that SA should be encouraged to sign additional protocol Too costly for them to build full program Syria s bomb pursuits O O O O O Signed NPT in 1969 Possesses smallest nuclear operational research reactor from China Openly sought nuclear assistance from IAEA China Russia Iran NK I All said no I Got help from Soviet Union Assad pursued in 1990 I Again in 2015 2011 IAEA declared them in violation of NPT In 2008 the IAEA found undeclared uranium Atoms for Peace F uhrmann 0 Speech by President Eisenhower to the UN in 1953 0 Risks and hopes of nuclear 0 The conversation of nukes had been in secret until this speech I Moving away from the fear of the Cold War and looking at the future of nukes I Fearful atomic dilemma to miraculous inventiveness of man 0 countries have signed more than 2000 bilateral civilian nuclear agreements pledging to exchange nuclear technologies materials and knowledge for peaceful purposed I significant now for more countries are looking for solutions for climate change and ways to combat it Amimut and NWFZ 0 Bans the use development and deployment of nuclear weapons and energy 0 Cohen functions I Norms of nuclear transparency O Civilian nuke program 0 Clandestine nuke programs 0 By signing the NPT it means that countries are agreeing to inspections I Giving up a portion of their sovereignty 0 Future of nuclear power in the Middle East Fuhrmarm 0 Are countries that are receiving aid and building nuclear energy more likely to build a bomb with that program I Conventional wisdom is that civilian nuclear cooperation oes not lead to proliferation 0 Cooperation atoms for peace 0 Argued that nuclear weapons spread when states have a demand for the bomb security norms domestic politics not when they have technical capacity to proliferate 0 Dangerous because the duel nature of nuclear technology for both weapon and energy 0 Civilian nuclear assistance over time increase the likeihood that states will being nuclear weapon programs because it reduces the expected cost of such a campaign and inspires confidence among leaders that the bomb could be successfully developed and useful 0 Interim deal 0 November 2013 0 Joint Plan of Action J PA 0 Fact with the P5l and Iran I Short term freeze of parts of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for sanction relief I 6 month period while they develop a comprehensive deal I Implementations began in January 2015 I Next round of talks March 17 2015 I Deal very controversial 0 Backlash 0 Catalytic nuclear posture 0 Withholding nuclear status 0 Persuadingblackmailing richer countries I Pakistan in 1980 I US got involved with India 0 Israel is now to be perceived as a catalytic nuclear country I They relied very heavily on Amimut and the US 0 According to Vipin Catalytic nuclear posture is when countries have small arsenal and rely on the umbrella of other countries to ensure their security 0 WMDFZ or NWFZ of the Middle East 0 Domestic Politics and Prime Minister Netanyahu 0 Some argue that Netanyahu is using aggressive rhetoric to present a hawk mentality to his audience I Election season 0 AQ Kahn Taught the West that proliferation can happen fast and for money Father of proliferation Began selling in the early 908 I Provided technologies to Iran Libya and NK 0 Pakistan nukes I 100gt hidden I US afraid I US gave Pakistan 3 billion in aid I Used drones I Killing Bin Laden hurt our relations 0 Nuclear renaissance 0 Nuclear power is coming back 0 2001 people making huge arguments in favor of nuclear energy I Believes it will reduce con ict when states are in charge of their own power I No fight over oil I Need to combat global warming I Controversial because fear of proliferation and dangers of nuclear waistradiation OOO
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'