Governments are judged by the people they govern and the outside world by the rationality of its actions. The actions are viewed in its relations and operations. The government subjects judge by the internal development while the international community judge by foreign policies of the government in question. Iran stands to be judged by the international community by its approach to the nuclear conflict. The rationality of the Iranian government, so far put in question and depends on the fact of whether Iran goes to war or not. If Iran follows the suit of Iraq, the conclusion will be that it is irrational. The Iran’s bid should prove that its nuclear program is purely for atomic energy. The American government and its allies view the program as terrorist insinuated. This has lead to enormous sanctions and the emerged strong capacity of Iran will beyond any doubt proof the strength of this fugitive government.
The Iran government can be termed as defiant and hardened. This would be by the consideration that Iran has until now kept up the progress in development and enrichment of its nuclear program reactors. The threat of American airstrikes in a move termed as a protective measure to protect the American Interests and the Israel Jewish republic has brought Iran almost to a standstill. The economic sanctions already biting, the Iran Administration is expected to proof its rationality and capacity to withstand external aggression. The history put and dissected on the table reveals the capacity of Iran to commit heinous actions as well as swallow some and hold back. This time round it is difficult to clarify the direction to be taken by the unpredictable government. The government has so far shown cooperation with the nuclear inspectors. However, this is not a proof to satisfy the American government that the intentions of this government are sober. The American government clearly understands that although the Iran government is most of the time rational, it can as well become irrational at times.
The Iran Nuclear Program
The controversial Iran Nuclear Program whose commencement was sponsored by the U.S government is the bone of contention at the UN Security Council. The program is now viewed as a threat to the whole world and particularly Israel. The attacks carried out in American interests, in Saudi Arabia and Argentina the debates grow as the opposing and external forces against the program that tries to foster out the current type of administration (Alan 2012).
The Iran approach to the whole issue which appears rational creates a rift between the aggressors and the sympathizers. The Iran government has opened its doors to the UN Inspectors. This although viewed as a bid to escape the American allies’ airstrikes, proves the high considerations of the administration. The cooperation shown despite the hard hitting sanctions on the tiny Islamic Nation and patience exercised all through the West, is a high show of what may be termed as caution against consequences. This has been powered by the administrative consideration for war against the Americans, a path the administration knows quite well but cannot pursue. The administration further understands that any bid to inject military power in the deep conflict would only mean doom. The American government would easily uproot it like it happened to the Iraq government in the 2003-2004 war. Analysts warn that attacking Iran is no convincing option considering the sober mood of the administration and the consequences if it was to set forward any aggression (Evans and Evans 2006).
The proxy of Israel to Iran is also something to consider. The Iran’s view of the Palestinian conflict is a biting problem. This would further be complicated by the fact that the Iran Administration views Israel as an American interest. The utterances by the Israel administration towards Iran can be termed as provocative; however, the Iran government has taken this in its stride. This has led to further irregularities in the studying of the Iran Government. The UN Security Council is as divider of all other stakeholders. The UN is not ready to see the repetition of the same mistakes committed in Iraq. Concrete evidence must be presented and all diplomatic approaches exhausted (Alan 2012).
Attempts to deny the UN inspectors access to the nuclear plants would automatically mean airstrikes, in this case the Iran administration has strictly avoided this step and instead opted for cooperation instead. This has so far allowed for continued enrichment without enticing military action from either Israel or America. The further fundamental fact is that Iran cannot share or use nuclear weapons with extremist elements or set up any aggressive acts against America and its allies. In any case, there is any confrontation with Israel; Iran would avoid any conflict with any of the American interests, as this would attract aggressive and intensive military reaction from the West. This would end the reigning regime in Iran as it has been with all administrations that have rubbed shoulders with the American administration in the past.
The fact that Iran has developed 20% uranium and has only 15% to develop for it to be a nuclear weapon, it shows the rationality and caution of the administration. The fact that it would take only two weeks to develop from the uranium full weapon, means that it has no weapon, but they have the means for the same. This means that in case of any attacks from the U.S or Israel, Iran would have the nuclear weapons in place (Shimko 2009). This would mean the Iranian government remains protected and at the same time in line with the UN requirements on nuclear weapons. The factor thus analyzed puts America in a divided position on the way to deal with Iran. It means that if America or Israel attacks Iran they would all be blamed for the irresponsibility and aggression. This reasoning puts Iran safe both in legal and illegal means, protected by both the UN and its strategies. This shows the high rationality of the Iran Administration.
In 1983, Iran attacked the American Embassy and Marine Base in Lebanon. Later in the 1990’s it conducted similar operations on the Israel Embassy in Argentina. It also attacked a Jewish Centre in the same country. These actions together with the attack in the 1996 of Khobar Towers Military Base in Saudi Arabia can be considered real agitation actions. The actions are real irrational on Iran’s part. The fact that they did not meet any military retaliation is not enough fact to undermine the capacity of the American and Israel Governments. It should be considered that the silence and patience exercised by the two countries was a way sobriety in the two governments (Shimko 2009). It is in this capacity and reason that the American Government may decide to strike. The fact that the governments of the attacked stations would be more supportive to the attacking governments, Iran would have faced dire consequences. This has further strengthened the economic sanctions as the Iran is faced as a terrorism government.
The combination of these rational and irrational actions forms the characteristics of the Iranian government and its leaders. At one end, it shows a high degree of rationality and patience, on the other end irrationality and brutality. The interpretation is that the Iran government is camouflage, and it depends on the prevailing situation for it to take actions.
The forwarded argument that Iran government is rational but controlled by irrational elements may be bought and applied. The insurgents committed in the name of the Iran government are done as attachments but not prime operations. Further on this, they are carried out by amorphous groups and not the Iran agencies. This portrays an image of a highly conflicting and controversial structure ( Marie and Naghshpour 2011).
The attachments of the Iran government and presence of radical ideologies in its structures further prove how incredible the government is. The elements seem too powerful for the government to be controlled and managed. However, the government still holds and believes in such protagonists.
The Iran nuclear program is indeed a controversial idea and action. It also extremely controversial when all the options put forward as the approaches to the problems are reviewed. The American proposed approach of airstrikes is widely unfounded keeping in mind that no evidence has so far been presented. The fact that the Iran administration is rational and keen on whatever approach it takes, the American approach, is already ruled out. The Iran government is as keen to ensure it holds to power complicating the issue further. Already with a divided opinion at the UN Security Council and with the proved will to cooperate with the Iran government makes the approach a headache to all. Trying to dissuade the Iran government against the program with economic sanctions has also proved futile and unproductive. It is upon all concerned to come up with a rational solution in approaching a rational government. Iran has far positioned itself in a safe position by capitalizing on its rational capabilities and withholding its irrational abilities.