With the approval of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1737 of December 23, moved the world increasingly more to a war in the Middle East. The resolution, which reaffirmed the commitment of the United Nations to the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, imposed a weak sanctions regime against Iran for his refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium, a critical component of any nuclear weapons program.
While the resolution was a symbolic effort that had little more than one seemingly unified response from the Security Council, the real effect of the action was the removal of a major obstacle diplomatic for the use of force to stop or slow the progress of nuclear Iran.
There is little doubt among the Nations of the world that Iran has become the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. In its push to become the most powerful nation of the region, Iran has fostered discontent among Shiites from Iraq, supported terrorist ally Hezbollah in a brutal war of the summer with Israel and aggressively a nuclear program that it says is for peaceful purposes, but that is strongly suspected that the world is a concerted effort to acquire nuclear weapons.
Dealing with Iran, there is simply no good options available. Negotiations so far have not yielded no progress, Iran rejects very attractive incentive packages from the European Union and the West and any additional offerings as normalizing diplomatic and economic to probably be rejected as well. Iranian leaders, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and nuclear negotiator main Ari Larijani, have repeatedly stated that Iran will never give its right to nuclear technology.
Sanctions, especially those recently imposed by the Security Council, will have a negligible effect at best. Historically, these measures have proved to be ineffective, especially when the goal is directing something sanctioned nation, considered as vital or extremely important. Russia and China, both heavily invested in Iran, will not take actions that affect their financial interests, no matter what is expected of them under the provisions of the UN resolution. Unless the vast majority of other Nations is prepared to actively pursue a real sanctions package, Iran will be affected by such measures in its quest for nuclear weapons.
The futility of continuing the negotiations and minimum effectiveness of UN sanctions make use of force a more likely option. But a military strike is a realistic possibility, and what are the possible consequences of preventive action?
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities probably would be by the United States, possibly a help of our British allies. Any type of invasion by land with us forces is highly unlikely, with significant commitments troops continued American conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. United States may choose to air strikes, with any of the two critical as Bushehr and Natanz facilities limited attacks, or a broader set of strikes against many of the known Iran and suspected nuclear sites. Any attack, however, would require complete surprise, so it probably would be evidence of an imminent strike or the bellicose rhetoric of Washington.
An attack of United States incurred serious repercussions, not only within Iran, but also through the East. To begin with, the Iranian people, it is likely that it would be an attack as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of his country, resulting in increased support for Ahmadinejad and the clerical regime as people rushed to "rally around the flag".
Iran undoubtedly promote more violence in Iraq neighbor, especially among Shiites in the South and may be used to proxy Hezbollah to launch attacks on military targets and Israeli civilians, forcing an israeli response that might request intervention Syria and Muslim outrage, both in the participation of Israel and what would be perceived as another attack by U.S. in Islam, throughout the East. The Russian Government would be enraged over an attack on its financial investment in the nuclear Iran program and provide covert spiral possibly expresses support for Iranian actions that would create problems for the United States in the region as the conflict quickly out of control. The friendly Nations to, or at least tolerant of the United States, it would be difficult not to earn the antipathy of the United States while appeasing the populations of supports of his Muslim colleagues.
Ultimately, the consequences of a military attack against Iran probably outweigh any benefit obtained by delaying the progress of the Islamic Republic towards a nuclear weapons capability. The risk of a war in the Middle East means that the United States and Europe may have no choice but to accept the reality Iran someday join the club of nuclear nations of power, knowing that the huge arsenals of the West will probably prevent a first-strike Iranian against Israel or any other nation. That Act by Iran would be an invitation to the West to retaliate in a way that will guarantee the disappearance of the Iranian regime.
No mistake, though. A Iran with nuclear weapons will be emboldened in its quest to become a regional and global power ultimately and will use any opportunity to challenge American interests in the Middle East. Israel will no longer be the only nuclear State in the region and will have to accept that the fundamental balance of power has shifted in the Middle East. None of this a good omen for a region suffered desperately in need of peace and stability. But the reality is that all options United States and West, acceptance of a Iran with nuclear weapons is full of the dangers of the minor.