Iran’s Nuclear Hedging

Abstract: In limited span of time, hedging position a state relatively close to the nuclear weapons threshold and may be perceived to hold value as a tool of influence, coercion or deterrence , even if this value draws on a latent form of power.

In current era, the international community has been trying to grapple with the nuclear hedging. The topmost agenda strikes attention to untangle Iranian nuclear challenges. The journey took its strikes in Tehran declaration of 2003 to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and ultimately ‘historic deal’ of the US-Iran nuclear deal. Authorities are in dire apprehension owing to Iran’s enrichment plan beyond the civil needs. However, dissident attitude of Iran regarding nuclear proliferation programs did not acknowledged by IAEA.

These programs caught fire under military dimension rather than peaceful nature. Tehran named encroachment by UNSCR’s as ‘nuclear imperialism’ and declared it impinging Iran’s sovereign rights. Both stakeholders, Iran with Russian at one pole and Arab countries with Washington, on the other hand, are compelling Tehran to come on terms. Though, Iran did not admit her covert nuclear proliferation programs and reiterated that her enrichment is limited for civil purposes. On the other hand, UNSCR’s repudiate Tehran declaration due to restricting authorities for inspection of military bases at Natanz and Arak.

These diametrically opposed views open Pandora’s Box of acquisition Vs restraint for Iran Nuclear Programs. The authorities are concerned with the repercussions in both options. Either authorities must consent to the acquisition of Nuclear power to Iran or restrict Tehran to the nuclear threshold within civil purposes. The former case of the point will drastically affect regional hegemony and broadly international security. Whereas, the later scenario is possible only to agree with Tehran for the similar nature of deal by Washington as with Delhi and Riddya- nuclear deal for civil purpose. 

In the presidential address, President Obama claimed that ‘the entire world has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon’. The illusion still exists in the form of the US-Iran Nuclear Deal – the historic initiative by the Obama administration in the binary acquisition or restraint framework. As after the deal Iran has more opportunities for clandestine nuclear proliferation. It does, however, add another layer of complexity in the nuclear hedging. The perceived value of  nuclear weapons option as it cater needs on political, diplomatic and technical ground.

The agreement reached into finality among both parties. In limited span of time, hedging position a state relatively close to the nuclear weapons threshold and may be perceived to hold value as a tool of influence, coercion or deterrence , even if this value draws on a latent form of power. Undeniably, lasting deal recognized Iran’s program and give legitimacy to a form of proliferation behavior that has defied several UNSCR’s. The implication of nuclear hedging has ripple effect as Iran yields benefit due to this deal. This provides Tehran a viable option for a relatively rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons based on technical capacity to produce then within a relatively short span of time ranging from several weeks to a few years.

For the sake of understanding, deconstructing hedging is very significant in an interpretative lens. More or less, nuclear hedging used as an objective of state for nuclear power to fulfill with authenticity by international diplomats, particularly by Tehran. Primarily, in the deconstructing hedging coherent efforts required to achieve latency. This conceptual framework of latency is central to hedging in which an ability or attempt made to maintain a high level of opacity with regard to intent and capability.

In this regard, Iran’s nuclear activities cause concern for several reasons. Nevertheless, the one reason is existence of significant gap between Tehran’s stated civil rationale for the program and the program’s maturity. Another reason is regarding technical issue, concerning international pressures which Tehran has not ignored yet. Lastly, the economic element interplay here as well, as Iran’s progress in nuclear energy with the maturity of nuclear programs. Thus, Tehran can alternate oil requirement with nuclear energy-particularly for domestic energy needs.

The above rationales and the finality of deal between US-Iran on nuclear programs can lead Iran to create hegemony in the region for military purpose. The evidence in this regard gave by President Rouhani in this theme as ‘Iran will never surrender its legal right to the pursuit of civil peaceful nuclear activity’.

Conclusively, the situation in future could be detrimental due to diplomatic and economic pressure from western powers. In case of violation of the agreement and nuclear hedging occurred, Iran would be inclined towards East due to closer ties with China and Russia. Therefore, this move will allow Iran to mitigate the effects of sanctions.