On Nov. 13, a panel assembled to discuss the nuclear threat posed by Iran to the west, a topic that has been the center of recent debate in the media.
The event was hosted by a number of Baruch College clubs including Hillel, Model United Nations, International Association of Students in Economics and Commercial Sciences (AIESEC) and the Philosophy Club.
The panel consisted of three academics: Dr. Abrahamian, Baruch College history professor and specialist on Iran; Dr. Waxman, Baruch political science professor and specialist on Israel and the Middle East and guest speaker Dr. Menashri, dean, professor and chair of the Iranian Studies Center at Tel Aviv University. Hillel’s president, Nir Buchler, introduced the three speakers to the audience, which consisted of students and other academics from the Baruch community.
Iran’s nuclear program is the main reason that the country has been the focus of the media lately. The current government in Iran claims to be pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program, while western countries such as the United States and Germany believe that the claim is cover up for a dangerous weapons program.
Thus far, the United Nations Security Council – which includes China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – has passed two resolutions in response to Iran’s refusal to cooperate with demands of suspension of its nuclear program. The resolutions are meant to restrict the sale of weaponry to Iran by foreign nations and ban business with certain companies and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear industry. So far, Iran has not yet complied.
The discussion began with a speech by Abrahamian, who downplayed the Iranian threat. He mentioned that the media has distorted what Iran is all about and that claims regarding the imperialistic aspirations of Iran to regain the lands of the former Persian Empire are absurd. Furthermore, the argument that Iran poses a military threat to Israel or the United States lacks support, since Iran’s army is antiquated.
Abrahamian also stated that Iranian military spending is a fraction of its neighbors. The Islamic Republic spends about $6.2 billion on its military while Saudi Arabia’s defense budget is $25.4 billion. The Iranian air force is 30 years obsolete and its navy is basically non-existent.
The reason behind such low spending on building arms is that after the First Gulf War, Iran realized that developing social programs that bring stability was in its best interests. Additionally, Abrahamian mentioned that Iran will not have the capability to develop nuclear power for several years.
Menashri, who arrived from Tel Aviv that very morning, countered some of Abrahamian’s views. He brought up Iran’s rather extreme, fundamentalist President Ahmedinejad who has repeatedly called for Israel “to be wiped off the map” and denied the Holocaust. He further argued that even if Iran does not have the ability to produce nuclear energy today or will not have it in a year from now, it will reach that stage eventually. Menashri also said, “The problem with Iran is that they can make life miserable [through terrorism] without the use of the military.”
Both professors seemed to acknowledge that there is a solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. The first option is the diplomatic route: a direct U.S. dialogue with Iran. They believed this option has not yet been exhausted and, as Menashri remarked, “If it brings results, wonderful. If not, then [the U.S.] can move on to other measures.”
In addition, Menashri argued that “logic and wisdom” should lead foreign policy and not ill feelings for past events. He mentioned that “Iran is a world problem which should be dealt with internationally” and that any solution should not have “a made-in-Israel trademark.”
Both professors also felt that American military intervention through air strikes would be devastating to America’s image in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to the world economy.
Waxman mediated the discussion. He summarized the differences between the two experts’ opinion as capabilities versus intentions. Abrahamian spoke of how limited the Iranian military is while Menashri said it is more important to focus on the intentions of the state.
While both professors had interesting opinions, the discussion ended on an optimistic tone: a Middle East in peace.