I disagree to a large extent about the Iran decision to develop the nuclear power but I also think its decision is reasonable. Why?
First of all, let me elaborate the situation first. Recently, Iran has been doing research and development in nuclear power. This development had lead to unsafe feeling to other nations, which currently are trying to get help from the United Nations to stop it. Their worry is because as most of us already know nuclear power can also lead to a very dangerous weapon, the same weapon the United State used to force Japan to surrender in the World War II. But on the other hand, Iraq claimed that their research was only for nuclear power, not nuclear weapon. So, currently the United Nations is still trying to find a way by exhibiting conferences.
Why does Iran interested in nuclear power?
Based on my knowledge, Iran was one of the world's richest oil owners. So, it wasn't a poor country. But recently, it's economy condition is getting worse. The oil prices dropped, number of unemployment increased, and so on. So as the basic human habit, we also try to find someone to be blamed under critical times; and that's what they do. Who is the man? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And he, being the person in the pressure, decided to find an alternative way to increase its economy. Furthermore, there is also an invisible threat from outside as numbers of Muslim countries has been attacked recently.
So, why do I disagree with its movement?
Seeing from its motives and history, it is not impossible with a country with that background to continue to the further step to develop and use nuclear weapons if the pressure keeps increasing. Furthermore, once they have developed the weapons, it will be very hard for the other countries to fight back in case of war and number of casualties will be very high. Even if the war doesn't happen, there will still be an unsafe feeling among the other nations, like what happening today.
But, how about the 'trust'? They promised they would only develop nuclear power not nuclear weapons and we had the United Nations to make sure they wouldn't break the law.
Then, the condition is like this. A bank robber came into a bank and we, the customers, managed to seize him before he did anything because we knew he had a bad intention and he was a carrying a gun. And, there was also a security guard there. He asked for his gun back and promised he wouldn't do anything. Would you give it?
The security guard represented the United Nations. If we had given it back, it's not impossible that he would have shot the guard and then he could rob the bank. Maybe he had promise, but who know we could trust him. Maybe Iran had promised, but who know we can trust it?
(490 words)
