Whenever decisions are made in the international-relations field, it is necessary to ask what the worst-case scenario would be.
With recent news articles analyzing whether Iran presents a threat to the world, it is crucial to ask the following question: What would happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons?
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be accurately described as nothing less than a madman. He has publicly denied the Holocaust and has stated his desire to "wipe Israel off the map" and to see a "world without America."
Those who question the occurrence of the Holocaust are inevitably labeled anti-Semitic and are stigmatized as having psychological issues.
Why should Ahmadinejad be any different? And would it be prudent for a leader with these beliefs to have nuclear weapons?
Even more worrisome, many believe Ahmadinejad is actively preparing Iran for the coming of the Hidden Imam.
According to Shiite beliefs, the 12th Imam will return to govern for seven years before initiating the end judgment.
The combination of a nuclear arsenal and these particularly avid religious beliefs cause many to wonder if Ahmadinejad will use nuclear weapons in an effort to incite this arrival.
Moreover, Iran sponsors Hezbollah. Only al-Qaida members have killed more Americans.
This terrorist organization is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish population and to the spread of Islam in the Middle East.
Due to its followers' blind adherence to these core tenets, Hezbollah will never seek peace with Israel or stand idly by while Israel exists.
This is a group that stashes weapons in heavily populated areas and uses Lebanese women and children as shields; the results of which are an increased number of civilian casualties and a greater devastation of cities.
What happens if Iran provides Hezbollah with nuclear weapons or it becomes its nuclear shield?
It is important to answer critics who question why Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons while other nations, including our own, do.
The issue is not whether or not a nation has these weapons.
It is a matter of who has these weapons.
There is no reasonable concern that Great Britain has access to nuclear weapons, nor would there be if Switzerland were to have an atomic bomb.
These are responsible governments that do not pose any threat to other countries and have not spoken of obliterating other members of the world community.
The question remains, can the world responsibly permit a 21st century Nazi regime to gain a nuclear arsenal?
The diplomatic negotiations led by European nations and the U.N. have had no success; they have only provided more time for Iran to further the development of its program.
A reliance on intelligence also presents a problem. It is dangerous to put too much faith in intelligence agencies to gather timely and accurate information about Iran's nuclear program.
What if faulty intelligence states Iran will have nuclear weapons in a year, but they are acquired within six months?
The last step taken in international relations is military action. It is understandable that no nation desires to take this route, and it would be especially difficult for the United States to do so while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue.
Yet, it is very easy in retrospect to see the signs of a troubled leader and nation. Those signs are palpable now and the evidence of a nuclear Iran as the greatest threat to world peace, Israel and the West is incontrovertible.
At what point does diplomacy become denial?
Hilary Wade is a junior studying political science, and can be reached at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
