Why do states sometimes find it difficult to agree upon environmental issues?

Environmental Issues are considered to be global, largely due to the idea that it transcends borders and rely on transnational co-operation to tackle the challenges we face - particularly regarding climate change and energy insecurity. Evidence of a lack of consensus between states in relation to the environment are observed in the Kyoto Protocol, the UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This can be connected to Garret Hardin's 'Tragedy of The Commons' article, written in 1968, which emphasized the economic theory that independently acting individuals, or, in this case, states in their own self interest will act contrarily to other groups or states best interests by exploiting resources or land e.g. overfishing or overgrazing. This idea relates heavily to the realist notion of state egoism, as states are constantly attempting to better themselves and increase supply to match their populations demand, this issue becoming even more prominent with an explosive population and growing middle class in rapidly developing countries such as the BRICS, largely due to India and China's growth in the pursuit of national interest.

This is where the 'free rider' problem comes into effect, whereby a nation will partake in the benefits of a group's environmental initiatives, without taking action themselves. This either undermines the work of these intergovernmental groups by lessening their success or acts as a disincentive for other nations as they fall into the categories of leaders, followers or free riders. Australia is an example of a nation criticized for not taking action against climate change as part of the Kyoto Protocol. The nation has been claimed to attempt to 'wreck' negotiations internationally, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott describes "Australia would not take action on climate change that clobbers our economy." The existence of 'rational free riders' has meant that countries are able to refuse contributing to environmental action if they are benefiting from the alternative. Previously, Australia has also introduced legislation to repeal carbon tax in favour of a capped 'Direct Action' of voluntary payments, which will be limited regardless of Australia's success in a 5% reduction of emissions. Still far from pulling it's weight, the 'Australia Clause' has allowed both Australia and Japan to increase emissions while others face international pressures. This can cause a dispute based on the accountability and responsibility of the nation states to take equal action on environmental issues.

The economic ramifications of a response to environmental issues is applicable to the US co-operation with the Kyoto Protocol, as they initially, in 1998, signed the treaty, only to disengage and not ratify the agreement since 2001. This has become further reason for other nations such as China, which is often caught in environmental disputes with the US, to reject the policies of intergovernmental organizations.
Nations at different stages of development tend to disagree on environmental issues, it is unfair to asks developing nations in Africa for instance to create policy to protect the environment when they do not possess the means and resources to implement them, nor have they largely contributed to the current state the planet is in.

In the last decade and dating back to the 1990s, however, there has been a growing consensus in terms of environmental concerns; particularly the attitudinal change of nations such as the United States and China. So ultimately, despite many adverse opinions on the importance of environmental issues in the 21st Century and how governments and intergovernmental groups should approach the subject, it is understood that environmental issues transcends borders and should be tackled in the same nature.

What is the the Kyoto Protocol? Is it successful?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and put into effect in 2005, whereby the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has recognised the threat posed by global warming, and is advocating a reduction in the emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, noting the anthropogenic influence on climate change. On February 16th 2005, the treaty was made effective among 192 members (Figure 1) and 83 signatories (comprising of the UN members, excluding Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and The US (unratified), but including the EU, Cooke Islands and Niue).

Figure 1 shows the countries in varied stages of involvement within the Kyoto Protocol. It shows there is a general North-South Divide regarding the legally binding nature of nations targets, e.g. countries in Africa, which as underdeveloped states do not contribute largely to the world's carbon footprint, along with South America which already paves the way for an emission free model of development while Asian Tigers and India and China's industry is supported by a lack of binding targets as Non-Annex B nations. However, the most developed nations in the EU and Australia as well as the 'Stans' are bound by legal measures to adhere to the Protocol. However, leniency and bias is shown in regards to the most polluting nations in terms of Russia, who opted out for the second period of the binding targets, the non legally binding nature of agreements with the BRICS in general, the unratified nature of the US and the departure of Canada highlight the Protocol's initial criticism.

The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and other chemicals to a level which reflects a 5.2% drop from the 1990 standards between the years 2008 to 2012, putting a particular pressure on more developed, Annex 1 nations (the EU, US, Canada and the Russian Federation). In most countries, these adopted policies would include restrictions on their largest polluters, manage transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and restructure their energy mix to include more renewable energy sources, for instance, the UK has shifted towards offshore wind turbines and bio fuels.

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol have been multifaceted:

• Firstly, those who prefer the use of carbon taxing to reduce greenhouse emissions are critical of the Kyoto Protocol. One of these critics, James Hansen has claimed that not only is the Kyoto "cap and trade" system ineffective as "the developed nations want to continue with business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give a small amount of money to developing countries" but the use of carbon offsetting is also debated and may not in the long term be effective in combating climate change. 
• Another issue with the Kyoto Protocol is that it has yet to be ratified in the US, which until 2006, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world before the acceleration in growth of China.  Issues were highlighted in a conference in Doha in 2012 that the two nations hold the key to our approach to climate change. Despite China being a member of the Protocol, they have no intention of slowing down their emissions. 
• Furthermore, the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol and it's targets for improvement were demanded to be immediate and put into action by 2008, this was not deemed to be realistic, as it can take a matter of decades to show a shift in energy economy, highlighting in the words of McElroy, "a power plant lifespan may be up to 30 years" or the "average vehicle in the US is on the road for 12 years", this may be detrimental to economies and the population would not adopt these new policies.
• The Protocol also struggles with policy regarding those with large populations or rapidly growing economies such as the BRICS, which is particularly applicable to both China and India. 
• Ultimately, it's also been predicted by Robert N. Stavins that by 2050, emissions under the Kyoto Protocol will have only been reduced by around 2 to 3 percent, which is not enough to withdraw the Earth from it's tipping point in terms of global warming, rather than a strategy of adaptation, there is a consensus on the need to mitigate the threat caused by emissions.
• While it's claimed there has been a 5% drop in emissions of the 40 most developed nations from the 1990 level, this is most likely not due to the UNFCCC climate policy but the collapse of the highly inefficient energy production of the Soviet Union.

However, the framework of the Kyoto Protocol has been widely accredited for its contributions to the future of the UNFCCC's Copenhagen Accord in terms of technology transfer and monitoring, carbon markets and funding projects. The success of the Kyoto ratification is that it's also legally binding for Annex 1 states, in comparison to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which bases it's success on the willingness and good nature of the developed world to comply. The protocol has also shown huge success in nations with a large Research and Development budget such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Scandinavian region) particularly Sweden, who by the year 2006 was beating it's emissions target, with a reduction of 12.7% since the Kyoto Protocol's conception, aiming to be the first completely "oil-free" nations by 2020 in 2013, with European success discussed in Figure 2. 

The graph in Figure 2 suggests, despite other regions shortcomings, that the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were successful within the EU and other European countries which show a stabilization after the 1990's as a possible result of the pressures of the UNFCCC This has only been furthered since the ratification of the Protocol as Europe has shown a 5% decrease in emissions, mostly due to resorting to the alternative of renewable energy. These patterns are not shared in other areas of the world, emphasizing a success in the developed world which is not reflected in the underdeveloped world.

Ultimately, it has been claimed that the major accomplishment of the Kyoto Protocol is it's raising of awareness towards climate change, which up until around a decade ago was largely disregarded in the face of economic growth and industrialisation caused by supply and demand. However, the Protocol has achieved something important, forcing governments to openly recognise the ramifications of anthropogenic damage to our planet's climate and the enhanced greenhouse effect, showing an enlightenment in previously un co-operative nations such as the US and China. It's conception has also been seen as an opportunity for the possible success of the Copenhagen Accord in relation to it's contribution to technology, carbon markets and funding. However, the UN supported agenda is also a platform for the key players in developed countries governments to dominate the global system in regard to the "cap and trade" method and advantage of Research and Development and investment in renewable evident in the UK, France and Scandinavia. Also, the Kyoto Protocol's heavy number of criticism and controversies far outweigh the positives, for example the varied involvement of key players such as the US, Canada and the BRICS costs the treaty a large portion of it's legitimacy as well as it's struggle to reach targets, it has emerged that most of the reductions in greenhouse gases have occurred independently from the agenda, e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union, or the growth of energy awareness and attitudinal change within nations, e.g. the Green Party in the UK have offered change in terms of emissions which undermine the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Under what circumstances is humanitarian intervention justified?

Humanitarian Intervention is a state's use of military force against another state with the intent to end human rights violations being perpetrated by the state. However, as a narrow definition, this can also be combated by the use of humanitarian aid and international sanctions. This means that when addressing the justification of humanitarian intervention, we should encompass non-forcible methods which can be closely associated with soft power.

Humanitarian Intervention immediately questions the authority of the sovereign state. The idea of 'responsible sovereignty' means that for a state to have absolute sovereignty, by principle, they are required to respect their own people but must also co-operate with other nation states on an international level. This issue is exemplified in the Kosovo Crisis in 1999 as it saw tensions between state sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. As NATO attempted to end human rights abuses in Kosovo, using military force without the approval of the UN Security Council. With the states' autonomy was relinquished, the cost of an independent Kosovo 10 years later was the killing of 4000 civilians.

It has now become increasingly clear that, in reference to the UK and US at least, humanitarian intervention has become unjustified. This is largely due to a distrust in global politics and reasons for intervention. For instance, the War on Terror, beginning in 2001, culminating in the Iraq War in 2003, has been debated in it's justification, the belief that the US led coalition was a form of 'window dressing' for other political means; of which could include exploration for oil, replacing governments led by dictators etc. under the idea of a humanitarian crisis.

From a realist standpoint, states are largely unable to carry out intervention unless acting out of self defence and the most importance is placed on sovereignty, however, in a world where liberal democracy is growing, along with the development of intergovernmental bodies, there is an increasing approach regarding human rights and holding sovereign states accountable.

Common Morality also means that regarding intervention, should there be a universally set standard of human rights? Some nations do not uphold the same common values as liberal democracy, considering the intervention of these states as oppressive of their ideology or religion in the Middle East, or in Asia whereby socio-economics and quality of life are placed above the rights of the people. This makes human rights hypocritical to the way some cultures live and makes intervention controversial.

Ultimately, humanitarian intervention is a controversial matter, particularly after the War on Terror, as we begin to question the effectiveness and the reasoning for intervention. However, in states where human rights atrocities are being carried out, there is sometimes little choice on the part of groups such as NATO to intervene.

Could Hillary Clinton be the next US President?

In light of recent news, Hillary Clinton declaring she will run as a Democratic candidate in the next US Presidential Elections in 2016, there has been discussion and debate over whether she can become the next US leader.

Hillary Clinton was a United States Senator from New York from 2001 to 2008, serving as Secretary of State under the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013. As the only First Lady to have ever run for office, she's a political figurehead. Clinton has been central to the promoting of 'smart power', economic and military power in conjunction with diplomacy and soft power techniques in regards to foreign policy, and is outspoken about the empowerment of women. As a liberal politician, Clinton may draw large support from minority communities, due to her support of gay marriage and citizenship for illegal immigrants stands in stark contrast to traditional Republican views.

However, there is very little opposition to Hillary Clinton within the Democrat Party, which has become less divided during Barack Obama's administration since 2008. However, it has been rare throughout history for a new candidate to attain a third term for either Democrats or Republicans, examples being Al Gore in 2008 and John McCain in 2000, respectively. This could pose a problem for the Democrat Party generally, no matter who is in leadership of the party.

With the campaign line, "Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that Champion." Hillary Clinton appeals to the average citizen, as Bill Clinton did from 1993 to 2001. The legacy of her husbands Presidency can be construed as beneficial or detrimental to her campaign. Positively, Bill Clinton in responsible for achieving the largest budget surpluses and debt reduction in American history by 2000 using tax cuts on the wealthiest and spending cuts. Also developing the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement to allow free trade and cut down barriers between neighbouring states, Clinton also demanded welfare reforms as put in place by previous governments. His efforts to regulate gun control, equal rights somewhat reflect the policies of domestic policy, this consensus could give Hillary Clinton an advantage, particularly due to her experience in the White House. But their ideas differed in foreign affairs, claiming "We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere." His approach to intervention has been less decided than Hillary's support for the 2003 Iraq War. This may be negative for her campaign, as this is a pivotal point for a large amount of the electorate. Furthermore, the links between scandals and the Clinton administration has made support of Hillary very much polarized. Alongside claims that American politics has become a Clinton-Bush game, with the possible candidacy of Jeb Bush for the Republican Party.

However, positively, the idea of Hillary Clinton being the US President has been an underlying theme of US politics for nearing on a decade as though her previous bid failed to Obama, it has been regarded by some as only a matter of time before she becomes to power with the Democrats. Furthermore, while a disillusionment of the population can cause a problem for long time political figures, Clinton seems to be a vote that furthers democratic and more modern values as US citizens perspective of politicians and political culture is changing in what some could say is general popular support of the Democrats. It has never been questioned legitimately whether Hillary Clinton could be the US first female President, following the election of Barack Obama.

Ultimately, the campaign in 2016 will be a difficult one for Hillary Clinton, but this could be said of any candidate at this point. She will struggle to convince some voters of her ability in terms of foreign policy and other policy concerns, it is clear that she is more likely than ever to become Democrats candidate and therefore win the election due to uncertainties with the Republican party, the legacy of the previous Clinton administration and the advocating of liberal policy.

Is Counter-Terrorism incompatible with Human Rights?

Counter Terrorism is the use of political or military activity with the motivation to prevent or thwart the threat of terrorism. This has been a mode of response adopted in the face of 'New Terrorism' in particular, as in the 21st Century we have seen an exponential growth in acts of terrorism in the Western World, from the 9/11 attacks, to the 7/7 London bombings, from the Madrid bombings in 2004, to the recent 2015 Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in France. The 'War on Terror' has significantly changed the way that democratic governments have responded to terrorist tactics, as we have extended beyond the boundaries of both state laws and international laws and committed acts against terror suspects that have been controversial in their breach of human rights and civil liberties.

Countering Terrorism has taken on many forms, taking a significant turn during the ongoing 'War on Terror' The United States government, under the Bush Administration, took action to eradicate the terrorist threat from Al-Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Counter Terrorism techniques adopted were various; including the use of military force and presence in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) counter-insurgence in an attempt to diffuse the threat and stabilise the governments of these nations through hard power capabilities, in efforts to install a democratic and representative leader e.g. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai's election as President of Afghanistan in September 2014 as a consequence of overthrowing the Taliban before the withdrawal of troops from the nation, as well as the support of Nouri al-Maliki, the previous Shia Muslim Prime Minister of Iraq in a way that resembled soft power. However, this has created a backlash as any Western intervention in the Middle East has become one of the main concerns of these terrorist organizations that conform to 'global terrorism' in that they wish to damage the power or image of the United States and it's allies, therefore, in a sense these actions of counter-terrorism are seen as adding fuel to the fire. The strengthening of state security is also a measure taken by governments to decrease the terror threat level which has been adopted by nations such the UK, Spain, Sri Lanka and Israel, while political deals are also designed to create co-operation to reach a political end in a liberal form in place of conflict or resorting to terror tactics.

However, there are a number of ways in which we have exemplified a breach of human rights during the interrogation, detainment and punishment of terrorist suspects. A case study for this is the treatment of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the idea of 'extraordinary rendition' means that a government or intelligence agency such as the CIA, is able to transport a prisoner to another country that does not practice the same Human Rights laws as the United States, which allows these agencies to take part in torture techniques such as water boarding and mock executions, a breach of human rights as well as dismissing the right to a fair trial, detaining prisoners without charge, two prominent suspects being subjected to this were Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This is considered to be controversial due to this use of counter-terrorist techniques creating a slippery slope towards becoming an authoritarian state system, giving up the moral high ground and giving the enemy morale, despite the need for intelligence or the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number in a 'Ticking Bomb Scenario'.

On the other hand, there is evidence that counter-terrorism is compatible with human rights, along with the use of soft power to influence the ideals of others, military involvement and political deals, there are examples of attempts to quash terrorism without compromising the moral high ground or depriving suspects of their human rights. If we are to maintain a liberal and democratic political system, we must look into the movement of work such as that of the "Human Rights and Terrorism Project" (2005-2008). During the project, seminars took place to develop an innovative, inclusive and just approach to the drafting of UK counter-terrorism legislation, this made steps towards an equilibrium between respect for human rights and the need for national security, which led to the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Bill which made sure that the interrogation and imprisonment of suspects did not infringe upon the rule of criminal procedure in the UK. The Bill was a success in relation to it's influence on post-charge questioning as well as prosecution and punishment. In 2009, it was claimed by David Miliband that "There is no military solution to terrorism." It is agreed that soft power could be significant in the issue of eliminating the terrorist threat, this has been achieved in smaller ways by establishing regional centres and forums in states such as Iraq and Afghanistan to focus on de-radicalization and the idea of 'winning hearts and minds'. In terms of highly capable terrorist groups such as ISIS, this could be important as it has emerged that most of the terror threats in the UK are from citizens which identify with the terrorist organization's ideology. When referring to groups such as ISIS, the severing of funding to the wealthy organization is vital, as they earn £28 million in ransom payments annually as of 2015. The co-operation of nations such as France with terrorist groups can encourage tactics such as hostage situations and beheadings, for this reason, another counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and US is the illegalization of funding ransom payments. This ends the dilemma of forced co-operations and funding.

Ultimately, the strategies used since 2001 by the United States in particular have been in violation of human rights and civil liberties that are not part of the claimed liberal democracies highlighted as a Western model of social framework. However, there has been movement concerning the need to limit counter-terrorism tactics to a more compatible format to create an aforementioned equilibrium between the "respect to human rights while maintaining national security."

Why do some strands of Islamic terrorism wish to 'purify' the world?

Islamic Terrorism, by definition, are the terrorist acts committed by groups who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. The ideology lying behind some of the radical or extremist views and actions are taken from the Islamic perspective of the Quran and the Hadith. Islamic Terrorism, under groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State, can be categorized as 'global terrorism' as it aims to degrade and damage the unipolar global power, the United States, or the West itself. However, due to the nature of this radical and religion based movement, could be considered 'new terrorism', or in it's attempt to overthrow the colonial rule and imperialistic nature of US occupation in the Middle East, 'nationalist terrorism'. 

It is understood that a large part of the Islamist agenda is the objective of 'purification' of the world, this stems mostly from the idea of 'Jihad', or 'the struggle'. This struggle can address the 'greater' struggle, internally, which focuses with one's personal and psychological acceptance of their own Islamic faith, while the 'lesser' struggle refers to the physical barriers to Jihad, which enforces the acceptance of faith and conversion of others to a like-minded ideology. To Islamists, Jihad is very much a physical struggle, spreading Islamification through the use or threat of terror, propaganda etc.  

Furthermore, establishing a 'caliphate' is an important part of the Islamist ideology. The idea of a caliphate means the deterritorialization of the Middle East that was set up by the Western countries after World War I, creating an Islamic State, which is the main priority of terrorist organizations such as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This demand for a pure and united Arab nation is also derived from the Quran, however, by Islamist extremists, this is interpreted as enforcing the Islamic faith around the world. For example, the striving for religious purity is documented as in 2014, there was mass persecution of Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Northern Iraq, and more recently in February 2015 as 21 Coptic Christians were executed by the terrorist group. This form of purity is based on the eradication of those who do not share the same beliefs, and in this sense, the demand for purity could be seen as an extreme form of identity politics, whereby the Middle East has been oppressed by the West (mainly the United States) for a long time, showing classic Imperialistic signs, that terrorist groups are considered in these nations as 'freedom fighters' in many people's minds. 

Finally, it appears that terrorist agenda is to reach a political end by definition, but it's clear that the search for purity is possibly a means to an end for Islamist Terrorism, as while Islam takes it's teachings from the Quran, including the idea of 'Shariah Law' which dictates a cruel legal and punishment system, it is widely debated that the core teachings of the Quran that are open to interpretation is seen as primarily peaceful, so it seems as if the terrorist search for purity is not only convoluted but a tactic for gaining power and damaging conflicting ideologies or powers.  

Should Iran be allowed Nuclear Weaponry?

Currently, there are nine states with nuclear weapons capabilities, those of which being the P5 of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, China, UK and France) as well as Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel. Iran is a nation that is currently known not to be possessing nuclear weapon capabilities or Weapons of Mass Destruction and has previously been a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel is a nation which has previously been in conflict with Iran and is currently engaging in political tensions with Iran regarding it's Nuclear Weapons Program, from the Israeli perspective, Republic of Iran is an aggressor which as a threat to Israel (particularly since the beginning of an indirect conflict or proxy war between the states in 2005) could use the Nuclear Weapons, although this is unlikely. There is debate over allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands, or even allowing two conflicting states to possess them. Not only is Israel in conflict with much of the Middle East due to religious and political reasons throughout much of it's history since 1948, but the concept of two opposing nations having nuclear weapons is dangerous. as the situation of stockpiling became an issue during the Cold War (even in 2002. Russia and the US still had the control of 98% of the Earth's nuclear weapon arsenal). This is evidence that a volatile country such as Iran is an example of how the gaining of nuclear weapons capabilties is seen as offensive rather than defensive, which could result in an impending security dilemma, whereby as we allow horizontal proliferation to take place, we are allowing a security risk and the possibility of Iran to grow in terms of vertical proliferation, provoking a conflict within the current state of an acknowledged Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which has inadvertently created peace within our current system. This begs the question. are we allowing nuclear weapons into the wrong hands? By allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, are we threatening the current system we have in place?

However, there are arguments for the state of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, firstly there are states in history such as North Korea and Pakistan which have obtained access to nuclear weapons without the authority of the UN, before the Indo-Pakistan War in 1965, Bhutto claimed "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?" This highlights the issue that there is a power held by the current nuclear capable countries to give and take this power from other nations, under the Security Council's Permanent Five nations. However, there are nations that in the light of others military armament or the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, feel as though there is a right to protecting themselves against an external threat. Therefore, despite the belief that nuclear weapons are aggressive in their use, it is also noted that in modern history, there has been no event of nuclear weaponry used in warfare despite unstable countries or dictatorships having access to them. It can be seen that the point of nuclear destruction is a deterrent of war itself and is in a sense, a form of security or defense. For this reason, is it fair that other nations are undertaking nuclear proliferation, despite not being authorized with this power, while other nations are not allowed this security themselves.

This being said, the allowance of Iran to have nuclear weapons is a risk in itself due to Iran's standing in the Middle East. There is a possible domino effect of this horizontal proliferation and Iran is a nation at odds with much of the Middle Eastern nations, which themselves have proven to be a significant power in economy, resources and military, making the Middle East either an asset to the West, or a problem. As seen in the Iraq War or the threat of ISIS and Al Qaeda, the Arab nations are in a state of turmoil. Despite this not being an immediate threat to Iran, the mostly Shia state has had conflict in the 80% Sunni Middle East in the past, highlighted in the Gulf War (or the Iran-Iraq War) of 1980, or the oil war with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. This could lead to nuclear weapons becoming a demand of many Middle Eastern nations as this could be seen as an offensive act, further accentuating the risk of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands. Furthermore, Iran themselves have been anti-West, particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, whereby the pro-Western Shah was forced to flee by rebels. This shows that the inclusion of Iran into the 'nuclear club' could result in a backlash or a wave of unforeseen nuclear proliferation demands that the UN could not predict. 

Ultimately, in my perspective Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, if not for the threat that Iran poses itself, but the backlash it may have for the West and the UN within the Middle East, allowing Iran into the 'nuclear club' could be a threat to an emerging multi-polar world' which has previously based it's co-operation on the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, the threat of a nuclear winter and the downgrading and decreasing of nuclear weapon stockpiling since the end of the Cold War.