Case Study

Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make

The article, written by David Sanger and Michael Gordon from The New York Times on August 23, highlights main controversies about Iran-US nuclear agreement. After months of negotiations between USA and Iran, the deal is waiting to be approved by Congress. However, there are many points of debate regarding the approval of this pact. The main point of polemic is the capacity of Iran to produce nuclear weapons after 15 years, when the agreement is supposed to end. Many people, like the Democrat Representative Adam B. Schiff from California, agree Iran would “have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability” (Gordon & Sanger, 2015). Others argue in favor of the agreement because, as R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of

Things move so far and so fast in the Middle East that some of the pieces here already seem like distant history just a year or two after happening and being written. If Iran, in 2013, ‘felt that the economic pressure and the credible threat of military intervention were to threaten its very survival, it might, just as Assad did with the chemical weapons, go as far as give up the entire nuclear program altogether.’ Before 2014 started was a relatively peaceful time. But of course, we know now that the West will never make such a threat, that the mullahs will have their way, and that the Americans are in retreat amidst the confused ruins of their policies as the Russians move in.

At this point, the US had few options in which to prevent the continued advancement of the Iranian nuclear program. However, the deal reached by the Obama administration, whose support extends to the world’s leading powers, significantly extends the time Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon and ensures that we have ample time to counteract any attempt at restarting the Nuclear program. In addition, the US has made it clear that if Iran does violate the terms of the deal, sanctions will be reimposed and more aggressive options could be taken. This deal is far from perfect and there are legitimate concerns raised by its many critics. That being said, without this deal, Iran could quickly double its capacity to enrich uranium and move towards producing a bomb. One of the greatest criticism raised, is that the deal and provisions will expire. While some are only in place for 10-25 years, the fundamental principle of the deal—to preserve the peaceful nature of its nuclear program—are permanent. Unfortunately, neither military action, sanctions or this deal for that matter can guarantee that Iran will never have in their possession a weapon of mass destruction. However, this deal is

Now that we have an idea about the current status of Iran nuclear deal, let us go back a bit to recapitulate about how the issue has arisen and why it was very concerning.

When the deal was signed on July 14, 2015, it successfully achieved the limitation the aforementioned threats, as Iran will have no nuclear weapons and be subject to intense U.N oversight for at least ten years. This oversight, sanctioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), consists of stringent daily facility and centrifuge inspections, with a clause that states “the IAEA will have access where necessary, when necessary” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). To quote President Barack Obama, the Iranian Deal “is not built on trust; it is built on verification” (Chin and Lincy, Iran Watch). Lifting sanctions placed on Iran in exchange for these allowances is not a difficult decision. A deal that restricts and checks enrichment, and also renders Iran a non nuclear- weapon possessing country is a good deal that allows states around the world to sigh a breath of relief.

Iran has posed a prominent threat against the United States for decades, and after their long strenuous ordeal, a controversial, yet tolerable agreement has been committed. To many, this compromise is anything but beneficial given its short timeframe, but others are greatly relieved with such an agreement altogether. This article is truly eye opening and personally helped me form a better perspective of an important ordeal in the world. Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, it is a read that keeps the reader informed and engrossed throughout every line. The author effectively connected emotionally to the audience, used diction, and listed many facts, that each were incorporated throughout the article in order to enhance the article’s persuasive

As you are all too aware, the United States and its Allies have faced troubles in the Middle East for many decades. Much of this is due to well-funded and well-protected terrorists operating in the region under the protective umbrella of participating countries, including Iran. Understandably, the thought of a nuclear capable Iran is terrifying to many of you. I wish to propose a different option than the current economic sanctions that have been taking place, one in which Iran becomes both more powerful and aligns it’s views with that of the United States.

Contemporary actions against the nation of Iran stem from the United States’ self-appointed obligation to fight that terrorism abroad, as well as the rise of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s claim to be solely interested in nuclear power for its energy benefits is continually met with skepticism, as Iran refuses to meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory. The United States is also deeply interested in peace within the Middle East. The political, religious, and ideological differences in the region have turned into a decades-long conflict for which the American public has a waning appetite. As such, the US has employed a number of DIME efforts to induce Iranian compliance with the political goals stated in the NSS.

Would you let a country who in the past has used chemical weapons against its neighboring countries to have a nuclear weapon? In 2014, a deal was put in place to let Iran produce nuclear energy. Iran should not be trusted with this sort of ability, because they are a dangerous country that has used chemical weapons against its neighboring countries. Also, Iran is planning on making nuclear weapons and if we are to let them make nuclear weapons the United States will be in danger. The United States should not allow Iran to have nuclear energy due to their past of lying, their desire to make Nuclear weapons, and the dangers

Nuclear weapons have provided states with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Nation-states with the abilities to develop such weapons have solidified themselves atop the global hierarchy. Since few states have such weapons, it is naturally attention grabbing when a nation is revealed to be in the process of developing them. Iran began a nuclear program in the 1950’s with the help of the United States, who subsequently suspended aid after the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (Breachy and Sinha 1-3). After the monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a clerical Islamic government, many nations, especially the United States, began to fear that Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers have crippled Iran’s economy. After the 2005 election of former President Ahmadinejad, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth (Vick), many great powers have begun to work with Iran in an attempt to retard its nuclear capabilities in return for a reduction of international sanctions. Many actors in these negotiations want different things. Iran’s ideal agreements have the sanctions against the country lifted while still maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the

Additionally, the deal with Iran will not only give relief for Iran but also give guarantee for the United States and the rest of the world that Iran’s nuclear capacity leftovers solely nonviolent with no probable military dimensions and with sufficient time for the international community to notice a breakout, should Iran ever feel the unlikely need to “dash for the

have nuclear and hydrogen weapons, but for Iran, which is not a member of NATO and its security is not guaranteed by any country in the world, the simple principle of self-defense becomes so problematic?” (Vaez, 2017). The JCPOA satisfies Iran’s demand for increased influence while maintaining the priority of international nuclear stability. With worldwide peace and proliferation safeguards an international interest, the United States should utilize a selective engagement mindset, specifically in regards to a great powers focus, to maintain leverage and unity within the multilateral agreement, “Selective engagement endeavors to ensure peace among powers that have substantial industrial and military potential – the great powers” (Posen, & Ross, 2000). By prioritizing vital interests, the great powers can develop a collaborative and effective strategy to force Iranian nuclear cessation and maintain unity to avoid Iranian partnerships with nations seeking to increase their sphere of influence. Additionally, the international response to Iran establishes a

The battle between president Obama and the congress is settled in favor of the President, however a similar battle in form, but different in nature, has emerged in Iran. The Rouhani’s government has insisted for weeks that the Parliament should not review and vote on the JCPOA. On the other hand, a handful of influential conservative members of parliament, close to the IRGC, insisted on the parliament’s rights to vote on the deal. The supreme leader finally sided with his devoted followers in the Majles. However, his intent is different from them. While the extreme hardliners in the Majles intend to reject the deal, Khamenei’s goal is to drop the responsibility of signing the deal, which he has to do if the JCPOA is submitted to the Supreme National Security Council. The

In 2015, a nuclear deal was struck between Iran and six of the world’s powers: The US, UK, France, Russia, Germany, and China. This deal was in fact the trademark foreign policy of Barack Obama’s two terms of presidency. On October 13, 2017, President Trump disavowed the nuclear deal, calling it an embarrassment and the “worst deal”. Trump claims the deal was too lenient on Iran and consequently, Iran has already broken many parts of it3. The United States should stay in the Iran Nuclear Agreement because atomic scientists have insisted the deal was effective4, it will burn all other options short of war with Iran5, and leaving it would make other nations less trusting forcing them to make less agreements