Essay On Atoms For Peace

Since the end of the Cold War, the cases of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea have gathered enormous international attention. Iran 's nuclear program appeared as a result of the Cold War alliance between the United States and the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 2003, Iran was suspected of developing a military nuclear capability and is now developing medium and intermediate ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. On the other hand, North Korea set off a nuclear device and declared suspicions about a military nuclear program in 2006. Iran and North Korea have recently started cooperation to develop multi-stage ballistic missiles and have conducted several missile flight tests over the last few years (Schmid, 2008).

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

regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more

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

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program would proceed to bring upon one of the most controversial ideas for renewable energy: nuclear energy. The first commercial generation of nuclear energy in the United States was in 1957 at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. This station was able to provide power for Pittsburgh until 1982. With increased atomic research, our country now has over 100 nuclear reactors to provide much energy for the United States. With our country trying to take the lead in the global warming initiative, we must look at all the available renewable options and weigh them against each other. I believe that our government must continue its funding for nuclear energy because of its potential benefits for the

Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif have failed to come to an agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons programs because they have failed to listen to each other, failed to ask questions in order to be knowledgeable and find the truth of the matter, and do not understand each other’s “terministic screens”. This means that they are simply creating an exigence and making it salient, but will never move past that point into an agreement because they have forgotten what it means to be a true and ethical rhetorician. Both Kerry and Zarif have talked with the intention of not listening, or only pretending to listen, to each other. The tension and dilemmas have quickly escalated and no one has come close to reaching an agreement that will ease tensions between the two. In fact, the violence is increasing and the chances of negotiation are quickly decreasing with the latest news reports indicating that negotiations have been extended once again by seven months.

I am writing to you in reference to the current national debate regarding the safety of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Since the conclusion of World War II, a primary goal of US foreign policy has been nuclear deterrence. However, the inevitability of technological advancement, has resulted in the production and perfection of a powerful nuclear armament by nine different nations. The US and our allies, have worked tirelessly to prevent the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons—primarily attempting to prevent countries such as Iran from procuring this technology. Under the Obama administration, the US engaged in extensive negotiations, which culminated with the ratification of the Iran Nuclear Deal in the summer of 2015. In short, this Deal lifts

Evidence: This is why we should worry about Iran’s missiles. Just last fall Washington and European capital been involved in a long time bout with Iran nuclear diplomacy. In Washington, they hope that there hopes will run high and the effort will help the threat posed by Tehran’s atomic ambitions. The diplomatic deal is not only to limit Iran’s capability to build nuclear weapons but to also deliver to them. United states thinks that Iran is not really a threat to us but according to U.S. intelligence assessments, Iran already have the most powerful missile in the Middle East. They also have ballistic missiles that can be a

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 and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

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

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the

Due to the severity and danger of nuclear weapons, it is very important for nations to have some sort of regulation with regard to the nuclear program and more specifically their nuclear weapons program. After the first nuclear bomb was created by the U.S. nations states that followed the U.S. with the creation of a nuclear bomb seek to justify their creation of the nuclear. There are many reasons why a nation state will create a nuclear bomb but the key issue here is why and how nations states should be regulated with regard to nuclear weapons development. If Iran is considered a potentially hostile regime based on the perspective of western allies it would be logical to attempt to negotiate with them so that their nuclear program can have some type of regulation rather than no regulation at all or striving to strong arm them from developing their nuclear program and possibly a nuclear weapons program.

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.