Iran Nuclear Deal: In or Out?
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
…show more content…
Iran still and has always claimed they did and do not seek nuclear weapons.5 The scientists currently are holding their ground against leaving the deal for they truly do believe that it is working and Iran is holding back from designing nuclear weapons. In a letter sent to the Presidential White House, they suggested additional ways to monitor Iran instead of denouncing and trashing the accord.6
Stating, that for the Iran agreement, it is “necessary to provide the time needed to develop and implement these initiatives”.1 If we lose the deal, how else will we be able to prevent Iran from designing a multitude of nuclear weapons that they could aim right back at us. The only other option would be to go to war with Iran. By dropping the deal, we also send a bad message. Whilst the confusion is going on around the Iran deal currently, there has been an underlying tendency to paint a demonizing picture of Iran, which could possibly lead US American citizens to misinterpret the threat the country presents and what’s really going on here under the mess of misleading cameras and reporters.2 This misunderstanding could lead to a bigger conflict consisting of risky and totally unnecessary confrontation. Not only would it burn all other options short of war with Iran, it may nonetheless be the cause of war with North Korea as well.3 Now what would happen if we did go to war with Iran? Iran’s allies may turn against us; however, our allies may turn
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
regarding the tense relationship between the U.S. And Iran in order to illicit a more
The Iran Deal was made by President Obama this past July to stop Iran from building any nuclear weapons. The U.S. has had several controversies with Middle Eastern countries in the past. One of Matthews’ political concepts is to “keep your enemies in front of you.” Although the U.S is trying to improve the relationships between these countries, such as creating an alliance with Israel, the Middle East is still a major concern. By making this agreement with Iran, President Obama has given the U.S. the opportunity to keep an eye on the “enemies.” However, if either nation decides to break any prior promises, we could go to a long and costly war. Using Matthews’ tactic to see the enemy, and a with a drastic alternative for both countries, we can have more confidence that this conflict will not
The Sustainable and Secure Building Act 2004 is used for protecting the environment from being ruined of destroyed because people who enjoy living around fresh and clean environments will get annoyed and upset if the location is turned into a eye sore. It improves the building act of 1984 by implementing some rules that improves the safety of the environment.
Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there widespread debate as to whether the agreement would benefit both sides of the pact. Due to the numerous amount of steps taken to ensure Iran’s compliance, the accord between Iran China, France, Russia, the U.K, the U.S, Germany and the EU (P5+1+ Eu countries) provides both sides with comfortable allowances that allow each state to thrive. Though highly contested, as demonstrated from the varying opinions in the supplied articles, the JCPOA solidified the deconstruction of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which is one of the hardest objectives to achieve in the field of international relations. As shown by the world’s quandary
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
enemies to scare them into not continuing the battles that they are taking place in. They rhetorically strategized to scare the enemies into thinking that they were not bluffing and would use the weapons if the task presented itself. Bush even said that even if matters did go worse that he still most likely would not have used the nuclear weapons that he possessed. Also the statement made that if a president looks at using nuclear weapons lightly that it should be an embarrassment to them shows that even when they threaten using these weapons they are most likely bluffing. It appears that as time goes by people do not want nuclear weapons around especially our president. He also sees the huge damage that it can cause and is also trying to make it impossible for Iran to obtain these weapons as he is also working on trying to remove our nuclear weapons from Europe and other parts to not have the option of obtaining nuclear weapons in the future. This matter is super important for Americans to know about because nuclear weapons can be very catastrophic if they are used, especially by an enemy to the United States. The questions that need to be asked are is there ever going to be an end to nuclear weapons? Will we ever find the peace and security that Bush talks about? Will there
They commended the parties for finding value and diplomacy and for seeking peaceful political solutions. However strenuous it may seem, that was evident in July, when the parties agreed to extend the period of the negotiations for another four months to give themselves more time to close the underlying gaps. They have continued the talks on P5+1 Iran’s nuclear program. The representatives of those countries are negotiating a comprehensive plan of action that, once implemented, would ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. They seek to finalize such arrangements by 24 November of this year. Hopefully the negotiation goes well. In the meantime, the Council and its Iran Sanctions Committee must ensure the continued implementation of United Nations sanctions. We have been troubled to hear reports of confusion as to whether the sanctions remain in effect during the period of negotiations. Although the P5+1 offered Iran some limited and reversible sanctions relief as part of the joint plan of action, the plan included no changes to United Nations sanctions. The role of the 1737 Committee in support of the P5+1 process is vital to its success. We agree with the Chair that only the Security Council itself can alter the sanctions measures applied by the
There are seven key points in this nuclear deal: Iran has to reduce their centrifuges, reduce their uranium enrichments, they can’t over produce anything nuclear for at least two months, their Fordow Facility has to stop producing uranium for fifteen years, they can keep doing research and development but can only do it with a break of three months, they will have inspection by the U.N., and we have to lift our sanctions that we have on Iran. President Barrack Obama said this deal, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” (Cato Institute 1/3) This applies to the quote by Barrack Obama wanting to make history. He wants to ensure the safety on America by declining the top producing nuclear war-heads country in the world, their production of nukes. President Obama will go into the books by already stopping a future nuclear
On the White House website, a 112 pages’ document called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gives some detailed about the deal with Iran. It says that the deal:
The late 1800s saw many changes that occurred because of rapid industrialization, changes that affect us even today. Before the Civil War, America was just beginning to explore the frontier, develop railroads, and agriculture was just barely starting to become mechanized. The United States was only about half-way through it’s own industrial revolution when the war started, but the effects of industrialization after the war were so great that they are still seen today. One of the biggest consequences of the rapid industrialization in America was the change to a consumer-type economy.
The democrats in the U.S. Senate block a Republican attempt to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, handing President Barack Obama a major victory. Senate Republicans do not have enough votes to end a Democratic filibuster on the resolution of approval. Iran's highest leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says there will be no further negotiations with the U.S. beyond the nuclear deal. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate attempt to stop the nuclear deal by pushing through a resolution rejecting it. In the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, place two-thirds of their installed centrifuges under international supervision, give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permanent access "where necessary, when necessary",
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
Tehran can threaten major energy market fluctuations from oil production and maritime security through control of the Straits of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz link the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil to the world. Iran is aware of the significance of the Strait of Hormuz. “While Iran’s capability to actually “close” the strait is questionable, there is little doubt that it could quickly wreak havoc on the global economy by doing much less.” (Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.: Part 3 Stratfor, 2009). Global stability is constantly in jeopardy through Iran’s continued support of terrorist activities. (Rhode, H., n.d., The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior) states “Yet the Iranian government has not been dissuaded from sponsoring and implementing terror tactics, and has not been convinced to halt its illegal nuclear program.” Iran has demonstrated their intent to continue their nuclear program regardless of international sanctions and admonishment. They continue to support terrorist activities throughout the region. There is no sign that if Iran was able to produce weapons grade nuclear material that it would not be used by a violent extremist organization. Iran can disrupt or control maritime trade and security of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian leadership views compromise and requests for negotiations as a sign of weakness and an opportunity for exploitation. “Compromise (as we in the West understand this
There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are