Essay On The Iran Deal

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

The world nowadays is hectic and chaotic, there will always be issues that seem to never stop. The issues that have caught a great deal of attention are the ones in the Middle East. There one can see almost anything and everything, from: displacements, killings, bombings, terrorism, blood, and war. During the strenuous days, one country started to take the initiative to make themselves better. The country of Iran has been developing a nuclear system, for some time now and the United States of America feel that it’s time to start putting sanctions on their program. After the past thirteen years of limited restriction, the government is arguing about what leniency they should have and how much. Allowing such a deal to get approved would only, delay the inevitable. Iran shouldn’t have such a loose-running program. Having a country that is known for so many heinous activities. Does it make sense to allow them to continue on this path, towards nuclear weaponry? The United States government knows this and found numerous ways to cut Iran off enough to prevent this scenario.

In other words, at the point when the United States had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States.

Now, the Obama Administration plans to give these same people (under that same family) nuclear power to possibly make weapons. The Iran-US nuclear deal should be stopped, for it will only cause the destruction of the state of Israel, and possibly America with a “deal” within the hands of an anti-American dictatorship and anti-American people.

As simplicity seems an apparition to our generation, the deal is imbedded in flaws. When closely inspected, it can be found that the agreement does not significantly increase Iran’s ‘breakout time’: the time taken to enrich the amount of uranium needed to create a nuclear bomb. Currently, without signing the deal, estimates of this time are two months. Obama has stated that if Iran ‘decide to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to

Be educated on the issue and know what’s going on. JCPOA needs to be revised or abolished. A non nuclear Iran needs to be the bottom line. The country is to dangerous to possess nuclear arms. Support lawmakers and government officials that oppose the deal and know their views. America can not afford to make a mistake. It can be the difference between life and

Netanyahu and Israel called upon Obama to take action against Iran. For Obama, however, the priority was to try to get the Iranians to change their policies by dialogue, not force. This change in perspective was one of the many realizations that the strategic plans of the two nations were drifting apart. Israel believed that the U.S. was not on their side because Israel wanted all of Iran’s nuclear facilities destroyed and disassembled. Since Obama refused to use force against Iran, it created tension and in the eyes of Israelis a sense of disappointment and frustration. Obama did not want to use force because he did not believe that was the best approach. He considered the best approach was to solve this issue diplomatically, which as a result would have fewer repercussions in the long run. In addition to the disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu for the Iranian’s nuclear plant to be disassembled by force or settle the issue through peace, Obama’s attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, an effort that appeared partially aimed at putting additional pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear enrichment program, came into conflict with Israel’s need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a possible attack by its enemies, particularly Iran and the Arab countries with whom it had not yet made peace with (Freedman ). Israel felt the need that

The recent negotiation with the U.S. and Iran over a possible nuclear deal has brought much discontent with Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu believes that this deal with Iran will ultimately be the end of Israel. On April 6, 2015, David Jackson from USA Today released an article expressing Benjamin Netanyahu’s feeling about the deal on how the deal will leave Iran’s nuclear Infrastructure in Place. On the other hand, President Barrack Obama believes that this will bring a new era of peace and nuclear free weapons in Iran. President Barrack Obama went on to radio and said, “international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s

The Obama administration’s choice of approach was justified by looking at three commonly discussed options for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program that come to mind. First is the one being perused, i.e. attempting to peacefully reach a long-term deal for containment through economic sanctions, reaching an agreement that is comprehensive and effective in the long term, at minimal risk and costs. Second, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would mean setting back Iran’s nuclear program but not containing future developments, weighted against the risk of starting another war in the Middle East. The current administration argues that this would incentivize them to

This deal has relieved some of the tension between Iran and the United States (Broad). The remaining tension between the two nations is that each country finds each other 's activity to be suspicious. US President, Barack Obama, speaks about Iran 's suspicious behavior: “Iran is a destabilizing factor in the region, threatens Israel, violates human rights at home, and supports terrorism abroad” (Naji). The United States cannot fully trust Iran, since their beliefs go against American beliefs, such as protecting Israel and human rights at home as well as trying to limit terrorism abroad. Iran 's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is equally wary of United States’ actions in the Middle East region and its intentions toward Iran. Despite the suspicious activity, the US is hoping Iran will be more open with coordination in the campaign against ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as Iran is the only regional power willing to commit ground troops to combat them. The US wants Iran to coordinate their ground and air campaigns, respectively, to dismantle ISIL’s capabilities and hopefully end the menace it poses to the Middle East (Mohammed). Now that the two nations are able to openly communicate and since the deal is in place, they will be able to discuss more ideas such as the ISIL campaign, in the future.

Recently the United States and several European nations entered into negotiations to release Iranian assets in exchange for assurances that Iran would do several things, including, reduce both their stockpiles of enriched Uranium and the number of Centrifuges. Additionally they are to convert one facility into a research center, cease activities related to any nuclear weapons projects, and submit to inspections of their nuclear facilities. There are several problems related to this agreement. Any of the issues alone would be troubling; together they should be a deal breaker.

The P5+1 Agreement, an agreement struck between Iran, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. But, why, and what does this deal place on Iran, that can limit their nuclear abilities, as displayed in the past. The deal brings forth rather easy sanctions relief for Iran, limits uranium enrichment to a certain extent where Iran can still produce nuclear weaponry, and reduces the enriched uranium stockpile that can be sold for more natural uranium which can be used to produce more enriched uranium with its ability to still develop advanced centrifuges. The issues lies within the broad and quite loosely held terms of this agreement. Knowing the terms of this agreement, the expected “result of these provisions, this deal will actually shorten the time to an Iranian nuclear bomb and allow Iran to produce more nuclear bombs than it currently can construct using enriched uranium and plutonium fuel” stated Fred Fleitz from Fox News. The agreement puts the citizens of many countries at high risk, and the evidence of this is incontrovertible, as Iran has access to things that were previously denied of access. The question to ask is, should the senate support this agreement?

Earlier in 2015 president Barack Obama reached an agreement with many other nations in regards to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The agreement will make it to where Iran will not have the ability to acquire the elements needed to create nuclear weapons, specifically uranium and plutonium. If Iran were to try and build a nuclear weapon without the deal it would take 2-3 months to finish the project. But with the agreement in place, the four pathways to creating the bomb are blocked and therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made.

The Iran Nuclear Deal has caught the attention of many nations around the world. The Iran Nuclear Deal, is a deal that will prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb, by reducing and controlling the amount of plutonium and uranium available for them to use. One of the most important countries involved in this deal is the United States. The United States is currently debating whether they should agree to this nuclear deal. Agreeing to this deal will benefit the United States, by suspending some of Iran’s specialized weapons, making Iran less of a threat. America has enough to contend with, and making a deal with Iran will put America in a much more secure position.

During these past days, the news is so focused on the subject ‘’Iran,’’ here are some headlines: Scuttling the Iran deal will lead to another North Korea, how the Iran deal prevents a covert nuclear weapons program, the sun sets on a good Iran deal. The question is what all these headlines have in common? In my opinion, I think that the best decision for the USA government is to stay in the Iran nuclear deal for three