The debate around the Iran Deal is a funny thing. Most political debates revolving around foreign policy focus on typical partisan divides. As a conservative, I may have ideologically been opposed to much of the Obama-era (and Trump-era) policy. From the sequence of withdrawal in Iraq to military sequestration, I wholeheartedly believe that former President Obama’s foreign policy was a complete and utter disaster.
My opposition to the Iran Deal goes far beyond ideology. It is the single most evil thing Obama did during his eight year tenure. This deal makes America less strong, Israel far less safe, and emboldens terrorists. For those of you who have forgotten, let's briefly review the main contents of this travesty. The Obama
…show more content…
However, all of which I have said thus far is not my main objection to the deal. The most nefarious element of the deal is the billions of dollars given in sanction relief to the American enemy of Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror. It is hard to fathom the rationale of Obama and his aides when negotiating this monstrosity. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran will receive “hundreds of billions of dollars to fuel their terror and military regime.” And this truth has since been corroborated. Just last August, details emerged of an apparent scheme between Secretary Kerry’s State Department and Iran, with approximately $1.3 billion in sanction reliefs delivered by plane to Tehran at the same time four American hostages were released.
No one is disputing the fact that likely over one hundred billion dollars are expected to be dished out to Iran under the Iran Deal. What is the significance of this? In 2016, the US State Department declared Iran the number on state sponsor of terrorism. This should surprise no one, as for decades the brutal Islamic Republic has waged war against America and Israel. Secretary Kerry himself admitted, back in January 2016, that “some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists.” Anti-semitic (and anti-American) terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are insistent on waging destruction
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
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 conclusion, Iran with its dictator and people will build a nuclear weapon, and they will use the weapon against Israel and the U.S. resulting in a world war. So many people will die in nuclear strikes from many countries. That is the number one thing that no one wants. Loss of human life. This deal will lead to that and even
The opposing side think the deal is bad. The deal is essentially a bandage that needs to be revised or abolished. The stakes are too high for there to be so many loopholes in the deal. America and the U.N. need to take a stand and enforce the deal. Iran is too big of a threat to America and the allies to possess nuclear weapons. JCPOA should have been made to dismantle Iran’s nuclear completely. It’s clear there should have been better negotiating implemented. If Iran would not comply, the facilities should be shut down by force. Iran is not a country that needs nuclear
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.
The present study utilized both the life story model of identity (McAdams, 1996) and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989) as theoretical frameworks. Borrowed from personality psychology, the life story model of identity suggests that people develop a narrative identity to provide purpose to their lives (McAdams, 2001). Narrative identity is an internalized and ever-changing conceptualization of an individual’s past, present, and future self (McAdams & McLean, 2013). The cognitive conceptualization behind narrative identity merges Piaget’s stage of formal operational thinking and Erikson’s stage of identity vs identity confusion (Singer, 2004) by suggesting that formal operational thinking is important for identity exploration, which becomes
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 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?
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
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.
When registering for this course, I had no idea what I was signing myself up for, nor did I know what the broad field of emergency management encompassed. Like several of my classmates, I was required to take another UNIV course for the spring semester. To be quite honest, I chose to enroll in this particular UNIV course simply because it was the only one that fit well with my schedule. I never imagined that I would get so much out of it and that I would be able to apply the material learned to my everyday life and future.
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.
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
Ideas outlive people very often, especially if the ideas were shared with others, and some ideas can even end up inspiring others. Such is the case with Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Howard Zinn: Thoreau presented “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1848) in response to his taxes supporting the Mexican-American war and the expansion of slavery against his wishes; King, while in prison for his peaceful protest in Birmingham, wrote a “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (1963) to white clergymen explaining that his peaceful demonstrations are for a valid and urgent cause and he wrote to show his disappointment in whites who do nothing to help the black rights movement; Zinn, in his book The Higher Law: Thoreau on Civil Disobedience and Reform (2004), uses Thoreau’s ideas directly and more recent events to support Thoreau’s statements. Ideas travel across time and generations to adapt to individual occasions, but they link to one parent idea from which they descend. Whether directly or indirectly influenced, all three authors confirm governments sometimes avoid changes and negotiations unjustly, advocate protest through nonviolent methods because of its effects, and explain when it is necessary to civilly disobey.