Essay On The Iran Nuclear Deal

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

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

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.

North Korea has drastically increased the amount of ballistic missile testing in the past six months. Even testing long-range missiles that US officials say can reach the United States mainland. Some of the new measures will sanction foreign entities doing business with North Korea, which could affect China’s investments in the North Korean government. The sanctions were also impacted by North Korea’s human rights abuses.

If President Rouhani can bring his country out of sanctions, resume oil exports and trade, they can become a functioning country again. Although, there is a slim chance that Iran doesn’t continue to support terrorist organizations and continue nuclear enrichment in some capacity. As long as President Rouhani remains president, it is expected that he will do as much as possible to continue to further his country and bring them out of isolation with the world and specifically the west.

The United States and Israel would be in danger. In my opinion if a country is willing to use chemical weapons during war and threaten to destroy an entire country and commit genocide, they should not be allowed to have any sort of nuclear power at all. The supreme leader even said on a live broad cast that we had watched my senior year that said "Death to America". It is said that history repeats its self, what is happening now happened in 1938 when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to speak with Adolf Hitler about negotiation. The prime minister left there thinking that Hitler's promises for peace were in good faith in exchange for Germanys annex large parts of Czechoslovakia The Nazi regime was a police state and Iran is a police state. The Nazis aim was to kill all the Jews in Europe and Iran's aim is to destroy Israel. The Nazis hated America and what it stands for and so does Iran. The alternative to this agreement was continuing and tightening the sanctions they were weakening the Iranian regime and greatly breaking down its abilities to fund terror groups. Also, the stronger Iran gets the more money they make means the more they will try and expand. The Iranian regime is a bunch of religious fanatics who are morally from ISIS, Al Qaeda Boko haram and all the other terrorist groups. Iran is the second highest country with executions right behind china. Iran is already one of the biggest funders to terrorist groups so just imagine what they can do with another $150,000,000,000. Imagine what it will do with the removal of the current weapons and missile embargo. Or the nuclear infrastructure with this deal it will do every single

14,000 centrifuges (a machine with a rotating container that applies centrifugal force to separate its contents of different densities) will be removed from Natanz and Fordow. Additionally, 12,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium will be either shipped to Russia or diluted to its natural state. In Arak the core of the reactor will be removed and filled with concrete. It will be filled with concrete to make it irreversible, given the belief Iran will not follow the rules. With the agreement to have a different core, they can’t produce plutonium. Iran will only be left with a small fraction of its previous stockpile of enriched uranium, the other main type of nuclear fuel. The fate of the Arak reactor was one of the toughest sticking points in the twenty months of negotiations that led to the July agreement (Charbonneau 2015). Periodically Iran will have inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to ensure no nuclear material is diverted to an undercover weapons program. However, inspectors will need to provide notice and evidence before visiting. Iran claims that an undercover program never existed, but many doubt that declaration (Kenyon

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

US officials assert that the Administration seeks to renegotiate the JCPOA, or negotiate a separate accord, to address the full range of U.S. concerns on Iran. The other powers that negotiated the accord with Iran—Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany—assert that the JCPOA is succeeding in its core objectives and that its implementation should not be jeopardized.

However, naivety cannot cloud the fact that the deal ensures that Iran reduces its Uranium stockpile by 98%. It stops Iran from enriching Uranium past 3.67% for 15 years, where 90% enrichment is needed to create a nuclear bomb. These figures by themselves are primary advocates for the signing of this deal, as they show how the deal, if held, ensures Iran is incapable of developing a nuclear bomb for over a decade.

After the striking of this deal, we encountered a plethora of arguments both in favor and against this deal, in Iran and in the West, mainly in America. However, only a few people such as the New York columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, perceived this deal as something more than a nuclear agreement. In his article "Pros and Cons of the nuclear deal with Iran" to which I have provided an online link at the end of this essay, Friedman brings us to the realization that this deal can potentially serve as a turning point for America and its allies in their strategic approach to the Middle East, especially Iran. “I can think of many good reasons to go ahead with the nuclear deal with Iran, and I can think of just as many reasons not to. So, if you 're confused, let me see if I can confuse you even more.” Although Friedman starts off his analytical article with such ambiguous comment as to whether this deal is good or not, but my understanding of his writing as a whole is that he

The issue of Iran 's contentious nuclear program ended in July 2015 after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which comprised of all the superpowers with the United States being at the forefront. It was important for Iran and other stakeholders to uphold the deals contained in this agreement. To ensure that the deals entered into remain stern, there are several things that the United States needs to establish. These measures have to be out of the ordinary. The US has

Nuclear weapons have provided states that possess them with the firepower to deter attacks since the United States developed the first bombs in the 1940’s. Those 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 suspended help 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 the Iranians were using their nuclear program to create weapons of mass destruction (Brachy and Sinha 10-13). Over the years, sanctions from the United States, the European Union, and other central powers, have crippled Iran’s economy. After the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005, who supported the Iranian Nuclear program and offended Israel by calling the Holocaust a myth, many great powers have began 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 would like to have the sanctions against it lifted while maintaining the ability to develop nuclear weapons. This would allow Iran to boost its position at the expense of others in the Middle

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.