Iran Nuclear Deal Case Study

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

Iran’s nuclear programme has in recent years worsened US-Iran relations. The United States accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons (Bahgat , 2009). Other reasons for mistrust include USA’s support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s. Specifically, Iran continues to resent the US supplying Iraq with the chemical weapons it used during the war. Adding fuel to the fire, in 1988, US guided missile Cruiser the USS Vincennes on station in the Persian Gulf mistakenly shot down Iranian Airlines flight 655 killing 290. (Milinski, n.d.)

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

With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this

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:

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.

Contemporary actions against the nation of Iran stem from the United States’ self-appointed obligation to fight that terrorism abroad, as well as the rise of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s claim to be solely interested in nuclear power for its energy benefits is continually met with skepticism, as Iran refuses to meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory. The United States is also deeply interested in peace within the Middle East. The political, religious, and ideological differences in the region have turned into a decades-long conflict for which the American public has a waning appetite. As such, the US has employed a number of DIME efforts to induce Iranian compliance with the political goals stated in the NSS.

and the output amount designated by the U.N. as safe. It also calls for unrestricted inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA on all of Iran’s nuclear sites, for use and production output.

The U.S. and Iran used to have a great relationship back in the day. President Jimmy Carter even spent New Year 's Eve in 1977 with the Shah, and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world".(Bakhtavar) This just goes to show how close the two countries were at the time. But all that changed later into the 1970’s when a series of unfortunate events eventually lead to the complete deterioration of US and Iran relations. These events shifted U.S. Iran relations in a way that still impacts both countries. Even to this day the US have expressed their dislike of the Iranian regime. Similarly, the Iranian leaders have shown their dislike, more like hatred, for the United States. But that brings up the

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

“Iranian leaders follow religious rationality rather than a secular rationality. Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons and has called its use a crime against humanity…. In Islam religious legitimacy is much more important than secular legitimacy. When producing and using nuclear weapons is regarded as ‘haram’ (forbidden), violating the fatwa has consequences even if all other laws permit its use,” (Sonboli,

Additionally, the Iranian nuclear program is a direct threat to the United States of America. Iran has made it clear through many demonstrations that they despise the US and its actions in the Middle East. They have also been testing inter-continental missiles that would possibly be able to get to reach the US. Iran has shown hostility to Iran in the past with the Iranian hostage crisis were the US embassy was

Once the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown and the country perceived to be taken over by Islamic extremists, the West began researching the development process to make sure the wrong weapons would not fall into the wrong hands, but the capital Tehran encouraged the fact that it was strictly for peaceful purposes. Lies and deceit possessed the rest of the negotiations as both sides tried to get straight answers to understand what was actually going on in the nuclear program, but nevertheless those answers were never found as they were clouded by a long standing hatred between certain Islamic groups and the Western world(). More recently, ten years ago the International Atomic Energy Agency sent agents to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities and they found trace amounts of enriched uranium at a factory in Natanz, which led to a three-year halt on Iran’s uranium enrichment. After those three years, the enrichment process resumed and the U.N. Security Council responded in 2006 by placing sanctions upon the country’s economy in an effort to curb any further nuclear development. These sanctions, which include a ban on purchasing Iranian oil, a ban on certain Iranians from traveling outside of the country, and a ban on deals with financial institutions from the country, severely crippled Iran’s economy forcing their oil revenue to collapse and creating an almost absurd amount of inflation. Despite this, uranium enrichment has not slowed down for the Iranians as the

Whether the actions of the government of the United States of America (hereinafter “United States” or “U.S.”) against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter “Iran”) constitute a violation of the Treat of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (hereinafter “Treaty of Amity”), which was signed by the United States and Iran on 15 August 1955, and went into force on 16 June 1957 (“Application Instituting Proceedings”).

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