Iran Pros And Cons

Since the end of the Cold War, the cases of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea have gathered enormous international attention. Iran 's nuclear program appeared as a result of the Cold War alliance between the United States and the late Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 2003, Iran was suspected of developing a military nuclear capability and is now developing medium and intermediate ballistic missiles, which are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. On the other hand, North Korea set off a nuclear device and declared suspicions about a military nuclear program in 2006. Iran and North Korea have recently started cooperation to develop multi-stage ballistic missiles and have conducted several missile flight tests over the last few years (Schmid, 2008).

With great confidence, Trump is revealing his discourse: "I do not believe in science and math, only believe in my own ideology."

Iran’s presidential election in June 2013 was won by Hassan Rouhani and led to him taking over for the hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. President Rouhani has been known to cooperate with the West, specifically when he was

As you are all too aware, the United States and its Allies have faced troubles in the Middle East for many decades. Much of this is due to well-funded and well-protected terrorists operating in the region under the protective umbrella of participating countries, including Iran. Understandably, the thought of a nuclear capable Iran is terrifying to many of you. I wish to propose a different option than the current economic sanctions that have been taking place, one in which Iran becomes both more powerful and aligns it’s views with that of the United States.

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

In regards to restrictions, the agreement requires Iran to decrease their operational centrifuges from 20,000 to 5,060, which will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, science, agriculture and industry. Additionally, “Research and development will take place only at Natanz and be limited for eight years…Inspectors from the IAEA will continuously monitor Iran’s declared nuclear sites and verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location” (“Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details – BBC News”, 2016). In return, “P5+1 agreed to lift all UN security council sanctions as well as multilateral and bilateral sanctions related to its nuclear program, included areas are trade, technology, finance

Iran presented nuclear facilities as peaceful ventures to create alternative clean energy. It was their father who made the simple observation, “Iran has a vast supply of oil for energy, they only need nuclear facilities for one thing. Iran is also listed in the N-11, countries with the greatest economic influence in the future. The newly minted plan between the US and Iran made in 2015 had the Mora brothers very uncomfortable. In essence this plan would create an enormous economic windfall to Tehran as the economic ban is

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.

“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,

The goal of the Joint Plan of Action is to reach a joint agreement and long-term complete solution that would confirm Iran’s nuclear program is absolutely peaceful. The thorough solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in compliance with its commitments. The complete solution would involve equally defined enrichment programs with practical limits and clarity measures to guarantee the peaceful description of the program (CNN, 2013, Iran Nuclear Deal: Joint Plan of Action).

These sanctions were, at least in part, responsible for bringing Iran to the Geneva conference to begin negotiations. These negotiations, which took place between Iran and the members of the P5+1 - comprised of the five permanent members of the UN Security council, joined by Germany – over the course of several years, resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July of 2015. The JCPOA would entail lifting sanctions on Iran, in return for restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program. The deal requires Iran to give up many of its centrifuge and much of its uranium stockpile, while also limiting the level of uranium enrichment, and where enrichment can occur. Furthermore, Iran agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to check the declared nuclear sites at any time. Under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran is unlikely to be able to develop weaponized nuclear technology, helping to “head off nuclear competition in the unstable Middle East,” and, hopefully, preventing nuclear proliferation. Had a deal not been struck, a weaponized nuclear program in Iran would have forced the Saudis to develop nuclear weapons in response. It is important to note that, “the nuclear deal does not prohibit Iran from developing ballistic missiles, but the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the deal ‘called upon’ Iran to refrain from testing ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons and

It became known in the 1990’s that Iran had certainly renewed their civilian nuclear projects, and Western tension continued to increase following 2002 and 2003 reports that Iran began clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion. This sparked international controversy over the intentions behind Iran’s nuclear program beyond civilian or peaceful purposes. For example, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center is suspected to house Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, and is also the alleged location of Iran’s uranium-conversion efforts.iv It is estimated that as many as 366 tons of uranium hexafluoride has been produced since 2004. This is then fed into centrifuges at another key site: the Natanz enrichment facility.

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

As the details have been laid out and the deal is now being put into action with countries claiming either side of supporting or not supporting it, the question is still raised of whether or not this deal is a good idea or not. To someone who looks upon this situation with a realist ideology, the answer to that question could go both ways. From Iran’s point of view, the U.N. is curtailing the power of their state by conforming to the deal. Iran gave up some of their own power (nuclear research), which was necessary for the survival and safety of their state as their economy is in shambles and financial relief to them will be provided in return. Typically, a realist country would keep developing nuclear technology as it gives it more power over the neighboring countries in the region that cannot possess the same qualities. Across the ocean, the U.S. is approaching this as a realist almost as much as Iran, as they are utilizing force (coercion through sanctions) to protect their own state’s interest (defending Israel and preventing nuclear war) and maximizing it’s own personal security and power by cutting a deal with Iran. This may not be quite true though, because the U.S. did utilize the U.N. and diplomacy with Iran, which is something that is acceptable form a liberal stand point but not a realist. When faced with the opposition to the deal

Nuclear Weapons and the threat they possess have become a significant part of international relations since the The United States of America used them end to prematurely end it’s war with Japan in 1945. Despite this, in recent times numerous countries have successfully sought to ascertain and develop nuclear offensive capabilities however no nuclear program has received as much international scrutiny as that of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Diamond, 2012: 3). The international community and Iran have been in stalemate for years, in short, due to world powers suspecting that there is a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program (IAEA, 2013: 2). Iran’s claims in contrary to this accusation is that their nuclear program are peaceful and is instead for the purpose of providing Iran with an alternative energy source to gas and oil, (Takeyh, 2003: 21). There are still multiple unknown factors regarding Iran’s nuclear program, with the core divisive issue being uncertainties regarding Iran’s grounds for wanting to produce nuclear offensive capabilities. Different theoretical frameworks are useful for granting unique insight and appreciation of this uncertainty and what is at