Persuasive Essay On Iran

Additionally, it also presents perspectives on important policies and strategies of Iran and North Korea, in regard to the development of their armory of nuclear weapons.

We said we would have anywhere, anytime negotiations and inspections, we gave that up. We said that we would make sure that they didn't have any nuclear capacity, we gave that up.

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

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.

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.

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.

This article is of interest to me because it is important subject of argument in politics and because it deals with a controversial pact that has the power to cause long term consequences if not dealt with carefully. The Iran deal consist in the agreement among the U.S., Iran, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China would lift economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran's agreement not to build nuclear weapons.

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

November 4, 1979: a date to live forever. In Tehran, the capital of Iran, a demonstration turned hostile when a group of students storm over the walls of the U.S. Embassy and take 90 people, hostage, including 66 Americans. This was the beginning of the Iranian revolution, creating an Islamic Republic under the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

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

Iranium (2011), directed by Alex Traiman, covers Iran’s evolution and relations between Iran and the United States from 1979 to 2011. The documentary discusses the possible repercussions of Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. The first critique will consider whether the featured commentators and actors were appropriate. The second critique will examine the bias of the documentary. The third critique will review the factualness and quality of the film. While the documentary was slightly one-sided, the thoroughness of analysis made for an effective and fear igniting film.

As research has shown, nuclear weapons pose an extreme threat to the world. This issue should have the foremost attention because a large-scale nuclear war could literally send humans out of existence. While issues like censorship, loss of biodiversity, mental illness, global climate change, artificial intelligence, and pandemics also pose threats to society, nuclear weapons pose the largest threat to humanity

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

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