Summary Of David Sanger And Michael Gordon's Polemic

There are seven key points in this nuclear deal: Iran has to reduce their centrifuges, reduce their uranium enrichments, they can’t over produce anything nuclear for at least two months, their Fordow Facility has to stop producing uranium for fifteen years, they can keep doing research and development but can only do it with a break of three months, they will have inspection by the U.N., and we have to lift our sanctions that we have on Iran. President Barrack Obama said this deal, “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” (Cato Institute 1/3) This applies to the quote by Barrack Obama wanting to make history. He wants to ensure the safety on America by declining the top producing nuclear war-heads country in the world, their production of nukes. President Obama will go into the books by already stopping a future nuclear

Margaret Sanger was an influential figure during the turn of the twentieth century. She was born in 1879 to a typical American family. Her parents were Irish immigrants but despite their financial issues, Margaret went on to do amazing things for women. Margaret attended nursing school and graduated in 1896 (Witherbee, 2005). She hosted protests and stand in’s in an effort to help achieve justice for those who otherwise wouldn’t receive it. However, her main contributions to science surround her huge strides in social reform for woman. An article by Chesler explains that after seeing a young girl die from an illegal at home abortion, Sanger made it her personal agenda to achieve freedom for women over their bodies. This took the form of contraception

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

I am writing to you in reference to the current national debate regarding the safety of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Since the conclusion of World War II, a primary goal of US foreign policy has been nuclear deterrence. However, the inevitability of technological advancement, has resulted in the production and perfection of a powerful nuclear armament by nine different nations. The US and our allies, have worked tirelessly to prevent the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons—primarily attempting to prevent countries such as Iran from procuring this technology. Under the Obama administration, the US engaged in extensive negotiations, which culminated with the ratification of the Iran Nuclear Deal in the summer of 2015. In short, this Deal lifts

Now that we have an idea about the current status of Iran nuclear deal, let us go back a bit to recapitulate about how the issue has arisen and why it was very concerning.

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.

Former President Ahmadinejad set Iran back years by putting Iran into extreme isolation from the international community. His continued badgering with the international community, eventually lead to a nuclear stand-off with world powers. With what seems to be the Ayatollah’s blessing, President Rouhani has so far shown promise to ease the country’s relations and assume a solution on the nuclear issue. “For Washington, meanwhile, the election offered stark confirmation that its strategy is working, at least to a point. The outcome confirmed that political will for a nuclear deal exists within the Islamic Republic. In other words, the path out of isolation and economic crisis is perilous, but Iran’s new president, who has sometimes been dubbed “the sheikh of diplomacy,” may just be the right man at the right moment to walk it.” (Maloney, 2013)

Donald Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States of America on January 20, 2017 after one of the most controversial campaigns the U.S. has ever witnessed. Upon acquiring this role, Mr. Trump also acquired control over an entire arsenal of advanced weaponry. This arsenal includes several nuclear weapons. Among other things, President Trump’s control and decisiveness concerning these weapons have been called to question. The editorial board at The New York Times addressed concern on this topic on February 6, 2017, in an article titled, “The Finger on the Nuclear Button”. The article is comprised of opinions that the newly elected president’s decision-making and “little knowledge of the vast nuclear arsenal” are a dangerous combination.

Iran has posed a prominent threat against the United States for decades, and after their long strenuous ordeal, a controversial, yet tolerable agreement has been committed. To many, this compromise is anything but beneficial given its short timeframe, but others are greatly relieved with such an agreement altogether. This article is truly eye opening and personally helped me form a better perspective of an important ordeal in the world. Given the seriousness of the issue at hand, it is a read that keeps the reader informed and engrossed throughout every line. The author effectively connected emotionally to the audience, used diction, and listed many facts, that each were incorporated throughout the article in order to enhance the article’s persuasive

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.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, former top Mideast official, and General David Petraeus, former CIA director, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that "Bolstering deterrence is essential in addressing key vulnerabilities" of the agreement. Petraeus and Ross asserted that if Iran decide to race toward a nuclear weapon "there is a need not to speak of our options but of our readiness to use force", since the threat of force is far more likely to deter the Iranians. They said the president could resolve their concerns by stating that he would use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, including producing highly-enriched uranium, even after the deal ends in 15 years. It is "critically important for the president to state this clearly,

Would you let a country who in the past has used chemical weapons against its neighboring countries to have a nuclear weapon? In 2014, a deal was put in place to let Iran produce nuclear energy. Iran should not be trusted with this sort of ability, because they are a dangerous country that has used chemical weapons against its neighboring countries. Also, Iran is planning on making nuclear weapons and if we are to let them make nuclear weapons the United States will be in danger. The United States should not allow Iran to have nuclear energy due to their past of lying, their desire to make Nuclear weapons, and the dangers

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

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.

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