The Controversy Surrounding The Iran Deal

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

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

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

enemies to scare them into not continuing the battles that they are taking place in. They rhetorically strategized to scare the enemies into thinking that they were not bluffing and would use the weapons if the task presented itself. Bush even said that even if matters did go worse that he still most likely would not have used the nuclear weapons that he possessed. Also the statement made that if a president looks at using nuclear weapons lightly that it should be an embarrassment to them shows that even when they threaten using these weapons they are most likely bluffing. It appears that as time goes by people do not want nuclear weapons around especially our president. He also sees the huge damage that it can cause and is also trying to make it impossible for Iran to obtain these weapons as he is also working on trying to remove our nuclear weapons from Europe and other parts to not have the option of obtaining nuclear weapons in the future. This matter is super important for Americans to know about because nuclear weapons can be very catastrophic if they are used, especially by an enemy to the United States. The questions that need to be asked are is there ever going to be an end to nuclear weapons? Will we ever find the peace and security that Bush talks about? Will there

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

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.

One can assume a group of people who are less diplomatic will not be willing to do the same, which is why the idea of deterrence, being the main thread to containment of nuclear warheads, may not work as long as more groups continue to not understand the situation. The treaty relies heavily on trust, which will be an issue if things get out of hand. Furthermore, this preamble implies that every nation's integrity is intact and the signers are law abiding. This is not the case and would consequently lead to distrust among its members. This treaty only guarantees the use of nuclear technology, but does not mention the limits on whether one can enrich Uranium, which is a massive problem because it can create a nuclear weapon. However, any nation doing this is still following the rules as long as the energy created is for "peaceful purposes". The problem with this is it requires that every nation trusts one another and that no one will not create a stockpile of arsenals that could threaten any nation. There is no strong drive to completely disarm any of the nations who already possess nuclear weapons. This main thread, this column that supports the treaty is constantly being threatened by allowing its members to continue to violate its terms. As a whole, the agreement is not being taken seriously. Although that could very much be the case, how can it be obligated for nations to fully agree with the

Moreover, Iran will be able to access 100 billion dollars of assets that are frozen in overseas banks. However, if Iran violates the JCPOA there is a provision within the contract to implement the sanctions back on Iran. Consequently, the JCPOA international agreement was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 nations. The Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid stated “A nuclear-armed Iran would pose the gravest imaginable threat to Israel. If America walks away from this agreement and loses the support of our allies in the sanctions regime, Iran could have enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb in a matter of months. Iranian leaders have regularly stated that they intend to wipe Israel off the map and I believe those threats should be taken with the utmost seriousness. This agreement is the best way to prevent Iran’s leaders from obtaining the nuclear weapons that would empower them to follow through on their threats to Israel.” (U.S. Democratic Leader Harry Reid >> Reid Statement On The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action.). Therefore, the majority of Democrats support the JCPOA and believe it is a better alternative to peace than using a military preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities (Joint Comprehensive Plan of

Along with the decrease in plutonium manufacturing, Iran will cut back their bomb enrichment from 20 percent to a meager 3.7 percent; along with shipping bomb fuel out of the country and not building heavy water reactors for at least 15 years (Broad). The main argument over the bill is that the republicans believe that the deal is setting low standards for international inspectors that will be monitoring Iran and that it will only delay Iran for a few years. In turn the republicans are trying to block the bill from becoming a filibuster in hopes that the senate will turn down the bill. However the Democrats have rallied and have received the needed 34 pledges to support Obamas veto of the Republican’s resolution to dissolve the bill. I believe that in this case the Democrats are doing the logical thing when it comes to the nuclear deal, protecting our country from a nuclear attack, for however long, is an important aspect of our government. I described a logical action, from the government, as having the support of the people and carrying out

The democrats in the U.S. Senate block a Republican attempt to stop the nuclear deal with Iran, handing President Barack Obama a major victory. Senate Republicans do not have enough votes to end a Democratic filibuster on the resolution of approval. Iran's highest leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, says there will be no further negotiations with the U.S. beyond the nuclear deal. The Republicans in the U.S. Senate attempt to stop the nuclear deal by pushing through a resolution rejecting it. In the deal, Iran has agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, place two-thirds of their installed centrifuges under international supervision, give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) permanent access "where necessary, when necessary",

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)

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

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are

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.