The Iran Nuclear Deal Essay

Things move so far and so fast in the Middle East that some of the pieces here already seem like distant history just a year or two after happening and being written. If Iran, in 2013, ‘felt that the economic pressure and the credible threat of military intervention were to threaten its very survival, it might, just as Assad did with the chemical weapons, go as far as give up the entire nuclear program altogether.’ Before 2014 started was a relatively peaceful time. But of course, we know now that the West will never make such a threat, that the mullahs will have their way, and that the Americans are in retreat amidst the confused ruins of their policies as the Russians move in.

Often called “The Crossroads of the World”, the Middle East stands between three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe. Over thousands of years, migrating traders and conquerors crossed this region and spread the ideas, inventions, and achievements of many civilizations. It is an incredibly important part of the world with rich history, important resources, and deep religious and cultural traditions. However, in the past decades up to today, the Middle East has been consumed by conflict and chaos. Although different circumstances surround each issue, religion, terrorism, disputes over the control of natural resources, and weak governance primarily allow conflict to persist in the Middle East.

Iranian hostility of United States can be traced back to the 1950s. The United States supported any regime that was not communist, even though they would be considered very unpopular with the people of their country. Because of this, Iran became an anti-communist country and the Shah became an ally of the United States. In 1950 the Shah left Iran when Mohammed Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister. After Mossadegh election, he used his authority and nationalized the oil industry in the country. This incident generated fear in the United States. The state department felt that communists could abuse this anarchy and Iran could turn against the United States. The Shah, who had been removed from power, contacted the United States and the Central

Daisaku Ikeda, a spiritual leader for Japan once commented, ‘Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist.’ The world has experienced the bombings of Japan, of Pearl Harbor and the conflict of the Cold War, but even with these conflicts present in our history, warning us of the effects, these meaning have not carried through into society today. Currently in the Middle East, we are witnessing the elements of a modern day cold war starting to appear. Israel and Iran have been in arguments and disagreements about nuclear weaponry since 2012. Their different religious view and ideologies has flourished into more than a religious tension but that of a modern day cold way.

In his paper about Iran’s nuclear program, Barry R. Posen emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program may result on regional and global instability. On regional level, neighboring countries of Iran will feel threatened with Iran’s nuclear power. This situation may lead them to follow Iran’s step in developing nuclear weapons even though they do not have the capability to ensure the security of their nuclear sites. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation will put the Middle East in escalating dangerous situation. On global level, the U.S. and its allies are concerned that the situation in the Middle East may harm their national interests. The Middle East is still a prominent producer of oil which is the main energy resource for industrial

In January 1979, Iranians opposed to the Shah’s rule invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held a group of 52 American diplomats and other hostages for 444 days. The Shah left Iran and the victorious Ayatollah Khomeini returned that February. Of the approximately 90 people inside the embassy, 52 remained in captivity until the end of the crisis. The reputation of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the hostage taking was further enhanced with the failure of a hostage rescue attempt that cost lives. The Ayatollah Khomeini set forth several demands to be met prior to the release of the hostages. The US had options of their own; however, the risk to the hostages required the utmost consideration. In order to secure their freedom, outgoing

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

As an American, imagine 444 days in captivity in a country were your not liked simply because you are an “American”. Imagine 444 days not knowing if you are going to make it back home in one piece. Imagine being rampaged by a radical group on foreign land thinking you were safe within the walls of a federal building, the US Embassy. Well, this was the case for 66 US Embassy employees during the “Iran hostage crises”.

Is peace possible in the Middle East? This question weighs heavy on the minds of many individuals and international players. Turmoil and conflict in the Middle East not only affects the people inhabiting this region, but also has global consequences. To answer this question, one must analyze the sources of conflict in the Middle East, historically, currently, and in the future. The limited amount of natural resources in this region has arguably served as the most major source of conflict in the Middle East. Other contributing factors to conflict are the leadership styles of the key players in positions of power, and religious strife. History is often the best indicator for the future. Unfortunately, the Middle East has had a history of

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,

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations

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

The Iranian nuclear program has been one of the most challenging issues in the world for more than a decade. The struggle was mainly between Iran and six of the world’s most powerful countries, which included China, the U.S.A, the U.K, France, Germany and Russia. What’s really worth noting is that this controversy was not solely about Iran 's willingness to have a nuclear program, which to its own merits was completely peaceful, but it was about who got to have more influence and control in the Middle East as a whole. Both sides of the conflict took measures to further their goals. Iran put whatever resources needed into developing its nuclear program, and the world’s powers (P5+1)

the conflict in the middle east between 1948-1973 was not purely fuelled by the interest and concerns of the superpowers but rather of a series of conflictual incidents, aswell as the main wars that took place from the years from 1948-1967 such as the: 1948 War, The Six Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur war of 1973. But although the conflict was not fuelled by the superpowers, the influence of the superpowers and the reach of the superpowers into the Middle East was evident in the years both prior and following 1978. But even despite the influence and interests of the superpowers between and including 1948-1967 being undeniably evident, the extent of this influence cannot be said to have “fuelled the conflict”.

The matter was taken to the United Nations Security Council, and a program of sanctions against Iran was approved ( “Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). No significant negotiated deal was reached with Iran on its nuclear program until the JPA in 2014. The JPA requires Iran “ to remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent” ( “ Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). The hope behind this is that Iran will have a vastly increased timeframe in which they would be able to produce a viable nuclear weapon. That increase in time needed to produce a bomb plus increased transparency to nuclear inspectors, not only to “Iranian nuclear facilities, but to...uranium mills....the centrifuge production and storage facilities”, would kill Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon before it could truly begin ( Obama “ A Historic Understanding 1). In return, some sanctions on Iran are lifted and they are able to rejoin the international economic community.