The P5 + 1 Agreement With Iran

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

The Five-Power Treaty was an agreement between the United States, Britain, and Japan to reduce the amount of war ships that the nations held, with the ratio of ships between the nations being 5:5:3. There were more details in the treaty, but this was one of the largest parts. Japan was offended by this treaty at first, due to them only being allowed to have three ships for every five that one of the other nations held, however, several compromises had been made to persuade the Japanese to agree to such a deal, including promises from Britain and the United States to not fortify their land holdings in the pacific.

Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make

They commended the parties for finding value and diplomacy and for seeking peaceful political solutions. However strenuous it may seem, that was evident in July, when the parties agreed to extend the period of the negotiations for another four months to give themselves more time to close the underlying gaps. They have continued the talks on P5+1 Iran’s nuclear program. The representatives of those countries are negotiating a comprehensive plan of action that, once implemented, would ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. They seek to finalize such arrangements by 24 November of this year. Hopefully the negotiation goes well. In the meantime, the Council and its Iran Sanctions Committee must ensure the continued implementation of United Nations sanctions. We have been troubled to hear reports of confusion as to whether the sanctions remain in effect during the period of negotiations. Although the P5+1 offered Iran some limited and reversible sanctions relief as part of the joint plan of action, the plan included no changes to United Nations sanctions. The role of the 1737 Committee in support of the P5+1 process is vital to its success. We agree with the Chair that only the Security Council itself can alter the sanctions measures applied by the

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

(“Iran Nuclear Deal”). In addition, Iran agreed to enrich uranium to very low levels (3.67%); limit how much low-enriched uranium it has; dismantle its plutonium reactor, redesign it, and not build new reactors for 15 years. According to the same B.B.C. article, “should Iran violate any aspect of the deal, the UN sanctions will automatically "snap back" into place for 10 years, with the possibility of a five-year extension” (“Iran Nuclear Deal” 1).

The Iran Nuclear Agreement will help us in many ways because of regular monitoring, limitation on uranium production, and permanent access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. In this agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be able to monitor all of Iran’s nuclear supplies. This makes sure to us that they don’t send their supplies elsewhere, which could indicate possible danger and it is also against the agreement. This will benefit us because then we are aware of their activity and whether or not it is a possible threat. Another reason that the agreement benefits us is that their uranium production is now limited. This limitation restricts them from having more than 300 kilograms of uranium. As a result of uranium being required

Throughout many years, Iran has been known for its interest in weapons of mass destructions and the nuclear power they have. Iranians and Americans have had their fair share of problems, especially with the capturing of the American Embassy employees in 1979. Since Iran has a great advantage of obtaining weapons of mass destructions in exchange for commodities such as oil and protection, the Iran deal would be ineffective in some a form of way. China has been conducting economic relations with Iran in recent years, despite the presence of international sanctions on Iran for continuing to develop its nuclear program. China’s relations with Iran may support the latter’s military

If we suddenly went off by ourselves and said no to this, we’re not only going to lose the support of the international community, we’re going to lose the access, lose the accountability. We would have no mechanism to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. Without this deal, Iran could go do what it wants unchecked by the international community.”  This means that America isn't sure that Iran is going to use their nuclear bombs for good or not. Thus, it is best to put the bombs aside where nobody can use them. "The full implementation of this JCPOA will ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programed." To keep the problems that we have today, we must add more problems to the problems originally there. However, we must keep the number of problems constant until we find a way to subside them. To keep problems from occurring is huge skill and a huge step to peace. "Successful implementation of this JCPOA will enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)." Iran should use the nuclear bomb for peaceful purposes only, which prohibits Iran from to use their own weapons freely. Even if it means taking over Iran's military defense, America should, to maintain peace within the

First there are arguments that JCPOA will not succeed in preventing a nuclear Iran. The same article

A deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey to reduce Iran’s uranium stockpile was dismissed by Washington, who sought new, tougher sanctions.

In September 2005, the IAEA 's Board of Governors found that Iran had several malfunctions and betrayed their obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement (Kemp, Geoffrey, 2005). So the Use of force was justified with sanctions from US and their allies that was approved by the UN Security board. The use of sanctions have caused hardship for Iran as well as other countries.

Recently the United States and several European nations entered into negotiations to release Iranian assets in exchange for assurances that Iran would do several things, including, reduce both their stockpiles of enriched Uranium and the number of Centrifuges. Additionally they are to convert one facility into a research center, cease activities related to any nuclear weapons projects, and submit to inspections of their nuclear facilities. There are several problems related to this agreement. Any of the issues alone would be troubling; together they should be a deal breaker.

Almost four decades have past since Iran and the US have been on good terms, yet Iran and the United States continue to have a strained relationship. In 2006 when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696 and imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program, the pre-existing strain from disagreements worsened. However, the two nations are now on better terms as of April 2, 2015, when Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, and the Eight Nations Alliance reached an agreement on the terms of the nuclear deal due to the fact that Iran, like many other countries such as the US, has been cooperating in helping the Iraqi military fight ISIS

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