The P5 + 1 Agreement With Iran

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.

If were congress sabotages this deal there would be nothing stopping Iran for form getting a bomb that could spark an arms race throughout the region. Ultimately we could be forced into a war, another dangerous, long-lasting and expensive conflict in the Middle East that will only culminate with the lives of many. And once

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’s nuclear program can be traced back to the 1980s when it was at war with Iraq. It sought develop a nuclear program as an anticipatory move that would defend against Saddam’s Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Prior to the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran’s government, which was then in favor of the US due to its alignment to US policies was developing a nuclear program, but it was annulled as a result of the revolution. The US, along with its allies, is wary of the current nuclear program in Iran. There have been many approaches to curb this threat from Iran’s nuclear program. The most recent and notable one is the Iran nuclear deal, which will inevitably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The main US allies who are against the Iran

(“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).

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

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

Perceived “clemency or magnanimity”, for a baleful, zealot, and militant theocracy, with a “scintilla” of kleptocracy (nepotism, cronyism, venality, and human rights violations), with an affinity for terrorism, including its impetuses, and bias towards conspiracies to usurp American-marshalled order in the region, can be gainsaid by the following notion: impunity/indemnity is propitious to the implementation of a Byzantine covenant, written in Bureaucratese; none infringe/transgress the constraints that render nuclear ordnance well-nigh unattainable, in order for the I.A.E.A. to circumvent politicization. Since January 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency has attested to, or substantiate, six times that Iran consummated its J.C.P.O.A. trusts, possibly through chicanery and mendacity. To substantiate my protestation, here is a German intelligence report: “The illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities [by Iran] in Germany registered by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution persisted in 2015 at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level. This holds true in particular with regard to items which can be used in the field of nuclear technology.” The coalition of regional resurgence and ballistic-missile tests is wellspring of perturbation and imminent collapse. The research and cultivation of missiles, however,

Obamas current approach towards Nuclear Iran has the goal of “reaching a long-term diplomatic resolution that verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” (White House, 2015, p 1) When Obama took office it was clear that he wanted a peaceful solution. When diplomacy failed, he turned to imposing strong economic sanctions. They have had strong impacts by isolating the Iranian economy. Sanctions have failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program. But they have managed to bring Iran to the negotiating table and a plan has been put forward in disarming and preventing the nuclear capabilities from developing in the coming years.

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

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

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.

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.

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