Pros And Cons Of Iran

Iran ranks second globally in natural gas reserves and fourth in proven crude oil reserves (Penn Wharton). In 2014, oil accounted for 20% of Iran’s GDP, so government expenditures count heavily on their oil exports and prices heavily. Since the 1950’s, the U.S. has played a major role in manipulating Iran’s oil and their dependance on oil. The United States’ foreign policies and relationships in Iran have seemed to be created to take advantage of Iran’s oil-rich markets. Not only that, but new sanctions that have been put on Iran’s nuclear program which has severely hurt them because these sanctions have costed them to lose over $500 billion in oil revenues through the sanctions, research, construction, and operation. Although the U.S. has hurt Iran financially, it is very important that they stay involved with them because they are one of our main sources to get petroleum from and if the U.S. can stay on good terms with them, it will benefit both nations economies.

According to the official White House website, Iran currently has two means to produce a nuclear weapon, which are highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium. Assuming there are no other secret facilities, uranium is currently produced at Natanz and FFEP, while plutonium is produced at Arak. The website also mentions that Iran currently possesses enough HEU to produce eight nuclear bombs, and that it possesses 20,000 centrifuges between the previously mentioned Natanz and FFEP sites. The deal requires Iran to reduce its HEU levels by 98% and maintain the levels at or below the 3.67% while reducing the number of centrifuges to 6,104 for at least the next 10 years. Additionally, the deal addresses concerns about future secret facilities, specifying that Iran is subject to exceptionally vigorous monitoring, verification, and inspection measures as well as allowing the IAEA access to any suspected nuclear

On September 28th, 2015, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Dr. Hassan Rouhani addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations during the General Debate and made statements that Iran was ready and had voted for engagement with the world. Within Rouhani’s speech he also stated that Iran did not want “Zionist regime to remain as the only impediment in the way of realizing this important initiative” speaking about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran which was outlined in Vienna, Austria in September 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United Kingdome, United States, and European Union (P5+1). In this agreement, Iran will eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent and reduce by two thirds the number of gas centrifuges. Iran also agrees not to enrich uranium past 3.67 percent and not to build new heavy-water facilities for 15 years. Iran will be facing sanctions if they fail to follow the agreement. The statement made about the Zionist regime, is speaking about the implications of the US providing nuclear support to Israel. While Iran still supports Hezbollah, the Assad regime and Houthi rebels in Yemen , they are acting counter to US interests.

Be educated on the issue and know what’s going on. JCPOA needs to be revised or abolished. A non nuclear Iran needs to be the bottom line. The country is to dangerous to possess nuclear arms. Support lawmakers and government officials that oppose the deal and know their views. America can not afford to make a mistake. It can be the difference between life and

Iran is notorious for their harsh acts of terrorism, and the devastation of their specialized weaponry, including ballistic missiles. It is outlined in the deal that Iran will suspend and delay the amount of time, special weaponry is available to them, limiting their harsh acts of terrorism throughout the Middle East. The United States has vital national interests in the Middle East, including their security of allies, ensuring the availability of region’s energy supply, opposition to terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. (Haass) Iran having access to their special weaponry, will put the interests of the United States in jeopardy. If Iran attempts to destabilize any of these interests, the U.S will view it as a threat, and will take military action if necessary. It is integral for

The U.S. should prevent Iran from developing or acquiring a bomb as it would pose a specific security threat to Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states which are important strategic allies of the U.S. The ultimate goals of U.S. policies towards Iran are to limit Iranian uranium enrichment program, to relieve sanction and to ensure inspections conducted by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) through new sanctions against and diplomacy with Iran. Liberal institutionalism provides the best approach for dealing with security issues regarding nuclear proliferation in Iran because diplomacy would satisfy both Iranian and U.S and its allies’ interests. This memo explains the assumptions of liberal institutionalism, introduces the Iranian nuclear program background, provides liberal institutionalism diplomatic options, and offers specific strategic options with recommendations.

The purpose for this memo is to address the recent nuclear weapon testing done by Saudi Arabia. In the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) the state Saudi Arabia acceded on October 3rd, 1988. With the current decision to run nuclear weapon testing they have gone against this treaty they had previously agreed upon. Due to concern in the past about nuclear weapons being purchased from outside sources by Saudi Arabia we need to address the current problem caustically. I propose a couple alternatives to redress this issue: (1) we hold off on sending military troops into action, (2) get the current studies on the nuclear proliferation in that area, and (3) address Saudi Arabia about the reasoning for sudden nuclear weapon testing.

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

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) is not merely a transatlantic success, but a collective effort to defuse a global challenge. That said, the instrumental EU-U.S. policy cooperation that led to the 2015 deal was the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, policymakers in European capitals were at odds with their counterparts in Washington over how to treat the regime in

Direct U.S.-Iranian relations date back as far as 1923 when the United States sent an economic advisor to Iran in an attempt to help provide independence and stability to the Persian economic system. The relationship between these two countries however, has not remained as positive as it began. Over the course of the last 70 years the United States has been both close allies and distant enemies with Iran; never seeming to make constructive diplomatic relations last. This troublesome history between the U.S and Iran has created a climate in which long-lasting successful diplomatic relations are unlikely. Considering this, the United States must continue on a path of aggressive foreign policy in regard to Iran in order to ensure the interests of the U.S are adequately protected.

The goal of the Joint Plan of Action is to reach a joint agreement and long-term complete solution that would confirm Iran’s nuclear program is absolutely peaceful. The thorough solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in compliance with its commitments. The complete solution would involve equally defined enrichment programs with practical limits and clarity measures to guarantee the peaceful description of the program (CNN, 2013, Iran Nuclear Deal: Joint Plan of Action).

A nuclear Iran may be inevitable within the next decade. There is ample evidence suggesting that Iran has the intention and capability of obtaining nuclear weapons. According to Fox News, a new document issued by the Department of Defense on the Iran nuclear threat states: “Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015.” Clark Abt, professor at Harvard University, estimates that a single nuclear attack on a major US harbor, such as New York City or Washington DC, could cause a loss of one million civilians and could create three trillion dollars of economic losses. In order to identify the necessary steps to avert Iran from procuring nuclear weapons and thus preventing possible nuclear attacks, it is crucial to understand why Iran seeks to arm in the first place. It is profusely clear that International relations theories provide an insight into why Iran aspires to develop a nuclear program. However, upon further examination, only the realist and identity, not the liberal, theories in international relations can further our knowledge of this issue.

The essential features of an engagement policy option are a “robust diplomatic strategy,” reassessing economic sanctions, and Iranian international relations. The end state is an engagement strategy that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

In July 2015, negotiations aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and heading off a regional nuclear arms competition resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5+1 countries. The P5+1 countries include China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The JCPOA requires deep reductions in Iran’s existing uranium enrichment capacity and the redesign of its planned plutonium-production reactor, which together effectively terminate its capability to produce fissile materials for nuclear weapons for at least ten to fifteen years. The JCPOA also calls for highly intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring measures, many of which are unlimited in