Since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA), or Iran Deal, was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015, there has been widespread debate as to whether the agreement would yield benefits on both sides. Exhibited by the world’s quandary involving North Korea, discussions concerning restrictions on a nuclear program are no simple feat. Consequently, when a compromise is reached that results in the preservation of peace at a minimal cost, such as the JCPoA, it must be accepted as a success. Stated in Jeffrey Lewis’s article Scuttling the Iran Deal will Lead to Another North Korea, North Korea recently tested a missile that “flew 3,700 kilometers in altitude before falling into the sea of Japan” (Lewis, Jeffrey, Foreign Policy). With Kim …show more content…
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 the largest supposed shortcomings of the JCPoA is it’s the sunset clause. This clause will lead to the eventual dissipation of some of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, which many argue launches Iran right back on pace to build a bomb. However, sunset clauses in international agreements involving the U.S are not uncommon, as they are found in the Moscow Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Nephew, Richard, Brookings). Repeating this practice in the JCPoA, the P5+1 countries implemented a clause that
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
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
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
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
On the White House website, a 112 pages’ document called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) gives some detailed about the deal with Iran. It says that the deal:
In regards to restrictions, the agreement requires Iran to decrease their operational centrifuges from 20,000 to 5,060, which will produce radioisotopes for use in medicine, science, agriculture and industry. Additionally, “Research and development will take place only at Natanz and be limited for eight years…Inspectors from the IAEA will continuously monitor Iran’s declared nuclear sites and verify that no fissile material is moved covertly to a secret location” (“Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details – BBC News”, 2016). In return, “P5+1 agreed to lift all UN security council sanctions as well as multilateral and bilateral sanctions related to its nuclear program, included areas are trade, technology, finance
Transition Day is eight years from Adoption Day or earlier if the IAEA agrees all nuclear material in Iran is peaceful. Ten years from now Termination Day comes making the day of the end of the progress and virtually all remaining sanctions would fall (Brumfield 2015). Critics are worried about the possibility of Iran cheating. All Iran is worried about is getting rid of the international sanctions and the benefits of rejoining the global economy. The situation of manufacturing in Iran will be greatly improved giving them a boost on their economy. Iran will have potential access to $100 billion when the United States lifts the sanctions on Iran (Erdbrink 2015). An additional benefit would be a reduction in Iran’s sanctions-driven black market. October 19 was chosen because it was 90 days after Finalization Day. The day the U.N. endorsed the nuclear deal in July. The U.S. will start to issue waivers on sanctions but they won’t be good until Implementation Day. They will address Iran’s oil, transportation and banking industries. Obama will address the lifting of other sanctions in the future (Brumfield
For this paper, we chose to look at articles pertaining to the United States and South Korea Missile Treaty and how they have been working to revise it. We chose articles from CNN, Reuters, and the Chosun Ilbo. All three articles are presenting the same facts about the subject, but they all present it in a different way.
The P5+1 Agreement, an agreement struck between Iran, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. But, why, and what does this deal place on Iran, that can limit their nuclear abilities, as displayed in the past. The deal brings forth rather easy sanctions relief for Iran, limits uranium enrichment to a certain extent where Iran can still produce nuclear weaponry, and reduces the enriched uranium stockpile that can be sold for more natural uranium which can be used to produce more enriched uranium with its ability to still develop advanced centrifuges. The issues lies within the broad and quite loosely held terms of this agreement. Knowing the terms of this agreement, the expected “result of these provisions, this deal will actually shorten the time to an Iranian nuclear bomb and allow Iran to produce more nuclear bombs than it currently can construct using enriched uranium and plutonium fuel” stated Fred Fleitz from Fox News. The agreement puts the citizens of many countries at high risk, and the evidence of this is incontrovertible, as Iran has access to things that were previously denied of access. The question to ask is, should the senate support this agreement?
Jennifer Weeks explains that a prime example of a treaty not working would be when Iran made the news for building a secret underground plutonium plant less than 24 hours after the disarmament resolution by the Security Council. Obama recognized the offense and responded by telling Iran that if they did not terminate their nuclear efforts, they would face “sanctions that bite.” Obama proposed economic sanctioning as a tactic to get states to turn away from nuclear proliferation efforts (Weeks 817). Mary H. Cooper recognizes President Bush’s preposition: “President Bush responded to the revelations about [above mentioned] Khan’s network with a plan to strengthen international anti-proliferation efforts, including calling on the U.N. Security Council to require all states to criminalize proliferation of components that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction” (Cooper 297).
To ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be peaceful, in July 2015 permanent members of the United Nation Security Council, the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France and Russia, plus Germany (P5+1) and Iran reached an agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement restricts Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
This deal has relieved some of the tension between Iran and the United States (Broad). The remaining tension between the two nations is that each country finds each other 's activity to be suspicious. US President, Barack Obama, speaks about Iran 's suspicious behavior: “Iran is a destabilizing factor in the region, threatens Israel, violates human rights at home, and supports terrorism abroad” (Naji). The United States cannot fully trust Iran, since their beliefs go against American beliefs, such as protecting Israel and human rights at home as well as trying to limit terrorism abroad. Iran 's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is equally wary of United States’ actions in the Middle East region and its intentions toward Iran. Despite the suspicious activity, the US is hoping Iran will be more open with coordination in the campaign against ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, as Iran is the only regional power willing to commit ground troops to combat them. The US wants Iran to coordinate their ground and air campaigns, respectively, to dismantle ISIL’s capabilities and hopefully end the menace it poses to the Middle East (Mohammed). Now that the two nations are able to openly communicate and since the deal is in place, they will be able to discuss more ideas such as the ISIL campaign, in the future.
This paper will look at U.S. objectives for the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and explore the roadmap or game plan of how the President of the United States (POTUS) and his Administration desire to make the TPP binding. The process will not be easy. There are skeptics of the TPP who highlight some legitiment issues which should be addressed.
Earlier in 2015 president Barack Obama reached an agreement with many other nations in regards to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The agreement will make it to where Iran will not have the ability to acquire the elements needed to create nuclear weapons, specifically uranium and plutonium. If Iran were to try and build a nuclear weapon without the deal it would take 2-3 months to finish the project. But with the agreement in place, the four pathways to creating the bomb are blocked and therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made.
Some disagree that, ‘’the Obama administration is prepared to sign an agreement that will expire in a mere 10 years’ time. At this point, any restriction that the deal imposes on Iran would be vanish. Iran’s economy would be free from all nuclear-related sanctions and its government would be treated the same as any other