Thomas Friedman's 'Look Before Leaping'

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 Iran Deal was made by President Obama this past July to stop Iran from building any nuclear weapons. The U.S. has had several controversies with Middle Eastern countries in the past. One of Matthews’ political concepts is to “keep your enemies in front of you.” Although the U.S is trying to improve the relationships between these countries, such as creating an alliance with Israel, the Middle East is still a major concern. By making this agreement with Iran, President Obama has given the U.S. the opportunity to keep an eye on the “enemies.” However, if either nation decides to break any prior promises, we could go to a long and costly war. Using Matthews’ tactic to see the enemy, and a with a drastic alternative for both countries, we can have more confidence that this conflict will not

With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this

The sanctions center around the country’s ballistic missile program has also claimed human rights abuses and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC). The new law says the IRGC plays a large role in Iran’s international destabilization program, including terrorism and the ballistic missile program. The sanctions include the blocking property, exclusion from entering the US and pausing current transactions. However the Iranian government has accused the United States of Using the Sanctions to undermine the current nuclear deal. “President Trump has long criticized the agreement and vowed to pull the country out of it during his election campaign.”(CNN). Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi warned that “hostile” measures taken by the US would impact international relations and affairs.

President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech undermined support of Iranians who argued for better relations with the United States. When Bush made that speech in 2002, Mohammad Khatami, a reformer, was the president of Iran (Freedman 473). The United States sanctions against Iran have helped to further the Abadgaran regime’s agenda by giving justification to a group that is desperate for it; the sanctions have allowed them to consolidate their power and further oppress Iranians who go against the government’s policies. Iran’s current state is best described in Lawrence Freeman’s A Choice of Enemies:

Maslow’s law of the instrument states that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but what if it works alongside a sickle? As a key player of the Cold War (1947-1991), the United States (US) has had a dual role in the nuclear proliferation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Consequently, this conflict of imperialism has had major implications for Iranian relations to the present day. Even with the support of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the European Union (EU); Iran’s path towards peaceful nuclear energy still faces opposition from the US. In summation, from the nativity of the Second Red Scare in 1947 to the present day, a mix of political and strategic interests has lead to the formation of the Joint

He believes that it would be disastrous if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons and believes that a military action would prevent this from happening. Podhoretz also believes that this would be the best way to handle this situation, because it would be less of a risk to the world. We know that if they were to obtain the nuclear weapons Iran would use them against the United States. A military attack on Iran would be the best way to prevent this from happening. Christopher Hemmer position is to be diplomatic, but as Podhoretz has mentioned numerous times already. Diplomacy has been proven time after time that it will fail and the United States should be diplomatic about this situation. According to the New York Times, Iran having nuclear weapons would increase the chances of a nuclear war. According to Ahmadinejad called “a world without America”.(Podhoretz, p. 127) It is clear by this statement made that he want to destroy the United States

Contemporary actions against the nation of Iran stem from the United States’ self-appointed obligation to fight that terrorism abroad, as well as the rise of an Iranian nuclear program. Iran’s claim to be solely interested in nuclear power for its energy benefits is continually met with skepticism, as Iran refuses to meet all requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are a signatory. The United States is also deeply interested in peace within the Middle East. The political, religious, and ideological differences in the region have turned into a decades-long conflict for which the American public has a waning appetite. As such, the US has employed a number of DIME efforts to induce Iranian compliance with the political goals stated in the NSS.

As the Iranian economy continues to strain under mismanagement, the obsession for nuclear power, corruption, and crippling subsidies, the strategy of engagement provides incentives to build trade ties. The military and strategic threats Iran poses to the U.S. interests are serious and diverse. The threats will require determined efforts for engagement. History shows engagement and détente undermine governments more quickly than exclusion and enforcing an estrangement

Tehran can threaten major energy market fluctuations from oil production and maritime security through control of the Straits of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz link the Persian Gulf and the flow of oil to the world. Iran is aware of the significance of the Strait of Hormuz. “While Iran’s capability to actually “close” the strait is questionable, there is little doubt that it could quickly wreak havoc on the global economy by doing much less.” (Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.: Part 3 Stratfor, 2009). Global stability is constantly in jeopardy through Iran’s continued support of terrorist activities. (Rhode, H., n.d., The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior) states “Yet the Iranian government has not been dissuaded from sponsoring and implementing terror tactics, and has not been convinced to halt its illegal nuclear program.” Iran has demonstrated their intent to continue their nuclear program regardless of international sanctions and admonishment. They continue to support terrorist activities throughout the region. There is no sign that if Iran was able to produce weapons grade nuclear material that it would not be used by a violent extremist organization. Iran can disrupt or control maritime trade and security of the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian leadership views compromise and requests for negotiations as a sign of weakness and an opportunity for exploitation. “Compromise (as we in the West understand this

Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

The U.S. and Iran used to have a great relationship back in the day. President Jimmy Carter even spent New Year 's Eve in 1977 with the Shah, and toasted Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world".(Bakhtavar) This just goes to show how close the two countries were at the time. But all that changed later into the 1970’s when a series of unfortunate events eventually lead to the complete deterioration of US and Iran relations. These events shifted U.S. Iran relations in a way that still impacts both countries. Even to this day the US have expressed their dislike of the Iranian regime. Similarly, the Iranian leaders have shown their dislike, more like hatred, for the United States. But that brings up the

The Iranian revolution in 1979 did not only collapse the ancient tradition of monarchy but it also produced profound change in domestic and foreign policy of Iran. Iran, which was, a prominent ally of the USA and Israel during Shah Dynasty, has become deeply antagonistic following the revolution. When we look at the course of the revolution, it can be considered a massive opposition to Shah dynasty rather than an Islamic revolution since the supporters of the revolution include many different circles ranging from liberals to moderate Islamists or from communists to radical Islamists. After the revolution, Islamic circles seized the power due to the Ayatollah Khomeini's charisma and ability After the revolution, the principles of the

Netanyahu and Israel called upon Obama to take action against Iran. For Obama, however, the priority was to try to get the Iranians to change their policies by dialogue, not force. This change in perspective was one of the many realizations that the strategic plans of the two nations were drifting apart. Israel believed that the U.S. was not on their side because Israel wanted all of Iran’s nuclear facilities destroyed and disassembled. Since Obama refused to use force against Iran, it created tension and in the eyes of Israelis a sense of disappointment and frustration. Obama did not want to use force because he did not believe that was the best approach. He considered the best approach was to solve this issue diplomatically, which as a result would have fewer repercussions in the long run. In addition to the disagreement between Obama and Netanyahu for the Iranian’s nuclear plant to be disassembled by force or settle the issue through peace, Obama’s attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, an effort that appeared partially aimed at putting additional pressure on Iran to scrap its nuclear enrichment program, came into conflict with Israel’s need for nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a possible attack by its enemies, particularly Iran and the Arab countries with whom it had not yet made peace with (Freedman ). Israel felt the need that

ith their ally the U.S. and others. The source of Israel’s anger and distrust towards Iran and its nuclear capability stems from Tehran’s previous references to annihilating Israel multiple times and the country’s development of long-range missiles and support towards militant groups present on Israel’s border who are a constant harassment. Israeli president and Nobel Peace laureate, Shimon Peres, even pleaded with the Iranian population by stating, “I would like to say to the Iranian people: You are not our enemies and we are not yours. There is a possibility to solve this issue diplomatically. It is in your hands. Reject terrorism. Stop the nuclear program. Stop the development of long-range missiles”. Saudi Arabia along with fellow