As I have submitted and shared with you some of the many political issues and opinions that surround Iran’s Nuclear Program, there are a few loose ends I would like to tie up.
As you are now aware, Iran’s Nuclear Program is still in the process of an agreement among powers and has gone through many phases to get to where it is at today. For instance, Iran has fought to become a nuclear-weapon state since the mid twentieth century for the nuclear program was initially presented as necessary to diversify Iran’s energy sources.
Between 2005 and 2010, the nuclear program reached a critical phase of deep division as it became increasingly political. To this day, support for the program will likely become even more politicized as long as the weapons component of the program is in question. As I have mentioned before, United States President, Barack Obama, has expressed serious doubt for the program and believes that the country is better off without nuclear weapons. He even argued against placing “weapons in the wrong hands.”
Now, more recent political issues are addressing the June 30th deal and its effects on the ISIS fight. According to this Huffington Post article published on April 22, 2015, progress on the Islamic State’s involvement in Syria is slowing as the United States and other world powers negotiate the Iran nuclear deal. I found this article to be of particular interest to me because it relates tremendously to the Cultural Foundations’ Syria Simulation game. This article incorporates a majority of the knowledge I have gained in the past week as our class conducted a week-long simulation of the current Syrian conflict. I have learned that because Iran supports Assad (supplying his military powers with weapons and equipment) that the nuclear weapon seeking country is not popular among Syrians. However, it is thought to be a strategic move by most politicians that Iran and the United States join in an alliance to defeat ISIS before the terrorists group gets anymore out of hand than they already are.
Syrian rebels have time and time again proven their willingness to defeat ISIS, but a U.S.-Iran alliance is advocated to combat the Islamic State, bringing to question whether weapons of mass destruction would in fact be placed in the wrong hands, if they are used for explicit reasons. This is just something new to think about as the ISIS conflicts in the Middle East persist.
Moving on, I would like to talk more about some of the things I have mentioned in my older blog posts and how they have progressed since. For starters, let me discuss the terms and conditions of the nuclear deal and how they will effect the revision process of international sanctions. So, under the terms of the new deal, Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear facilities, as long as they are subject to strict production limits. In addition, the number of centrifuges will be reduced by two-thirds (not enough for a nuclear weapon) for 15 years. As for Iran’ sanctions, they will receive relief from a range of international sanctions that have reportedly lowered its oil production. For Iran, this cannot be done quickly enough; therefore, in order for Iran’s sanctions to be reduced, they have to show complete compliance with the terms of the final deal.
The process for ensuring Iran remains accommodating with the terms of the agreement are very strict, but are not official. It is a delicate issue; however, the process of reimposing sanctions will be necessary if Iran does not cooperate. American officials, including President Obama insist that the deal has the power to cut off every pathway for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon for at least a years and has claimed “If Iran cheats, the world will know it.”
With all of this said, it is impossible to escape the high-levels of skepticism coursing through Congress. Some Republican and Democrats are concerns Obama is American and Israeli security in order to reach a deal with Iran. The Prime Minister of Israel demanded that one of the deal’s terms be the recognition of his country’s existence from Iran by Congress. It goes to show that Iran cannot be trusted. Not by the United States, and most certainly not by the Middle East. Many leaders in Arab countries oppose the deal, basing their judgement off of the war in Syria and Iran’s involvement.
Here is a nice visual for a few of the terms I have mentioned, concerning the June 30th deal:
A topic that I have touched upon, but have not fully elaborated in my blog is an Iranian’s view of the nuclear program. This article published by the Huffington Post on April 29, 2012 has given me insight of the nuclear weapons program, regarding international political negotiations and Iranian stability from an Iranian graduate student’s point of view. One of the critical elements discussed in the interview was the lack of trust the international community has for Iran. A quote that the publisher uses in her publication is from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, “Know your enemy,” which I found to be quite necessary in this ongoing controversy. The author adds, “If we don’t understand our enemy, how can we ever successfully resolve the crisis?” Although this I find this statement to be true, not also know that not all Iranian’s are satisfied with keeping the peace as their nuclear program implies.