Critical Thinking Essay on Iran Nuclear Deal

Based on research the Journal How Iranians Might React to the Nuclear Deal is used. The actually speaks about the anticipation and the expectation of the deal from Iranian leaders and citizens alike. The Journal is written by Patrick Clawson and Mehdi Khalaji working with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The journal talks about the benefits from the deal and it is outlining the realities and expectations amongst all the parties interested in this Iran deal. The journal tells a Khamenei and the nuclear negotiations and the authors conclude by outlining the implications of this deal to the American policy (HAMID, 2015, pp. 1-64).

The research utilized a Journal, Deterring Iran after the Nuclear Deal. The journal was written by Kathleen Mellissa Hicks and Mellisa G. Dalton of the center for Strategic International studies. The journal described the Iranian paradox and the growing economy with so many disruptions. The journal goes deep into the Iranian power and energy objectives as a country and the countrys plan in the trading with the world. Explains the regional issues of Iran and Saudi Arabia combined with the UAE and the conflicts that may lead to unforeseen Middle East conflict. The Journal also crafts a strategy for the U.S on Iran (Kathleen H. Hicks, 2017).

The book The Iran Nuclear Deal: what you do not know about the deal talks about the so many controversies that the Iran nuclear deal was marred with. It explains some of the political hard lines and even the local and international public concerns and reservations. It reveals some of the political dealings of the Israel and the U.S on this deal. It similarly outlines the public concerns and skepticism on the deal. The books discusses in detail on all the issues that were at hand at the time of the deal and the roles each party played (Enwerem, 2016).

The book Decoding Thee Iran Nuclear Deal: key questions, points of Divergence, pros and cons, pending legislation and Essential Facts spells out how the P5+1 sealed and announced the deal. The book outlines the parameters that were agreed in the Iran nuclear deal. It spells out the key facts and concepts for and against the Iran nuclear Deal (Samore, 2015).

Abstract

The topic on Iran is a difficult one but in the discussion below it is based on the deal and its implications to the Irans economy. It would also have been too naive for the United States to allow a terror-supporting government to have a nuclear power program. The negotiations for the deal were also marred with a lot of politics both local and international. The deal would also set off the nuclear programs in other neighboring countries of Iran in the Middle East such as the Saudis and UAE who are also pursuing the same role that Iran I trying to gain mileage on. The government of the U.S should actually campaign against such programs because failure to which the Saudis will also be starting a similar program just to ensure that they protect themselves and their allies in the Middle East. The deal also in some way makes it harder for others to develop nuclear weapons. It is important to be noted that if the critics of this deal would have had their way then there would be nothing that would have been left for the Irans nuclear program. Furthermore, the critics of the process say the inspections of compliance to the deal have loopholes that may enable Iran to cheat on the agreement. But Iran argues that the inspections processes are more favorable for the United States and other European allies. This deal had provisions of the return of sanctions if the Iranians cheated and it is actually meant to put restrictions for the deal to work effectively. Immediately after the deal the Iranians received an economic relief after the short-term withdrawal of the European Union trade bans and any other nuclear related restrictions. Iran had a chance to discuss trade deals with European Union and even China.

Introduction

The nuclear deal was an agreement that was reached in the year 2015 between Iran and the United Nations Security Council accompanied by the group of world powers. These groups of world powers include the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China and Germany. The negotiations for this deal over the development of a nuclear program by Iran involved the countries foreign ministers. The deal was sealed on 2nd April 2015in Lausanne, Switzerland. The deal was published into a document by the EUs European External Action Service. When Trump came in office the Americans reviewed the deal and they acknowledged that Iran had complied with the framework of the deal. According to the deal signed; Iran are required to redesign, convert and also reduce their nuclear facilities. They are also meant to accept the provisional application for the nuclear related sanctions to be withdrawn which would free a lot of Irans revenue and also free the frozen Iranian assets (Kathleen H. Hicks, 2017).

After signing of the deal, the United States and Iran released their own Joint statements about the enrichment, reprocessing, monitoring and sanctions. For the enrichment the statements stated that its capacity will be limited for a specific period of time, that there will no existence of extra enrichment facilities apart from Natanz, that Iran is free to conduct their own research and development based on the agreed scope and timelines and lastly that Fordow will be converted into a center of nuclear physics and technology. The Joint statement also stated that the countrys fuel will be solely exported and there will be no reprocessing of the countrys fuel. Arak a water facility would be redesigned and modernized based on the agreements. The joint statement also composed of an agreement by Iran on IAEA procedures and also on the implementation of code 3.1 and the application of the Additional protocol. The joint statement also composed of an agreement that E.U will lift any nuclear related financial and economic sanctions, that the United Nations would also cancel the application of both the financial and economic secondary sanctions and that the United Nations Security council would endorse the deal agreement. It was resolved that agreement terminates all the nuclear related resolutions and restrictions (Enwerem, 2016).

The Pros and Cons of Iran Nuclear deal

When the deal was struck between the United States and Iran on the nuclear development, I had my own reservations. Though the agreement was signed I am of the feeling that the U.S had a tremendous cost to pay. The deal was described as narrow, understandable and focus was paid on the implications of the Iran nuclear program. In the first place Iran nuclear program mattered but the United States were interested because Iran is a regional actor in the Arab Middle East. Of course if Iran and the United States were allies then it would have been different and the discussion would turn out to be completely different. The biggest problem started with the United States allies in the Gulf and what was worrying for them was that Iran would destabilize their role in the region. The American allies recognized that this was the main issue. While the allies exaggerated their meddling in Iran they conveniently elided their own and in a way they were right to negatively view Iran as being a force to instability in both Syria and Lebanon (Samore, 2015).

The United States administration performed very poorly in the negotiation of the deal. This negotiations were actually nor necessarily about the nuclear program that Iran were developing but it also was about the other activities that Iran were undertaking in the region. The deal was about reassure but the effect of the deal was the opposite. The Iran deal was meant to disassociate the nuclear program from any other issues and the main problem for this deal is that almost everything in hand mattered to the United States. The success of the deal involved associating the interested Europeans and therefore it depended on issues and drawbacks that we built in the process of finding the deal. The assumptions of this issue did not only start with the Obama but with George Bush, but this fact is always ignored. The United States administrations always ignores the interrelated nature conflicts of the Middle East and that sometimes this local politics in this region is based on some key international players called allies. For the entire major crisis in the Middle East including those in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and others have had some external players with some ambitions whereby they end up playing the decisive role.

The Obama administration decision on putting their focus on Irans nuclear program and then you wonder why they put less focus on the Israel-Palestinian conflicts. In this case political capital and muscles are finite resources in solving these conflicts. In this case if the issues were to be any different then policy making would be prioritizing and solving some of the underlying issues causing this conflict. This issue brings us to the allies of the both sides of the coin, especially those allies that become nervous much quicker and action too rashly and that means in the decision making United States wouldnt afford to alienate them. The United States wanted that the Saudi Arabia would avoid too much public criticism of the Iranian talks and support them though with some grudge. The officials negotiating were aware that the situation was already asking lot of questions and therefore it was difficult to make other asks (Samore, 2015).

First, it is critical that it understood that for the Iran deal of the nuclear program to have happened then it was viable for the United States to disassociate it with any other issue and the issue was that all other issues mattered equally. There was no secret that the American allies always felt that the United States did not do enough to counter Irans interests in the Middle East region. Saudi Arabia and the UAE had decided to launch a destructive clear intervention where they were to sacrifice because they fear that the U.S would betray them. The United States having the problem with the Saudi Arabia on the issue but they had little interest to fight with the Saudi Arabia over the issue of Yemen. The U.S was confident because they were expending their political resources over the Iran discussions.

Then it came to Syria where there an uprising in the country and the Obama administration tried so hard to minimize their involvement. The administration decisions were caused their unwillingness to change their Syrian strategy because of the momentum that had been realized in the Iran negotiations. The others disclosures about the deal were that the Obama administrations were involved in too many concessions without getting really what they wanted. It all seemed the Obama needed to win these negotiations because they had retreated a number of times and compromised on several issues and if they wouldnt get it then it would be a big failure to Obamas administration.

The other issues noted were the deteriorating economy of Iran so the Iranians needed the deal more than the United States needed it. This point is true but we need to note that while the Iranians needed to close the deal as soon as possible the Americans also needed in equal weights. Some of the issues were actually out of the U.Ss control and thats the reason why even before the talks were concluded the perception about the deals was already solidified across the Middle East region. Allies like Egypt and enemies alike like Syria were confident that the U.S would win the contest of the talks. Some were not so sure because the Obama administration had this tendency of underestimating their leverage in some of these critical...