Iran and Nuclear Power
This paper focuses on the widely debated issue on the Iran deal considering it as a policy that will define the manner in which Iran will develop its nuclear energy program. Essentially, the argument will take a serious approach thus defending a position to the effect that the Iran deal, as a matter of policy, is essentially flawed. Importantly, it will also adopt a logical approach in order to underscore the gaps which would lead to a future crisis.
Indeed, as afore mentioned, the Iran deal is a badly thought idea that uses naivety to as a tool of ensuring security and mistaken it for diplomacy. It would be termed as naivety because as demonstrated onwards, the deal is designed under the assumption that the Iranians will comply to the demands just because an agreement has been reached orally and documented. It can be correctly claimed that the deal actually makes the world even a more dangerous place while seeking to secure it. This is a perfect example of a case where there are good intentions but the means used end up achieving the perfect opposite. This claim is based on several sharply focused logics drawn from the manner in which it is crafted.
Besides that, the deal is a give and take scenario where the country is expected to stop its nuclear activity in exchange of consideration to lift the financial sanctions placed on it. Whereas it seems to be a fair agreement that would see both sides having their way and maintaining peace in the world, a closer look into it portrays yet another instance of naivety. In this case, when the bans are lifted, it means that Iran will have enough money to develop its economic powers to a higher standing despite the fact that it actually well endowed with natural resources currently. In other words, lifting the bans allow Iran to grow fast and vastly so that, after the said 10 to 15 years, the world will be meeting a more dangerous Iran that it has today. Actually, critical analyses on the concessions made by the Iranian side are actually laughable. For example, Iran concedes to allow inspections of its nuclear energy facilities. But, just stop there and think about it. These are the nuclear facilities that Iran has submitted to the UN inspectors. This implies that there is a high possibility for the Iranians to submit the facilities where nothing is going and while they are proceeding with the enrichment of Uranium in other areas. Actually, what is more interesting that the UN will never know whether the country has a bomb or not until it makes one because it is only then a test would be done (Jonas Para. 7)
The argument to the effect that this is possible is far too real considering the countries such as Korea used the same path and obtained nuclear bombs from their facility which they claimed to have developed for energy purposes only. Besides, Syria has been able to cover up its plans to build a nuclear bomb against the will of other countries around the world until Israel made discovered by way of intelligence.
Another logical misdoing of the deal crafters relates to the standards required from Iran in order to get some of the proceeds under the deal. In the first place, Iran was not needed to come out clean on its history in regard to what they have been doing to develop nuclear energy. This implies that the world is completely unaware of the tactics used by Iran to instigate its aggression and nuclear pursuit. With such lack of information, it implies that UN and the powers of the world have a very deficient understanding of the nature of Iran’s activities. As such, they do not know what they should look for in the future because they do not have precedent information on the subject matter. In addition to this, Iran was not held to high standards of compliance before making the decision to lift some of the bans put against it. In this regard, the banks were lifted even before the world powers and UN was sure that the country could not violate the agreements made on the basis of the deal. This is an indication that Iran got the concessions on a silver platter and a portrayal of how the world powers neglected their primary obligation to act with due diligence. As of now, about 22 banks based in Iran have been relieved off the bans put on them previously by Britain (Zuckerman Para. 3)
Actually, this is the same way North Korea used the nuclear agreement spearheaded by the then president of the US Bill Clinton. Today, the country has already acquired the nuclear bomb thus growing into a violent country beyond repair. These are some of the critical premises showing just how much the country will use the deal to steer its aggression in Middle East and the world as a whole.
In conclusion, the world powers and more so the United States which is at the centre of spearheading the deal should rethink its decision and priorities. In the process of doing so, these stakeholders should be keen to ensure that they do not procrastinates the problem and consider that to be a solution just because the it keeps peace for some time. The deal as currently designed does not make the world safer especially when considering the long term scenario. In any case, it just provides an easier but delayed way of getting to the bomb. To make matters worse, the same approach has been tested with North Korea under perfect circumstances of that nature. Evidently, that approach failed miserable because the country’s authority shut off surveillance and continued with their activities. As such, the world cannot afford another hostile and dictatorial regime to go that path. In case that happens, it will become more insecure and difficult to solve conflicts once they arise.
Works Cited
Jonas, David. "Five Reasons Why the Iran Nuclear Deal Is Still a Really Bad Idea." War on the Rocks. N.p., 2015. Web. 11 May 2016. <http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/five-reasons-why-the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-still-a-really-bad-idea/>.
McCarthy, Kevin. "21 Reasons the Iran Deal Is a Bad Deal from | Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Leader." 21 Reasons the Iran Deal Is a Bad Deal from | Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Leader. N.p., 2015. Web. 11 May 2016. <http://www.majorityleader.gov/2015/07/22/21-reasons-iran-deal-bad-deal/>.
Zuckerman, Mortimer. US News. U.S.News & World Report, 2016. Web. 11 May 2016. <http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start>.
