In what has been a series of on and off negotiations for almost two years, Iran and major Western powers have finally come to an agreement on the Iranian’s use of nuclear power. The United States, joined by fellow negotiators France, Germany, Britain, China, and Russia, welcomed the breakthrough in the talks (New York Times). The deal that was reached is intended to allow Iran to use its nuclear capabilities for energy purposes only, while at the same time restricting its ability to produce weapons grade nuclear material in the region. In addition, billions of Iranian funds and assets will be unfrozen, and multiple trade embargoes against the Middle Eastern country will be lifted. On paper, it looks as if the Iranian economy will be re-energized (both literally and figuratively), while the West will now receive new shipments of Iranian oil and have the assurance that nuclear weapons are not being produced.
But there’s a few critics who, needless to say, are not very ecstatic. Chief among them are the two biggest U.S. allies in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia. They claim that the new agreement will allow Iran to increase it’s funding to terrorist groups as well as hostile governments in the region. The New York Times reported that “Ayatollah Khamenei made clear that a single agreement does not mean Iran’s relationship with the United States will change, and he promised to continue support for regional allies, including President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah movement.” The Ayatollah seemed to support the actual agreement, but still stood firm in his anti-West beliefs, encouraging that the chants “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” continue.
Supporters of the agreement point to the actual wording, assuring the American people that the Iranians will be held to strict guidelines. Not only is a logical device being used here, they are appealing to an Americans sense of emotion. By stating that the agreement will do wonders for international diplomacy and keep Americans safe, politicians are able to sway the public to their side. But that same emotional cord is struck by opponents, who just shout about how the agreement jeopardizes American national security. They do not have a strong enough evidence to push a logical appeal. Well, not yet at least.
The agreement does allow international inspectors access to all of Iran’s closely guarded nuclear sites, and there will be a huge cut in the amount of centrifuges that Iran is allowed to operate. But it should be noted this deal lasts for only 10 years, after that Iran can produce all the weapons grade uranium and plutonium it wants (New York Times). Do you support the deal? Let me know in the comments and voice your own opinion on the matter!
Photo supplied by: http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/GTY_iran_world_leaders_ml_150402_16x9_992.jpg
Erdbrink, Thomas. “Ayatollah Khamenei, Backing Iran Negotiators, Endorses Nuclear Deal.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 July 2015. Web. 18 July 2015.
Nick Rutkowski says
Zach, great job breaking down and explaining a complicated issue. Also, i liked how you explained the positives and negatives of the situation.
cam6505 says
Very interesting topic and well written article, I like that you ended it by questioning the audience and hopefully the deal ends up benefiting both sides in the future.
Brian McBride says
This article really brings out the severity of the situation, considering that nuclear weapons are no joke. The picture also show the impact that the deal will have on several nations. This is an interesting topic, and it was well presented in your article.
Jill Costello says
I really like the picture that you posted with this blog! it really captured what you were talking about!