Negotiations between the U.S. and
Iran are underway in Oman to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program. I believe
that the U.S. should only accept a deal with Iran if it ensures that they will
have no capability of obtaining any sort of nuclear weapon. There should also
be some Congressional oversight on the deal in order to ensure that the
agreement we have reached is analyzed and reviewed properly. I believe it is
essential to take a tough stance on Iran, especially after recent flops in
foreign policy promises made by the Obama administration i.e.” red line” in
Syria and the so-called “reset” in relations with Russia. If the U.S. does not
show any kind of strength in these negotiations, Iran can very well take
advantage of America’s appeasement.
The reason
the U.S. must ensure success in these negotiations with Iran is because of the
destined power shift that would take place if Iran were to obtain a nuclear
weapon. Iran would suddenly become an even more dangerous force than they
already are. Personally, I would not want them to become a nuclear threat
because of their past history. A history that includes the Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khomeini repeatedly claiming that “Israel must be destroyed.” It is a history
that includes a recent UN report that states that 687 people were executed in
Iran in 2013 and 411 this year for almost meaningless crimes such as adultery
and alcohol use.[1] It
is also a history which includes funding terrorist organizations such as Hamas
and Hezbollah. A shift in power to a country such as this would have frightful
implications.
I also
believe the final deal with Iran should be reviewed before Congress. The
nuclear deal would be such a significant agreement, that it should have a
“second pair of eyes” look at it before being approved. The legislative process
is essential in determining foreign policy because it provides full
consideration and analysis to each part of the agreement. Senator Bob Corker
(R-TN) said that “[Congress] should at least have an opportunity to weigh in on
the final agreement…after its negotiated.”[2] I
believe an opinion put forth by Congress on the deal will either reassure or
warn the Obama administration on the implications of accepting the deal.
There has
also been an important, recent development regarding the negotiations with Iran
when the Wall Street Journal reported
that President Obama wrote a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini regarding mutual
interest in defeating ISIL. However, I think this letter is a huge mistake. In
regards to the fight with ISIL, the letter has displeased America’s Sunni Arab
League partners, according to Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) as well as undermining
the unifying efforts put forth by the coalition to defeat ISIL.[3]
More importantly though, I believe it is a display of weakness by the President
to Iran. In a crucial time when all of the focus with Iran should be centered
around the nuclear deal, the President is trying to appeal to the Ayatollah by
diverting his attention to a common goal: defeating ISIL. I do not want to be
mistaken as someone who does not believe in reaching out and making peace.
However, there is a time and place for that, and this is not the time nor the
place. I believe the President’s intention of the letter was to show Iran that
the U.S. can be seen as a supportive ally in the West. During times of intense
negotiations that are meant to crack down on Iran, the U.S. should not be
reaching out yet another hand.
The
negotiations with Iran right now can have significant effects for years to
come. My only hope is that the U.S. does not take too soft of a stance and
reaches an agreement that is mutually beneficial. An agreement which would not
allow Iran to ever obtain a nuclear weapon.
[1] http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Mark-Kirk-Marco-Rubio-Human-rights-Iran/2014/11/07/id/606039/
[2] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/16/key-senator-wants-the-right-to-block-a-deal-with-iran.html
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/lawmakers-slam-obama-letter-to-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei/
I agree with your main points in this post, that we should toughen up on Iran, but my main question is why does this responsibility always seem to fall on the United States? Other countries hold a significant amount of interest in the security of the Middle East as well, but the United States always seems to play watch-dog. I am not saying that we should take a large step back, but where is the UK, and why does our Congress, and not their Parliament, for example, take responsibility for security measures in that region of the world
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the U.S. should be the one to control nuclear weapons in the world. I think the U.S. should try to make their case but the final decision on nuclear weapons should fall to the country. And I would also think that other countries such as the countries in the UN Security Council should have a major say in this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of making an agreement for Iran to not produce any nuclear weapons does sound like a good one. However, it is very difficult to patrol. Iran could produce nuclear weapons without the US' knowledge. I agree with Shazeb that the US should not be the only ones to police nuclear weapons. It should be a joint effort of the countries established in the nuclear weapon treaty.
ReplyDelete