There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are attempting to relieve this tension through communication and diplomacy, but they have had to use coercion in some cases in order to enforce their laws and ensure peace. What was thought that could never be done with a country that has had such negative and aggressive relations with the U.N., parts of the Middle East, and the Western world, has occurred through a deal that was signed off on November 23, 2013 with Iran, curbing their nuclear program nearly to a complete halt. This deal is seen through the eyes of the world as a historic moment as it has the potential to almost reverse all suspicion that the demise of the region would be the result of a nuclear war.
The international issues pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program is not new to the 21st century. Concerns began after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which concluded with the Pahlavi dynasty under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (who was supported by the United States) being relieved of their power and replaced by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who was ...
... middle of paper ...
... return). This deal further supports the liberal perspective, with the international relations theory of liberalism. It acknowledges that states actually gain more power by cooperating with other states. Both Iran and the U.N. can win this situation, which is what happened (power is open-ended). The anarchy that caused the rift between Iran and the U.N. and the western world is reduced through the cooperation with other states as both parties are now on the same page: countries should work together for a common good through international organizations and institutions, and to mutually agree upon international law. From the U.N.’s perspective, this is a great idea as they have been trying to curb Iran’s nuclear program for years. They emphasized positive realism through both force and persuasion by using sanctions in order to advance their liberal norm and tenets.
This treaty was part of Reagan’s progress to helping end the Cold War. In 1988, President Reagan signed an agreement that got the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. This was the first time in 33 years that the Red Army left without conflict and effectively ended a war (The Achievements and Failures of the Reagan Presidency). Reagan did something
The documentary Obama’s Deal narrated by Jim Gilmore highlights the 44th Presidents’ endurance as he fought against a great resistance in reforming healthcare. This bill was the most complex bill in modern times says Gilmore. The Affordable Care Act eventually deemed Obama Care was a signature issue and Obama spent most of his first term focusing on this specific reformation. For the first African American President, the pushback was astronomical, and excuses were abundant, but he needed to prove that Washington could solve bigger problems so he relentlessly pursued every avenue he could explore to push this bill in the direction of reformation.
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
” Before I go on, I feel it necessary to define some key phrases in this resolution: ? Economic sanctions- the deliberate, government inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations. "Customary" does not mean "contractual"; it simply means levels of trade and financial activity that would probably have occurred in the absence of sanctions. ? To achieve- to fulfill ?
The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, was made upon at the end of the World War I; the purpose of this treaty was to create a peace between the Allied Powers and Germany. However, as it’s witnessed, greed won over peace. The Allied powers chose vengeance against Germany, instead of world peace. They decided to strip Germany of their land, military forces, and make them pay significant reparations for all the destruction that happened because of the war. This angered Germany and fueled Hitler to rise to power. Although the world has taken note of what happened and learned from history, we are witnessing the same mistakes being made that might lead to another world war. The Non-Proliferation Treaty today reflects similar aspects as the treaty of Versailles, and we need to learn from those mistakes to prevent any future conflict. The treaty of Versailles prevented Germany from being able to defend its country and rebuild a strong economy, and in the same way the Non-Proliferation Treaty prevents Iran from building a strong military while limiting Iran’s economic growth, so in order to prevent potential conflicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty has to be revised.
This report examines the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed upon on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the P5+1, which includes the U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia and Germany. The agreement fosters a temporary solution in which the P5+1 removed crippling economic sanctions in return for the cease of Iran’s nuclear development. Great powers recognize the threat that Iran poised to the universal vital interest of worldwide peace and established sustainable international relationships to maintain leverage over Iran. However, the JCPOA contains deficiencies that challenge long term restrictions and inhibit the enforcement of implications upon Iran for violations. First, the sunset clause, “Permits critical nuclear, arms, and ballistic
Do you know what it’s like to live in a cardboard home, starve, and raise a family in poverty? Unfortunately, most Americans in the 1930s went through this on a day-to-day basis. In 1929 the stock market crashed. Many people lost their life savings; they invested everything they owned in a failing stock market. The country was falling, everyone needed strong leadership and help from the government.
The Frontline documentary, Obama’s Deal, tracks the course of Obama’s healthcare reform and the steps taken by the administration to get the bill passed. Healthcare was, and remains, one of the biggest platforms of the Obama administration and one of our nation’s greatest challenges. The film starts with Obama’s election into the White House in 2009. Rahm Emanuel, who had worked for the Clinton administration, was brought in to advise Obama on the reform. To win, Emanuel knew that Obama would have to move quickly as his campaign would be strongest at the beginning. But his crucial flaw was having Obama take a back seat on his own political agenda. Emanuel tried to change his mistakes from the Clinton administration’s healthcare failure, and
For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq. If Iraq fails to comply, then military force would be taken in order to disarm Iraq. This proposal met opposition from council members Russia, China, and France. They thought that the U.S. proposal was too aggressive and that the U.S. should not act alone without U.N. approval. For weeks they refused to believe that the only way to make Iraq disarm is through the threat of force and the fear of being wiped out.
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
...that it will not accept a future in which Iran--its Shiite, Persian rival--has nuclear weapons and it does not” (Allison). If many more countries create nuclear weapons, the world could be in danger of a nuclear war just like it was during the Cold War.
The Geneva talks are a continuation of an attempt two weeks ago to clinch a deal with Iran that would put a brake on its nuclear program in return for an easing of economic sanctions. American officials say those terms are intended only as a first step to a comprehensive agreement that would remove the risk of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon.
Should all countries in the world be able to develop their own nuclear weapons? More importantly, if so, can these countries be trusted? Richard Rhodes, the author of the essay entitled “Living with the bomb,” believes that they can. With cooperation and negotiations Rhodes believes nations can secure the deadly materials from which weapons of mass destruction are made of (Rhodes). He also believes that this will help reduce arsenals which will help eliminate possible future risks (640). The author somehow believes that regardless of the tensions in the Middle East and its surrounding countries, they are worthy of our trust in a matter as great and serious as their development of nuclear weapons. Throughout his essay, Rhodes cites several cases throughout history where there have been direct threats due to the fact that certain countries simply cannot be trusted. Nuclear weapons are an extremely big deal in our world today, especially when it comes to terrorism. The idea of relying only on cooperation to secure the materials required to build nuclear weapons is outrageous, and the only program that would eliminate all threats would be by disarming all countries of their nuclear programs.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Iran, which was also formerly known as Persia, has an interesting history that affects the modern day culture of the region. Iran is known for one of the world’s oldest major civilizations which has roots dating back to 4000 BC. First, the Medes occupied the region; they unified Iran as a nation and major empire. Iran was ruled by a series of empires and dynasties, starting with The Achaemenid Empire which ruled from 550-330 bce all the way to Iran’s last dynasty, The Pahlavi Dynasty, which was in power from 1925-1941 ce. The Iranian Revolution or the Islamic Revolution put an end to the dynasties in Iran after the shahs (kings) started incorporating Western ideals and philosophies into society. This brought sharp objections from religious people and they started viewing the Shahs as anti-Islamic which eventually lead to the Ayatollah regaining power over the nation. In order to have a basic understanding of the issues facing Iran today it is important to look at the past and have an understanding of the modern history of this complex nation.