Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Last year, the United States and other major world powers arrived at a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its contentious nuclear plan (Global issues 205). The deal is referred to as The Interim Iranian Nuclear Pact.
The deal allows the Islamic Republic of Iran to enhance uranium to a maximum of 5%, discontinue increasing its enrichment ability, and to permit more IAEA checkups. During the signing of the deal, Obama asserted that through the agreement the world began a journey on a new trail to a safer future where everyone will be certain that Iran’s nuclear plan is nonviolent.
The Iranian leaders were pleased with the deal. The country’s president Hassan Rouhani asserted that the agreement confirmed his country’s right to enrichment (Global issues 205). During the talks, Rouhani acknowledged that his country in the past had never made any intentions to acquire nuclear weapons.
He asserted that those who had been spreading the allegations were historical jokers. Through this, he praised the negotiators for the deal. Ever since Obama’s administrations began seeking peace with the Iranian government in the year 2009, critics have always termed the move a step towards the wrong direction. This article seeks to confirm on the critics’ assertion that indeed the US administration is committing an error by seeking peace with Iran.
Obama’s administration and the other governments who participated in the deal believe that the Iranian President Hasan Rouhani has offered appropriate evidence to prove that he is a modest leader aiming at advancing his country’s relationship with the West. I believe that those who participated in the agreement assume that the deal would address global anxiety about the Iranian nuclear plan. In contrast, I believe that the initiative was ill advised.
Based on Rouhani’s statements and acts after the signing of the deal, I believe that Obama’s administration should have been more vigilant with the Iranian government before seeking their friendship. In my opinion, Rouhani’s administration is not different from his predecessor’s administration. Equally, I believe that the Iranian government does not intend to stop its plans to acquire nuclear weapons. In this regard, I believe that Obama’s administration has made crucial mistakes.
When compared to the past Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rouhani is definitely very unusual. Unlike Ahmadinejad, the new president identifies himself with the West and is well acquainted with social media. His records indicate that he undertook his undergraduate course in Scotland and talks in fluent English.
His speech to the U.N. General Assembly was concise and appealing. The speech appealed for lenience, promised that his country will in no way try to acquire nuclear weapons, and assured everyone that his country posed no threat to the world peace (Sofaer & George 45).
I would have upheld Obama’s administration diplomatic moves if it would have held Iran answerable for its plans. Currently, the initiatives aimed at making peace with the Islamic nation have proved that the US and its allies are finding the middle ground for their principles. In my opinion, every country should be viewed as a moral agent. Through this, they should be held responsible for their acts rather than compromising on global principles.
For decades, the US and Iran have not had a good diplomatic ties (Global issues 187). Their ties were broken after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. After the plot, Iranians complained of the US meddling in their dealings and America’s responsibility in ousting their government.
Alternatively, Americans have also perceived Iranian governments as a threat to regional and global peace. Obama’s administration has always acknowledged and apologizes for these differences and asserts that measures have to be put in place to end the differences. I find it wrong for Obama’s administration to apologize for the differences. I believe that Obama’s administration has nothing to ask for forgiveness from the Iranians.
Similarly, I believe that the Cold War course of actions does not validate the Islamic state’s support for terror campaigns and nuclear arms. I believe that the difference between the two states arises from their religious differences. Therefore, Obama’s administration should not have apologized for the differences. Instead, the administration should have condemned religious extremists for their acts.
Equally, I believe that Obama’s administration made a mistake by seeking peace with Iran because to date the country is still a supporter of terror. For instance, last year Canadian law enforcers thwarted a terrorist plan to bomb a train on route to the US from Canada (Sofaer & George 65).
The Canadian authorities claimed that terrorist group in Iran had organized the plot. Similarly, in the year 2011 the US authorities made known that they had foiled an Iranian-sponsored terrorist plan to murder a Saudi Arabian diplomat to the US by bombing a café in Washington. Equally, on mid 2011, Obama’s administration blamed a Syrian citizen for her role in facilitating terrorist operations under the accord flanked by al-Qaida and the Iranian administration (Sofaer & George 66).
Globally, a number of Iranian plans to assassinate western diplomats and to sabotage western businesses have been reported. Similarly, there are claims that blame Iranian administration for aiding the Assad regime in Syria with weapons of war. It has also been alleged that the Iranian government is joining forces with North Korean government in coming up with weapons of mass destructions. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that Obama’s administration made a mistake by seeking peace with Iran.
Despite the fact that Iranians have voted in a new president, it should be noted that the dreaded Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is still a powerful individual in the Iranian government. The leader has always conflicted direct talks with Obama’s administration and shows no signs of compromising his stands in the near future (Sofaer & George 84).
In this regard, Khamenei is likely to influence the Iranian administration to disobey the agreement and forge ahead with its nuclear and terror ambitions in the future. I believe that if it were crucial for Obama’s administration to make peace with the Iranian government, it should have ensured that all the conflicting parties in the Islamic state reach to a consensus on the issue.
The US administration should not have made peace with the Iranian administration because I believe the Iranian officials diplomatic talks do not appear genuine. I believe that these officials believe that Obama’s administration is weaker than the George Bush’s administration.
They feared Bush’s administration for his invasion into Islamic countries. Given that Obama’s administration is different from the previous regime, I believe that the Iranians officials presume that the current US regime is weaker and want to take advantage of the situation. Rouhani recognizes that Obama is desperate to hold diplomatic meetings with his officials. What Obama has not recognized is that Rouhani is a smart delegate.
For instance, he influenced diplomatic meetings with a number of EU nations in the year 2003 (Global issues 204). The meetings were aimed at buying time for the country’s nuclear plan. To me the current talks are not different with the above talks. Equally, the above illustrations imply that the Iranian administration’s perception of the US has not changed. In this regard, I believe that the US administration should have made peace with the nation after it has confirmed that its intentions are genuine.
Obama’s administration seems to be supporting a risky initiative that would enable Iran to carry on enriching uranium for a hypothetically nonviolent nuclear project, which may rapidly be transformed into an arm-grade nuclear fuel.
Similarly, it is not appropriate for US government to trust the Iranian government in totality because the Islamic state has undertaken a number of underground nuclear actions and continually declines to oblige with IAEA nuclear supervisors in the past. I believe that Obama’s administration should come up with elevated regulations for a probable deal with Iran.
The regulations should include zero enrichment of uranium, zero reprocessing of uranium, and full conformity and intelligibility in satisfying Iran’s international requirements. Equally, I believe that Obama’s administration should push Iran to stop supporting terrorism and stop its nuclear partnership with North Korea.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Obama’s Administration committed a mistake by seeking peace with Iran for a number of reasons. I believe that Rouhani’s administration is not different from his predecessor’s administration. Equally, I believe that the Iranian government does not intend to stop its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
Works Cited
Global issues: selections from CQ researcher. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Sofaer, Abraham D., and George Pratt Shultz. Taking on Iran strength, diplomacy and the Iranian threat. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2013. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.