The sophisticated environmental sampling technologies would have a

The Pros for the deal how I see it and what I think
about it

            The arms embargo has placed
a timeframe on ballistic missiles and conventional weapons, of eight and five
years respectively. “But the time frame could be shortened if the International
Atomic Energy Agency certifies that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful
purposes only” (Crichton). I agree that the embargo should be in place and also
agree that if Iran’s nuclear aspirations are for peaceful purposes then they
should be rewarded as such and have embargo lifted.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The “breakout time” for a
nuclear device will go form a few months to more than 12 months. This is the
key in the early stages of this deal as it places the fear of Iran accumulating
enough enriched uranium to make one nuclear device further away. This has been
done by allowing “Iran to export all but 300kg of its entire stockpile of
eight tons (sic) of low enriched uranium” (Blair), and also by reducing the
said amount of centrifuges will be kept idle for 10 years. After this time
period, Iran’s breakout time will be reduced to where it is today, maybe around
three months.

The inspection by the
I.A.E.A has been opened to include military sites. With a procedural process
for Iran to contest a request for a particular site if they believe that their
national security is at risk. “Iranian objections to some visits will be
handled through a dispute settlement process, according to the agreement”
(Dorell). And, as Einhon states in his article, “supporters of the agreement
maintain that sophisticated environmental sampling technologies would have a
good chance of detecting microscopic traces of covert activity if uranium or

nuclear materials were involved, even long after 24 days. And they argue that,
as soon as the IAEA requests an inspection, U.S. intelligence assets would
focus on the suspect site and be able to identify signs that incriminating
cleanup efforts were underway.” Inspections of any kind would raise suspicions
on both sides of the deal  and it would
most certainly be a tense period of time, for all involved.

Sanctions relief will not be removed immediately, but over the course of time as long
as Iran compiles with the accrd. “John Kerry said the IAEA signed an agreement
with Iran to resolve its outstanding questions within three months. Sanctions
relief will not occur until that investigation is complete, Kerry said. It’s
not clear how exhaustive the IAEA report will be” (Dorell) While the sum of
$100 billion is substantial, and will aid Iran, I believe that Iran will not
use the funds to an aggressive nuclear path, as it has other commitments in the
area. Along the debts owed, as with most countries, it really needs to
stimulate its economy and the funds will most likely be used for this and other
necessary economic needs for the country.

The Cons for the deal how I see it and what I think
about it

            “While the nuclear
inspections of the accord allow the I.A.E.A. to
visit suspected enrichment sites, they have to request such an inspection and
Iran has 24 days to comply to the request. this seems to be too long of a
process as so much can be hidden, discarded, or converted within that 24 day
period. The anytime anywhere rule is null and void if it gives any advance notice
of inspection. “Christie compared it to a situation in which police shoed up to
a location with a search warrand and said, ‘I’ll be back in 24 days to search’
” (Wong). This view is help by many as it to hold back the snap inspection fear
against Iran. While some sites will have continuous monitoring, the fact that
other sites will have no monitoring and will only have to comply after more
than three weeks notice is a little alarming.

            “Most Americans think Iran will
ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that extremely
likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it’s not at all likely that
Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and independents (58%
likely) are more apt to believe iran would violate the agreement than are
Democrats (44% likely)” (Agiesta) Under what conditions would Iran want to
pursue the costly advances associated with the

enrichment process, and then not go ahead with a nuclear weapons program? While
I agree that many people think this way, it is just surmising the general
feeling, not an educated summary of the actual likelihood of Iran violating the

            I believe that this deal is the more
realistic, as it places more oversight on the process and places Iran on the
global stage. While I disagree with the long request period of 24 days, I
believe that overall the deal is a start to relationship building in the
region. Although according to ” a Sept. 9 speech, Iranian Supreme Leadear
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned about US intentions toward Iran and said that there
will be no negotiations with the United States outside of the nuclear deal
reached in July” (Karami). This view of United States as the enemy will take a
long time to overcome and although this deal was a necessary step to global
peace and non-nuclear proliferation, there is a price that the United States
has paid.


            “Critics assert that allowing Iran to ramp up its enrichment capacity
in the “out years” means that the deal merely postpones but does not prevent a
nuclear-armed Iran” (Einhorn). I agree with this statement, at this point in
time but no one knows how the next ten years will change that outcome, I assert
that the fact that this deal can postpone a nuclear-armed iran for a decade is
a good thing. The world will just have to wait and see that comes about in the
next decade and what kind of agreement may have to be made at the end of this
time period. Einhorn makes a strong argument that “Iran’s leaders     having paid the huge price of devastating
sanctions and international isolation for pursuing nuclear weapons        would judge that nuclear arms are a
national imperative.” After having the sanctions lifted for ten, years I don’t
believe that Iran would want to return to sanctions that hurt their economy and
way of life.


            I think the deal could be improved
with the Iranian leaders about the time of inspection request be brought down
to a few days only with an understanding and cooperation with the leaders of
Iran. They are, rightly so, cautious about letting inspectors in to their areas
they deem important to national security. This is a valid point that needs to
be addressed, but that I believe

could be overcome with a joint vetting and inspection team consisting of agreed
upon inspectors on both sides of the deal.