Limited Support for Iran Nuclear Agreement

Iran’s Leaders Seen as ‘Not Serious’ in Addressing Nuclear Concerns

http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/09/limited-support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement/

This article done by the Pew Research Center is a poll done on what percentage of the American public agree/disagree with the nuclear deal. According to Pew the majority of Americans (2,001 were polled) disprove with the deal 43%, 32% approve, and 25% do not have an opinion on the issue. Some of the more detailed numbers anyone could have guessed such as the majority of Republicans disapprove of it while the majority of Democrats approve of it. One thing that I found interesting about the survey is that it seems according to the numbers that the more educated a person is the more they seem to approve of the deal. Another big portion of the survey is do the American people think that Iranian leaders are serious about addressing issues about their nuclear program 62% seem to think their not. While this article probably won't have any impact on Iranian nuclear policy it is still an interesting tidbit of information pertaining to where the American public stands on the issue.

Iran Nuclear Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KjIJ3Ct6Kc

I came across this YouTube video that mocked the ability for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons by just calling a number and making purchase.  Once the Iran terrorist made the call weapons were delivered to him by what it appears to be President Obama.  Unfortunately, I could not recognize what character played the woman who took the call but I am sure the other character was an image of President Obama. Please take a moment to share your views about the video and declare a sense of meaning to what it may represent to you.

Iran, From Enemy to Ally

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/iran-from-enemy-to-ally.html?ref=nuclearprogram&_r=0

This article discusses how the nuclear deal with Iran could be a starting point for friendlier relations between them and the U.S, but that it would take time to develop a friendlier relationship with Iran. After reading this article I found it interesting that after the cold war the former allies/friends in the Middle East seem now to be our enemies. Iran was once on friendly relations with the U.S and formed along with Saudi Arabia President Nixon’s “Twin Pillar” Strategy to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East According to the article. Another interesting thing that the article points out is how Israel and Iran are both in the religious minority, Israel of course being a Jewish state and Iran being a Shiite state; while the majority of the Middle East are Sunni. Iran could also be an important ally against Al Qaeda because they too are opposed to them, which could make another good case to be on friendlier relations with them. The article points out that a barrier to a friendship between the U.S and Iran is Saudi Arabia and how they would react. Saudi Arabia is a major supply of oil and they could if a friendlier relationship with Iran develops limit or cut off the supply of oil to the U.S, which could be a road block to potential warmer relations. While this would not cripple U.S infrastructure it would raise the price of fuel. The author of the article states that this really would not hurt the U.S due to our new investments in the fracking industry. While I do agree that fracking is becoming a major source of U.S fuel I do not believe that the industry is strong enough to offset the lack of Saudi oil.

Hypocrites

http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/us-nuke-tests-expose-us-real-intention-analyst-2472194.html
This cartoon was actually really amusing. It shows how we have double standards. We as a country have nuclear weapons and yet we are telling another country that they cannot. In the article that it talked about how just days ago the US actually conducted a nuclear test in Nebraska. I just think it is so crazy how little we know about what goes on in our own country. I think that the US is being very hypocritical when they tell Iran that they cannot have nuclear weapons and they are watching  every detail about what they are doing with their facilities. Yet, here in our country we are testing our weapons in underground facilities.

Timeline of Iran's nuclear programme

Major events in Iran's development of nuclear power since 2002.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241410645752218.html



This article is pretty straightforward it lays out a time line of important events from January 2002 - November 2013. I found it helpful to use as a quick reference for events and a good play by play of what went/is going on. The article does not go into any great detail about any of the events most points are a sentence or two i.e “US President George W Bush describes Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil", warning of the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed in these countries. The speech causes outrage in Iran and is condemned by reformists and conservatives alike.” However, it is a good starting point for a refresher course in Iranian nuclear development history. I found it funny how much I forgot or did not know about what was going on with this topic during the Bush presidency.

Cartoon View

larger view

This cartoon was drawn prior to negotiations being agreed upon. I just found it online and felt it was worth sharing because of who drew it. It was drawn by an Iranian who has been exiled. In this cartoon he is warning the US to be cautious and think before shaking hands on a deal with Iran. He reminds the US and everyone else of the human rights abuses that Iran has inflicted on it's people. Iran's foreign minister may look like someone that can be dealt with and maybe trusted, but the US should think twice and remain cautious when making negotiations. 

A Narcissistic US, An Anxious Saudi Arabia And A Hysterical Israel

http://www.eurasiareview.com/02122013-narcissistic-us-anxious-saudi-arabia-hysterical-israel-oped/

This is an opinion piece that I found on the eurasia review website. Pretty much, the author of the article relates the US, Saudi, and Israel to mental patients, ie. diagnosing each country with a psychological disorder. It's actually kind of funny, and makes you think about each country's role a little bit differently. The article personalizes the countries, making them human and relatable.

The US is diagnosed as a narcissist. Everything that the United States does is for power and control. It's all about their ego, whether it's a positive or negative decision. The US wants economic and military power over the rest of the world, another trait of narcissism and being power hungry. In addition, like a narcissist, the US gets easily bored with what they have, taking it for granted, and then finding another issue to concentrate on or another area to control or destroy.

Saudi has abandonment issues and an anxiety disorder. They are constantly worried about being dropped by the US as an ally and that the US will one day soon make amends with Iran and make them their strongest ally in the Middle East. This paranoia that Saudi has stems from the US narcissism, wherein the US is regularly lying and keeping things from the Saudi's. These fears of abandonment will manifest themselves in self-injury, which the Saudi's showed by not accepting a seat in the UN security council, basically throwing a tantrum.

Israel is hysterical. They are taking the Iran negotiations really hard and truly to heart. They are known to react emotionally to most situations, and this one is no different. They believe that their relationships with other countries, such as the US, are extremely intimate. Therefore, they feel like they have been betrayed by the interim deal. They feel highly threatened by an Iran nuclear program and continue to speak out against it in all forms of media, even going as far as asking American Jews to oppose their government for it's decisions.

Q&A: Iran nuclear crisis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

This article clarifies why Iran believes the delay is considered a crisis, what led to the crisis, and the view of the United States government. Iran has deemed their nuclear program as being a peaceful advantage that will help their country as well as exercise their personal right to have nuclear energy. Even though Iran continues to state that the nuclear program is completely harmless, the International Atomic Energy Agency was unable to confirm that the program was without a doubt; platonic. With Israel being one of allies to the United Sates, President Obama stated that path’s leading to Iran creating nuclear bomb would be demolished. While the U.S. ensures a supportive comfort to better alleviate the ongoing threat that Iran continues to empower Israel with, the nuclear plan is still being developed. Regardless of intentions, Iran will continue to advance their country to enhance their ability to stay current with rest of the world.

Delay for Nuclear Project in Iran

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25133824

As soon as I read the heading of the news article that BBC publicly released to the media, I could not agree that this should be labeled as an “Iran nuclear crisis.” As the underway of the inspection will began over a 6 month period, Iran is receiving a very comfortable $7 billion sanctions relief to sustain temporary hold of nuclear activity. A mere delay is hardly a crisis or a hefty price to pay for proper inspection to help influence the citizens in different countries who pose Iran as a threat. This inspection may allow more comfort to others in a sense of knowing that the program is under intense surveillance. The initial alarm of Iran building a nuclear plant would hold an uncountable stigma of terror due to the enormous violent history that has affected several countries. I sincerely hope that Iran complies with their agreement to not create weapons of mass destruction and the inspection will take place frequently to ensure the safety of all in fear.

Unrest in Israel

     http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-netanyahu-iran-nuclear-program-20131208,0,1184232.story#axzz2mvCFiBuF

     Although many people's worries have been assuaged, there is still a lot of unrest about Iran's nuclear program in Israel. This article talks about Israel's prime minister insisting that Iran's nuclear program can and should be shut down by using heavier sanctions and military threats. He has threatened to take military action in order to protect Israel. I feel that the prime minister is taking the situation too far. The six world powers who made the deal with Iran have access to monitor the program in order to prevent bombs from being produced. If anything seems awry, the powers can step in and take action.  Israel, however, is so uneasy and fearful of being bombed that it is willing to attack Iran. I do not understand why Israel is saying it does not want Iran to create nuclear weapons because Iran would attack Israel, but Israel is willing to start a conflict, resulting in Iran retaliating. Although it is very likely, it is not a definite fact that if Iran did make nuclear weapons Israel would be the first to be bombed. Israel is causing tensions with the Obama administration and could possibly cause problems in the near future when no problem needs to occur at all. Iran and the six world powers have made a peaceful first step and whether there is a winner or a loser in the deal, people are at ease for now. We learned in class that Israel is, for the most part, a nation that lives for the moment because the people do not know what could happen within the next minute, day, or week. I think they need to utilize this way of living right now because now is a time of peace, so they should enjoy it while it lasts. I feel that Israel has nothing to worry about at this point in time because there is a temporary deal in place with Iran preventing them from making nuclear weapons. I am sure Iran wants to keep their economy "markedly improved," so it will keep to it's promises. In my opinion, Israel should calm down.    

Iran nuclear crisis: UN warns process will 'take time'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25133824

This article talks with the head of the UN’s nuclear agency, Yukiya Amano. He presents a very valid point regarding the deal that was made with Iran concerning their nuclear program. The point that was made is that it will take time. I agree I think everything concerning this deal will take time. I think it will take time to start the various parts of the deal, it will take time to see if Iran will follow the deal, and it will take time to let the deal work if it is going to work. The first step in following through with this deal is happening on December 8^th when Amano will visit the Arak heavy water plant. There is a lot of concern regarding this Arak heavy water plant because it has the capability to make weapon grade plutonium. The IAEA has not been able to inspect this site even though they have tried since 2011. As a result, no one is exactly sure what is going on here. I think that this visit will mark the beginning of the deal really happening. I think the concept of time is very important in this situation and needs to be taken into consideration. Regardless of what the outcome of this deal will be it is going to take time to happen. I think its interesting that while the deal was made there is still enough things that need to be worked out that the six month period will not begin for another couple weeks. However, only time will tell.

Opposition to the deal

     In an article I found on the CNN website, it became clear that there are many people that oppose the current nuclear deal with Iran, and the article provides 5 reason.  The first reason is that "it's Iran."  Former Senator Joe Lieberman said that "Iranians have American blood on their hands" and that Iran has a history of not complying with other prior agreements.  Another said that Iran is our enemy and that there should be no agreements with them.  It has been declared rather publicly that Netanyahu believes the deal is a "historic mistake."  The second reason was labeled "sanctioning sanctions."  Under this category was the argument that the sanctions that were previously set on Iran seemed to be working and that maybe that was all that was needed.  Why free up $7billion dollars to the Iran without a guarantee that this new deal will even work?  Sanctions were set in place to deter nuclear build-up so why ease sanctions?  The third reason was the legitimacy of Iran's nuclear ambitions.  In this argument it claims that nothing it actually being done to disable current capabilities.  This means that Iran will be able to keep all its facilities and all its enrichment technology, so without taking the means for enrichment, how can it be guaranteed that nuclear weapons cannot be created?  The fourth reason places Iran as a new higher power in Iran.  Oil rich nations such as Saudi Arabia fear that in the end should oil sanctions be fully lifted, a new oil competitor will arise.  Middle Eastern nations still fear that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons.  The last reason listed was the Israeli argument.  That Israel is our greatest ally in the area and that we should back them in their views on nuclear programs in Iran.  There are also complaints from politicians that has a large Jewish constituency.  These politicians are voicing the opinions of their constituency about going against Israel by accepting this deal.

     In all of this I found some truth, however I have a much different opinion.  While some of these opinions simply cannot be ignored, I feel as though this deal addresses much larger issues.  The first being that a deal is a deal.  With little or no progress in nuclear talks with Iran, a small step forward is still a step forward.  This could be the stepping stone to a much larger deal.  There is also the factor of diplomacy in play.  Many feel as though US military action and interference in the Middle East in not essential.  I happen to agree.  So why would diplomacy, through a deal such as this, not a positive thing?  Should Iran make nuclear weapons the US would eventually undoubtedly take, or be involved in some type of military action.  This type of diplomacy should be views as a good thing.  It is much cheaper to come to an agreement than to fight another war.  It also saves countless lives.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/politics/iran-deal-opponents-5-things/index.html
    

UK to leave no stone unturned

   In an article I found on the BBC news website, there was some information I found in an article that pretty much sums up the purpose of this initial agreement.  The UK recognizes this as only a first-step toward a more permanent agreement.  Outlined in this article is the fact that Iran has agreed to scale back uranium enrichment for a six-month period.  In return, an easing of sanctions will take place and Iran will gain $7 billion in section relief.  Given that there has been little to no progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran, a small step should be viewed as a step in the right direction.  Some critics claim that Iran simply took the money and ran, and there is no real guarantee that in  six months time anything will have really changed.  That is, that no progress will have been made with Iran, and that Iran was simply looking for an ease of sanctions.  Should this first agreement prove to be a genuine sign of progress, it should be welcome with open arms in the international community.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25092228

The Write Up!!!!!

For the reflective write up I would like each of you to analyze what happened within the blog as a whole. This analysis should include 2-4 ‘themes’ or ‘categories’--preferably, though not necessarily exclusively, themes from class. Trace your chosen themes through the posts on the blog. You can quote from the posts, or the media itself, but please cite it in the paper. Please discuss posts that are not just your own! Using comments as well as primary posts to support your themes is encouraged. In many ways I picture this project as a research paper without the final product. What I mean by this is that online you are discovering and interrogating sources—analyzing them as raw pieces of data. In this written (and more formal) portion, I want you to create/impose order on the chaos that is data collection. This write up is just the analysis or discussion portion of a ‘normal’ paper, with some ‘conclusionary’ remarks for good measure. This essay may include personal observations and will definitely show what you thought most interesting. The essays should be between 3-5pages long and are due on BB by 5pm on December 16, 2013 (our final period). If you need some help likely categories might include geopolitics, individual perspectives, Al-Jazeera vs BBC, how the US is involved, role of oil, regime change..... These are *just examples* you do NOT need to use these!!! I wanted to give you some clues as to the possibilities so it would be easier to see the themes for yourselves.

Cause for concern, but not alarm

     I found a very interesting article on Al Jazeera America.  In this article, I found a lot of information that downgrades the actual threat that an Iranian nuclear program poses.  It states that the uranium being enriched in Iran is enriched at levels of 5% and 20% at which levels electricity and medical isotopes are produced.  A nuclear weapon would require a level of 80% enrichment, and would require a long process of re-enrichment.  The stockpiling of this enriched uranium has also not reached levels considered threatening to Israel.  Currently, Iran has stockpiled 185 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and the "red line" set by Netanyahu is 250 kilograms.  Not only is the actual amount of enriched uranium currently posses by Iran too low to be considered a real threat, there are also weekly inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The IAEA is an agency that inspects nuclear facilities to ensure enrichment doesn't reach the required levels and production of nuclear weapon necessity.  So far, under IAEA inspections, no nation has ever assembled a nuclear weapon without their knowledge.  This is not to deny that Iran is completely incapable of creating a nuclear weapon.  It is to say that under the current monitoring by IAEA, it would be nearly impossible for Iran to create a nuclear weapon without the world knowing.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/9/iran-nuclear-programprimer.html

Iran nuclear situation background

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/Iran%20nuclear-1.476777

This article actually gives some background on Iran going back to 1979. From there it moves to 2002 when Iran was noticed by the U.S. even more for trying to use nuclear energy for various purposes, be it weapons or energy. The part of the article that stuck out to me is towards the end of the article. I learned that in February 2010 the world wanted Iran to send its uranium abroad to be returned to Iran as fuel rods, so they they could truly only be used for energy. However, then President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected this idea and it never happened. I think some people might take that as a sign that Iran really does want to create nuclear weapons, while others see it as a move to show Iranian independence. I think only time will tell what the reasons for rejecting the fuel rod idea were. Regardless of if Iran is planning to use uranium for weapons or energy, or a combination of both, I feel that the materials within Iran's borders, should be controlled by Iran, and not by the U.S. or the U.N. If Iran is only using the uranium for energy, I think he and Iranian leaders chose to not partake in that 2010 idea because it might have made them look like a pushover nation in some forms.

More Nuclear Power Plants to Come in Iran

 http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Rouhani-Iran-to-start-building-2nd-nuclear-plant-in-Bushehr-333628

     

     This article was focused on how Iran is planning to expand their nuclear power program and build new reactor plants. The country has already talked to Russia in order to receive some aid in this project. I found this article interesting because the temporary deal to limit Iran's nuclear power program was made among Iran and six world powers on November 24, but Iran is in the process of expanding its nuclear power program. Iran has plans to build a second nuclear power plant in order to increase the nuclear energy within the country, and possibly more in the future. I am assuming that in developing the nuclear power program further Iran is not going against the temporary agreement, but it still seems like a sketchy situation. Although it may or may not go against the agreement, I feel that Iran should be allowed the opportunity to supply its people with nuclear energy if that is the energy source they want to use. After researching this issue and looking at the situation from Iran's point of view, I have decided that I feel Iran should have the capability to further their research. Iranians have stated that their nuclear power program is a peaceful one and they simply want to provide the country with a more positive energy source. Although it would be scary to see them develop nuclear weapons, I feel that it is their choice, just as the United States and many other nations have the choice to build or not build weapons. Many countries contain a vast amount of nuclear weapons, but they do not use them. They are simply there for defense and protection. Why should Iran not have this right as well? One other thing that I found interesting was how much this plant is going to cost the country over the next few years. Iran received a decent amount of aid from the interim deal because the economy was suffering so badly from the effects of the sanctions. However, now Iran is willing to invest in one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world. I do not understand how this is possible when Iran's economy is doing so poorly, unless Iran receives more foreign aid.      

History made as Iran agrees with world powers to freeze nuclear program for six months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512628/History-Iran-agrees-world-powers-freeze-nuclear-program-months.html
This article is a summary of some of the parts of the deal being made in regards to Iran. It gives the basic overview of what is to happen including: Iran must stop enriching uranium above 5%, and Iran must neutralize stockpiles of over 20$ uranium. In this article there are also photos of John Kerry and other world leaders involved with the deal including Russia's Foreign Minister. What stuck out to me about this article after reading about the neutralizing of stockpiles and the Russian foreign minister was how it's as if there was a Cold War shift. Obviously the Cold War ended, and Russia is no longer the grand enemy of the United States. Thirty years ago the U.S. and USSR were going at each other in debating nuclear energy and weapons, and now the U.S. and Russia are working together to get Iran to halt nuclear operations. Eventually the U.S. and Russia back in the day made deals to lower the amount of nuclear weapons and now the Iranians are being influenced to do so in a way. Iran isn't a superpower but I'm surprised the author didn't make some kind of comparison of Iran and Cold War Russia/U.S. relations.