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.