Memorandum on Nuclear Development in Iran
To: Donald Trump, President of the United States
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Date: May 5, 2018
Introduction
The nuclear agreement with Iran (from here on referred to as the "Iran deal") signed in 2015 is meant to limit nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. By signing this agreement, Iran agrees to limit its uranium enrichment capabilities to 3.67%, well below the 90% required to develop a nuclear weapon. They also agree to international inspections to ensure that they are not enriching more uranium than is allowed by the treaty. In exchange, the United States lifts .
There are reasons to oppose our involvement in the deal, to mistrust the Iranians' motives, or to renegotiate the deal. Unless Iran violates it, however, it is not prudent at this moment to back out of the deal when trying to make a simultaneous agreement with North Korea.
Evidence
When making any sort of deal, one must not extend a hand of peace so far that they forget history. Iran's history with the United States remains contentious, and there is no reason that we should not take a "trust, but verify" approach towards them. After nearly four decades, there is still no U.S. embassy in Tehran. Likewise, the "Death to America" slogan remains popular there. Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei have variously made statements about the United States and Israel and how they must be destroyed at all costs, even at the expense of Iran itself. While Prime Ministers like Hassan Rouhani have proven more willing to negotiate with the U.S. diplomatically, there is no guarantee that those relations would remain the same under a more hardline leader like Ahmadinejad, or that the clergy would be favorable towards a warming of relations.
The treaty is to be renegotiated every 15 years, so that there is only the guarantee on paper that Iran will remain nuke-free for 15 years maximum, provided the agreement is not renewed.
The restrictions on enrichment capabilities only extend to uranium, while other potential bomb-making materials such as plutonium are not mentioned. Therefore, Iran can enrich plutonium at will, putting them in a better position to violate the agreement later.
In addition, despite accusations of the contrary, the lifting of sanctions might prop up the existing clerical state. If the economy thrives, there is the possibility that like in China, that success is attributed to the existing government. on top of the risk of them using the booming economy to violate the agreement and have more money for nuclear R&D. Since the Iraq War, there has been plenty of naivete surrounding the political culture of the Middle East. In particular, supporters of the deal may point to the lifting of sanctions as good, since Iranians will enjoy more Western freedoms and democratic development that may lead to the downfall of the Shia cleric-dominated government. However, cases like Iraq have shown that democracy is not to be taken for granted as an inevitability, and we cannot make the same mistake in Iran when dealing with nuclear weapons.
Implementation
As a result of the ever changing state of politics, the first thing that must be reworked is the 15 year renewal deal. 15 years is a lifetime in politics, forcing between two and four different administrations of policy before we are allowed by the agreement to renegotiate the terms of the deal. This must be changed to a shorter term so that the U.S. is allowed by the agreement to change its terms if Iran does not hold up its end of the bargain.
The restrictions on uranium must also extend to plutonium, so that there is absolutely no risk of Iran being allowed to circumvent the agreement to continue building its arsenal.
If we leave the deal only after Iran has violated its own promises made in the agreement, nobody can accuse us of reneging on our deals.
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Date: May 5, 2018
Introduction
The nuclear agreement with Iran (from here on referred to as the "Iran deal") signed in 2015 is meant to limit nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. By signing this agreement, Iran agrees to limit its uranium enrichment capabilities to 3.67%, well below the 90% required to develop a nuclear weapon. They also agree to international inspections to ensure that they are not enriching more uranium than is allowed by the treaty. In exchange, the United States lifts .
There are reasons to oppose our involvement in the deal, to mistrust the Iranians' motives, or to renegotiate the deal. Unless Iran violates it, however, it is not prudent at this moment to back out of the deal when trying to make a simultaneous agreement with North Korea.
Evidence
When making any sort of deal, one must not extend a hand of peace so far that they forget history. Iran's history with the United States remains contentious, and there is no reason that we should not take a "trust, but verify" approach towards them. After nearly four decades, there is still no U.S. embassy in Tehran. Likewise, the "Death to America" slogan remains popular there. Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei have variously made statements about the United States and Israel and how they must be destroyed at all costs, even at the expense of Iran itself. While Prime Ministers like Hassan Rouhani have proven more willing to negotiate with the U.S. diplomatically, there is no guarantee that those relations would remain the same under a more hardline leader like Ahmadinejad, or that the clergy would be favorable towards a warming of relations.
The treaty is to be renegotiated every 15 years, so that there is only the guarantee on paper that Iran will remain nuke-free for 15 years maximum, provided the agreement is not renewed.
The restrictions on enrichment capabilities only extend to uranium, while other potential bomb-making materials such as plutonium are not mentioned. Therefore, Iran can enrich plutonium at will, putting them in a better position to violate the agreement later.
In addition, despite accusations of the contrary, the lifting of sanctions might prop up the existing clerical state. If the economy thrives, there is the possibility that like in China, that success is attributed to the existing government. on top of the risk of them using the booming economy to violate the agreement and have more money for nuclear R&D. Since the Iraq War, there has been plenty of naivete surrounding the political culture of the Middle East. In particular, supporters of the deal may point to the lifting of sanctions as good, since Iranians will enjoy more Western freedoms and democratic development that may lead to the downfall of the Shia cleric-dominated government. However, cases like Iraq have shown that democracy is not to be taken for granted as an inevitability, and we cannot make the same mistake in Iran when dealing with nuclear weapons.
Implementation
As a result of the ever changing state of politics, the first thing that must be reworked is the 15 year renewal deal. 15 years is a lifetime in politics, forcing between two and four different administrations of policy before we are allowed by the agreement to renegotiate the terms of the deal. This must be changed to a shorter term so that the U.S. is allowed by the agreement to change its terms if Iran does not hold up its end of the bargain.
The restrictions on uranium must also extend to plutonium, so that there is absolutely no risk of Iran being allowed to circumvent the agreement to continue building its arsenal.
If we leave the deal only after Iran has violated its own promises made in the agreement, nobody can accuse us of reneging on our deals.
I agree that backing out on the Iran Nuclear Deal now could be detrimental to the United States' efforts in creating a deal with North Korea. Though we should be cautious when making any deals with Iran due to their history of breaking promises, I think that we should continue with the nuclear deal in hopes of preventing them from developing their own nuclear weapons. I also agree that the restrictions on uranium should extend to plutonium as well just to be absolutely sure there is no risk of Iran finding a loop hole in the agreement.
ReplyDeleteI find the extension of restricting plutonium to be intrigueing. I agree that it should be restricted as well to assure that they cannot build weapons. Pulling out would be bad for negotiations with North Korea. The whole situation is a tough one as Iran isn't someone who I would fully trust. There are obviously some things that should be done to fix the deal but as of now not having a deal in place would be even worse. It should be worked out as well that the deal extends or renewed as that would be best for the region and our own interests.
ReplyDeleteI think we would need to use a strong trust but verify type approach to Iran. We have seen in the past that they may not always be a country we can trust, but this deal seems like a good way to help stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete