Monday, January 20, 2014

Iran's "Sweet" Nuclear Deal???

As of Monday, the temporary nuclear deal with Iran took effect.  Those that support the deal proclaim that it is long overdue and necessary if there is ever any hope in establishing stability in the Middle East and effectively dealing with Iran.  Of course, those that oppose the deal claim that this deal will only empower Iran and that the Iranian government has a long track record of not being trustworthy or true to their word.  Many people see this deal as mere appeasement - often compared to how the world originally tried to deal with Hitler when he began to rise to power... a mistake that later on had serious consequences.

Read the article that was posted on the New York Times website to gain some background and inside knowledge of this issue.  CLICK HERE to read the article.

BLOG TOPIC QUESTIONS:
What is your opinion on this subject?  Is this a "good" deal or is it merely creating a much larger issue later on.  Should any country be able to tell another country that they can or cannot have nuclear "energy" or even nuclear weapons, for that matter?

NOTE: Please remember to respect each other's opinions.  Your part in this blog is NOT to tell other members of the class that their blog post were "nice," "good argument" "bad grammar" or anything such as that.  This is a discussion.  Just as you would discuss it in class.

70 comments:

  1. Hmm. This blog is truly a conflicting matter. I am unsure if I should base this on foreboding, or positive probabilities. Let' start off on a positive note. The United Nation's plays an important role in global society. Since 1945, Iran has been an active member of the U.N., and states that it poses no threat to Western Civilization. Ignoring an embassy fiasco that took place a while back, Iran has done nothing to physically attack us as a nation; besides bashing our culture. However, November 24, 2013; America ceased diplomatic & trade regulations with Iran. This was when a nuclear agreement was publicly disclosed. However, why should we be worried? Well #1.) Iran is a terrorist supporting country. If Iran where to develop nuclear, would we be safe from nuclear terrorism? #2.) Our allies made a mistake when they decided to wait so long to attack Germany in WWII; who's to say that history won't repeat itself? But, America can't declare war OR command another country with the U.N. on what they can or can't create/manufacture. Another conflicting matter, is the matter of oil. Without oil, we have no lights. Simple as that. America has decided to hold off on drilling for its own oil, and to restart on our own would be a blow to the economy. Therefore, we should keep at least a civil relation with Iran.
    Now... let's look back at what I had stated earlier on a semi-positive note. Iran as a whole DID some-what commit an act-of-war when they decided to seize an American embassy in 1979. If they had the better technology, who's to say they wouldn't have tried to reach us closer on U.S. soil?
    Yet again, America is NOT the Worlds Police Force. After all, we ARE the only country to ACTUALLY use nuclear-warfare, so if anyone should say anything about nuclear... we might want to remain quiet.
    BUT, yet again, Iran DID keep Saddam Hussein from U.S. knowledge until 2007. Should they be trusted?
    In the end it all boils down to this, "Who trusts who?". Considering past knowledge, and after a long and difficult decision, I have come to the conclusion, that it would be best if we leave Iran alone to their business, BUT we keep a close eye on them, like we have been doing since '06. As long as it SEEMS they do not pose a threat to us, then we should mind our business. -Tom Hindle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas, I agree with you I too believe that this is a very tricky and conflicting issue, I had a hard time deciding what side to take. I must say though I disagree with your opinion on this matter given the fact that don't you believe if there is a restriction place on nuclear energy just for Iran and other middle Eastern countries, don't you believe that it will cause a lot more serious problems. I understand were you are coming from especially with the terrorism occurring in that country. But still I believe that nuclear energy research should continue in Iran because it could have a lot of positive results, which will greatly benefit all of us.

      Delete
    2. Mostly, I agree with your points. Every effects have their own causes, so America should definitely take some fresh looks to itself in order to see how to make a better relationship with Iran. And, however, as David said nuclear energy cannot be strict to as nuclear weapon because sometimes it does positive effects.

      Delete
  2. I believe that this is a very tricky topic due to the fact that you can really go either way. I believe in giving a person the benefit of the doubt, or in this case country. I believe that we should trust Iran due to the fact that they belong to the UN and say they would never think of attack the US. I also believe that the US has no right to say if other countries have the right to nuclear energy/technology. I believe that each country should run the way it sees fit, and of coarse I'm talking positively (no nuclear warfare). Bu strongly believe that if we trust Iran they will no betray our trust mainly because it would be very unbenficial for them, since the US does support the Iranian government and aids their troops. However, I am aware of the political corruption and terrorist activity and in the country which does pose an impending danger and give Americans an unsettling feeling but I believe that the Iranian government will protect its nuclear research to the best of its abilities and who knows maybe they uncover a new phenomenon. So in conclusion I believe that we should allow Iran to have nuclear energy, and to let them continue doing research because we also do it here at home so it would be unfair and could cause problems if we didn't allow this. In the long run this will turn out to be very beneficial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. it is not just for the US to say whether Iran can have a nuclear program, meanwhile we research the same things in our country. we are kind of being hypocrits (bad spelling, i know) in that sort of way. But i don't agree with the statement that Iran will protect its nuclear program. Iran has been very untrustworthy in the past so i don't see how we could trust them with a big ordeal such as nuclear energy and technology. This is why i stated that this deal needs revising.

      Delete
    2. I agree that we should not find Iran as a threat, I mean they are apart of the UN and like you said they said they wouldn't attack us. What makes them a threat? You have actually swayed me. I also agree that Iran should be able to do what they want as long as it is logical. However, due to the seriousness of some of the people's reactions, it scares me.

      Delete
    3. David, I do not agree with you on most of the points that you brought up in your statement. First of all, I do not think that the United States should trust Iran due to the fact that they simply said they would "never think of attacking the U.S.". Anyone can say something like that, but that doesn't mean that we should automatically believe them- especially since Iran has had a bad track record of being untrustworthy. Plus, Iran has had conflicts with the countries around it, one of them being Israel. Personally, I feel that it is just illogical to think that Iran would never use nuclear power for the wrong reasons, being that they support terrorism.

      Delete
    4. David, I read some positive points in your post that I hadn't thought of to begin with. It's true that since Iran is a part of the UN their actions could turn out to effect them negatively as well. I pinpointed most negative aspects of this specific controversial situation in my post but I still believe these positive points could be put into consideration. As been said "Expect the unexpected". We really can't be sure of how everything can turn out, in all honesty. I say we should prepare for the worst to be safe.

      Delete
    5. Do you really think we can trust Iran? If you look in the past we can see that Iran is really inconsistent and they take measures that make peoples' heads turn and rethink. Also, you have to think about this, Iran was an enemy of ours in the past. They made many threats to us and tried to scare us, how does this show us qualities of trust? We can't make this decision of assumptions. We don't know what is head and it is extremely dangerous to trust Iran.We also don't know if this is a bluff from them to get closer to us and then attack us by surprise. There needs to be a lot of thought taken during this negotiation. Hopefully, we make no wrong mistakes and we can bring piece to the Middle East.

      Delete
    6. David, you mention great points to your post but I have to disagree with you on trusting Iran. How can we trust a country that has threatened us multiple times. It would be great if Iran really does stick to its word, but they cannot be trusted. As Abu stated, we cannot rely on assumptions from a country that has bad intentions. We must prepare for the future because we don't know what the future holds after the six month deal expires

      Delete
    7. David, I have to say I disagree with your opinion. You stated that every country should run as it sees fit except for for nuclear warfare. Well, I'm sorry to say, however a very real worst case scenario for Iran is indeed, nuclear war. Lastly, you used this country as an example as to why prohibiting Iran from having extreme nuclear power would be unfair. However an important fact to note, is that Iran and the US are extremely different nations and comparing them to closely would be a mistake.

      Delete
  3. I can really go on about this topic for a while, as it is somewhat philosophical. I truly feel this won’t turn out so well. Countries like Germany, the U.S., France, and so on have angered many of Iran’s officials with this agreement. Anyone with a general knowledge of the relationship between America and much of the Middle East knows that infuriating Iran will only be damaging to our attempt at peace. Although this seems like a “fair agreement” of money and other small additions and the 20% reduction of nuclear energy, it terrifies me to read that Iran put on the cover of their newspaper something that tells you “nuclear holocaust”. Iran did lower their “nuclear energy” and some are giving it time to succeed, but they still pose a big threat for years to come as this angered some of the populace. I feel more thought should’ve gone into this agreement, these people are capable of making chaos-inducing nuclear weapons! In my opinion, I did not see much REAL threat from Iran, and it is a Nuclear Power Program, not just a factory where they make nuclear weapons and plan for world domination. If lots of people are harshly raving about the unfairness of this agreement immediately, there will be problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree with you. If we infuriate Iran we would only create a bigger problem and get further and further away from peace, which is unobtainable. More thought should have gone into this agreement, i agree. I didn't much of a real threat either, but it is still eminent, so the deal kind of gave security to concerning countries. Overall, i agree with you.

      Delete
    2. Robert, for the most part, I agree with you. I completely agree with your statement, "Anyone with a general knowledge of the relationship between America and much of the Middle East knows that infuriating Iran will only be damaging to our attempt at peace." This is so true because we're already not in great terms with various countries in the Middle East and interfering with the Iranian government can really get them agitated with us and they may ultimately want to use their nuclear energy towards us! However, in my opinion, so far, Iran has not shown many signs of great danger even though you mentioned about what they wrote about in their newspaper. I may be wrong because we never know, but for now I believe that letting Iran do what it wants is best, as long as we make sure that we are prepared for the worst while keeping our distance.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you Robert, i also stated in my blog that the only thing we will do in if we strict nuclear energy in Iran is only problems which we do not need. It is a lot easier to let them continue with their research in nuclear energy. Overall i agree very strongly with your points.

      Delete
    4. Rob, i completely agree with all the points you made in the blog. This negotiation will definitely be very tense and it will determine the future of the Untied States. One small mistake can comeback to haunt us. This can be also seen our our past relationship with Iran. They have made many threats to us, scared us as much as they could and referred to is as their "enemies". What makes people think we can believe them because of one small thing? After all this could be a bluff to get Iran closer to America and then they strike by surprise. I like the arguments you made and this is an extremely sensitive case that has come upon our generation.

      Delete
    5. Rob, reading your blog post led me to a startling realization. Either option we exhibit for this problem has the potential to completely backfire and hurt everyone involved. On the one hand, if we continue sanctions and anger Iran, then we face the potential of a permanently damaged relationship between us and Iran. On the other hand, if we discontinue/ lower sanctions then we run the risk of letting Iran off the hook and set up a precedent where they feel as if they do whatever they please. Whatever the resolution may be, we must tread carefully.

      Delete
  4. Looking at both sides of the discussion, I can definitely say that this is an extremely controversial topic. There are many ways to look at this situation from both ends. Iran isn’t exactly the number one country on our list for trusting, since it does defend the idea of terrorism. However, we have no business in interfering with a matter that may be true to its word. Looking at the issue from the United States’ standpoint, Iran has a slight tendency to perform deceiving acts. If we don’t pry our way into the subject and attempt to prevent anything serious, we might as well be bystanders in a possible attack that could have dangerous effects. Like mentioned in the blog topic, WWII is one of the examples of a situation that could occur if we are to ignore Iran’s nuclear deal and let it be. However, now let us look at this matter from Iran’s perspective. I feel as though the United States, although part of the United Nations, has a bit of a bad habit for poking its nose in many situations, I would believe Iran to feel as though they shouldn't be told what they could or could not do. The United States has used nuclear warfare before, so we aren't exactly in the best seat to judge Iran. Furthermore, the deal is to only slow down certain elements of Iran’s process, not all of it, so for the most part, if Iran is being honest about its intentions, the country will benefit most from the deal. This would be due to the fact that the United States is willing to pay Iran to merely slow down specific parts of their process for only six months, after which Iran will continue to manufacture nuclear weapons as is. However, for all we know, there is no guarantee that Iran will use the money we provide to further advance their nuclear energy manufacturing. Overall, although there may be an extreme risk in allowing things to proceed as they are by not presenting any more “deals”, I think the United States should leave things alone while at the same time, be prepared for the worst if anything were to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree with your statement that Iran is not number one on our trustworthiness list. They have hid many things from the outside world. but i do not think your statement that Iran defends terrorism is accurate. The terrorism is carried out by terrorist groups that may not have anything to do with the government, but that is a whole other argument in itself. But overall i agree with your ideas.

      Delete
    2. I agree that this is a very controversial topic and that Iran isn't too trustworthy, but there isn't much evidence to back that up. Also, I feel that this is going in the wrong direction, once again, due to the reactions including the front of the recent newspaper. I also agree that we should wait it out, water seeks its level. Additionally, I didn't know that we have used nuclear weapons before, but that is a good point that we are not in the right seat to judge Iran because of that.

      Delete
    3. I basically had the same views as you in my blog post, but I was leaning a bit more toward this being a good thing. I like how you said that we sould leave things alone, but also be prepared for the worst. This topic cango both ways, if we leave things alone, there are many positive an negative consequences and the same thing applies when we interfere with these matters. So, I think that the best way to ensure safety is to take matters in our hands and keep our guards up.

      Delete
    4. We have similar opinions on the trust issues with Iran, however, I must disagree with your overall conclusion. Although WWII was a terrible tragedy, times have changed and America's reputation is on the line. We don't wanna be known as the country who always gets involved in petty affairs.

      Delete
    5. Anshul, I saw exactly where you were coming from in your post as I had a very similar view point. My main belief was that Iran should not immediately be trusted without a given clear indication of what is not tolerated. This is because of past events with Iran that have stirred up negative effects from mistrust. I additionally agreed with your point of other countries interfering with what should and shouldn't happen. Like they say, "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst".

      Delete
    6. America is doing the thing to protect its country and its people. But meanwhile, it should be thinking about how those innocent citizens in Iran can protect themselves. Nuclear weapon is a protection, not a weapon.(well, especially nowadays), Controlling other countries' development of nuclear energy is not right even if it is good for some parts of people. Good work Anshul.

      Delete
    7. Anshul, I agree with most of the points you made, but you stated, "However, we have no business in interfering with a matter that may be true to its word." I kind of agree with this part, but at the same time I don't. Wouldn't you say that Iran is a exception because of what they have done to us in the past. They have called us their enemies and threatened us. We can't go off assumptions on a negotiation as big as this. Wouldn't you agree with me, Iran is an exception and isn't trustworthy because of this one act? Another point I agree with you on is the one with the World War. If we don't find a solution to our and Iran's relationship (also the middle east) it could definitely lead to a massive massacre with many countries getting involved. As I said before this is an extremely sensitive case and the negotiation has to be take very seriously. This one event can predict the future of out country. Won't you agree?

      Delete
  5. Honestly I think that is a step in the right direction. Iran has been developing nuclear weapons for the past years, and with a deal to stop the development gives a little more security to the western hemisphere. But, oddly enough don't think it is ethical for governments to tell other governments if they can obtain nuclear technology or not. A country has the right to develop these things, but i am no way saying that nuclear weapons are a good thing. most countries use nuclear energy for a power source, which is perfectly fine. But if we tell Iran they can't even do that, then what example does the United States. We use nuclear technology all over the country, so why couldn't Iran use it the same way. I know Iran has a bad track record and they want to wipe out our country and Israel, but if there was a way to limit their research strictly for energy purposes, that would be the best deal. Not to completely stop their work.
    Nuclear programs in Iran supply people with jobs. if we stop their program, we could damage their economy even more. I don't think it is our goal to completely ruin Iran, so i guess in a sense this deal could turn out not beneficial for Iran, but worked out, the deal could benefit both sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel that this is a very controversial topic and I, personally, could have gone either way. You are right that any country should have the right to possess nuclear power, we use it every day for crying out loud! I feel that this was actually a step in the wrong direction because it seriously angered many Iranians. However, this is going to take time to succeed, as said by some Iranians waiting it out.

      Delete
    2. Ian, I agree with almost all of your points. I hadn't considered what our interference with the Iranian government would do to their economy if we stopped their process completely because creating nuclear energy provides many jobs. I agree that we definitely don't have the right to tell other governments what they should do and if they should stop what they're doing because we could make the matter worse which could ultimately lead to something more significantly dangerous. The only thing I am slightly confused on is how the United States would benefit from all this, other than a sense of security which may not even be necessary if Iran lives up to its intentions for legal purposes of the nuclear energy.

      Delete
    3. Ian, I agree with all of your points. I had the same opinions,as well. This deal is a step in the right direction. I mentioned in my post that if we claim that Iran cannot use these sources of nuclear energy, we would be showing forms of hypocrisy, since we use these as well. However, you brought up a few great points that I had not thought of. We definitely do not want to ruin the economy of Iran, and this deal would contribute to that. If there was a way to limit the use of nuclear power for energy use, it would obviously be the best choice, but unfortunately, I am not sure if that is quite possible. It would be very beneficial if it was.

      Delete
    4. I fully agree with everything you said! It wouldn't be right for the U.S. to step in and command other territories that don't belong to it! However, if Iran is showing possible threats for a future attack, that should be the signal to move in and intervene. However, for now, we do not know their true intentions, so we should give them the benefit-of-the-doubt.

      Delete
    5. Ian, I agree with most of your points and believe that it is a little unethical that we're urging Iran not to use nuclear power. However, we're doing it for a good reason. With the events that have occurred in the past, trusting Iran with something as powerful as nuclear technology would clearly be very difficult. Of course, I agree with what you said about if there was a possible way to limit their research strictly for energy purposes. I never thought about this whole situation affecting Iran's economy, though.

      Delete
    6. Nuclear weapons don't have any harm unless they are being used. It is a protection of a nation. Every countries in the world knows the concerning of some countries including America that Iran can't be trusted; but it is basically none of the America's business to interfere Iran's military and politics plan. Good job overall.

      Delete
    7. Ian, I agree that other countries do not have the complete and utter right to be involved in the decision of whether or not another country can or cannot have nuclear energy or weapons. After all, the United States has used forms of nuclear energy before so we are in no condition to have a say in this situation. Furthermore, intermingling into controversial issues in the world such as this will usually lead to misinterpreted problems and negative effects.

      Delete
    8. I agree with Gemma nuclear weapons dont kill people by themselves, it requires the use of human intend to kill other people. Ian, i agree very strongly with your argument and believe that it is not favorable to interfere with Iran's nuclear research since it can couse major problems to us in the further.

      Delete
    9. Ian, I agree with your idea of revising the bill to benefit both sides. The US is being hypocritical because no one is telling us how to use our own nuclear power. If Iran were to use their nuclear power for energy purposes and research it would be very beneficial, and also many people would be employed under the nuclear program. If Iran used nuclear power for good intentions the US would be at peace with them and no conflicts would occur.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For this controversial topic regarding the Iranian nuclear energy program, I agree and disagree with certain aspects of it. To start with, as stated in the article, Iran has proved to be untrustworthy of their actions in the past. In the article, I also read that the western countries are looking at this as an excuse for Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Allowing them to continue with their nuclear power as it is may result in the misuse of this power in Iran. Considering Iran’s past, we should not fully trust them. However, we cannot be too sure if they actually are going to fulfill their claims of using the nuclear energy for legal and peaceful purposes. If we had not addressed the issues of this conflict, we would be asking for history to repeat itself, making the same mistakes we did in the past. Therefore, to a certain extent, I believe that this deal is heading towards the right direction, in order to play it safe. I believe that the United States somewhat does a have a right to claim whether or not Iran can use nuclear power, and yet at the same time, I think that they would be expressing forms of hypocrisy by doing so. Iran is known for being untrustworthy and supporting terrorist acts. In order for the United States and other countries to ensure safety, they do have a right in saying whether or not Iran is able to use this nuclear power. However, the United States would be very hypocritical in saying that Iran cannot use this power, because it does use nuclear energy itself. We use many forms of nuclear power plants, energy and weapons. Unlike Iran, however, the US does not have a track record of being untrustworthy and supporting terrorism. Therefore, to a certain degree, the United States and other countries are capable of making this decision, only due to Iran’s past. For the most part, the United States is making the right decision in handling this affair, but I can also depict negative aspects of this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kushali, I agree with most of what you said because I also feel that Iran is not trustworthy. You stated that letting Iran continue making nuclear weapons may result in the misuse of its power, and I definitely agree because we never know what they plan to do with those weapons until something possibly serious occurs. It is true that Iran has proved to be untrustworthy through specific actions of theirs, but like you said, we really don't know if they intend to use it for proper purposes. However, you said that the United States is handling this situation correctly, and I do take in to consideration that it is for the safety of many countries, but wouldn't it be better to leave things alone instead of making matters worse by infuriating Iran even more than they may be? Overall, I agree with most of your points.

      Delete
    2. Anshul, I definitely agree with you on that point, as well. It would be a wise choice to leave matters alone instead of making them worse. By doing so, we would potentially put oursleves in danger and we would be making the same mistakes we have made in the past, such as dealing with Hitler. This led to major negative consequences. However, like I said, I look at this topic from both perspectives and agree with both point of views to a certain extent.

      Delete
    3. Kushali, I do see where you're coming from. I, too, for the most part, agreed with both sides of the argument. You are correct in saying that we could put ourselves in danger by leaving matters alone, and I forgot to mention this before, but I think that we should be prepared for the worst case scenario as well as keeping our distance, so we would benefit both ways. But you are correct in saying that we could be placing ourselves in danger by waiting too long and repeating our past mistakes.

      Delete
    4. I completely understand why the United States would have such a hard time trusting Iran with nuclear power, and like you said, it's good that we're playing it safe in a situation as serious as this. Although we are interfering again, I agree with you that we are handling this very well and going into the right direction. We definitely need to do whatever we can to keep both ourselves and the people of the Middle East safe (especially Israel, a major ally).

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I actually have somewhat of a mixed opinion on the subject, but I'm leaning towards this whole situation actually being a good thing. However, in a way, it is bad that the United States is interfering yet again with the problems of another country. The fact that they are trying to tell Iran not to use nuclear power against other countries might be a little unconstitutional. Plus, being that we are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, it is ironic that we're doing everything we can to prevent Iran from ever getting them. On the other hand, I think the United States is giving Iran a good deal by offering them sanctions relief in return for the country not using its nuclear power for a six month period. I understand why the United States is taking these matters so seriously, because as stated above, Iran has had a bad track record; being that it has caused problems with other countries in the past, such as Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, and even the U.S. itself. Of course, no one wants the risk of Iran potentially using its nuclear weapons for the wrong reasons, giving the ability to harm so many other people around them…It’d almost be like handing a baby a pair of scissors. If finding ways to prevent Iran from using nuclear power to create harmful weapons provides the benefit of keeping thousands of people safe, then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main problem America is facing (aside from economical); is our image. We are everywhere. Literally. When you are on vacation in another country you will hear America on the news or see it in the newspaper. We should start minding our own business and develop a better image for ourselves before we start telling others what to do.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Tom I definately agree that America is always in the public's eye. We should start worrying about our economic situations, then we should worry about our image. But then again, we already established our reputation.

      Delete
    3. Paige, I disagree with you on what you said about America interfering being a good thing. America is giving in to Iran's want of attention by getting involved and taking this whole thing to another level. We as a country have many flaws and have no right to interfere with other countries unless we are in DIRECT conflict with what is happening.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This week's topic is way too controversial, (or we can ask it in a better way?) since there is no right and wrong in the topics about nuclear. Technically, countries really don't have the right to stop other countries from having nuclear power. But however, in my own opinion, nuclear power in countries these days is no longer a destructive weapon but a new way of political threatening. Developing nuclear power like nuclear weapons within a country can show other countries the strong military forces it possess. Let's assume that someday in the future Iran threw an atomic bomb to other countries, but however, in the next minute the country will throw another atomic bomb to Iran either. If we mean it and use nuclear power as weapons to beat the enemies, then we are meanwhile destructing the Earth including ourselves. I think that even if Iran develop nuclear weapon successfully, they can't do anything to the US and also the other countries because Iran is not the only country who has that power. Lagging behind leaves one vulnerable to attacks. Developing advanced technology is not guilt but a protection. It will be so unfair to Iran if US can make a self-protection, otherwise, comparing to developing nuclear energy, interfere too much to other countries' military and politics is more guilty....banned countries from doing something can definitely not establishing stability of the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said about how there is no right and no wrong in the topics of nuclear power. I agree because of how strongly opinionated some are when it comes to this topic. Also, when you said " If we mean it and use nuclear power as weapons to beat the enemies, then we are meanwhile destructing the Earth including ourselves." I thought that this was a powerful statement. The world seems to be blind when it comes to this.

      Delete
    2. I agree with many of your points Gemma is they are very valid especially when you stated "Nuclear power in countries these days is no longer a destructive weapon, but a new way of political threatening." Honestly that is what the case is now a days because nuclear warfare would definitely start a World War III. No country would want to risk that so nuclear weapons are mainly used in threats. In order to gain stability everyone must be bound to the same rules.

      Delete
  12. The highly contentious topic of Iran’s nuclear deal provides two vastly interpretive sides, leaving me in much thought about my opinion. After deliberating key points, I came to the belief that this temporary deal of Iran leads slightly more to the negative side. In first matters, a clear ultimatum has not been placed towards the Iranians so that they understand what the consequences will be if they do not fully disassemble their nuclear military program for the current deadline of six months. Kennedy’s statement that in dealing with a belligerent regime, a clear ultimatum is the most efficient strategy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis is a prime example of this importance. Additionally, Iran is a brutal dictatorship bound to spread its dangerous ideology around the world which situates a massive threat to all. Disregarding the positive opinions of some of our allies, Iran will continue on this dangerous path unless it is confronted with a clear indication of what isn’t tolerated. Also, past events have portrayed to us the deceiving qualities of Iran and repeating prior mistakes does no good. Quite on the contradictory side, I believe other states should not be able to fully decide what another country can or cannot possess. The intermingling of the United States with world problems has brought controversial effects in the past such as with Syria. Besides, the United States has dealt with nuclear warfare before so this judgment would be hypocritical. In a short summarization I feel that trusting Iran should not be done immediately without well planned thought but on the other hand, countries shouldn’t have all power in what is done as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iran's history to United States did make themselves become less trusted. And I truly agreed with "Iran will continue on this dangerous path unless it is confronted with a clear indication of what isn’t tolerated." American's points of views to Iran might be biased but however the development of nuclear energy within Iran is seriously related to America itself . America should assert for itself meanwhile tried not to interfere Iran too much. Good job Shivani.

      Delete
    2. Shivani, as a whole, we had somewhat similar perspectives on this issue. While I do agree that governments should not be permitted to interfere with others, and that we are in no position to be judging Iran because of our own usage of nuclear energy, I have to say that I disagree on your opinion that Iran poses as a major threat. I am aware that Iran has portrayed some untrustworthy actions, but I don't think we should be too quick in assuming its intentions. Up until this point, they have not completely abused their use of nuclear energy, and even if they do intend to abuse it, we should be fully prepared for anything to happen so that the only ones with even a slight disadvantage would be them because their economy is already suffocating. Overall, I do agree that we should not take immediate action without planning ahead.

      Delete
    3. I understand where you are coming from, but my views are slightly different then yours. On one hand, I do agree that countries should not interfere with others. On the other hand, I believe that the whole thing is a political tactic by Iran for attention, I mean who knows what they could be planning behind our backs as we "care" about this issue.

      Delete
    4. Shiv, I completely agree. "I feel that trusting Iran should not be done immediately without well planned thought but on the other hand, countries shouldn’t have all power in what is done as well." Putting our trust in Iran wouldn't be very smart right now and definately agree with that. We should know what we are getting into.

      Delete
  13. Iran has agreed to stop development of their nuclear weapons and this seems like it is a good thing. Any step you take away from nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction. However, this isn't the end of nuclear weapons in Iran like many may think. This "deal" is only putting off a big problem that we have. The deal keeps Iran from nuclear weapons till July, but after that they are allowed to retain their weapons again. If we cannot make a deal Iran might get angry at us and send us many threats. They have sent us many threats before and seem like huge enemies of ours. Although this is only pitting off a huge problem, the deal shows us that Iran is ready to negotiate. They have shown us (somewhat) that they are trustworthy and will keep their word. Also, i think it is reasonable that we told Iran to give away their nuclear weapons because they have showed us in the past that they are our enemies. Considering this it is still wrong for one country to tell another what to do. It is the right of a country to keep Nuclear Weapons and develop/defend themselves. Also, I-an made a good point to add on to this "Nuclear programs in Iran supply people with jobs. if we stop their program, we could damage their economy even more. I don't think it is our goal to completely ruin Iran, so i guess in a sense this deal could turn out not beneficial for Iran, but worked out, the deal could benefit both sides." If we tell countries what to do we might end up ruining their economy. I think it is right to say it to country who is an enemy and has done something wrong in the past. Like Robert said, "Countries like Germany, the U.S., France, and so on have angered many of Iran’s officials with this agreement." We don't know what is coming for us, if it is bluff or it is not. Iran is quite inconsistent and there is no way of being 100% sure if they will end up negotiating with us. However, the signs show that Iran is trustworthy and they are ready to donate. Lets hope this is true so we can help bring piece to the Middle East.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with what you said about if we can't make a deal, than Iran will get angry at us. This is the truth, especially if you look back upon the shaky relationship of the two countries. With the rest of your entry, I am on defense about how I feel. Don't you think that this is just some political tactic they are using for attention?

      Delete
    2. Yes, that is exactly what i stated in some of the questions I asked. Since there is no way we can trust Iran because of one little act this may be a bluff. They may be trying to get close to America and then they strike out of no where and surprise us. Iran has made many threats to us, scared us as much as they could and referred to is as their "enemies". What makes people think we can believe them because of one small thing?

      Delete
    3. Actually, looking back i did state this in my blog, "We don't know what is coming for us, if it is bluff or it is not. Iran is quite inconsistent and there is no way of being 100% sure if they will end up negotiating with us."

      Delete
    4. Abu, you made very valid arguments I agree with the one statement that you said,"Although it is pitting a huge problem, it shows Iran is ready to negotiate." Iran wouldn't allow its economy to plummet if they didn't mean some type of business. Still it is very hard to judge because Iran is considered untrustworthy.

      Delete
  14. This is a very controversial topic and I am torn in the middle. All countries should do what they want, but Iran isn't that trustworthy. I feel that this is more of a political tactic that Iran is trying to pull. Iran is simply trying to put on a show, and display what they want us to see because they are not showing us all that they have. Who even knows, they could have already done a deal like this in the past, and the world does't know. Their whole goal is to appease people:; to satisfy the world's craving of seeing something exactly like this. Iran's nuclear deal won't make a difference in the world, and it is kind of obvious that countries such as our own don't really care about this issue, but act like it is the biggest deal. There have been several many issues like this, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis during the Cold War, but did anything happen? No, nothing happened, no one wants to be the fault for a nuclear war starting. The whole deal is simply a political tactic.
    Additionally, no country has the right to tell another country what to do. America getting involved is exactly what Iran wants, they want the fuel to be added to the blazing fire. America is not the best nation in the world and if you go to any other nation in the world our flaws might be on the news, we aren't perfect either. America has to start fixing itself before they carry on and try to tell other countries how to handle nuclear deals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hava, you made good arguments but I just wanted to ask do you think Iran is really that untrustworthy? I too agree that it's none of our business to but in although it's a very dangerous subject, but do you think these are really Irans intentions. Also you said that the deal won't make a difference in the world it already has. In the article it said that the nuclear weapon industry is declining causing 4.2 billion dollars in Iranian money to be frozen over seas.
      Overall you made really valid points that changed my perspective on Irans true intentions.

      Delete
    2. Hava, great points. I really agree that Iran is untrustworthy. Just the fact that they have caused so much trouble, not only with us but with other countries. To honest, we wouldn't be smart to trust them with producing nuclear weapons right now.

      Delete
  15. This topic is very heated and proves to be a double edged blade with the various outcomes it could possibly have. In my opinion I believe that the deal will have a bad effect on the world but I wouldn't say it would be as extreme as another holocaust. I'll start with the positive side effects which involve getting rid of the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons aren't exactly "fun" to deal with but according to the article it says " Iranian officials have complied with their complements; suspending the production of 20% enriched uranium." This means that they are making a certain efforts to carry out with the deal. Also another point that was brought up by Gemma is that nuclear weapons now a days are basically a political threat. For example the incident when North Korea threatened us with nuclear weapons but never carried out with it. What I'm trying to say is that Iran and mostly all the countries in the world know that the first nuclear attack will cause possibly the next world war, that is why even if Iran would become mad at us for becoming the watch dog of the world again they wouldn't use the weapons on us. Now for the negative sides of this deal aka the con side. The first arguments that come to mind is do we (America) even have the right to tell another country to stop using nuclear weapons. It's sort of like someone coming in and taking our countries rights which wouldn't be fair. Although I said earlier that the chances for Iran to actually attack us with these weapons are slim, there's still a chance. It even said in the article that Iran has proved to be untrustworthy of their actions in the past. Another bad thing is that we are depriving people of jobs and to be precise it's about 4.2 billion in Iranian money. People have to work and if we take away a very lucrative industry for them then then a lot of money will be lost. All in all I believe that there are both good and bad side effects but based on the knowledge and my own personal opinion it wasn't the best idea to propose this deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elijah, I agree that this is just a political tactic that Iran is using. As you mentioned, North Korea threatened the US with nuclear weapons, but never carried out with it. If Iran were to use their nuclear weapons, a world war would occur. Also, the US cannot take the rights of another country away and tell them what to do. We just have to see what the future holds after this deal expires.

      Delete
  16. This nuclear deal with Iran is highly controversial and I cannot say its a good or bad deal because there are two sides to it. Iran is definitely not a country that can be trusted because of the terrorist influences and this deal provides a so called peace of mind. Iran is not on the best terms with countries like Palestine and Israel, so this deal adds assurance that Iran is not using nuclear powers for the wrong reasons. There are positive aspects to this deal, however there's always a catch. This deal is only valid for six months! What happens after those six months? Will Iran use nuclear power for weapons? Also, this is another example of the US trying to tell another country what to do. The US acts like a "universal police" and get into conflicts, instead of minding our own business. The US has nuclear power and no other country is trying to tell us what to do with it. Ethically, I believe the US cannot tell another country what to do because that's how more conflicts occur. If Iran is going to use it's nuclear power for energy and technological purposes that would be fine and benefit everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Akshay, your post really conflicted my opinion on the blog overall. On the one hand we face a potential violation of ethics, while on the other we face the task of trying to make sure they do not use nuclear power for the wrong reasons (war). Being a man of ethics myself, I am personally not sure if we should get involved as we are currently trying to stop our typical national "police force" actions. Overall, well said because this post not only put me on the fence, but got me thinking about the United States's reasoning behind this matter as well.

      Delete
  17. First off, I am going to be completely honest by admitting that before I read this week's topic, I did not truly know the extent of the Iranian nuclear crisis. However after reading the background information, I know realize just how important this this subject is. Based on Iran's track record, it is quite obvious that they are not exactly the most trusted nation in the world. Therefore, it is my opinion that lowering the sanctions imposed on Iran in exchange for decreasing the rapid advancement of their nuclear program is simply a minor fix, for something that will eventually become a large issue later on. After all, even if sanctions are lowered only minimally, Iran still has the means to continue it's nuclear program(s) covertly. My opinion is founded by a number of factors, the biggest being the analogy that was used to describe this scenario to a pre-Holocaust era. Perhaps keeping sanctions would temporarily gridlock the possibility of resolving the problem, but if the only solution has a high risk probability of making the problem worse, then perhaps it is not worth looking into.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This topic is heated and is extremely controversial. To be honest, Iran is not a country we can put our trust right now. Who knows what they will do with these weapons? Can we place our trust in them?
    The US telling other countries what to do has seem to be a huge problem. Often to other countries, America is viewed as the pacifist country, eager to police the world. Sometimes, I think we should focus on our own problems involving economic issues. It is none of our business with what Iran does with their weapons, until it starts to affect us.

    ReplyDelete