IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL


Introduction
Iran Nuclear Deal is the consequence of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action which was an agreement signed by P5 countries United States (U.S.), United Kingdom (U.K.), France, Russia & China along with Germany, Iran and European Union (E.U.) to lift the Economic Sanctions imposed by United States and Israel and to crumble nuclear actions of Iran. Iran was actually a country much populated with Shias and it’s neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia and Isreal are mostly populated with Sunnis.  Due to the revolts of Shias and Sunnis. The US had good relations with Saudi Arabia and Isreal due to Continuous trade. As the U.S. support this country, Iran started supporting Anti-Isreal and Anti-U.S. troops like Hezbollahs and Hamas. This positions Iran to rivalries with the United Nations.
The plan and interest of Iran to develop Nuclear weapons started since the 1980s. Iran has then signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. In pursuit of nuclear weapons was against the NPT treaty. To resist Iran in developing nuclear weapons, the United States with Israel conducted
  • Covert actions against Iran and its policies;
  • Sabotage;
  • Implemented a wide variety of Economic sanctions; 
  • It even started the
    use of succinate virus; 
  • Planning of airstrikes; 
  • and finally targeted the assassination of nuclear scientists. 
The covert actions performed by Iran, Israel and the US, therefore, threatened other countries. They raise the imminent danger in the middle-east affecting the stability of volatile Middle-east prior to 2013. This ultimately led to forming a peace agreement between these countries Iran and the US with the help of the United Nations Security Council, United Kingdom, European Union, France & Germany, and International Atomic Agency and this agreement is Iran Nuclear Deal in 2015. Iran Nuclear deal signed between Iran, European Union &P5 countries in 2015 at Vienna of Austria.

Significance
The arms embargo has placed a timeframe on ballistic missiles and conventional weapons, of eight and five years respectively. But the time frame could be shortened if the International Atomic Energy Agency certifies that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. It is agreed that the embargo should be in place and also agree that if Iran’s nuclear aspirations are for peaceful purposes then they should be rewarded as such and have the embargo lifted.
The breakout time for a nuclear device will go form a few months to more than 12 months. This is the key in the early stages of this deal as it places the fear of Iran accumulating enough enriched uranium to make one nuclear device further away. This has been done by showing Iran to export all but 300kg of its entire stockpile of eight tons of low enriched uranium and also by reducing the said amount of centrifuges will be kept idle for 10 Later years. After this time period, Iran’s breakout time will be reduced to where it is today, maybe around three months.
Iranian objections to some visits will be handled through a disputed settlement process, according to the agreement. And, as Einhorn states in his article,  maintain that sophisticated environmental sampling technologies would have a good chance of detecting microscopic traces of covert activity if uranium or other nuclear materials were involved, even long after 24 days. And they argue that, as soon as the IAEA requests an inspection, U.S. intelligence assets would focus on the suspect site and be able to identify signs that incriminating cleanup efforts were underway. Inspections of any kind would raise suspicions on both sides of the deal and it would most certainly be a tense period of time, for all involved.
Sanctions relief will not be removed immediately, but over the course of time as long as Iran complies with the accord. “John Kerry said the IAEA signed an agreement with Iran to resolve its outstanding questions within three months. Sanctions relief will not occur until that investigation is complete, Kerry said. It’s not clear how exhaustive the IAEA report will be” (Dorell) While the sum of $100 billion is substantial, and will aid Iran, I believe that Iran will not use the funds to an aggressive nuclear path, as it has other commitments in the area. Along with the debts owed, as with most countries, it really needs to stimulate its economy and the funds will most likely be used for this and other necessary economic needs for the country.
While the nuclear inspections of the accord allow the I.A.E.A. to visit suspected enrichment sites, they have to request such inspection and Iran has 24 days to comply with the request. this seems to be too long of a process as so much can be hidden, discarded or converted within that 24 day period. The anytime-anywhere rule is null and void if it gives any advance notice of inspection. This view is held by many like it to hold back the snap inspection fear against Iran. While some sites will have continuous monitoring, the fact that other sites will have no monitoring and will only have to comply after more than three weeks' notice is a little alarming.
Most Americans think Iran will ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that extremely likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it’s not at all likely that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and independents (58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would violate the agreement than are Democrats (44% likely).
Under what conditions would Iran want to pursue the costly advances associated with India's enrichment process, and then not go ahead with a nuclear weapons program? It is just surmising the general feeling, not an educated summary of the actual likelihood of Iran violating the terms.
This deal is more realistic, as it places more oversight on the process and places Iran on the global stage. While I disagree with the long request period of 24 days, I believe that overall the deal is a start to relationship building in the region. Although according to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned about US intentions toward Iran and said that there will be no negotiations with the United States outside of the nuclear deal reached in July. This view of the United States as the enemy will take a long time to overcome and although this deal was a necessary step to global peace and non- nuclear proliferation, there is a price that the United States has paid.

Position on Iran's Nuclear Aspirations 
The nuclear program of Iran has been a source of continuous concern for its adversaries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. In the present context of the Islamic State gaining momentum in the region, capturing the nuclear arsenal by this very ruthless militant outfit will be simply disastrous. 
Iran is important to India and it would like that through meaningful negotiations, Iran  should successfully navigate its current diplomatic situation with the P5+1, to move  towards greater normalization for the following two reasons:
Firstly, the Indian Government is looking for alternatives for importing oil from the Middle Eastern region, which is in a state of intense turmoil. In July 2014 Oil Ministry approached Iran, and it is willing to revive the gas pipeline project that had got stalled in  2009 under pressure from the USA. 
Secondly, an agreement for the development of Chabahar port is likely to be signed shortly and India intends to lease two berths at Chabahar for 10 years. The port will be developed in about a year and a half with an investment of $ 85.21 million.

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

0 comments:

Post a Comment