In 2015 under the Obama administrator, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany worked with Iran to create the Iran nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to limit Iran's nuclear power activities. In this deal, Iran promised to reduce its stockpiles of uranium by 98% for the next 15 years. In return, most of the sanctions that were imposed from the United Nations (UN), United States (US), and European Union (EU) were lifted to help bring economic stability. If Iran did not violate the deal, the sanctions would stay removed (BBC News, 2015), which led Iran to gain access to more than $100bn in frozen assets, resuming to sell oil, and using the global financial system for trade (BBC News, 2019).
One of the benefits of lifting sanctions and allowing Iran to gain access to their assets was regional cooperation and the capability to conduct full transparent inspections. Without the ability to conduct inspections, the United States would not gather as much intelligence on Iran’s program. By forcing Iran to allow inspections to keep sanctions off them. It allows inspectors to have full access to the supply chain for monitoring materials and prevents the use of a secret program. Inspectors will have access to mines and continuous surveillance of uranium mills for 25 years. Iran has agreed to implement additional protocols and provide access and information to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA will also have regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities (Samore, 2015).
Another benefit of sanctions being lifted could benefit the US economy, a study from 1995 to 2012 found that the US lost up to $175 billion in potential export revenue to Iran. Even with sanctions in place, Iran has the second-largest economy in the Middle East, with gas reserves and crude-oil reserves and a potential consumer market of close to seventy-seven million (Hassibi, 2014). Lifting sanctions can benefit the United States by bringing in more revenue sources, fostering a climate where intelligence can be gathered easier to prevent an unknown attack and see the capabilities of our potential adversaries and foster a relationship that could lead to peace.
One of the downsides of removing sanctions and allowing the cash revenue back into Iran is the money being funneled to aid terrorism. Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizenkot, Israel’s Chief of Staff, stated that Iran invests between seven hundred million to 1 billion each year to the terrorist group Hezbollah and about seventy million to Hamas (Williams, 2018). Iran was given about 150 billion in sanction relief, and after all its debts were settled, the end cost would be around fifty-five billion. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in 2016 that some of the relief funds would go to groups that some may see as terrorists (Labott, 2016). Iran has also pushed the boundaries of the deal by continuing to violate ballistic missile testing. In 2016, Iran was able to show off a new missile depot, which violated United Nations, and limited sanctions were put in place (Rubin, 2016).
Lifting sanctions, giving relief funds, and allowing Iran to enter the international market for revenue allowed Iran a chance to have an economic boom while making it exceedingly difficult for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons without military action (The White House, 2016). The IAEA will also be able to conduct inspections within nuclear facilities and see the progress being made and any suspicion of secret nuclear testing, which will be a better intelligence gathering than not being able to view the facilities. Though some of the funding may have gone to support terrorism, the amount of control of the Iran nuclear deal and the ability to prevent nuclear weapons manufacturing without causing a war outweighs the possible cons.
References
BBC News. (2015, July 14). Iran nuclear crisis: Six key points. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32114862
BBC News. (2019, June 11). Iran nuclear deal: Key details. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Hassibi, N. (2014, November 20). The Top 5 Reasons to Sign a Nuclear Deal with Iran. Retrieved from The National Interest: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-top-5-reasons-sign-nuclear-deal-iran-11705
Labott, E. (2016, January 21). John Kerry: Some sanctions relief money for Iran will go to terrorism. Retrieved from CNN Politics: https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/john-kerry-money-iran-sanctions-terrorism/index.html
Rubin, J. (2016, January 18). Iran Sanctions lifted: Now what? Retrieved from The Washington Post: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/blogs,-podcasts,-websites/iran-sanctions-lifted-now-what/docview/1757858336/se-2?accountid=8289
Samore, G. (2015). Decoding the Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Questions, Points of Divergence, Pros and Cons, Pending Legislation, and Essential Facts. Retrieved from Harvard Library: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27029096/Decoding_the_Iran_Nuclear_Deal.pdf?sequence=1
The White House. (2016, January 16). The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a nuclear weapon. Retrieved from The White House President Barack Obama: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
Williams, D. (2018, January 2). Top Israeli general sees increased Iran spending on foreign wars. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-rallies-israel/top-israeli-general-sees-increased-iran-spending-on-foreign-wars-idUSKBN1ER0Q9
About the Creator
The Clarkbar84
My mind has stories forming all the time; My works are scattered within real life.
Kindle Stories: https://www.amazon.com/author/hunteralex
Kindle Vella: https://www.amazon.com/kindle-vella/story/B0BPRJVCV8
Keep reading
More stories from The Clarkbar84 and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Nuclear Weapon
In 2010 President Obama stated, "The single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term, and long-term, would be the possibility of a terrorist organization obtaining a nuclear weapon "(Mauroni, 2012). However, this has been a concern for decades, with the rise of transnational terrorism and missile capabilities to deploy nuclear materials. How prepared is the United States if a terrorist were to use a nuclear weapon on the homeland, and what changes could occur to the National Security Strategy (NSS) to increase overall security.
By The Clarkbar844 years ago in The Swamp
US to Withdraw from Dozens of UN, International Organisations: Implications for Global Diplomacy
In a bold and controversial move, the United States government has announced its intention to withdraw from dozens of United Nations and other international organisations, marking a significant shift in its approach to global diplomacy. Officials describe the decision as part of a broader effort to prioritise American interests and reduce financial contributions to multilateral bodies. However, critics warn that this strategy could have far-reaching consequences for international cooperation, global governance, and the US’s standing on the world stage. The Scope of the Withdrawal According to statements from the State Department, the withdrawal will affect multiple UN agencies, including specialised organisations dealing with health, trade, and development, as well as a variety of international bodies outside the UN framework. The exact list of organisations has not been fully disclosed, but insiders suggest that it could involve entities responsible for global humanitarian aid, environmental monitoring, and human rights oversight. The move signals a clear pivot away from multilateralism, echoing past trends where US administrations have questioned the value of international institutions and sought to recalibrate engagement based on national interests. Proponents argue that the United States has been disproportionately burdened with funding and compliance obligations while receiving limited tangible benefits. Reasons Behind the Decision Officials have framed the withdrawals as a strategic recalibration. The US contributes billions of dollars annually to international organisations, and critics within the administration argue that these contributions do not always align with American priorities. By reducing involvement, the government hopes to redirect funds toward domestic priorities, including infrastructure, defence, and public welfare programs. Additionally, some policymakers have expressed frustration with what they perceive as inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and politicisation within these organisations. By stepping back, the United States aims to exert greater control over how its resources are allocated and ensure that international engagements serve concrete national interests. Global Repercussions The withdrawal has raised alarm among diplomats, experts, and allies worldwide. International organisations often rely heavily on US funding and influence to maintain operations. With the United States stepping away, several programs—particularly those in healthcare, humanitarian aid, and conflict mediation—may face funding shortfalls, potentially impacting millions globally. Experts also warn that this move could embolden other nations to follow suit, weakening the effectiveness of international governance. “The US has historically been a cornerstone of global diplomacy,” said a former UN official. “A withdrawal of this scale sends a signal that multilateral cooperation is optional, which could undermine decades of collective progress on issues like climate change, peacekeeping, and human rights.” Impact on US Influence Beyond practical consequences, the withdrawal could also diminish the United States’ influence in shaping global policies. International organisations often serve as platforms for negotiation, consensus-building, and soft power projection. By retreating, the US may lose its ability to shape standards and norms on critical issues ranging from global health emergencies to arms control. Allies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America have expressed concern about the US stepping back at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions. Critics argue that absence from international forums may allow rival powers to fill the vacuum, potentially reducing American leverage in key strategic regions. Domestic Debate Within the United States, the decision has sparked heated debate. Supporters view the move as a necessary assertion of sovereignty and fiscal responsibility, arguing that the country should not subsidise global programmes that do not directly benefit American citizens.Looking Ahead As the world watches, questions remain about the exact timing, scope, and legal ramifications of the US withdrawal. Diplomatic channels are expected to be busy in the coming months as allies seek clarity and attempt to mitigate potential disruptions. Meanwhile, the US faces a delicate balancing act: asserting national interests while maintaining credibility and influence in a highly interconnected world. The ultimate impact of this decision will depend not only on which organisations the US leaves but also on how effectively it engages with remaining international partners to address global challenges. Whether this move marks a shift toward isolationism or a strategic recalibration will likely shape US foreign policy for years to come.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 4 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.