The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also referred as the Iran Deal, is an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program between Iran and the P5+1 which includes China, Russia, France, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. This deal compacts a list of actions such as significant restrictions and heavy monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program by the P5+1 and the Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for up to 13 years. It has been about a year since the agreement was reach and there is already a substantial flow of criticism of the deal and its framework as well as a group of scholars and leaders that support it. The cluster of supporters argue that this is the best possible deal with Iran on limiting its increasing and impressive development …show more content…
on its nuclear program which includes any future intentions of having a covert program (Fitzpatrick 48). On the other side, critics dispute that this a temporary solution to a long-term problem that could have hefty consequences on the region and global nuclear nonproliferation (Norell 288). Besides the framework, there is also a deep divide on the potential regional response and its impact on the stability in the region. The JCPOA, as argued by several scholars, will provide Iran to make its case as the leading power in the region with the sanctions lifted and ability to reintegrate not only into the regional community, but the international one.
Iran’s restoration of power will bring stability into region by ending any threat of with Iran, ultimately avert a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and allow the Islamic republic to become the center stage of the area’s geo-politics (Dorsey 55). With the various international sanctions lifted, Iran will potentially reinstate its status in the region by finally being able to revive its stagnant economy and its frustrated population. There is a consensus among the supporters of this deal that this will increasingly reduce any risk of nuclear proliferation due to the reassurance to key countries in the region like Saudi Arabia and Israel that the Iranian nuclear program will be solely peaceful. Alexander Glaser, Zia Milan, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, and Frank con Hippel claim that the Iran deal is a big step for other states in the Middle East to use the next years to agree on a region-wide agreement on establishing a Middle Eastern nuclear-weapon-free-zone which they finalize will construct a path to regional stability. For these scholars, the JCPOA will have positive long-term implications for region stability because of the possible pathway to negotiations with states like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey on having a nuclear-free-zone and ending what was a possible arms race among the regional powers. Mohammed Ayoob makes a similar argument however he acknowledges that Saudi Arabia and Israel will be upset of the agreement and will attempt to derail the deal in any way, but that Iran will eventually balance the power in the region. Ayoob continues on the idea that this deal will improve American-Iranian relations which will force Israel and Saudi Arabia to back down on their aggressive policies towards
Iran. Along with this argument, many others assert that the Iran deal puts Islamic republic back as a regional power which will make it be forced to use diplomacy as a tool in order to come to terms with states that are suspicious of their intentions like Israel and Saudi Arabia. By using diplomacy, Iran has the opportunity to stabilize the region by easing tensions with these two states and also avoid any future conflict (Khalid and Hashmi 37). There could be potential positive impacts on the stability of the region because Iran will become one the legitimate players in the region alongside with Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Pakistan. Others contribute to this notion by adding that the JCPOA will give Iran the allegiance and economic, military, and technological capabilities to balance the scale by capitalizing on geostrategic gains it has made since then the deal despite it have been isolated internationally for so long (Dorsey 57). Once these milestones are hit, it will allow these states to work together to end regional problems that are effecting its stability. The nuclear agreement removes past grievances between the United States and Iran which will allow for the two alongside with other major players in MENA to create a path for more coordination in fight terrorist groups and ending hostile, violent authoritarian leaders in weak states (Ayoob 47). Again, these scholars present the idea that the balance of power in this region will force once hostile states to relieve tensions in order to stabilize the area. On the contrary, there are a group of scholars that discuss the negatives of the JCPOA and how it will make the region even more unstable. Nazier Hussain and Sannia Abdullah refute the argument that the JPOA will help the region by placing Iran back into power which will cause other states to attempt to ease tensions, by instead stating that this notion casts a shadow over the regional power dynamics, and how vulnerable and unpredictable the Middle East truly is. To support this statement, there are various historical examples of how Iran is viewed as untrustworthy by other states in MENA specifically Israel and Saudi Arabia as well as the complexities of alliances and enmities throughout. The main proof these group of scholars have against the statement that this agreement will improve stability is that major players have already come out against the JPOA by saying that it is an existential threat and a ‘historic mistake’. Leaders of Israel have gone to plead their case against the agreement by affirming that there are major weaknesses in the deal which will restructure the interactions among states in the region as well as destabilize it (Rajiv 55). The main grievances by these key players are that the Iranian nuclear infrastructure will be for the most part still intact, the ballistic missiles that Iran has are not part of the deal, and how it is a temporary solution that will eventually embolden Iran furthermore (Rajiv 56). The raised concerns by strategic players in MENA exhibit the potential impact the flaws of the Iran deal could have on interactions and conflicts among states. The potential instability that could come with the deal also comes with backlash from states like Saudi Arabia and Israel towards not only Iran, but the United States if the Iranian officials do not hold up their part. Albert Wolf, an international relations scholar, describes the deal as dangerous for the future of Israeli policies in the region due to the fear the that balance of power will tilt towards Tehran instead of Jerusalem. The policies of the Israelis could tip from aggressive to survival mode if Iran decides to cheat parts of the agreement or embolden their own policies towards Israel. There is a great fear in the region that an emboldened Iran will create further problems for the region by supplying more intelligence and financial support to terrorist groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah (Mahapatra 40). In regards to a Middle East nuclear-free-zone, scholars critiquing the deal counter by asserting that JPOA will create a New Nuclear Order in the region and as a result will emphasize the insecurities of states which will incite them to increase their military capabilities (Hussain and Abdullah 486). The complexities and vulnerability of the Middle East creates a possible down spiral of future conflicts with Iran and other states if the weaknesses of the deal are bolstered by its opponents.
Background Information In implementing a strategic plan for Coastal Medical Center, our consulting team has conducted many analyses and formed numerous strategies in order for Coastal Medical Center to be successful. Such assessments include an internal analysis, external analysis, gap analysis, and SWOT analysis. In conducting these analyses, our consulting team was able to better understand the internal environment, external environment, where the organization currently stands in terms of performance, and the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that oppose the Coastal Medical Center. From our inquiry, we will be able to establish a strategic plan that best fits the organization’s needs.
Ben-Gurion, David. “Status-Quo Agreement.” In Israel in the Middle East: Second Edition, edited by Itamar Rabinovich and Jehude Reinharz, 58-59. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2008.
Between the years of 1983 and 1986, the United States was involved in a series of covert operations, collectively known as the Iran-Contra Affair. These operations were at best controversial, and at worst blatantly illegal.The Iran-Contra Affair (or the Iran Contra-Scandal) revolved around the issue of foreign policy, specifically with regards to Iran and Nicaragua. In 1979, revolution in Iran resulted in a complete change in the countries relationship with the United States. Having previously been an ally of the U.S., Iran, under its new regime, had become decidedly anti-American. These changes caused a time period of unrest that lasted into the mid 1980’s between the U.S. and Iran. Stabilizing the situation in Iran was one of the key objectives that motivated many of the authorities who were ultimately responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair. In 1985, seven hostages were taken by a terrorist group in Lebanon. This terrorist group had ties with Iran. Therefore, when Iran requested that the United States sell arms to them, President Reagan saw it as a potential way of getting the hostages returned. President Reagan wanted to see them returned safely, and hoped to restore good relations between the U.S. and Iran in the process. Many members of Congress were strongly against the idea. To go through with the arms deal was in direct violation of several laws, including policies against selling arms to entities on lists of terrorists countries, or terrorist-friendly countries, (Iran was included on such lists). Additionally, in negotiating with Iran, the Reagan administration would be dealing with known “terrorists,” something Reagan was openly very against. Nevertheless, the Reagan administration granted the Iranian’s request, in spit...
Task17. Outline the policies and procedures that should be followed in response to concerns or evidence of bullying and explain the reason why they are in place.
After analyzing the Coastal Medical Center, it is apparent that the employees and staff have no conception of the mission, vision, and values of this health care facility. In addition to this lack of structure, CMC has many projects in the midst of production that lack support of a common goal, employees are unsatisfied with their jobs, the two boards lack ability to agree on strategic decisions for the organization,, and the medical center has a dismal reputation when it comes to quality care.
The National Response Framework is a guide designed to assist local, State, and Federal governments in developing functional capabilities and identifying resources based on hazard identification and risk assessment. It outlines the operating structure and identifies key roles and responsibilities. It established a framework to identify capabilities based on resources and the current situation no matter the size or scale. It integrates organizational structures and standardizes how the Nation at all levels plans to react to incidents. The suspected terrorist attack will have health, economic, social, environment and political long-term effects for my community. This is why it is essential that local government’s response is coordinate with all responders. Response doctrine is comprised of five key principles: (1) engaged partnership, (2) tiered response, (3) scalable, flexible, and adaptable operational capabilities, (4) unity of effort through unified command, and (5) readiness to act. An introductory word about each follows. (Homeland Security, 2008)
The Carter Administration’s misguided relations and interactions with the Iranian government, especially the Shah, prior to the Iranian Hostage Crisis made evident the impending nature of the hostage crisis. During the period of time during which the Shah was in power in Iran, the United States maintained strong relations with the Iranian government and the Shah, however by supporting the Shah, they supported the crimes he committed against the Iranian people. The United States’ support of the Shah is evident by the photograph in Figure 1 in which President Jimmy Carter and the Shah are shaking hands to display the strong relations between the United States and Iran. At this state dinner, Carter, in his speech, praised Iran by stating that the country was an “island of stability” that was
The 5 year plan that was imposed on the USSR from 1928 until 1932 was implemented in order to achieve the rapid industrialization of Russia. Collectivisation was part of the five year plan and the aim was that it should modernize agriculture so that more peasants could instead work within industry. However, the collectivisation proved to be a failure since passive resistance broke out, the goals of grain production were not met and decreased, and modernization of farming proved unattainable. The statement that “The price was awful” therefore does apply to an extent, however it is important to consider perspectives as shown by different sources.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political aspirations . Also, when evaluating foreign policy, there are two methods of analysis: one is to concentrate on the output and documents produced by working backwards, deducing the intents of the various leaders from the end result; the other method is to focus on the politics of decisionmaking, viewing foreign policy as a result of individual political aims. The first approach focuses on the primary sources, while the other concentrates on the parties themselves. In this paper, I will give a comprehensive background of Israel-Egypt relations, and utilize the two forms of analyses to deduce what the goals of each party were at the time the treaty was signed, and use the lens of hindsight to evaluate whether their goals were met.
Unlike most Europeans countries, the United States of America enjoyed a rather healthy relationship with Middle East nations during the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Possibly, this was due to the fact that the US had little or no interest in colonizing countries in the region. On the contrary, it largely participated in philanthropic and educational activities therefore attracting positive perception among the Middle East people. However, after the world war II the situation begun to change. The US, after fully appreciating the strategic value of the region, opted to increase its interest there. Particular to ensure it does not lose control of the region’s natural resources (chiefly oil), protecting Israel (which was a newly established state and possibly are strategic America ally), and finally, prevent the Soviet Union from dominating the nation (Russel & Ghabra 2003).
Maynes, Charles. "The Middle East in the Twenty-First Century." Middle East Journal 52.1 (1998): 9-16. JSTOR. Web. 6 June 2011.
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
Gerner, Deborah J., and Philip A. Schrodt. "Middle Eastern Politics." Understanding the Contemporary Middle East. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 85 -136. Print.
Gerner, Deborah J., and Philip A. Schrodt. "Middle Eastern Politics." Understanding the contemporary Middle East. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008. 85 -136. Print.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 was the official document that ended the Iran – Iraq War in July 1988. At that point, both nations were drained by the war. Both nations faced a drop in their economy, high death tolls, and other issues (Steele 17), but what was the main reason Iran accepted the peace agreement proposed by the Iran lost the support of the US in 1979 after the hostage crisis in Tehran, Iran. In Tehran, “66 members of the US embassy staff were taken hostage by Khomeini’s supporters” (Steele 12). The hostages were held for 444 days (Steele 12).