Farewell Treaty that Was Preventing War with Iran

President Trump just announced that he was pulling the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (simply known as JCPOA or the Iran nuclear deal). This action does not necessarily mean that the entire deal is automatically trumped, but it does mean that tensions between the United States and Iran will deteriorate, possibly worse than before, due to Iran’s mistrust of the United States for going back on its word. In turn, the deal will likely fall apart because the United States will restart its economic strangle on the Persian nation, and Iran will get the worst of both worlds: scrutiny and sanctions. Therefore, it is extremely likely that the deal will crumble in a short period of time, and the pre-deal status quo will likely continue.

Will the lack of American participation in the “bad deal” lead to an isolation of the Iranian regime and compliance to the American demand of halting its nuclear program, or should we fear that this means a war with Iran is just on the horizon? My guess is the latter. I do not foresee a positive outcome associated with withdrawing from the agreement. If Iran was developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, it will now have justification to continue doing so, and if Iran was not developing nuclear weapons prior to the treaty, the United States is imposing an unfair policy that harms the Iranian people through economic isolation without changing the attitude of the leaders. Exiting the deal makes very little sense because Iran was being watched very closely, which is what the United States wanted, by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its uranium enrichment supply, number of centrifuges, and ability to enrich uranium in the future were reduced. Iran would not have been able to develop a nuclear weapon for at least ten years, giving diplomats the ability to achieve a more long-term deal down the road. If the deal ends now, Iran could elect to develop a weapon at any time (this is theoretical being that it was never conclusively proven that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, and its nuclear program could have been solely for peaceful purposes), plus war could erupt between the United States and Iran.

Although the Iran nuclear deal was not perfect, it was better than the alternative. However, in the United States, it was a double-edged sword due to the procedure surrounding its passage. Just as President Obama exceeded his authority in enacting the treaty, President Trump will take unilateral executive action to end it. The Constitution explicitly says that the president can only enact treaties in conjunction with a two-thirds vote in the affirmative by the Senate, and this clearly did not occur when Obama accepted American participation in the agreement. Some will attempt to escape the constitutional argument by calling it an executive agreement or some other variation, and they will claim that other presidents have done this type of action, so it must be acceptable. I will respond to these claims with two clichés. If it lays eggs and has a beak like a duck but has the body like a beaver and a venomous ankle spur like a platypus, it is a platypus, not a duck. You can call it a duck if you would like, but that does not change the fact that it is a mammal. Also, if people kept pushing others off of a bridge from year to year without the consent of the victims, would that mean that it was justified for you to then push people off of the bridge too? You might say it is illegal to push people off of a bridge. Yes, but it is also unconstitutional for presidents to act unilaterally in making treaties (the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 does not count for anything).

As Israel continues to bomb Syria and Iranian targets in that country and the United States restarts its economic sanctions against the “evil” Iranian regime, pay attention at how the subsequent events unfold and how the anti-Iran rhetoric becomes more prevalent. The United States and Iran have had bad blood since 1953, and it looks like there will be no reconciliation in the near future. The neoconservatives and war hawks are chomping at the bit over the possibility of yet another war in the Middle East.

If people claim that Iran begins to develop nuclear weapons after the crumbling of this nuclear deal, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that this is indeed the case. Do not be fooled by those who claim that Iran wants nuclear weapons to annihilate Israel or the United States. A simple glance at a map of American installations surrounding Iran, along with the rhetoric of regime-change (which would not be the first time that the United States has done this to Iran) and demands for an end to its alleged nuclear weapons program (Iraq was invaded for its alleged chemical weapons program), may assist in understanding why Iran would want nuclear weapons. The United States government advocates for Israel to have the right of self-defense, and it has nuclear weapons. Israel also acts in an offensively defensive manner, but yet, the United States does not think that Iran should be able to defend itself against perceived aggression. President Trump is continuing the hypocrisy and ludicrousness that is American foreign policy.

Please check out my website and book, The Global Bully, for more information and past blogs. Thank you for reading!
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share twitter circle
Published on May 10, 2018 03:08
No comments have been added yet.