In order to effectively discuss the Iran Nuclear Deal, one must understand the purpose of having it at all, what the U.S. and its European allies hope to accomplish with this deal.
The sole purpose was to limit Iran’s nuclear program so that it is incapable of making a nuclear weapon – that was it.
While we can be idealists and criticize the plan for not forcing Iran to give up the four American hostages and not forcing Iran to stop its support of terrorism in the Middle East, we must understand that any deal involves a compromise. Iran would not agree to do everything that this deal forces them to do without receiving something in return; that is how agreements are met with anyone – let alone Iran.
So, now that we understand the goal, does the agreement actually accomplish it? Yes.
What does the agreement force Iran to do? A lot, actually. If I were to go into every detail I would exceed the word limit entrusted to me, but understand that it is enough to extend the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear bomb from three months to one year.
In return, we lift crippling sanctions on Iran. If this deal is to be rejected, many countries will be aggravated (to say the least) with the U.S. and odds are that the sanctions will be dropped eventually by other countries without any compromise on Iran’s part.
At this point, any reasonable person would ask, “How do we ensure Iran keeps their side of the agreement?” Well, despite what many of you may believe, the Obama administration is not incompetent and there is a “snap-back” clause that says if Iran violates any of its agreements, the sanctions will be snapped back into place.
We will know if Iran violates their agreement because the deal allows the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) unprecedented access to Iran’s facilities if they are deemed suspicious. No, the deal does not allow the 24/7 access that Obama had said, but hope of such a deal is, frankly, a pipe dream.
It does, however, force Iran to let us into their facilities within a minimum of 24 days. That may seem like a long time, but experts in the field have said that would not be enough time for Iran to clean up any evidence.
Many of you are wondering, if the deal is such an achievement, then why are Saudi Arabia and Netanyahu creating such an uproar?
Like the agreement itself, the answer is complicated. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have been victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism and, for obvious reasons, would like that to end. The West must do what it can to curb Iran’s terrorist habit, but this agreement was not the place to do so.
Those involved realize that the biggest threat that Iran poses to the world is the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons; both Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia have ulterior motives to dislike the agreement. Netanyahu would suffer politically and is already receiving criticism from other Israeli parties for not being able to stop the agreement. Saudi Arabia’s displeasure has to do with oil. It stands to suffer in the oil market should Iran rejoin the global marketplace and would prefer to keep its high revenue.
One huge reason this deal will prove to be effective is that it gives Iran a stake in the world marketplace.
Should Iran go back on its agreement, it will stand to suffer the most. Domestically, Iran has been suffering due to climbing unemployment rates and inflation. Going back on the agreement would enrage an already sanction-battered Iranian populace.
While it may not be an ideal solution, it is the best one.
Hunter Williams is a sophomore international studies major from Madison, Miss.
