The nuclear deal between the United states and Iran has been at the forefront of political debates recently. Because of its relevance in foreign policy and my interest in foreign affairs especially in the Middle East I chose this topic. I want to focus on a topic that directly affects the United States at this moment. The question I am raising is, why is the nuclear deal with Iran bad for the US, and what can we do to improve it. Iran poses a direct nuclear threat towards the US, and as a result our safety is questioned. The deal, in my opinion, does not do enough to dismantle Iran's uranium stockpile, and to affect tier break out time. When it comes to the deal, I do not have a lot of experience. The only experience I have that pertains to this topic is my studies of the Middle Eastern region in the past, and my study of their religion and culture. I am able to apply this knowledge to help me understand the culture behind the deal. As a result, my qualifications to write about this topic are answered by knowledge of the region, and my interest in foreign affairs. That knowledge and background give me the necessary knowledge, and resources to analyze and study the topic.

When conducting my research I first had to gain a basic understanding of the Iran nuclear deal. I decided to turn to BBC News to lay out a description of the deal, and what it contains. The article "Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details" discusses what the deal does to dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities. It discusses how the number of centrifuges Iran will be able to use will reduce by 80%. Furthermore, it talks about Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced 98%, and its heavy water reactors will be converted into testing centers. If Iran follows these rues its economic sanctions will be lifted, and it will gain access to over 100 billion dollars in frozen assets. To ensure Iran follows the terms of the deal the IAEA will have access to Iranian nuclear facilities whenever they want. BBC is writing this article to show the details of the deal. It's main goal is put forward an informative piece that lays out statistics, and details of the deal. BBC's interests are just that. To make the public aware of the details of the deal. Hen it comes to details of major political deals, the credibility of the source is important. You don't want false information, regarding the topic you are researching. BBC is the oldest national broadcasting organization in the world. It is trusted by millions to deliver unbiased information on topics from politics to sports. The writing of the piece shows no bias towards what he thinks of the deal. All he does is write an informative article on the deal.as a result, it is unbiased.

The second source I came across was an article from Fox News titled "Iran Nuclear Deal Much Worse Than Experts Expected." I decided to use this source because it lines up with my thoughts and opinions of the deal. It discusses how the deal will destabilize the entire Middle East because of the nuclear potential of Iran. It goes onto discuss that Iran will still have the ability to enrich uranium, even it is a smaller amount. Furthermore it shortens the time needed for Iran to make a nuclear bomb by months. On top of that, it gives them access to the international arms market, where its ballistic missile restrictions will be removed. The article is a conservative article that's main goal is to criticize the deal, and make people aware of how it does more to endanger the US then it does to help us. It is trying to get people to be against the deal, and against Obamas attempt to reach a deal with Iran. The goal is to point out why we need to fix the deal now. The article is written by Fred Fleitz a former CIA analyst and is now vice president for policies and programs with the center for Security Policy. He also worked in the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. Because of vast knowledge and experience with foreign affairs, he very qualified to write about tis topic. Fox News is a conservative news station, known fro promoting the Republican party. The bias of the author is clearly conservative, he does like the deal, and he wants to point out why. He wants everyone to be aware of the dangers of the deal, and persuade them to be against it. That is why he writes the article.

The third source I cam across, revealed the opinion of the Iranian public towards the deal. The first two sources discussed the deal, and why it is bad for the US security. This source talks about it from the other side. The article titled, "The More Iranians Learn About the Deal the Less They Like It, Poll Suggests. It was published on the Washington Post's website. The article discusses how the number of Iranians who agree with deal has dropped 7%. The poll conducted by the University of Maryland also reveals that only 48.8% of the public believe Iran is adhering to the deal. That means that they are not reducing their uranium stockpile or converting their reactors. The poll goes on to say that the Iranian public still support President Rouhani, even after the deal. It also says that Iranians want Rouhani to stay in congress, and they want supporters of Rouhani to be elected into congress as well. The main goal of tis article is to display the Iranian public's view of the deal. It wants to give us insight into how they feel about the deal, and if they feel that it was fair. The author of the article is Adam Taylor, who studied at Columbia, and is originally from London. He focuses national and foreign politics in 

his pieces. The Washington Post is the winner of 47 Pulitzer prizes, and is known for its political interests. In the piece Taylor, writes an unbiased repot on just the statics from the poll .He does not offer any opinion or argument against the statistics.

After research it is clear that my research question can be argued. There is enough information about how detrimental the deal to argue against it, and propose a plan to change the deal. This gives me the ability to argue against the deal and put forward changes to make the deal more effective in serving the purpose of the United States' interests. Among my sources I found a few discrepancies. Most were between the BBC News article and the Fox News article. One was that in the Fox News article it says Iran can still enrich Uranium, but in the BBC article it does not mention that. Furthermore, in the BBC News article it says Iran break out time would be reduced to a year, whereas in the Fox News article it talks bout the break out time for Iran is only a few months. Furthermore, The Fox news article says Iran is not converting its reactors, and they are still in use. The perspectives of my sources have helped me to come up with my opinions towards the deal. From the Washington Post's perspective I came to the conclusion that not only was the deal bad for the United States, but it is in fact having no affect on Iran. They are not adhering to the terms of the deal, therefore violating it. In the future if I have to revise my research question it would be to why was the deal made in the first place, and what is its significance. I would be able to give a description of the deal, and explore how significance it is in global politics. That is why my research question poses a question worth exploring.
