Albert Einstein once said, "The splitting of the atom has changed everything except the way we think. Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive" (Australian Psychological Society).  The Iran nuclear deal is no exception, and the rationale behind the arrangement has achieved innovative status. According to the deal, Iran will stop employing weapons-grade nuclear facilities and reduce the amount of nuclear material produced in return for release of sanctions and return of approximately $100 billion in revenue. The deal is held between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers (P5+1), including: France, Russia, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. President Obama also addresses in a speech that China, India, Japan, and South Korea have come to an agreement to reduce the purchase of oil from Iran. Iran's nuclear program first began in 1950, only years after the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, with an agreement between the United States and Iran. The agreement entailed of the United States funding a research reactor in Iran. Over the years, Iran's position on nuclear programs has shifted drastically. At one point, Iran was a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1995, however, Iran signed a contract with Russia regarding construction of reactors. This lead to the first sanctions against Iran. The Joint Plan of Action (JPA) was first implemented in 2014; this plan froze Iran's nuclear program so that the P5+1 could construct a mutual agreement with Iran. The Iran nuclear deal will lift nuclear-related sanctions that are currently in place, which is where the deal is presently at under the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). Americans should support the Iran nuclear deal to promote a peaceful compromise and to ensure their overall safety and security in relation to nuclear weapons in the Middle East.  

To fully comprehend the extent of the deal, it is imperative to understand the background of Iran's nuclear program as well as the process of producing nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons convert matter to energy. The fissile materials that create nuclear weapons are uranium and plutonium.  The nuclear weapons are produced in facilities called gas centrifuge enrichment facilities. There are currently three known in Iran: Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, and Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Nuclear-grade weapons are produced when, "Gas centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning uranium hexafulouride gas at high speeds to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope" ("Iran Nuclear Deal Background" 3). There are two types of enriched uranium: low-enriched uranium (LEU), and highly enriched uranium (HEU). Low-enriched uranium produces a concentration of uranium manufactured in nuclear power reactors. The low-enriched uranium is not considered a threat, as it is produced for fuel and research purposes. It only contains about 5 percent uranium-235. However, highly enriched uranium is considered weapons-grade, as it contains around 90 percent uranium-235. To put the enormous power of nuclear-grade weapons and the significance of nuclear war into perspective, imagine the most recent terrorist attack on Brussels, Belgium. The type of explosive deployed in this attack (which killed 31 and wounded 270 people) was conventional, or chemical. Nuclear weapons are approximately one million times more powerful. 

With this in mind, a nuclear-armed Iran parallels an aggressive Iran. Iran's foreign policy would become more assertive, leading to hostilities within the international community. With the Iran nuclear deal in place, Iran is brought into the international community in a non-negative approach. This is not, however, to be confused with a positive approach. In The potential pitfalls and windfalls of the nuclear deal with Iran, Dr. Rouzbeh Parsi states, "Iran has a dysfunctional non-relationship with the United States ... What this deal does, even thought that is not what is in the paper, so to speak, of the deal, is to create a functional non-relationship with the United States" (Parsi 6). Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has clearly stated, however, that the deal will not lead to United States influence in Iran, nor will it lead to an increase in United States-Iranian relations. Although, if Iran abides by the rules of the agreement, it could prove liability in Iran's government. From a business perspective, the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions will eventually lead to greater prosperity in Iran. Although, the sanctions that remain in place, as published by thewhitehouse.gov, include,

-Sanctions on missile technologies and conventional weapons

-Terror list sanctions that identify Iran as a state sponsor of terror

-Targeted sanctions on anyone connected with Iran's support of terror

-Authority to target Iran's development of ballistic missiles

-Authority to target Iran's human rights abuses and censorship

-Authority to sanction Iran's destabilizing regional activities, including in Syria and Yemen" (whitehouse.gov).

The $100 billion that Iran has acquired from the United States is to be understood as assets the U.S. withheld from Iran that came from oil revenue.  Regardless, the potential economic growth in Iran could later contribute to growth in global economy. 

Furthermore, a nuclear-armed Iran poses a direct threat to American allies in the Middle East, Israel in particular. As addressed by the Anti-Defamation League, "Israel is most at risk as Iran's leaders have repeatedly declared that Israel should 'be wiped from the map'"(Anti-Defamation League). However, Israel is not the only country in the Middle East that would feel threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran. Other United States-Arab allies such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and others have also stated they feel threatened. But, Pakistan and Israel are the only Middle Eastern countries to have obtained nuclear weapons. Pakistan has not generally been involved in Arab-Israeli conflict. Although, Pakistan has a relationship with Saudi Arabia where they would provide protection to Saudi Arabia if Iran develops nuclear weapons.  The Middle East's instability would continue to rise in this case, and become an even greater volatile region. 

In a like manner, hostility in the Middle East would rise if nuclear technology was shared with extremist groups. Iran has background in financially supporting the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim organization whose objective is, "a fundamentalist Islamic state there and beyond and the obliteration of Israel" (Slate). Hamas is an Islamic Resistance Movement. According to Slate, "Its goal is to destroy Israel and to put in place an Islamic Palestinian state. Its methods include assassination, raids, bombing, and suicide bombing" (Slate). Terrorism is on the rise, globally. Not only would neighboring Middle Eastern countries be at risk, but the entire world would be threatened if terrorist organizations were granted nuclear technology through Iran. In such case scenario, a third world war would be likely to evolve. 

Those opposing the Iran nuclear deal are typically in agreement that a deal should be in place, but disagree on the specifics of the deal. The majority of those in opposition of the deal, while not exclusive, tend to have a Republican stance. For example, former Vice President Dick Cheney discusses the Iran nuclear deal in the book written by him and his daughter, Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America.  Dick Cheney, and his daughter, Liz Cheney, wrote this book to explain why America must be a powerful nation for it's future to thrive. In regards to the Iran nuclear deal, Dick and Liz Cheney reject the deal. Not only do they reject this deal, but they propose that a better deal is possible. In their book, they write, "President Obama has argued that his agreement is the only alternative to war, when in fact the Obama nuclear deal makes war more-not less-likely" (D. Cheney and L. Cheney). Dick and Liz Cheney also suggest what America's next president should enforce as fundamentals of the arrangement regarding Iran's nuclear program:

"1. Iran must halt all enrichment and reprocessing activities.

 2. Iran must halt all ballistic missile activities.

 3. Iran must provide a full and complete accounting of all its nuclear activities, past and present, military and civilian. Without such an accounting, verification of any agreement is impossible.

4. Iran must provide complete go-anywhere-anytime access to international inspectors, including at its military sites.

5. The U.S. should not support any effort to repeal sanctions until such time as Iran has fulfilled these obligations" (D. Cheney and L. Cheney).

Along with a harsher settlement with Iran, the Cheneys also propose growth of America's nuclear arsenal and missile system and the option for military action by stating, "History has shown the effectiveness of military action in deterring or stopping nuclear programs" (D. Cheney and L. Cheney). While the Cheneys criticize Obama's plan on the nuclear deal for making war more apt, they also advocate the engagement of military action to prove power. Promoting military force could potentially lead to war. America's involvement in another war would overall be economically damaging. While the economic effects of war do include employment opportunity, it would only create more deficit spending. The United States is currently in excess of $18 trillion. Another war for America would be economically crippling, as explained on thereformedbroker.com, "the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative ... Some wars are necessary to fight and the negative effects of not fighting these wars can far outweigh the costs of fighting. However if there are other options, then it is prudent to exhaust them first" (Institute For Economics & Peace 18). In this case, Obama has secured a deal with Iran that avoids military pursuit, which should be commended rather than criticized. 

Similarly, 2016 Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz opposes the Iran nuclear deal. Politifact notes and displays Senator Cruz's tweet, "The #IranDeal will facilitate and accelerate the nation of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons" (Cruz). There is no evidence to support this claim. The only way this would be a viable assertion is if Iran violates the deal. In such case-scenario, sanctions would be immediately re-imposed by the U.N., U.S., and E.U. Those same sanctions have previously crippled Iran's economy. However, under the Iran Nuclear Deal, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has inspectors that monitor every aspect of the program. This includes: mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel manufacturing, nuclear reactors surveillance, and fuel spent.  International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors also have the ability to inspect any place regarded suspicious. According to whitehouse.gov, suspicious activity, "can be triggered by holes in the ground that could be uranium mines, intelligence reports, unexplained purchases, or isotope alarms" (whitehouse.gov). Senator Ted Cruz's claim stating that the Iran Deal will expedite Iran's development of nuclear arms lacks crucial backing substance.

Without the Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran could have their first nuclear weapon in a matter of 2-3 months. In fact, Iran currently has enough uranium to build several nuclear bombs. With the deal implemented, Iran lacks components needed to create a nuclear bomb. Therefore, it delays the time needed to create fissile material from 2-3 months to at least an entire year. That is, if Iran breaches the deal. The deal proves beneficial in that it opens trade opportunity in the international community. The most critical aspect of this deal is that it is non-violent. Because the negotiation is peaceful, the United States has effectively avoided furthering national debt by military expenditures. The Iran nuclear deal is the leading resolution in the prevention of nuclear warfare. 

