Iranian Nuclear Agreement

The role of the Middle East has been very crucial to the United States, especially after WWII. The U.S. had three strategic goals in the Middle East and consistently followed them throughout various events that unfolded in the region. First, with the emergence of the cold war between the Soviet Union and the U.S., policymakers began to recognize the importance of the Middle East as a strategic area in containing Soviet influence. This also coincides with the U.S. becoming increasingly wary of Arab nationalism and the threat it posed to U.S. influence. Secondly, the emergence of the new Israeli state in 1948 further deepened U.S. policy and involvement in the region while also creating friction between the U.S. and Arab states which were

The USA and USSR were both party to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 that led to the declaration of the state of Israel. Although not responsible for the 1948 War of Liberation, from which Israel emerged victorious, perceived Zionist support by the West fuelled nationalist sentiment and set the stage for future increased involvement by the superpowers.

To start, Carter says outright what his vision for America was: “...but America does want to be the world's peacemaker.” Furthermore, Carter continues with his vision for America’s peace-seeking foreign policy. He does this by talking about SALT, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks: “The purpose of SALT, then as now, is not to gain a unilateral advantage for either nation, but to protect the security of both nations, to reverse the costly and dangerous momentum of the nuclear arms race, to preserve a stable balance of nuclear forces, and to demonstrate to a concerned world that we are determined to help preserve the peace.” By speaking about the importance of the SALT, Carter effectively laid out what his plan was to secure peace amongst nuclear-armed nations. However, at the same time, President Carter made sure to lay out what America wanted to achieve in the immediate short-term regarding foreign policy: “Our firm commitment to Israel's survival and security is rooted in our deepest convictions and in our knowledge of the strategic importance to our own Nation of a stable Middle East.” As written before, it was strategically important to the United States that they maintain the sovereignty of Israel. Specifically, after failing to intervene in China during the uprising of the KMT, it

Since his presidency did not begin with Israel becoming a state, his focus was greatly adjusted and at first there was a noticeable decline in aid and care for Israel’s wellbeing. Israel was also rather vulnerable during this time, due to the fact that there more Jewish refugees entering Israel from surrounding Arab states. President Eisenhower convincingly proved that America had the ability to influence Israel in a good way, although his presidency ended with the Middle East still in a state of war. During Eisenhower’s administration, there were two successful incidents of U.S. management of Israel and in both circumstances, Eisenhower avoided the political compulsions of America’s attachment to Israel and instead forced the Israelis to act upon principle. Unfortunately, his presidency was the last to give Israel undivided focus, for the ones to follow were absorbed in other affairs and did not provide the same constructive support.

Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make

During the years of post-9/11, Americans have started to become wary of non-Americans in their home land of the fear of another terrorist attacks. The 9/11 attacks have changed American views on the muslims and on the Middle East. It also had made security regulation more strict and discriminatory. Since post-9/11, Americans the wrong impression of the Middle East and have negative views of it and also have stereotype of it as well.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an informative comparison between the constitution of the United States and that of Israel. Although Israel does not have an official constitution in place, there are sets of basic laws and rules that will be used to draw conclusions about how they address human rights, government power and structure, and how this may affect the allied relationship with the United states. There is a rather controversial debate regarding the importance of such an ally which brings into question the benefits of large sums of financial aid sent to Israel on a yearly basis. While the United States continues the quest for worldwide democracy, many argue that funding Israel is essential for maintaining a positive

Iran and the United States are frigid bedfellows indeed. For the last thirty-seven years, these two cultures dogmatically opposed each other philosophically and theologically. To this day, the two countries monitor the other’s actions with suspicion and disdain. The United States accuses Iran’s Islamic theocracy of state sponsored terrorism and proliferation of nuclear materials with the intent of use against Israel. Iran by contrast sees the United States as an aggressive interloper driven by a lust for fossil fuel hegemony and diametrically opposed to Iran’s own national interests. Truly a match made in heaven.

“In term of foreign policy, he is indecisive” –Bui, 36. According to what he said, Mr. Obama often gives late decisions. He is not good at dealing with other countries. Ukraine and Eastern Sea are one of the obvious proofs. China and Russia have been very daring lately; America is losing respect in both term of economy and military. Israel is another country to concern. Imagine if there is no Israel, all those Middle Eastern countries are sharing the same belief. They will eventually team up, create their own Alliance and only God knows what they can do with that. The world doesn’t need another version of Germany in World War 2. According to Jenifer Rubin from The Washington Post, in an article she said “President Obama gave an interview in which he viciously attacked Israel, suggesting that Israel was the cause of the peace process failure, that the United States could no longer protect Israel if the peace process failed”. Mr. Obama should consider that keeping Israel strong is a good thing to do right now. A strong Israel means that Middle East is unstable. Israel’s neighbor countries will keep being suspicious in every moves Israel made. They will be busy dealing with each other. In another word, it will prevent them to unify.

When comparing the four articles we had found, we noticed that though they are presenting the same information of the Iran nuclear deal, but they seem to tell it in separate ways. The articles come from two American papers (one Liberal, Washington Post, and one Conservative, Washington Times), a British newspaper (The Guardian), and an Iranian paper (the Tehran Times). In the sense of discussing the big facts of the story itself, all four papers refer to the deal as either “historic” or “landmark,” which could be considered a neutral stance since it could mean either the good or bad connotations of the words. All four also discuss Israel’s concerns, though some emphasize it more than others. Mention of President Obama’s plan to veto any legislation that is created to overturn the deal is also in all four. Also discussed are the Iranian centrifuges, if only just mentioned, they are stated in all papers. Another trait that the articles have in common is that their sources seem to be press releases and direct quotes about the deal. From that simplification alone, they may seem similar, but there are some huge differences when it comes to the framing of this story.

Constructivists explain USA-Israel relation by referring to ‘enduring identification’ between these two states. Israel is the only democracy in ME and thus becomes fellow democracy for USA in ME. Following 9/11 attack and securitization of Islamic terrorism by USA, has further strengthen the connection with Israel as oppose to mistrust for Arab world. Besides, a fraction of USA citizens, essentially fundamental Christians believes in Christian Zionism. According to them creation of Israel relates to Biblical prophecy. Thus they feel that Israel as a Jew state must be protected at any cost. However, if Israel acquires US support for democracy, there are many other countries in the world that practice democracy but none of them enjoy USA’s support like Israel. Besides, Israel’s democratic practice contradicts with core American liberal values. When liberal values suggest for equal rights, Israel has very differential attitude to Palestinians. Though, constructivists find link between these two countries fighting war on terror together, but many argue that USA has terrorist attack like 9/11 partly because of its relation with Israel. Besides, amongst US citizen percentage of fundamental Christians who share Christian-Zionism is negligible. Thus explaining the relation through political and religious connection may not be very logical.

The idea of ?special relationships? between two countries has been used throughout history to describe the relations between the United States and various other countries. Winston Churchill popularized the term in his ?Iron Curtain? speech in 1946, describing the ties between the United States and Great Britain as a ?special relationship.? Any number of diplomatic alliances and relationships could be considered a special relationship; however politicians and scholars tend to agree that the most special relationship in the international system is the one that exists between the United States and Israel. President Jimmy Carter once noted that ?we have a special relationship with Israel. It?s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number-one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist.? The nature of such a

On Nov. 14, 1979, President Carter declared an emergency freezing Iranian Assets in response the hostage crises

Still, Iran continuously denies that its nuclear objectives are to construct atomic weapons, but a large majority of the international community remains skeptical to the legitimacy of this claim due to the secrecy of Iran’s productions and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA on several notable occasions. However, in defense over the concerns pertaining to the secrecy of Iran’s program, Iran’s former ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Javad Zarif, claims Western tension and dwindling support for Iran’s early nuclear energy programs forced Tehran with no choice but to continue their nuclear activities in a discreet matter. Zarif wrote in Colombia University’s Journal of International Affairs, “To avoid the

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been an issue that definitely defined The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel is an ally of the U.S. that receives a lot of foreign aid from the states. It’s a priority for the U.S. to protect Israel so it’s obvious where its’ loyalty lies. Israel also has good relations with Egypt; Egypt is crucial to the security of Israel, so that makes them an automatic ally that receives quite a bit of funds as well. It’s an on-going issue that makes pointing out allies clear as well as seeing who the top