Ever since the 1970s, Iran has been developing its own nuclear program. In its efforts to stop a potential nuclear disaster, the United States have imposed an embargo on selling aircraft and repair parts to Iranian airline companies, but other sanctions entailing economic, scientific and military related assistance have been imposed in 1984.
It’s no secret to anyone that Iran wants these sanctions removed, but what ‘s indeed surprising is that Obama is willing to lift the ban, provided Iran signs the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In other words, if Iran promises not to go through with its intentions of developing a nuclear arsenal of weapons in its back yard, then Obama will lift the financial sanctions.
But now, should we really trust Iran?
Obama’s predecessor, George W Bush strongly criticizes Obama’s foreign policy move. Saudi Arabia and Israel believe that lifting the ban would equal giving the Iran the greenlight to developing their own nuclear warheads, no matter if it pledges reducing its uranium centrifuges to 5,000, not enriching uranium, being transparent and being constantly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or not.
Obama’s supporters state that without no deal in sight, the threat imposed by such a potential disaster is much bigger.
In a statement issued by the White House, Obama declared that:
If this framework leads to the final deal, it would make our country, allies and the world safer”. Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, further stated: “We are here because we believe a deal can be done. But it has to be a deal which puts the bomb beyond Iran’s reach. There can’t be any compromise about that.”
Bush, on the other hand strongly disagrees. Not having condemned Obama’s actions up until now, the former president implied that signing the nuclear agreement with Iran is a sign of weakness shown by Obama, which will allow the new face of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani to talk Iran’s way into signing and complying with the terms of the agreement for a very short time.
Iran will benefit from the economic and military restoration and being “allowed” to secretly forge new weapons of mass destruction: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”
Obama, however, states that a close monitoring will be in place, as the IAEA inspectors will constantly verify whether or not IRAN is complying with its part of the deal. In addition, while Iran wishes for the sanctions to come off on the same day that the agreement is signed, America refuses, stating that economic sanctions will be lifted once Iran implements a verifiable system that will show a great reduction in their use of fissile materials.
While Obama is more of a pacifist, Bush seems to be more of a warrior: “In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it.” he said. “You gotta kill em”, also referring to Obama withdrawal of the troops in Irak and simply voicing threats against Syria intentions of using the biochemical warfare in the form of the sarin gas.
Whilst we are busy focusing on Obama Vs Bush, Israel and Saudi Arabia became closer and forged a strategic alliance due to the same belief expressed by Bush, alliance which aims to create a protective barrier against a potential nuclear attack launched by Iran. One Israeli representative declared the following:
“Necessity creates alliances. The necessity for us and the Saudis in particular – as well as the Gulf states, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan and Egypt – is to be on our guard against Iran, which is an aggressive, expansionist power. We think the nuclear deal that the Iranians may persuade the international community to sign would make all of us vulnerable in this region, and so co-operation makes sense.”
Then again, there is another factor to consider: Iran and Russia are allies. In the eventuality of Iran developing atomic bombs, Russia could also be launching an attack against the USA, as it previously stated, when the US interfered in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but this is a completely different story.
Which approach do you think is better: Obama’s or Bush’s? State your mind in the comments section bellow.