Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:
Should the US Make Peace with Iran?
PROS: Yes, the US should make peace with Iran because. . .
- Iran can be a source of partnership in fostering peace in the greater Middle East region.
- Iran offers a renewed hope in bridging the gap between the Arabs and the need for supporting extremist as well as terrorism activities.
- Peace between the two countries will facilitate greater cooperation and development for the nationals.
- Iran will enhance democracy and promote justice to its people.
- Peace between the two countries can avert international strife among supporting countries.
CONS: No, the US should not make peace with Iran because. . .
- Iran is a threat to the US.
- Peace deal between the two countries will increase the extremism and terrorist activities.
- Uproar on more countries to embody nuclear activities will be heightened.
- Iran’s stance on human rights, freedom, and democracy is detrimental.
- Evidential support suggests lack of trust in ensuring the peace between the two countries.
Introduction
Iran as an Arabic nation from the Middle East has been involved in differential spats between it and the United States of America. The division between the two countries of matters of diplomacy, security issues, nuclear activities, human rights actualization, and democracy hails from a while back. The United States has been clear in regards to the support attributed to terrorism and extremism activities as evidenced by the actions that followed the twin bombings in New York in 2001. Subsequent declaration of War on Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction by the US, as witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan led to increased diplomatic tension between the Middle East countries and the reigning super power. However, as Iran has stepped up its efforts in acquisition of nuclear power capabilities, diplomatic ties, and discussions on reaching at a truce have been fronted. Most individuals on both divides are divided on either reaching a peace deal or not of the idea. United States should not make peace with Iran.
Discussion
Proponents of the peace between Iran and the United States point to the possibility of it being a source to foster peace in the greater Middle East region. Among the Arab states, Iran posses an unraveled might and position in the League of Nations in determination of factors that affect the region (Khan 1). Thus, other countries rely on its support and influence as regards the international approach towards diplomacy. Therefore, by the US making peace with Iran, peace within the regional states can be ensured in an easier way as compared to direct dealing of individual countries. However, it poses a potent risk all together.
By the US engaging through a peace deal with Iran, more nations in the region will take up the steps followed by the precedence. Tullock (14) argues that once a deal is signed between the two, other nations will be compelled to increase their advent for nuclear possession and extremist behaviors to reach an equal footing like Iran. Such a move would bring disruption in the maintenance of world peace, order, and social status of all the nations due to unwanted uncertainty. The peace agreement between the countries would cause unsolicited forms of backlash from other nations in the first world, as they would replicate similar instances for their personal gains.
One of the key pointers towards achievement of peace between the United States and Iran would be the gap between Arabs and the support towards the extremist groups and terrorist activities. In terms of dialogue and negotiations, agreement of a peace deal between the two countries would encourage other like-minded western nations into fostering unity as well as dealing with security issues in their independent states and represented Arab world (Greenhill 14). In turn, more understanding and reduction of perception towards religion in security matters would be increased. However, on the counter-argument of the stance towards a peace deal, heightened terrorism fears and extremist threats would be on the upsurge at a faster rate.
United States as a superpower and the world’s watchdog on matters of security cannot afford reaching a peace deal between it and Iran. Iran has supported various terrorist groups and sectarian propagators throughout the Arab world over the years, as retaliation towards the views expressed by the west. Yadlin and Golov (22) note that by condoning the terms and practicability of the peace deal, other uprisings and sectarian groups will increase their extremist behaviors and tolerance to terrorism throughout the world as a show of solidarity towards the latter. In this, the world order and maintenance of security concerns as well as thwarting threats will be diminished. Public acclaim of the US will be in disregard.
A peace agreement between the United States can open up increased development and cooperation between the two states as opposed to the status quo. Iran is a diverse nation with vast reserves of natural oil reserves and minerals throughout its possession. On the other hand, the United States is always the frontrunner in terms of technology, development features, and majority of the first world civilization. Cooperation can be attained through trading and exchange of valuable commodities between the two nations. It will also enhance the image of the US to the Arab World as a friendly and equal partner (Diamond and Plattner 36). However, such an agreement between the two countries poses risk both at national and international level.
Peace deal between the two countries poses a risk to the United States, since Iran is a threat. After the events of New York bombings in 2001, security of the United States was exposed to the world scene. The vulnerability of humanity towards terrorism activity was lauded by the propagandist and anti-peace reformists from Arab world (Brynen 27). Subsequent actions towards countries like Iraq and Afghanistan created more enmity towards the US. With loss of lives, property and infrastructure contained in war against terrorism, several groups, and leader from the regions have rendered support of terrorism. A peace deal would increase the susceptibility of the United States towards such activities, as Iran is a threat.
Fundamental democracy within Iran does not support or enhance the view towards availing human rights to all the people at all times. By obtaining a peace deal between the United States and Iran, the latter would be compelled to improve on its human rights record of accomplishment in order to conform to the former’s image on the international stage. Therefore, revolution towards the democracy and promotional values of humanitarian nature would be on the ascent. Plattner (14) is of the idea that the United States would benefit from the agreement in reducing the hostility harbored between the two countries. Several issues on humanitarian values would be disputed towards the peace agreement between the two countries.
An agreement on peace between the US and Iran would symbolize the tolerance of the latter on demeaning the values of humanity as entailed by the former country. Iran’s proven record of humanitarian values has been a subject of international scrutiny due to the levels of oppression, non-democratic conventions, and abuse of rights (Wexler 8). In addition, the country’s support of extremist groups and terrorism activities in the world would be an unwelcome gesture to the world’s superpower and security watchdog. Other nations from the idealistic support of the US would rescind their positions and oppose such a move. It would reverse the gains made by fighting for protection of life and humanitarian values.
The international community has raised concerns on the increased activities of the nuclear program perpetrated by Iran. The United States should not at any given time propose and actualize any peace agreement with the country. By having peace with it, other countries will seek measures to increase their claim for nuclear possession and activities. Dalacoura (21) points that once such an agreement is in place, worldwide drive for personalization of the nuclear heads and ammunition can cause instability. There will be no available jurisdiction in control measures of their use. It could eventually build up into formation of a possible third world war. Currently, jurisdiction is enabled in selected countries for stability.
In equal measure, a peace agreement cannot be achieved due to the trust issues surrounding the partner country. Growing opposition seeks to derail any improvement of security and freedom from terrorism activities. All the other first world countries will seek to improve and strengthen their resolve in nuclear activities (McGregor 7). The divided nature of proponents and opponents of the peace agreement will increase fuelled tensions in the world. Instability and loss of lives, property, and erosion of humanitarian values can all result from the opposition arms. In addition, the rejection of a peace agreement between the two countries by US will increase its stature towards fight against terrorism. Similarly, even the emergent proponents would be influenced on averting increased attacks.
Conclusion
United States should not make peace with Iran. By the US engaging through a peace deal with Iran, more
nations in the region will take up the steps followed by the precedence. By
condoning the terms and practicability of the peace deal, other uprisings and
sectarian groups will increase their extremist behaviors and tolerance to
terrorism throughout the world as a show of solidarity towards the latter.
Increased perpetration of disregard for humanitarian rights and oppression will
take precedence. More importantly, the world order and maintenance of security
concerns as well as thwarting threats will be diminished. Public acclaim of the
US
will be in disregard.
Works Cited:
Brynen, Rex. Beyond the Arab Spring: Authoritarianism & Democratization in the Arab World. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2012. Print.
Dalacoura, Katerina. “US Democracy Promotion in the Arab Middle East since 11 September 2001.” International Affairs Journal, 1 (2007): 19-31. Print.
Diamond, Larry J, and Marc F. Plattner. Democratization and Authoritarianism in the Arab World. , 2014. Print.
Greenhill, Kelly M. Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2010. Print.
Khan, Saira. Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Protracted Conflict and Proliferation. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.
McGregor, Tom. “Analysis of US-Iran peace.” Foreign Policy Journal, 1. (2014): 1-9. Print.
Plattner, Mary. “Is Democracy in decline?” Journal of Democracy, 2.1 (2013): 11-23. Print.
Tullock, Gordon. American Foreign Affairs: A Compact History. Singapore: World Scientific, 2009. Print.
Wexler, Robert. “Israel and Iran: America’s Dilemma.” World Affairs Journal, 1.1 (2014): 1-17. Print.
Yadlin, Amos and Avner, Golov. “A Nuclear Deal Israel Could Live With.” Foreign Relations Council, 1 (2015): 1-3. Print.