Trump’s withdrawal from Iran Deal will have dire consequences
President Donald Trump recently announced the United States will be withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal and will be reapplying economic sanctions on May 8. This decision came four days before Trump had to make a decision to either renew the deal or to withdraw.
Such a move would have been a shock, but it is hard to be surprised when Trump has been very critical of the deal since its inception. Yet with this move, we have reached a point of no return. Our future with Iran is now fairly apparent, with nothing more for us to do than to examine the fallout that this withdrawal has caused us.
But before we do that, let’s have a little history on Iran. In the 50’s, Iran elected Prime Minister Mossadegh. He swiftly began to reform the country, with one the reforms being the nationalization of the oil industry so Iran could seize its profits and not American and British oil companies. America, however, didn’t like that. So America staged a coup against Mossadegh and successfully installed a Shah in his place. Now, the Shah was incredibly unpopular as he was a monarch that overthrew a democracy, which made liberals and moderates mad, and forced western values and practices on to the populace, which made Muslim conservatives mad. So fast forward to 1979, a revolution happens and the Shah’s government is toppled and an Islamic Republic is installed with a very anti-American stance (gee I wonder why). So when Iran then announced that they would be continuing their nuclear energy program, fears sprung that they would be building a nuclear bomb, so the entire west sanctioned them, crippling the country economically.
So, now that that’s covered, let’s go in to what the deal did and what we are pulling out of. First, it got rid of most of the sanctions placed on Iran, which has allowed for the nation’s economy to grow. But in exchange for that, among other tight regulations, Iran is not allowed to enrich Uranium to the point where it could be used in a nuclear bomb. All of those are really good things. And guess what? We just lost all those benefits.
Well, the thing is, the deal might not be lost just yet. All of the European countries that were also in the deal are going to try and do their best to keep the deal afloat without America. This means that the only sanctions Iran will have to face are from the US, and they still can’t enrich Uranium enough to make a bomb. So all’s well that end well right? Well, the other thing is, that doesn’t really matter. The real consequence from this is not that Iran will be crippled economically again, but that Iran will be crippled as a whole country.
The reason the deal was able to commence in the first place is because Iran’s current government is moderate and open to working with the West. President Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s current president, hoped the deal would free Iran from hardship and allow the country to be less isolated in world politics. Such a moderate viewpoint lost its legitimacy because of Trump’s actions. Now Iran knows they can’t trust the US anymore. The moderate government has reverted back to anti-US fervor so hard that a US flag was burned in the Majlis (Iran’s legislative body).
The US is no better when it comes to anti-Iran sentiments. National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have both expressed wishes to go to war with Iran. Right now, we are reaching incredible levels of tension between the US and Iran. There is only one way it will end.
Iran cannot compete with America’s military. Not only that, when war breaks out, the US will have its strong allies, many of whom are in the Iran Deal, join them against the new menace. Iran as we know it will be wiped off the map; it’d just be another conquest in the American Empire’s quest for influence. And unless things are worked out with Iran, the Iran as we know it will be gone, and in its place another oppressive puppet Shah will stand, and Iran’s slow but steady turn towards democracy will be halted.
So get ready College Board. If things don’t change soon, you’ll have to start thinking of a country to replace Iran.
Liam Sweeney is a senior at Metea Valley and the Perspectives Editor for the school magazine. He is a political independent, as...
Life • Sep 28, 2018 at 6:30 pm
Funny how everyone assumed that the number one source of state sponsored terrorism (Iran) would honor the deal…
Corey Foster • May 17, 2018 at 12:39 pm
This article has quite a bit of fear mongering in it, I’ll be straight with you all. While I don’t think it’s rooted in hatred of Trump as others may believe, I do believe it is rooted in the belief that the US is wrong to pull out of this deal, presumably because of public image and, to an extent, war. Let me put it this way; the only countries who’ve even approached the US’ level of power (Russia and China) never declared war on us. Iran would never be so stupid.
Argument Analyst • May 16, 2018 at 8:36 pm
As a person who often reads Metea Media’s articles, I appreciate reading an article more when the article maintains a formal diction throughout the passage. The formal diction is used more often in news articles with intentions to inform and persuade their viewing audience. I understand that the creators of Metea Media enjoy the formal diction as well, seeing that Metea Media encourages writers to adhere to the AP Style, seen in their editorial policy by stating that “The Stampede and Metea Media follow the AP Stylebook with the addition of the Oxford comma.” (1)
Unfortunately, Sweeney often strays from the AP Style, using contractions such as “it’s” and “doesn’t” which should be replaced with “it is” and “does not” respectively. Sweeney also entertains us with an aside of “(gee I wonder why)”, which–besides being grammatically incorrect–relieves him of some of the professional credibility that he had in his previous writing. It should be recognized that lacking a formal diction causes the author to lose some credibility. In order to make a convincing argument, it is a good idea to be consistent with a formal diction.
Diction aside, we shall now take a look into the content of what this article supports. We first are greeted by the history of Iran. The Mossadegh didn’t essentially fully reform the country, but most articles focus in on the idea that Mossadegh wanted to take the potential revenue from their oil. (2) Not only was this first statement vague, but also lands a positive connotation of Mossadegh. After doing some research, I have also uncovered that Britain acted more negatively towards this change, because Mossadegh cut relations with them and declared them to be an enemy. (2) Diving deeper into another article, I believe that Sweeney is mostly correct for what happens through the 50’s. (3)
Moving onto the next paragraph, Sweeney informs us of how the deal was supposed to work. As for the benefits, I am confused on what Sweeney intends by these potential benefits that the United States would have. In terms of peace, the United States would receive some benefits, but Iran is simply draining some finances from the United States because it’s curbing nuclear production, so that could potentially be a reason for why Trump decided to leave the deal. (4) In addition, if the government was so open to Western ideas, then that should mean that conservatives might not support the idea of having a nuclear program, so it could benefit somebody’s political party regardless. As for Iran no longer trusting the United States, this was lost a while ago when Iran realized that essentially everything north and west of them was a Christian majority.
As we proceed, Sweeney uses some very sweet false dichotomy in that there is only one way to go. I might not have read this article thoroughly enough, but we still have yet to know what this path he is alluding to is.
And here it finally is; the conclusion we have all been waiting for. The idea that war will break out. The false dichotomy itself is presented here in the fact that we will either have war or else the fabric of time and space itself will collapse. It is very obvious that there are major differences between Iran and the United States’ army. Iran knows this, so they should very easily recognize the fact that they will definitely lose this war. Sweeney then throws in some buzzwords such as “oppression” and “conquest” for a little spice. The question that I pose is “Why does this ending’s detriments outweigh its benefits?” Iran’s threat would be gone and would also deter other countries from unleashing nuclear warfare.
Naturally, if someone would wish to inform me more on the topic, I am open to take comments from anybody regardless of political orientation. Stay informed.
Argument Analyst • May 16, 2018 at 8:37 pm
Sources:
1-https://adst.org/2015/07/the-coup-against-irans-mohammad-mossadegh/
2-http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/OperationAjax.asp
3-https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-11/iran-hates-america-with-decades-of-justification
4-http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15983302
Sam • May 17, 2018 at 10:37 am
Bro this is the lamest comment I have ever seen on this website.
no • May 16, 2018 at 8:01 pm
The Iran Deal supplied Iran with access to nuclear power at the end of the deal. That’s why Trump backed out of it.
Voice of the Aristocracy • May 16, 2018 at 5:57 pm
Once again this is a factually incorrect article that morphs actual facts just to fit the writer’s misplaced hatred for Trump. The Coup was not put into place so the United States could have more influence it was enacted because Mosaddegh was turning the Iranian government more and more towards a dictatorship. And the Iranian economy has been crippled not because of the US but because Iran can’t seem to keep anything together. The U.S despite the writer’s beliefs is not out to gain more influence. The US is only trying to keep their allies safe as well as the rest of the world. If the United States just left Mosaddegh in power he probably would have armed the country with nuclear weapons and the left them to some terrorist group to get their grubby hands on. So overall the Coup was justified.
Just like the last article this one is just plain wrong factually and is more of an anti-Trump rant then an actual Civilized article. And if the “All Conquering American Empire” Is sooo bad then move to Iran and then we’ll see what you think of the United States then.
P.S I don’t think you understand that at this point how easy it would be for us to glass Iran if they get too rowdy.
I'm just a guy who cares • May 16, 2018 at 11:30 pm
Your assertion about Mosaddegh’s authoritarianism may be true, but why would the US overthrow a guy who was moving his government towards authoritarianism and install a total authoritarian government in its place? Seems kinda dumb honestly. As to your point about “glassing Iran”, you do realize that the power vacuum created after a government falls tends to lead to radicalism, right? Germany after ww1, France after the French Revolution, and Russia after the October Revolution are all instances of where radicalism quickly got out of hand as a result of a lack of government. Suggesting that we destroy Iran would mean facing another USSR or Hitler or maybe something even worse. History has shown that just because you can topple a government, doesn’t mean you should.
Voice of the Aristocracy • May 17, 2018 at 7:47 am
The Difference between Iran now and what it could have been is that if we left Mosaddegh in power he WOULD have been the next Hitler or Stalin. But with access to nuclear weapons. The other difference is that Irans Leader now is not abusing his overabundant power. He is doing what he thinks is best for his nation.
And my statement of Glassing Iran was not a suggestion more as it was a statement to show that we could have done a lot worse than sponsoring a coup.
Conga • May 18, 2018 at 9:09 am
Again, another logical fallacy.
Just because we could’ve done a lot worse to Iran doesn’t mean that the coup was justified in the slightest.
none • May 17, 2018 at 7:14 am
WRONG
ugh • May 17, 2018 at 7:30 am
Insightful
Voice of the Aristocracy • May 17, 2018 at 7:32 am
It’s Charming to see how I can have a Civilized and decent argument with someone these days. If you’re not gonna contribute anything to the argument then i’d reccomend you go back to twitter.
ugh • May 17, 2018 at 7:39 am
I disagree with how you say that the writer hates Trump. While he probably does, the part about an “American Empire” has very little to do with Trump, as the examples he mention happen all the way back in the 1950s.
Your last point is also moot, as nowhere does he say that America is worse than Iran and that he would rather live in Iran. That would be like telling people in China that they should accept their lack of freedom of speech because they are better off than countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, I’d have to disagree with your P.S. I assume you meant to say “gas” instead of “glass,” which in that case, we have to differentiate between the civilians of Iran and the government’s decisions. The entire point is that we shouldn’t have to gas them; violence should always be a last resort. If we can resolve the issue without violence, then we should.
Voice of the Aristocracy • May 17, 2018 at 8:47 am
1. Actually, on the contrary, Most of his recent articles have all mentioned Trump repeatedly in a derogatory way. And his last article I do recall the same issue of warping facts to fit his hatred of Trump.
2. I was not implying that the article says that he Thinks Iran is better than the US. I was making reference to all the times in many of his articles that he refers to the United States in a derogatory sense. Ergo if he thinks the United States is so bad then he should go out into the world and experience other nations and see what he thinks then.
3. I did not mean “Gas” I meant ‘Glass” as in turning the sand into glass through an intense series of bombing. Or by Iran starting a nuclear war then getting “Glassed” by the heat generated by the weapons.
Conga • May 18, 2018 at 8:52 am
Your second point still doesn’t make any sense though. Yes, other nations have their issues, many of which are more severe than the those of the United States, but that doesn’t mean that Americans can’t find faults in their government and push for reform. Your argument only serves to silence criticism of Trump by redirecting attention elsewhere, as if people don’t have the ability to focus on more than one problems in the world at once.
I personally don’t know enough about the situation in Iran to give an informed opinion, but I’ve seen this argument used far too many times by conservatives, whether it be to diminish the credibility of feminist protests, LGBTQ+ rights movements, etc. Stop. It’s counterproductive to the process of bettering society and the world as a whole.
Voice of the Aristocracy • May 18, 2018 at 12:57 pm
Conga It makes plenty of sense if you look at the writers last few articles.
Also, I’m sure you have seen this argument used many times because of you just executed it perfectly against me but in a different context. You are playing into your political opponent’s hands by undermining your own opinion via Hipocracy. You are literally doing what you told me not to do. and if you keep doing so you’ll get nowhere.
Killian Kenny • May 16, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Well, didn’t we all see this coming?
Mama • May 16, 2018 at 10:56 am
Ahhhh Lordy. I don’t condemn murder, so I won’t. We just need him OUT.