Opinion: The Iran deal and the Trump administration Opinion: The Iran deal and the Trump administration
BY ANNABELLE ROSA President Donald Trump is notorious for his startling assertions and overall animosity for his predecessor, former President Barack Obama. In recent... Opinion: The Iran deal and the Trump administration


President Donald Trump is notorious for his startling assertions and overall animosity for his predecessor, former President Barack Obama. In recent history, we have seen his attempts to eradicate anything of or pertaining to the Obama administration.

One of Trump’s greatest grievances happened to be the Iran deal. The deal itself was a framework that was agreed upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the permanent members of the United Nations council (i.e. the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France). The deal stated that Iran would redesign, convert and reduce its nuclear weaponry. It also called for an additional protocol which would lift all nuclear-related economic sanctions (which would free up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue and frozen assets). There was also a joint statement which took into account enrichment, reprocessing, monitoring and more sanctions.

However, it does have certain pitfalls. The deal does not prevent Iran from testing ballistic missiles and  some portions of the deal are not permanent (i.e. Expiration dates on when Iran can utilize nuclear weaponry once more).

The agreement does require Iran to receive a certain amount of money. In a statement from Trump, he noted that “we give $159 billion, we get nothing.” Visibly, this seemed to be something which greatly perturbed the president. Despite attempting to be the champion of the average Joe, Trump is a businessman at heart and he doesn’t seem to enjoy the loss of large sums of money to his alleged “rivals.”

Ultimately, the deal is a faulty solution and Iran hasn’t necessarily lived up to their end of the proverbial bargain, but it is a solution nonetheless. Obama was a huge advocate for the plan for a single reason: to ensure that the nation remained safe from nuclear warfare if only for a short time.

With Trump’s visible disdain for anything Obama supported, it’s not incredibly astonishing that he would go on to make his next decision.

On Friday, October 13, Trump declared that he would not certify the Iran Deal which would result in the matter being “solved” by two Republican Senators: Bob Corker and Tom Cotton.

The two gentlemen attempted to draft a legislation in order to “resolve” the matter, yet there happened to be an inverse effect. As a result of the formation of this new legislature, should it be passed, Iran would suffer the resurgence of U.S. sanctions due to many factors including testing a ballistic missile.

“When something is so critical to the wellbeing of multiple nations, we can’t just instantaneously remove a deal without contemplating the ramifications,” sophomore Nicolas Montesano said.

Ethically speaking, as much as an organized group of powers can attempt to ensure that another country does not attempt to wage nuclear war, they can’t control the other country’s every action. Such behaviors might be considered some form of oppression or a virtual ruling.

“The Trump administration might be talking about wanting to renegotiate the deal, but they are crazy if they think it’s going to happen – it isn’t,” senior Bruce Glasserman said. “The five other world powers don’t have the authority to push Iran into new concessions, the Iranians are not going to renegotiate, and this is all assuming that the five other world powers do want to renegotiate, which is not the case, as has been made clear by their many clear statements.”

We cannot subject a whole nation, nay a whole world, to an ill-thought-out plan formed on the whims of a president and the hasty words of his colleagues that were simply meant to appease him.

Trump himself appears to be actively opposed to the deal, going so far as to accuse Cocker of supporting Obama’s position on the Iran Deal. Cocker, of course, was not in favor of the previous President’s beliefs, however, this still managed to cause a bit of a ruckus as it shows dissension within a supposedly well oiled machine (the GOP and or Grand Old Party). As Lincoln stated, “United we stand, divided we fall.” As can be seen, this new legislation would encourage a sort of unnecessary division between the U.S. and the other five nations (including Iran) that are associated with the original Iran Deal.

Trump went on to state that Iran was aiding Al Qaeda thus furthering his point that the deal was obsolete. He isn’t incorrect nor is he entirely right. Though Iran did harbor certain Al Qaeda members (i.e. Osama Bin Laden’s son), there eventually was a dispute within the country about these radical individuals and there were even a few arrests.

“I understand where he’s coming from under the retaliation,” junior Abbas Jaffer said. “That he thinks it’s unnecessary and could be helping terrorism, but only a bit. I don’t think he’s justified. We need our foreign allies and so far Trump hasn’t been doing a great job of keeping them.”

At the end of the day, it just seems incredibly unethical to put such an absurd legislation into effect.