Proponents of the Iran deal have argued that ending sanctions has some unfortunate consequences, but the deal has limited goals and is in no way trying to fix all of the problems in the US-Iran relations. Trying to fix all the problems at once when there are so many, and we have such a long complex history with Iran is doomed to fail. They argue that critics are asking for too much and even thou the deal isn't perfect we should settle for best deal we can get. This is a reasonable argument on their side, but I would argue that critics aren't asking for a perfect deal just a better deal. The deal isn't the best deal we could get as is shown by letting Iran keep their nuclear infrastructure and failing to punish them for past cheating and lying to the IAEA
Originally removing their nuclear infrastructure was on the agenda, with all the five permanent members of the security council and Germany say it had be dismantled. unfortunately, this was dropped along the way and didn't get into the deal. As it stands the deal doesn't stop Iran from enriching uranium as initially suggested. There are two possible ways for them to violate the agreement
…show more content…
First, they could do a "break-out" where they kick inspectors out and begins to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Second and more likely they do a break-out but in secret what is called a sneak-out. In a sneak-out they secretly enrich uranium to weapons grade but violate the agreement in small ways as to avoid punishment. Unfortunately, if they were to do a sneak-out there is nothing we could do because to reintroduce the sanctions would require the United Nations Security Council approval. Getting Security Council approval would only happen if Iran did a major violation of the agreement and maybe not even then because of Iran's close relationship with