Weapons of Mass Destruction—the bombs powerful enough to erase a city in a matter of seconds, the cause of sickening fatal harm to victims, and the bringers of severe environmental radiation contamination, they are the focus of this ethical dilemma. Iran has recently revealed its potential to amass its own arsenal joining the nine other nations with nuclear weapons technology. However, those plans changed in 2015 with the signing of the historic Iran Deal. The agreement, signed by the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom eliminated Iran’s ability to develop or make any type of nuclear bomb through severe restrictions. In exchange, the punishing economic sanction imposed on Iran in efforts to stop uranium enrichment were lifted. The controversial deal has often been cited as one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration has recently been contested by the Trump administration. This paper will explain the ethical dilemma of the Iran deal and describe why the United States should continue to support the international agreement. To do so, I will first give background on the topic, then list the options the US government can take, give multiple perspectives, describe the pros and cons of those options, list the ethical concerns, and finally give my personal analysis and recommendations.
To understand
…show more content…
One may argue that because the US is choosing to continue its support of the Iran Deal there is no harm done at all because both parties are mutually benefitting in one way or another. However, another viewpoint may insist that there is harm done by ignoring other arguably more pressing issues like destabilization in the Middle East over a controversial deal. But it is of my opinion that the Nuclear Deal ethically serves the greatest good for the greatest many by protecting millions from a potential nuclear