Recently, President Trump went against the Iran Nuclear Deal, which is causing significant controversy across the world of international relations.
Many of the leaders of the Western world are speaking out against Trump. Those running the U.K., Germany and France claim that “the world is a safer place” as a result of the Iran deal. The Australian government also opposed the withdrawal from the Iran deal.
The Iran Nuclear Deal was reached in 2015 as a means of reducing Iran’s nuclear threat and uranium enrichment capacity, while in return lifting the impactful economic sanctions that Iran had experienced for so long. Currently, Trump seeks to harm Iran in an economic sense. This is once again opposed to the remainder of Western leaders who are working with Iran in order to ensure the “continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people.”
Trump pulling out of the Iran deal signals a large number of implications. These include the re-establishment of sanctions against the Iranian oil industry and the banking sector. These have previously had an incredibly adverse impact on Iran’s oil exports, with the Iran Deal meaning that Iran’s oil exports were more than doubled, which could now be reversed.
This will therefore not only cause severe impacts on the Iranian economy, but also the global economy, particularly the European one. This has caused European economic leaders to want to remove the EU from the sanctions, or even just some European companies. There are concerns that this could cause more conflict than it seeks to avoid.
This is especially as a mini trade war could potentially break out amongst NATO allies, which will now exist on top of trying to mitigate the security threats that Iran poses. This is as Iran will now seek to further grow their uranium enrichment program and potentially nuclear weapons. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani is now being looked upon as a central decision maker not just for Iran, or even just the Middle East, but the global economic community.
The decision by Trump is a highly controversial one. In a sense, it demonstrates a lack of trust that Iran will abide by the rulings of the Nuclear Deal, and that it, therefore, makes those rulings irrelevant. It clearly indicates that the United States is not willing to move on with Iran and instead seeks to oppose them in a non-military fashion.
As an alternative to military intervention, it may seem like an alright idea. However, just as is important to consider in the case of countries such as North Korea, the sanctions do impact innocent people within that country. Obviously, war does the same, and arguably with a larger impact, but sanctions are most likely not the best option. This is especially true as it further degrades the economic quality of the rest of the world. Furthermore, this decision could potentially incite further conflict in the region.
I feel as though moments such as these indicate that the world needs to work beyond simply looking at globalization as an economic option and that more isolationist policies, particularly regarding economics, could be a better way of conducting the global economy. This means that innocent people in Iran, for example, would not have to face the economic impacts of The White House, or that multi-lateral war which would not be catalyzed as a result of the decision of one country. Trying to demonstrate the potentially negative impacts of globalization using the Iran Deal as an example may seem unconventional, but I feel as though it makes much sense.
Therefore, this is a highly complex and multifaceted issue that requires a high degree of analysis and critical thinking. The solutions to issues such as these are never clear and often there is not one ideal answer. However, the perfect option may have to be put aside at the expense of one that is simply the best option.