The Iran Nuclear Deal and Liberalism
The lens of liberalism can offer a better understanding of international interactions as well as a view into the rationale behind certain actions. The Iran Nuclear Deal, in particular, lends itself to intense observation of the complex relations between states and international regimes that play a part in its implementation. Liberalism is best demonstrated by those who believe “cooperation and peaceful international behaviors are…possible and desirable” (Jackson par. 4). The headlining participants in the Iran Nuclear Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United States, and Iran, all exhibited actions they believed would best constitute peace and cooperation. These actors in the international system met to secure the safety of individuals and prevent the accumulation of Iran’s uranium, which the other actors believed could potentially lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. In liberal terms, governments exist to maintain the security and safety of individuals; the Iran Deal is a prime example of governments and international organizations working together to perpetuate the well-being of their citizens.
In examining how the Iran Nuclear Deal fits into the ideals and optimism laid out in liberalism, the role of the IAEA lends itself to the best observation. The IAEA’s role is primarily to execute the stipulations organized in the deal; that is, to monitor the centrifuges still in use (Iran will go from having 20,000 active centrifuges to 6,104 under the Iran Nuclear Deal) and to oversee the importation of uranium into the country for energy uses (Peralta par. 8). A liberal analyst would examine the IAEA to be an international regime responsible for facilitating the actions of states in an anarchic international system. In this case, the IAEA is being used to keep the actions of Iran in line with the specifications of the deal and, to an extent, check the cooperation and international peace between Iran and the rest of the international system. Liberals believe that international relations will hopefully lead to peaceful cooperation among all the actors. In this light, the IAEA’s role is directly related to the perpetuation of this peaceful cooperation. In fact, the mission statement of the IAEA is “…in planning for and using nuclear science and technology for various peaceful purposes, including the generation of electricity, and facilitates the transfer of such technology and knowledge in a sustainable manner…” (The IAEA Mission Statement, par. 2). However, the IAEA is not the only participant in this particular interaction whose involvement was key to the continuation of global collaboration.
The United States’ involvement in the Iran Nuclear Deal, while drastically different from that of the IAEA, fits into a similar box for cause and outcome. Perhaps one of the most important actors in the Iran Nuclear Deal, the United States’ rationale was based, like the IAEA, in the goal of a nonviolent liaison. In liberal terms, their participation is a chief example of hegemonic dominance in the international system and how this propagates the successful interaction between states. Many people, including Tom Collina, a policy director at Ploughshares Fund, an organization that heavily supported the deal, believe that without the creation of the Iran Nuclear Deal, policymakers would have been jeopardizing the security of the international system, Tom Collina says that this interaction is “…a very solid agreement with Iran that…could have gotten rejected in a way that would have been very detrimental for [the] US and global security.” (Roberts par. 6). Liberals believe that the international system is supported by economic interdependence, and it is oftentimes hegemons, like the United States, that facilitate interstate communications. In the Iran Nuclear Deal, the United States acted both as a catalyst and an inhibitor in their role of bringing many key players to the proverbial table, but then upheld the pacific interactions that were sought after in this deal. However, the United States is not the only state whose role was crucial in the promulgation of the nuclear deal and global collaboration.
An analysis of the Iran Nuclear Deal would be incomplete without an in-depth look at the most noteworthy participant: Iran. In the interest of securing peace in the region, Iran agreed to the many provisions laid out in the deal between Iran and many other nations, including the aforementioned hegemon, the United States. In fact, Iran has “…committed to ‘extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection’” and has, in addition, agreed to “…implement the Additional Protocol to their IAEA Safeguards, which should allow inspectors to access any site anywhere in the country they deem suspicious.” (Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details par. 14–16). Iran found interest in the security that this deal offers and, despite hindering their nuclear energy program, has agreed to the stipulations so that the continuation of global cooperation can be attained and to prevent the possibility of nuclear proliferation. Moreover, Iran consented to extreme watch by an international organization in order to sustain the security of its citizens and citizens around the world. Liberals, believing that peaceful interactions among nations is not only possible, but preferred, would likely see Iran’s participation as proof of peaceful interactions in the interest of keeping the safety of individuals from a more violent conflict. From an objective standpoint, Iran ignored its self-interest and instead agreed to terms that benefitted more than just itself.
The Iran Nuclear Deal lends itself to intensive study in the realm of liberal theory for the variety of actors working together to aid the continuation of global security and interactions. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States, and Iran all gathered to negotiate a deal that, to the liberal thinker, had its roots in the purpose of cooperation and peaceful international communications. From the international regime that the IAEA maintains, and the security the United States sought, to the many stipulations that Iran agreed to, the Iran Nuclear Deal sets a precedent for international dealings. The Iran Nuclear Deal has “[brought] to an end a 12-year standoff that had threatened to trigger a new war in the Middle East, potentially marking the beginning of a new era in relations between Iran and the west.” (Iranians par. 1). This so-called new era was pieced together by many different states, all acting under the greater idea of liberalism and the peaceful interactions it hopes to secure.
Works Cited
“The IAEA Mission Statement.” The International Atomic Energy Agency. The International Atomic Energy Agency. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
“Iran Nuclear Deal: Key Details.” BBC News. BBC News Services, 16 Jan. 2016. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
“Iranians: How Do You Feel about the ‘landmark’ Nuclear Deal?” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 14 July 2015. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Jackson, Patrick. “Theories of International Relations.” A Brief History of U.S. Diplomacy. American University, The School of International Service. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.\
Peralta, Eyder. “6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal.” NPR. National Public Radio, 14 July 2015. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Roberts, William. “Dust Settles on US Struggle over Iran Nuclear Deal.” Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 4 Mar. 2016
Written 3 March 2016
