JINSA in The Washington Post on Iran Testing the U.S.
Iran is not honoring the deal, so why should we?
By Jennifer Rubin – The Washington Post
The Obama administration first argued that the Iran deal was a good deal and would have a beneficial impact on Iran’s behavior in the region. Then it fessed up that it might not be the best deal but the alternative was war. Then the argument became, well, “Iran is becoming more aggressive and heating up wars, but at least we have the Iran deal to stop its nuke program.” Now we don’t even have that.
Reuters reports:
Iran is not honoring the deal, so why should we?
By Jennifer Rubin – The Washington Post
The Obama administration first argued that the Iran deal was a good deal and would have a beneficial impact on Iran’s behavior in the region. Then it fessed up that it might not be the best deal but the alternative was war. Then the argument became, well, “Iran is becoming more aggressive and heating up wars, but at least we have the Iran deal to stop its nuke program.” Now we don’t even have that.
Reuters reports:
Iran has stopped dismantling centrifuges in two uranium enrichment plants, state media reported on Tuesday, days after conservative lawmakers complained to President Hassan Rouhani that the process was too rushed.
Last week, Iran announced it had begun shutting down inactive centrifuges at the Natanz and Fordow plants under the terms of a deal struck with world powers in July that limits its nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions.
As a preliminary matter, this should surprise no one. The administration signaled again and again that it would give up virtually any bargaining position to achieve a deal, and then as Iran’s lack of compliance during the interim agreement came to light, the administration made excuses on Iran’s behalf. In other words: The Obama team would do anything to get a deal and anything to keep it.
In that light, why would any adversary resist cheating? The agreement has become a farce. Nearly every criticism of the deal has come to fruition. Iran was allowed to “self-inspect.” The prospect of $150 billion in sanctions relief encouraged Iran to step up support for its ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Failing to use leverage when we had it to free Americans held against their will gave Iran a green light to “convict” Post reporter Jason Rezaian and to grab more Americans.
“This is a sign of coming attractions. Iran will continue to play games throughout the implementation period and beyond, ” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz. “For now, the United States still holds leverage because most of the sanctions relief still remains to be given. But, once Iran pockets that relief, and snapback sanctions become increasingly impossible as the Europeans sink billions of dollars into Iran, we can expect the regime to return to its pattern of nuclear mendacity and gamesmanship.”
Those Democrats who supported the deal on the grounds it would buy us time or that it would prevent war or that there was no alternative were taken for fools. They do have the opportunity to redeem themselves and to protect themselves from the accusation that they facilitated a terrible agreement that imperiled U.S. security, harmed our relationship with Israel and fanned the flames of war in the Middle East.
First and foremost, Congress has the power of oversight, and moreover is entitled under the terms of the Corker-Cardin bill to receive certification of Iran’s compliance with the deal. It should promptly convene hearings, grill U.S. officials on Iran’s behavior and then produce its own finding as to Iran’s noncompliance and its conduct in the wake of the deal.
Second, it must reauthorize sanctions (which the president would waive) that are due to expire next year. That reauthorization should contain specific language restricting the administration’s ability to waive sanctions if, for example, Iran has not completed its obligations under the deal.
Third, Congress should proceed to pass new sanctions designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group and apply sanctions to entities that are controlled by or do business with entities controlled by the IRGC.
This comes at a time Democratic senators are scrambling for cover. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:
Democratic senators in a letter called on President Barack Obama to write a new and strengthened “Memorandum of Understanding” on security assistance to Israel.
The 16 senators, led by Michael Bennet, D-Colo., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., – the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sent the letter to the president on Monday, the day Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The letter called on Obama to conclude the new memorandum as well as to “provide the necessary and appropriate measures to deter Iran,” such as ordinance and delivery systems, as well as to enhance Israel’s qualitative military edge over countries in the region.
The way to do that is to take the steps above. Rather than write letters or look for fig leaves, the Democratic senators should be compelled to take the only real action(s) that would “deter Iran.” Unless and until they do, they’ll be as responsible as the president and his former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for the unfolding disaster.
A re-examination of the Iran deal is certainly in order. Michael Makovsky, CEO of the pro-Israel group JINSA, observes, “Tehran is yet again testing us.” In the Iranians’ view, he says, “It can take its time dismantling centrifuges as required under the JCPOA (related to PMD resolution or not), if it so wishes, but it’s mandatory for the United States to stick to its commitments not to grant any sanctions relief until Iranian compliance is verified.” He argues, “The Obama Administration can’t be indifferent to such matters as it has been to Iranian ballistic missile firing and other violations of Iran’s international commitments.”
By the way, there is a debate this weekend. Perhaps someone should inquire of Clinton how the deal she praised is working out. Is this everything and more she hoped for, and if not, what is she prepared to do about it?