JINSA in Wash Post on Alternatives vs Consequences of Iran Deal
The nukes aren’t even the worst part
By Jennifer Rubin
The nuclear provisions including the inspections rules in the Iran deal are, from a fair reading, riddled with loopholes. But that, I would suggest, is not the most egregious part of the deal. That distinction belongs to the non-nuclear provisions, which taken in total build up Iran as a major regional power, put us at odds with allies and foment regional anarchy.
The nukes aren’t even the worst part
By Jennifer Rubin
The nuclear provisions including the inspections rules in the Iran deal are, from a fair reading, riddled with loopholes. But that, I would suggest, is not the most egregious part of the deal. That distinction belongs to the non-nuclear provisions, which taken in total build up Iran as a major regional power, put us at odds with allies and foment regional anarchy.
Let me explain. The negotiations – by Iran’s demand – were supposed to be about the nuclear issue only. Instead, under Secretary of State John Kerry (to my knowledge Hillary Clinton can’t be blamed for this part), we began throwing more and more on the table unrelated to the already generous nuclear terms. In addition to premature release of tens of billions of dollars, we agreed to lift the arms and missile embargoes, help Iran protect against sabotage of its nuclear program and help build up its technology, trade, finance and energy. This is all without any demonstrated showing Iran is ceasing to support terror, abiding by basic human rights or stopping its aggression in the region. (To the contrary, if we try to reimpose any sanctions for that conduct, Iran’s obligations under the Iran deal end.) We, in essence, hop onto Team Iran, which is in constant conflict (itself or through proxies) with Israel and the Gulf states.
Michael Makovsky, CEO of the pro-Israel JINSA, writes: “The Administration would rather focus on the supposed alternatives instead of the actual deal, with all its unsavory elements, such as giving international legitimacy to a nuclear Iran in no longer than 15 years, releasing up to $150 billion to Iran in a short time frame and other sanctions relief that will provide a huge boost to Iranian coffers, no anytime-anywhere inspections, continued Iranian R&D on its nuclear programs, effectively permitting continued ballistic missile development so that Iran will be able to fire nuclear missiles at the United States, etc.” He continues, “Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of the Obama Administration’s strategy is that the complete opposite is true: this deal will embolden Iran to cause even more trigger and conflict in the region, and will trigger regional nuclear contagion making the risk of nuclear war in the region, which could draw in the United States, far more likely.”
Perhaps the president thinks this all will change Iran into a responsible party, although he admits it may not and there is no evidence to suggest it would. The president, as we saw in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere, is not very good at predicting the consequences of his policies. Having let the region catch on fire, he now would be pouring fuel on it by building up an enemy of the U.S. and Israel.
Think about what this entails. We are releasing billions of dollars and making conventional weapons available to Iran, which will be turning some of that over to Syria. With 200,000 already dead (needlessly, as Obama could have cut off the blood bath early on), we enable Iran to assist Bashar al-Assad to kill more of his people. This is a moral monstrosity and geopolitically devastating to our long-term interests. Likewise, suppose (not stretch) Iran is engaging in low-level and hard to prove cheating on the deal, whittling away at its breakout time. If Israel figures out a non-military way to hobble that (e.g., another computer virus) we are obligated to help Iran prevent sabotage. We put ourselves on the wrong side in these conflicts.
On top of that, one should consider what this does on the human rights side of the equation. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams tells me, “The administration was so anxious to get an Iran nuclear deal that it simply dropped any concerns about terrorism or human rights questions, or about the . . . American hostages.” Iran insisted we could not discuss its human rights situation. And then to add insult to injury, we wind up taking Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani off the sanctions list. We don’t add penalties for terrorists; we are forgiving those accused of crimes and forgetting their victims, restoring their travel and access to their bank accounts.
Poor Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.). He worked so hard to put human rights abusers onto the so-called Magnitsky list in Russia and now is asked to sign onto a deal in which he’d be approving taking those accused of helping kill Americans off a similar list. As Abrams says, “So the American prisoners are still prisoners, some of the most dangerous terrorists come off the sanctions lists, and the people of Iran are simply ignored as we enrich and empower the ayatollahs.”
The inexplicable thing is that this and other concessions were all unnecessary. If Kerry and Obama had simply stuck to the outlines of the negotiations, yes, there would have been a weak and ineffective deal, but we would not have made things infinitely worse by in essence putting ourselves on the side of an aggressive, terrorist regime. Reasonable minds might differ on the nuclear portions, but why would either party in Congress want to saddle the next president (of either party) with these Iran entanglements? It’s preposterous to tell, say, Hillary Clinton that she now has to tell our Persian Gulf allies that we have committed to building up their sworn enemy, Iran. I don’t see how in good faith Democrats who want the “peace process” to revive can go along with a deal that gives Hamas’s patron assistance, which it in turn can use against Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
In short, the next president should not have to clear up the horrific results of the Obama-Kerry giveaway. It is setting up our allies for greater war, putting the country in impossible conflicts, spreading conflict and saddling the next president with a series of impossible confrontations.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton has been saying she thinks the deal is helpful in putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear program, but – and this is Clinton, not Sen. Ted Cruz – wants to prevent Iranian adventurism, the spread of terror, etc. She and her advisers should look at what is in the deal. She won’t be able to do those things if the deal goes forward.