JINSA in Wash Post on Comparing Iran to the U.S.
Iran talks: Moral equivalence and the concession frenzy
By Jennifer Rubin
Monday news reports from Vienna related the following:
Global powers negotiating with Iran have put forward proposals to give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect Iranian sites as part of the outlines of a deal, a senior US official said Monday.
“We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs,” the administration official told reporters.
Iran talks: Moral equivalence and the concession frenzy
By Jennifer Rubin
Monday news reports from Vienna related the following:
Global powers negotiating with Iran have put forward proposals to give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect Iranian sites as part of the outlines of a deal, a senior US official said Monday.
“We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs,” the administration official told reporters.
“The entry point isn’t we must be able to get into every military site, because the United States of America wouldn’t allow anybody to get into every military site, so that’s not appropriate,” the official said.
This misbegotten equivalence is akin to President Obama’s blithe remark, “I think that it’s important to recognize that Iran is a complicated country—just like we’re a complicated country.”
This is moral and diplomatic insanity. In a written statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) observed, “It’s outrageous that a senior U.S. official pointed out that if the United States wouldn’t allow weapons inspectors full access to its military installations, Iran shouldn’t either. The United States is the chief defender of freedom across the world and a democratic nation founded on principles of liberty and the rule of law.” He continued, “In stark contrast, Iran is the world’s chief state sponsor of terrorism. It is governed by a rogue regime whose constitution explicitly calls for jihad. And the ayatollahs have honored the call by killing innocent Americans for more than three decades. To suggest that the same standards applied to the United States should also apply to Iran is gravely insulting to Americans.” He concluded, “The Obama administration should accept nothing less than full access to any site for intrusive and unannounced inspections.”
But of course an Obama mindset that would make excuses for Iranian obstinacy; echo “talking points from Tehran,” as Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez put it, to defeat additional sanctions; assert the existence of a fatwa, which no one has seen, to assure us Iran won’t really insist on keeping its nuclear weapons program; ignore the Iranians’ call for “death to America” and outright denial of terms previously agreed to; overlook continued support for terrorism as it seeks to help revive Iran’s economy; and imagine Iran is longing to be just a regular member of the international community is not one to insist on, well, on much of anything.
Michael Makovsky, chief executive of the pro-Israel JINSA, shares Cotton’s concern. “So now U.S. officials are comparing Iran to the law-abiding U.S.? Anything, it seems, to justify yet another significant cave to Tehran,” he observes. “French foreign minister said a deal that doesn’t permit access to Iranian military sites would be ‘useless.’ Actually it would be incredibly reckless and dangerous.”
Meanwhile, sanctions gurus Mark Dubowitz, Annie Fixler and Rachel Ziemba of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are out with a new report documenting the benefit of Iran from sanctions relief. The authors find:
The economic impact of sanctions relief is likely to be substantial, starting slowly after an agreement and building over time. This relief will enable economic growth, and increased resilience against future sanctions-induced economic pressure. Iran will benefit from regained access to its foreign assets, reduced transaction costs that facilitate first greater imports, then some increase in oil export volumes, and finally investment at home and from foreign players. The enforcement of the emerging nuclear deal is predicated on the ability of the United States and the European Union to re-impose, or “snap” sanctions back into place if Iran violates its commitments. The efficacy of the snapback, however, will diminish as Iran builds a more powerful and resilient economy and international consensus over Iran’s nuclear program weakens over time.
Even more ominous, they report, is that “the deal’s limits on certain Iranian nuclear activities will lapse—or ‘sunset’—after ten years and many of the key nuclear restrictions will sunset after fifteen years. At that point, Iran will likely emerge with an industrial-sized and widely dispersed nuclear program—with an advanced centrifuge-powered enrichment.” By contrast if the P5+1 does not strike a final deal, they experts conclude, “Iran’s GDP growth would be weaker in 2015/16 10 . . . [whereas] an outright failure in the talks, we envision a much more adverse outlook for Iran’s economy, with growth flatlining and recession a possible risk if new sanctions are imposed. An outright failure in the negotiations could set in motion new sanctions, though the enforcement of these measures would depend on how the breakdown of the talks was interpreted in the international community and an assessment of the impact of U.S. secondary sanctions.”
In sum, we are enabling Iran to revive its economy and obtain an industrial-sized nuclear weapons program even if it complies with the agreement. Well, if Iran is just like us, why wouldn’t it get all that, right? The president insists he understands the nature of the regime and its past record of cheating. However, the deal he is crafting reflects his obliviousness regarding both. The naiveté is as stunning as it is frightening. Congress should know exactly what calculations have gone into a deal that rather than stop Iran’s progress will ensure its status as a nuclear power and its continued domination in the region.