Back

JINSA in Washington Post on Iran Sanctions Relief

More flaws in the Iran framework
By Jennifer Rubin

It has not been a good week for the president’s Iran framework. It seems the more experts and lawmakers see, the worse the deal looks.


More flaws in the Iran framework
By Jennifer Rubin

It has not been a good week for the president’s Iran framework. It seems the more experts and lawmakers see, the worse the deal looks.

At the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Iran’s ICBM program – which the administration agreed to leave out of the talks – multiple experts blasted the decision to exclude long-range missiles from the program and took the opportunity to slam the deal. Dr. Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, for example, observed, “Medium and longer range missiles, and particularly ICBM-class missiles under development, could hold American and European cities hostage in the future, thereby providing a possible means of deterring U.S. assistance to our Gulf friends and other regional allies. Longer range missiles may also provide a sense of protection against external intervention, permitting Iran to continue its support of terrorism, to continue its expansion in its quest to become the predominant regional power, and to continue the repression of its own people, the first and foremost threat to the survival of this abhorrent regime. And finally, one cannot discount the use of these missiles against Israel. The mullahs often threaten Israel with destruction and Israel takes these threats seriously, as it must.” As for the deal itself, he said: “The failure to limit ballistic missiles, or to constrain Iran’s missile build up in any way, is one of a number of central flaws in the emerging agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. While we do not know what will be finally agreed in the comprehensive arrangement currently being negotiated – or even whether there will be an agreement by the 30 June deadline or thereafter – we do know some of the basic elements that the Obama Administration has asserted are already agreed.”

Likewise, retired Lieutenant Gen. Michael Flynn, the administration’s former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified:

To begin, the nuclear deal, that will likely be concluded this summer, suffers from severe deficiencies. . . . Iran’s leaders made it clear the furthest they will go is to allow International inspectors (IAEA) only “managed access” to nuclear facilities, and only with significant prior notification. This makes it nearly impossible, as a matter of full transparency, to have real “eyes on” the state of Iranian nuclear development to include their missile program. . . . The notion of “snap back” sanctions is fiction. The Iranian regime is already more economically stable than it was in November of 2013, while the international sanctions coalition that brought Tehran to the table in the first place is showing serious signs of strain. It’s unreasonable to believe that under these conditions we will be able to put the “Regime Sanctions Team” back together again.

He noted the failure to keep allies abreast of developments in the talks and the poorly attended Arab summit as evidence of extreme incompetence (“this leaderless turnout with no serious long term, strategic agreement or framework for security coming out of the summit, you get less than acceptable results”). As for the ICBMs, he warned, “Iran possesses a substantial inventory of theater ballistic missiles capable of reaching as far as parts of southeastern Europe. Tehran is developing increasingly sophisticated missiles and improving the range and accuracy of its other missile systems. Iran is also acquiring advanced naval and aerospace capabilities, including naval mines, small but capable submarines, coastal defense cruise missile batteries, attack craft, anti-ship missiles, and armed unmanned aerial vehicles.”

All of that did not touch on the latest news about yet another Obama capitulation. The Associated Press reported, “The Obama administration may have to backtrack on its promise that it will suspend only nuclear-related economic sanctions on Iran as part of an emerging nuclear agreement, officials and others involved in the process tell The Associated Press.” Michael Makovsky of the pro-Israel JINSA cracks, “This report suggests that Obama’s effective pledge of ‘If you like your sanctions on Iran, you can keep them’ won’t turn out to be true.”

Click here to read the full article in the Washington Post