Your statement begins with the recognition that this is “one of the most serious global security decisions in our history” because its overriding objective is to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.” Throughout the statement, however, there is repeated recognition that although Iran is only 2-3 months from having a bomb now, it is very likely that 10-15 years from now, should the deal have been honored during that time, Iran would definitely have the means to create one. This means the “overriding objective” is expected to fail. Then why embark on it at all?
According to you, much of what the deal depends on has to do with the present – “this moment” and what is “on the table now.” And much of it has to do with Iran’s compliance. There is constant mention of “properly monitored and enforced” inspections and monitoring, but the Iranians have announced they will not permit inspections by the IAEA. Indeed, the IAEA has announced that it doesn’t have the money to do the inspections, even if they were permitted.
So all the talk of “requiring,” “prohibiting,” and “banning” construction and enrichment and shipping and centrifuges, etc., all have to do with “constant observation and verification” that will not happen. To underscore the absurdity, the “side deal” that was recently released tells us that Iran will be able to inspect itself. In what delusional fantasy world will Iran “be under 24/7 human, photographic and electronic surveillance for 25 years?”
As for the “snap-back” sanctions, we know this is a joke. Iran will have its billions of dollars, its ICBM’s, more conventional weapons, and everything needed for it to continue to be, in your words, “a terrifying and remorseless danger to the world, which sponsors terrorism, threatens the destruction of Israel, backs regimes guilty of human rights abuses, and foments instability throughout the region.”
You recognize all of this, and that “a nuclear-weaponized Iran is a game-changer for the region and the world,” yet you are willing to risk everything in allowing it the 10-15 year time period after which it can have a nuclear bomb.
It is curious that in the section on criticisms of the agreement you mention that “the bulk of the money from sanctions relief will have to be used to improve their suffering economy…nonetheless it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of the money might be used for illicit purposes.” This is a joke. When did tyrannical regimes care about their suffering populace? And what about the $150 billion that will be released to Iran as a reward for participating in this “deal”? How will that money be used if not to enable the march of terrorism throughout the civilized world? Of course, as you recognize, the money will go into more weapons and ballistic missiles, “adding additional resources to an already dangerous regime.”
So, to keep the so-called “peace” that the deal will accomplish, “the U.S. will have to provide additional military and other aid to Israel and our other allies in the region.” Is President Obama prepared to sell Israel the bunker busters that Israel would need should it decide to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? The answer is undoubtedly no. Isn’t it apparent that there is a huge hypocrisy here?
You actually speak of Iran devoting enriched uranium to “peaceful, civilian use.” Are you seriously thinking this would happen? And under this pretext, the “deal” requires the U.S. to use military might to thwart any effort by another country (like Israel) to destroy Iran’s nuclear reactors. Could it mean that America would actually shoot down Israeli planes in order to protect Iran?