Two days ago, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (SFRC) unanimously passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act of 2015, a bill that attempts to bolster the congressional role in the
Obama Administration’s negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. While the
effort is well intentioned, the bill sets up Congress to allow the
Administration to act as if it had congressional approval while a substantive
oversight of the agreement is lacking. The bill paves a path to lifting
sanctions and congressional approval of what has emerged as a flawed and
dubious deal with a notoriously untrustworthy regime.
The bill allows the Obama
Administration’s future agreement with the Iranian leaders to go forward unless
it is disapproved by enactment of a new law. To halt a bad agreement then,
Congress would need to pass a joint resolution disapproving the agreement,
which the President could then veto, as a result of which it would not become
law unless two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to override the veto. Thus,
in essence, under the SFRC bill, the Obama agreement with Iran will
automatically go forward unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves of it. In
contrast, in the normal treaty process, a President cannot make a treaty unless
two-thirds of the Senate votes to approve the treaty.
The President knows that he would
not be able to achieve Senate ratification of a nuclear deal with Iran, which
is why he is choosing to pursue a deal as a sole executive agreement and not as
a treaty. The SFRC bill gives the Administration a vehicle to gain
congressional sanction that it neither sought nor was able to obtain in the
first place through the standard treaty process.
The
Administration’s Bad Deal
The Obama Administration’s Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action makes clear that the United States will be left
with a risky deal that will not halt Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts, but only
slow the pace of its advance temporarily, while allowing Iran to stage a
nuclear breakout from a much-improved position after restrictions on uranium
enrichment expire in 10 years to 15 years.
Iran is allowed to maintain more
than 6,000 operational centrifuges for 10 years, after which it will be free to
build a much bigger program that will greatly shorten the time it needs for a
nuclear breakout. Despite six U.N. Security Council Resolutions that called for
a halt in its enrichment efforts, the Administration has essentially accepted
Iran’s self-proclaimed “right” to enrich uranium. Since the global market
provides more than enough enriched-uranium fuel for civilian nuclear reactors
at much lower prices than Iran can produce it, Iran’s claim that its enrichment
efforts are due to necessity is suspicious at best.
Iran is not required to dismantle
its nuclear infrastructure or clarify previous questions regarding military
dimensions of its nuclear program. Particularly worrisome is the continued
operations of its illicit nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz, as well as
the heavy water reactor at Arak that has been described as a plutonium bomb
factory. All of these facilities, which were built covertly by Iran in
violation of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments, would now be
legitimized by the agreement.
The Administration undermined its
own bargaining leverage by prematurely relaxing sanctions on Iran to reach the
2013 interim agreement. Once sanctions are lifted under this latest deal,
they will be very hard to re-impose, given the U.N.’s history of coming in a
day late and a dollar short in crisis situations. Other members of the U.N.
Security Council, Russia in particular, cannot be counted on to fully cooperate
on re-imposing sanctions in a timely and effective manner. Just this week,
Moscow announced that it intends to sell its advanced S-300 air-defense system
to Tehran, despite successive U.S. Administrations’ efforts to prevent the
sale.
U.S. allies, including Israel,
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have
expressed alarm at the prospect for a deal that only temporarily slows down,
and does not stop, Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. They fear that a
nuclear deal will lead to a rapprochement between Iran and the United States
that will come at their expense.
Conclusion
The well-intentioned legislation has
negative consequences because it diverts attention from what should be the
goals of an acceptable nuclear agreement:
- A permanent halt in Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production;
- A robust and long-term verification program with extensive real-time monitoring of all nuclear facilities; snap inspections on an “anytime, anywhere” basis; and full Iranian cooperation in interviewing scientists and other personnel involved in all aspects of the nuclear program;
- Iranian admission and detailed accounting for all past research and development of the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and full cooperation with the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Tehran has stonewalled repeatedly;
- A gradual and phased lifting of sanctions linked to Iranian fulfillment of its obligations to retain leverage over Iran to ensure compliance;
- A clear and rapid process for re-imposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating; and
- The final outcome must strengthen long-term nuclear nonproliferation efforts, rather than encourage other nations to demand the same nonproliferation concessions as Iran.
The emerging nuclear deal with Iran
is likely to lead nervous countries in the region to seek their own nuclear
weapons, fueling a cascade of nuclear proliferation that will undermine U.S.
security interests in the volatile Middle East and provide Iran with even more
resources to fund its many terrorist activities around the world.
The SFRC bill gives the President an
easier path to obtaining the very congressional imprimatur that he would
probably be unable to obtain through the traditional treaty process. The bill
has become a distraction. Congress and the Administration should be
focusing on the serious flaws of the Iranian deal rather than on procedural and
congressional prerogative issues.
—Michaela Dodge is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and Strategic Policy in
the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy,
of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and
Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Steven Groves is Bernard and
Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom, of the Davis Institute. James Phillips is Senior Research
Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Allison Center.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/senates-iran-nuclear-bill-misses-the-point
The Obama administration is negotiating a bad nuclear deal
with Iran.
If the Obama administration gets its way, America would
allow Iran to keep more than 6,000 operational centrifuges. Under this deal
Iran wouldn’t have to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel. Obama wants to
give Iran the "right" to enrich uranium and the ability to keep their
entire nuclear infrastructure.
Worse, Congress is about to let this dangerous deal happen.
Next week the Senate will likely vote on the deceptively
named Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (S. 615). This bill is a fig
leaf: Congress would be allowed to review the deal, but would be almost
powerless to stop it.
Heritage Action is urging Congress to vote "NO" on
the Senate's Iran bill.
The Senate needs to go back to the drawing board and so does
Barack Obama.
Read more about America's options for a principled path
forward with Iran.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/04/senates-iran-nuclear-bill-misses-the-point>
Congress should work to stop this Iran deal, not give the
Obama administration unchecked authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment