America’s ‘Bad Deal’ With Iran

Win McNamee/Getty Images

America’s ‘Bad Deal’ With Iran

Netanyahu proven right!

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described what he foresaw emerging out of the talks over Iran’s nuclear program as a “bad deal,” much to the agitation of the Obama administration. Netanyahu even addressed Congress to explain his misgivings over the talks, only to be snubbed by the Obama administration.

Now that those talks have yielded an agreement, it’s time to ask: Is it a bad deal or a good deal?

Here are some aspects of the agreement that make it easy to answer that question.

  • Lies and Liars: After the United States publicized summary details about the agreement on April 2, Iran’s chief negotiator, Javad Zarif, accused the U.S. of lying about it. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on,” he tweeted. Iran then publicized its own version of the agreement which is contrary to the American version on key factors of a possible deal. Both can’t be right, so who is lying? Or are both lying?
  • Sanctions: The U.S. government’s parameters for a future deal state that sanctions against Iran will be lifted in stages, depending on how compliant Iran proves. “If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments,” the document says, “these sanctions will snap back into place.” But, as syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, the complexity of the global economy entails that those sanctions will not “snap back into place” easily or quickly. And in the meantime, Iran will capitalize on whatever sanctions relief it receives to continue funding its machinations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. Also, Iran’s version of the deal states that those sanctions will be lifted immediately after a deal is finalized.
  • Limited/Unlimited Enrichment: The U.S. version of the agreement says, “Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years.” It says that Iran will only use its older centrifuges to enrich uranium at Natanz, and that Iran’s only use for its advanced centrifuges will be for “limited research.” Iran claims it is free to continue working on its advanced centrifuges at Fordow.
  • Exporting Uranium: Two days prior to the March 31 deadline, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, made a statement that appeared to be a deal breaker: “The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend sending them abroad.” This was one of the “outstanding issues” that may have delayed the deal due to the U.S.’s requirement of a minimum one-year breakout time—the time Iran could race for a nuclear bomb. This was calculated based on assumptions that the bulk of Iran’s uranium fuel would be shipped out to Russia. Araghchi’s comments were tantamount to throwing a wrench in the works—right at crunch time. Now, while the U.S. version of the agreement says, “Iran will ship all of its spent [plutonium] fuel from the reactor out of the country for the reactor’s lifetime,” it doesn’t say anything about shipping out Iran’s uranium stockpiles.
  • In nbc’s Meet the Press program on Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu contended that he was not “trying to kill any deal.” He explained, “I’m trying to kill a bad deal.” In an interview with the New York Times published Sunday, President Obama, on the other hand, insisted that his administration is pursuing a good deal—a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” and “our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.”

    The facts prove that Netanyahu is right about the “bad deal.” The Obama administration can only talk about betting and gambling about Iran getting nuclear weapons, confirming what a bad (and potentially deadly) deal it is. This is highlighted by considering how often the administration has grossly underestimated the problems in the Middle East.

    In the past, the Obama administration bet on the Islamic State being a mere “junior varsity” terrorist group. Now, the Obama administration considers the Islamic State the main terrorist group in the Middle East, as its “Statement for the Record Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” report said.

    “With respect to Syria,” U.S. President Barack Obama told the New York Times in August 2014, “it has always been a fantasy—this idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”

    Now that “fantasy” is reality, and even Congress is supporting it.

    When President Obama declared the “end” of the Iraq War in 2011, he assured the American people that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” Since that time, Iraq has been devastated by the Islamic State and is now at the mercy of Iran—not the U.S.—for salvation.

    President Obama also bet on Yemen being a model for success in fighting terrorism. Now, the Yemeni government has fallen to Iranian-sponsored Houthi rebels.

    Iran has proven that it will not be persuaded from its aggressive thrust toward regional dominance through sanctions or nuclear deals. The Bible describes Iran as the “king of the south” which pushes around other nations. The Obama administration’s naivety toward Iran will soon translate to complicity in Iran’s goal to dominate the Middle East and threaten the world—as the prophesied king of the south.

    For more on this subject and how Iran’s nuclear crisis will be permanently resolved, read The King of the South.