The Five Fatal Flaws in the Iran Deal

On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from Amb. Robert G. Joseph, Ph.D, currently Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and the person who in 2003 led the nuclear negotiations with Libya. He testified the Iran deal is a “bad agreement” with “five fatal flaws”: (1) it does not effectively detect cheating unless Iran decides to do it openly, and Iran is more likely to cheat at military bases where it has cheated in the past and has ruled out inspections in the future; (2) it leaves a large‐scale nuclear infrastructure in place that could be used to break out, or more likely “sneak‐out,” and then permits a significantly expanded program with a “virtually zero” breakout time; (3) it has “snap‐back” provisions that are illusory; (4) the purported 12-month breakout time is ineffective, since, unless Iran breaks out openly, we will not even know when the clock begins,and months will go by while the U.S. debates internally what to do; and (5) Iran is permitted to continue work on long-range ballistic missiles that have no use other than eventual deployment of nuclear weapons. His conclusion is stark:

[The deal] assumes that permitting Iran a large‐scale enrichment capability is compatible with the goal of denying Iran the ability to produce weapons‐grade fissile material; it assumes that the twelve month breakout time is meaningful; it assumes that the agreement will be effectively verifiable; and it assumes that the United States and the international community will respond to evidence of cheating before Iran can mate a nuclear weapon to a ballistic missile. None of these assumptions holds up under scrutiny. As a result, the threat to the U.S. homeland and to our NATO allies of an Iran armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles will increase not decrease under the anticipated agreement. [Emphasis added].

And that is even before considering the risks of proliferation in the region, the existential threat to Israel, seriously frayed relations with Arab allies, and the vastly increased resources for Iran and its allies to establish a game-changing hegemony in a vital strategic area of the world.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

The Five Fatal Flaws in the Iran Deal

Must-Reads from Magazine

A New Wave of Terror

The ISIS threat explodes around the globe.

A familiar introspection set in after the horrific terrorist attack on a concert in Manchester, England. True to form, celebrities and provocateurs flew to their corners. Immigration was the topic; both sides argued that it should either be curtailed or that the UK must stay its pluralistic course. Given the nature of the attack, however, an extroverted response seems more justified. The attack in Manchester was a remarkably sophisticated one and likely benefited from foreign assistance. Moreover, it has been accompanied by a wave of global terrorism.

17
Shares
Google+ Print

The Tragic Familiarity of the Manchester Attack

Making a tough job even tougher.

The Manchester bombing, which killed 22 people, appears to have followed a familiar pattern. It’s one that is instantly recognizable from the profiles of other Western terrorists.

5
Shares
Google+ Print

Are Unknown Soldiers Identifiable?

Do we forget soldiers who might still be recovered?

For too many Americans, Memorial Day is a day off from school or work, or the beginning of the summer barbecue season. Of course, it should be much, much more than that. It should be a day to remember, honor, and offer gratitude to those who sacrificed their lives so that the United States, Europe, Australia, and large swaths of Asia might be free.