A Raw Deal: The Iran Agreement Should Be Rejected

Diplomacy should always be the preferred alternative to war. But the truth is that there are times when diplomatic efforts fail and war is therefore both just and necessary. While I do not believe that war with Iran is imperative or even desirable at this time, I do believe that the proposed P5+1 agreement with Iran is a terrible deal that will inevitably lead to war.

Any agreement that fails to take into account Iran’s history of deceit, as the current deal does, is worthless and naïve. Since 2003, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran concealed its development of techniques used for making nuclear weapons, Iran has demonstrated a repeated unwillingness to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it signed in 1970. The UN Security Council was forced to pass ten resolutions condemning Iran and its illicit nuclear activities because of their refusal to comply.

Not only has the Iranian regime shown that it cannot be trusted, it has also demonstrated a willingness to export its aggression and brutality. It has been implicated in terrorist operations all over the world, including in such places as Argentina in 1994 and Bulgaria in 2012, directly causing the deaths of thousands of innocent people. It also seeks to destabilize the Middle East by supporting such organizations as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Assad regime in Syria. The Syrian Civil War alone has caused the death of more than 200,000 people—so far.

Any deal with Iran needs to be made with the understanding that the country’s leadership will do everything in its power to cheat on any restriction put in place. Thus, a good deal will include an effective way to monitor their behavior, and an immediate deterrent should any provisions of the agreement be broken. To that end, the American people were told by Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser, that there would be inspections anytime, anywhere – but that is not in the proposed deal. There will in fact be at least a 24-day gap between the time Iran is informed about inspections and when the inspections actually take place. This gives Iran plenty of time to hide any illegal activity. Additionally, the Iranian Foreign Minister said that under the terms of the agreement, Iran can deny access to any military site. Recently, it was revealed that the IAEA and Iran have a private side agreement governing how they will conduct the inspections. Our government has not seen that agreement. How can Congress (or even the President) agree to a deal when some of the details are still unknown.

It took years to impose meaningful sanctions against Iran. If the U.S. should ever need to set up sanctions again, it will take just as long. As of right now, experts say that Iran’s breakout time for a bomb is two-to-three months, and they hope that the deal will increase that time to a year. It’s a race against the clock, and I doubt that an effective economic response in time will be possible. Additionally, Iran agreed to make a deal because of the sanctions against them. If they have been proven efficacious, why does this deal lift sanctions as soon as the agreement commences? Sanctions should decrease gradually as Iran shows its willingness to adhere to the deal?

This proposed deal also has a sunset clause. This means that key restrictions, such as the number of centrifuges Iran can use and the percentage it can enrich fissile material to, will be lifted in as few as eight years. All Iran needs to do is sit back, collect the hundreds of billions of dollars the lifted sanctions allows them to, and then heavily invest in their nuclear program. After that, they just need a year to build a bomb as the West scrambles to sanction them. Thus, in about a decade, Iran will have no sanctions, no restrictions, and a legitimized – though ostensibly peaceful – nuclear program. Furthermore, this agreement does not even address the fact that the Iranians are developing advanced Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). The only purpose of ICBMs is to deliver warheads to targets thousands of miles away. In other words, they are not needed to defend Iran from regional enemies, only to attack countries on other continents. Taken with the fact that their Supreme Leader recently attended a rally where he encouraged the crowd to chant “Death to America,” what does that tell us about Iran’s objectives for its nuclear program?

Unfortunately, this deal will also spell the end to nonproliferation in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Other powers in the region have already threatened to acquire nuclear weapons to offset Iran. Saudi Arabia, especially, is quite capable of doing so thanks to their vast wealth and connections with Pakistan. This response almost seems reasonable considering that none of our Middle Eastern allies were involved in making this agreement, despite the fact that this deal will affect them more than it will affect the U.S. or Europe. As the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks see Iranian influence grow, they will surely pursue their own nuclear ambitions as well – and by what logic could we dissuade them? After this country left a stable Iraq and let it slide into anarchy, helped create an opportunity for the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt, and declined to enforce its red line in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, why would they trust the U.S.?

This deal does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; in fact, it paves the way for them. This deal must be rejected with the aim of reaching a better one.