Should the U.S. Can­cel the Iran Deal?

The Jewish Voice - - OP - ED - By: Meira Svirsky

Will Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, yet again, ver­ify that Iran is in com­pli­ance with the nu­clear agree­ment it made in 2015 with world pow­ers?

While run­ning for pres­i­dent, Trump heav­ily crit­i­cized then-pres­i­dent Barack Obama for mak­ing such a flawed deal, yet has bowed to Sec­re­tary of State Rex Tiller­son and the State De­part­ment twice cer­ti­fy­ing (as re­quired by law ev­ery 90 days) that Iran is in com­pli­ance with the agree­ment.

The next cer­ti­fi­ca­tion must be made in Oc­to­ber, but, as for­mer U.S. Am­bas­sador to the U.N. John Bolton ar­gues, there is no need to wait un­til Oc­to­ber to ab­ro­gate the deal.

That Iran is in non-com­pli­ance with the 2015 nu­clear deal is a given. As out­lined by Fred Fleitz, a na­tional se­cu­rity ex­pert who spent 25 years work­ing for the CIA, the De­fense In­tel­li­gence Agency, the State De­part­ment and the House In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, Iran is in non-com­pli­ance in four ways:

Op­er­at­ing more ad­vanced ura­nium-en­rich­ment cen­trifuges than is per­mit­ted and an­nounc­ing the ca­pa­bil­ity to ini­ti­ate mass pro­duc­tion of cen­trifuges

Ex­ceed­ing lim­its on pro­duc­tion and stor­age of heavy wa­ter, a sub­stance needed to op­er­ate plu­to­nium-pro­duc­ing heavy-wa­ter nu­clear re­ac­tors

Covertly procur­ing nu­clear and mis­sile tech­nol­ogy out­side of Joint Com­pre­hen­sive Plan of Ac­tion (JCPOA-) ap­proved chan­nels

Re­fus­ing to al­low IAEA in­spec­tors ac­cess to nu­clear-re­search and mil­i­tary fa­cil­i­ties.

Bolton rightly points out that un­der the Ian Nu­clear Agree­ment Re­view Act of 2015, the pres­i­dent must cer­tify (among other points) that:

Iran is trans­par­ently and fully im­ple­ment­ing the agree­ment

Iran has not com­mit­ted a ma­te­rial breach of the agree­ment (or at least has cor­rected such a breach if made)

Iran is not en­gag­ing in ac­tiv­i­ties that could sig­nif­i­cantly ad­vance its nu­clear weapons pro­gram

The agree­ment is vi­tal to the na­tional se­cu­rity in­ter­ests of the United States.

It is this last point that Bolton con­cen­trates on in his re­cently-pub­lished pro­posal called Abro­gat­ing the Iran Deal: The Way For­ward.

In the plan, Bolton puts forth a pow­er­ful case that con­tin­u­a­tion of the agree­ment is most def­i­nitely not in the na­tional se­cu­rity in­ter­ests – if it ever was.

Bolton ad­vises that, through a na­tional and in­ter­na­tional ed­u­ca­tional and diplo­matic cam­paign, the U.S. must take the lead in ex­plain­ing why this deal is a threat to the U.S. and all its al­lies.

Bolton writes that the cam­paign must stress the dan­ger­ous con­ces­sions that were made to reach the deal, not only al­low­ing Iran to en­rich ura­nium and op­er­ate a heavy-wa­ter re­ac­tor but also al­low­ing the world’s great­est state spon­sor of ter­ror­ism to de­velop ad­vanced cen­trifuges.

In ad­di­tion, the agree­ment, which is heav­ily im­bal­anced to the ben­e­fit of Iran, also con­tains in­ad­e­quate ver­i­fi­ca­tion and en­force­ment mech­a­nisms as seen by Iran’s re­fusal to al­low in­spec­tion of its mil­i­tary sites.

Bolton con­tin­ues, say­ing, “We must also high­light Iran’s un­ac­cept­able be­hav­ior, such as its role as the world’s cen­tral banker for in­ter­na­tional ter­ror­ism, in­clud­ing its di­rec­tions and con­trol over Hezbol­lah and its ac­tions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The rea­sons Ron­ald Rea­gan named Iran as a state spon­sor of ter­ror­ism in 1984 re­main fully ap­pli­ca­ble to­day.”

Along with such a global cam­paign to dis­credit the agree­ment, Bolton says the U.S. must lead the way in cre­at­ing a new coali­tion to re­place the one which ended up rub­ber stamp­ing the cur­rent flawed agree­ment. From this coali­tion, sug­ges­tions should be gar­nered to im­pose new sanc­tions on Iran in re­sponse to its nu­clear and bal­lis­tic mis­sile pro­gram, its spon­sor­ship of ter­ror­ism and its “bel­liger­ent med­dling in Iraq and Syria.”

In ad­di­tion, Bolton rec­om­mends the U.S. im­pose uni­lat­eral sanc­tions on Iran “out­side the frame­work of the Se­cu­rity Council Res­o­lu­tion 2231 so that Iran’s de­fend­ers can­not wa­ter them down.”

Bolton’s plan in­cludes other con­crete sug­ges­tions for putting the ter­ror­ist “ge­nie” that is Iran back in its bot­tle, in­clud­ing:

End­ing all land­ing and dock­ing rights for all Ira­nian air­craft and ships at key al­lied ports

End­ing all visas for Ira­ni­ans, in­clud­ing so called “schol­arly,” stu­dent, sports or other ex­changes

De­mand­ing pay­ment with a set dead­line on out­stand­ing U.S. fed­eral-court judg­ments against Iran for ter­ror­ism, in­clud­ing 9/11

An­nounc­ing U.S. sup­port for the demo­cratic Ira­nian op­po­si­tion

Ex­pe­dit­ing delivery of bunker-buster bombs

An­nounc­ing U.S. sup­port for Kur­dish na­tional as­pi­ra­tions, in­clud­ing Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria

Pro­vid­ing as­sis­tance to Balochis, Khuzes­tan Arabs, Kurds and oth­ers as well as to in­ter­nal re­sis­tance move­ments within la­bor unions, stu­dents and women’s groups

Ac­tively or­ga­niz­ing op­po­si­tion to Ira­nian po­lit­i­cal ob­jec­tives in the U.N.

Pres­i­dent Trump would be wise to lis­ten to Bolton’s sug­ges­tions and stop en­abling the ex­trem­ist and dan­ger­ous Ira­nian regime to wreak havoc through­out the world. (CLAR­ION PROJECT)

Ira­nian’s cel­e­brate the an­niver­sary of the Is­lamic Rev­o­lu­tion by tak­ing self­ies with bal­lis­tic mis­siles and chant­ing “Death to Amer­ica.”

Trump has bowed to Sec­re­tary of State Rex Tiller­son and the State De­part­ment twice cer­ti­fy­ing (as re­quired by law ev­ery 90 days) that Iran is in com­pli­ance with the agree­ment.

The next cer­ti­fi­ca­tion must be made in Oc­to­ber, but, as for­mer U.S. Am­bas­sador to the U.N. John Bolton ar­gues, there is no need to wait un­til Oc­to­ber to ab­ro­gate the deal.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.