Iran deal illegal

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - ROBERT C. MCFAR­LANE

As the de­bate on the Ira­nian Agree­ment has un­folded in the Congress, sev­eral very sig­nif­i­cant facts have emerged. From Rep. Mike Pom­peo, Kansas Repub­li­can, and highly re­spected con­sti­tu­tional lawyer David Rivkin, we’ve learned that Pres­i­dent Obama has yet to de­liver to the Congress all the doc­u­ments re­quired by the Iran Nu­clear Agree­ment Re­view Act.

No­tably miss­ing is the agree­ment be­tween the gov­ern­ment of Iran and the In­ter­na­tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), re­gard­ing how the in­spec­tions that are es­sen­tial to de­tect­ing any Ira­nian vi­o­la­tions will be car­ried out. Surely the con­tents of this doc­u­ment are es­sen­tial to our abil­ity to judge whether Iran has vi­o­lated the agree­ment. Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry has ac­knowl­edged that he doesn’t know what is in that se­cret agree­ment. How can that be? No ra­tio­nal leader could agree to abide by the terms of a ver­i­fi­ca­tion agree­ment he has not even read.

We’ve also learned from Ira­nian of­fi­cials that Iran in­tends to re­sume the pur­chase of any mil­i­tary hard­ware it wishes and to con­tinue work on its bal­lis­tic mis­sile pro­gram. Of course we’ve known from the out­set of ne­go­ti­a­tions that we would not even try to cur­tail Iran’s sup­port for ter­ror­ism, or its sup­port for the As­sad regime in Syria, or its ef­fort to sub­vert, coopt and con­trol the gov­ern­ment of Iraq.

From re­cent polling of a cross-sec­tion of Amer­i­cans, we also know that only 25 per­cent of the Amer­i­can peo­ple sup­port the agree­ment and that a bi­par­ti­san ma­jor­ity of both Cham­bers of Congress op­pose it. We also know that the United Na­tions in­tends to lift its non­nu­clear sanc­tions on Iran and thus en­able Iran to again use the SWIFT global bank­ing sys­tem to in­vite for­eign in­vest­ment into the coun­try and to re­sume the ex­port of oil and gas to the global mar­ket.

Still, notwith­stand­ing these com­pelling rea­sons to re­ject the agree­ment, the pres­i­dent in­sists that its ap­proval serves Amer­i­can in­ter­ests. Bear in mind that this is a coun­try that is re­spon­si­ble for the death of al­most 300 Amer­i­cans in Le­banon, at least dou­ble that num­ber in Iraq, a gov­ern­ment that has sworn en­dur­ing hos­til­ity to­ward “the Great Satan” (as we are termed), and de­clared its in­tent to re­move the State of Is­rael from the face of the Earth.

This will­ful dere­lic­tion of duty in­volv­ing a se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tion of law is be­yond un­der­stand­ing on any ra­tio­nal ba­sis. To those, in­clud­ing the pres­i­dent, who as­sert that our only hope for pre­vent­ing an Ira­nian nu­clear weapon lies in ap­prov­ing this agree­ment or war, one can only state the ob­vi­ous — why not keep the sanc­tions which were so ef­fec­tive in place, re­open ne­go­ti­a­tions, re­pair the agree­ment’s flaws, and broaden the new talks to in­clude the sev­eral out­ra­geous prac­tices Iran is us­ing to es­tab­lish its dom­i­nance of the Mid­dle East. Not to re­open ne­go­ti­a­tions is to break faith with the Amer­i­can peo­ple and the prin­ci­ples the pres­i­dent was elected to up­hold.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.