Iran arms, O fiddles

Sens. Mark Kirk (RIll.) and Kelly Ayotte (RNH) sent a letter to President Obama querying him on the recent Iranian missile test. They write:

This ballistic missile test is troubling for three primary reasons. First, this test furthers Iran’s ICBM program. An ICBM is not tangential or unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program. The sole purpose of an Iranian ICBM is to enable delivery of a nuclear weapon to the United States. . . .

Second, this longrange ballistic missile that Iran tested last weekend likely improves Tehran’s ability to target Israel — our closest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. A threat combines hostile intent and capability. . . .

Third, despite the recently finalized Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this latest violation of international law demonstrates Tehran’s continued willingness to ignore its obligations.

So, what is the Obama administration

prepared to do about it?

That’s what the senators ask, reminding him that “thenChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey . . . testified in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that ‘Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities.’ ”

Putting this in larger perspective, it is fair for them and others in Congress and outside the administration to ask what our Iran policy is, and if we even have one.

In selling the nuclear deal, the administration swore up and down that the deal would not affect our efforts to defend allies in the region or to confront Iran on issues not covered by the JCPOA. Since the deal has been inked, Iran has launched a missile test in violation of the UN resolution and moved troops and weapons into Syria, heightening its support for President Bashar alAssad.

If this is objectionable, you would never know it from the total lack of response (other than empty words, qualified and delivered by nonsenior officials).