Iran Deal May Lead to War

Member Group : Foundation for Democracy in Iran

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., came out in favor of the administration’s Iran deal on Sept. 2, making her the 34th Senate Democrat support the deal.

While I disagree with Mikulski’s assessment that the nuclear agreement can be verified, as well as her claim that it is better than any alternative, I give her credit for presenting a reasoned assessment of the deal and her own decision-making process.

Mikulski’s step-by-step examination of what she considered the "key questions" relating to the detail stands in marked contrast to the knee-jerk statement by the man who seeks to replace her in the Senate, Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr.

Van Hollen gave full-throated support to the deal just two weeks after it was signed, declaring that he had "concluded that this agreement advances the national security interests of the United States and all of our allies, including our partner, Israel."

Parroting the administration’s arguments, Van Hollen argued that the Iran deal rolled back Iran’s nuclear program, and that the only alternative was war. I fear just the opposite is the case.

Proponents of the deal forget that there was no compelling reason, beyond President Obama’s desire for a "legacy" in international affairs, to conclude the deal on these terms. When the negotiations began more than two years ago, the United States had a winning hand. International sanctions had the Iranian regime on the rope. Domestic dissent was on the rise. The regime feared for its survival.

Rather than press our advantage — and enforce the five United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemned Iran for violating the terms of the Nonproliferation Treaty — the administration folded.

The U.N. Security Council agreed that Iran had forfeited its right to enrich uranium. The administration said, never mind, we want a deal.

The U.N. Security Council demanded that Iran guarantee anytime, anywhere inspections. The administration said, never mind, we want a deal.

When the Iranians saw that our leaders were desperate for a deal, they demonstrated the negotiating skills for which they are famous and stepped up their demands.

By threatening to walk out twice during the final weeks and days of the talks, the Iranians exacted a series of additional U.S. concessions that no rational person can claim are in the best interests of the United States or our allies.

These included:
• No intrusive inspections of non-declared sites.
• No U.S. inspectors, ever.
• Lifting the international arms embargo on Iran.
• Lifting international restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile development.
• Lifting sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards, including the notorious Quds Force, which is responsible for the deaths of more than 500 U.S. servicemen in Iraq as well as countless terrorist attacks around the world.
• Worse yet, the deal commits the United States to actively help Iran to defend its nuclear facilities against cyberattacks from Israel or others, and to provide Iran with nuclear technology to modernize its facilities.

Such a massive giveaway to a regime that has a proven track record of violating international agreements and of using terrorism as an instrument of domestic and foreign policy would be considered treasonous in any other administration. But for supporters of this deal, it’s "peace in our time."

Kenneth R. Timmerman
was the Republican nominee in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District in 2012, and is president and CEO of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, iran.org. He lives in Urbana.

________________________________________