Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to look over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and discuss the finer points of the deal with experts who have analyzed its text. The details are important, but I am concerned that, conceptually, the underlying logic and reason to support or oppose the agreement is being lost. In my profession we call this a ‘Harvard Death,’ a term that refers to a situation when there are perfect lab results but the patient dies due to the doctors failing to look directly at the patient and notice the ultimately big fatal problems.
Iran, as we all agree, is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, expansionist in its influence, and a mortal enemy of America, Israel and the rest of Western Civilization. The reasons for the sanctions regime is to curb their regional and international influence and to deprive them of the resources to create weapons of mass destruction. They have been at war with the West for 36 years, mostly through proxies, and America and its allies have responded with economic war, also known as sanctions.
With this in mind, there is only one reason for the agreement and to lift sanctions, and that is to assuredly prevent Iran, now and in the future, from owning nuclear weapons. If Iran truly has no intention of creating weapons of mass destruction, as they profess, the agreement is rendered unnecessary; however, that is not the case. This agreement leaves intact a vast infrastructure for weapons development. Even assuming the best outcome from this JCPOA, it provides Iran with a nearly zero breakout time in about 10 years.
There is no historical precedent in which a militarily aggressive entity was placated into changing its ideology by giving them money. It questions common sense to unfreeze assets to a nation that is expected to utilize those funds in efforts to harm America and its allies. Have no doubt that those enabling Iran with resources to continue their aggression will have blood on their hands. This terrible compromise might be worth the price if it actually and truly enforced measures on Iran from developing these most destructive armaments. Unfortunately, the agreement only delays Iran’s nuclear weapon development to a time when it is more difficult to deal with. If Iran decides to break out now, it means we are obligated to take military action, and the same in ten years. So we have a conflict either way if they decide to pursue the bomb. The difference is, with sanctions we face a militarily and economically weak Iran. In 10 years, with this agreement, we all expect Iran to be better prepared.
There are some truly adverse consequences to the JCPOA. We will have to contend with a wealthier Iran that will use recouped resources to dominate its neighbors and facilitate more mischief throughout the region and world. There will be a Middle East arms race, conventional, and possibly nuclear, as well as a greater influence of Russia and China in the region.
No one can say what Iran will decide to do (which is truly the operative issue), but only that if at any time Iran considers and fully commits to making a bomb, America has pledged to stop it, as the Administration has said, likely by a military strike. To put this in perspective, the operation would be more like the limited military strikes in Libya and Syria that the President has already carried out, rather than the occupation of Iraq.
The Administration has pursued this agreement with the diligence it merits, but has acted in some ways that are counterproductive. Congress, by a wide majority, passed legislation to review and approve this treaty (“As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems”—President Obama, Aug. 5). Because of the gravity of this issue, Congress insisted on an approval process. The President came to an agreement with Congress, and signed the legislation to allow a review before the agreement would become effective.
Unfortunately, the President undermined our bargaining position in bringing the agreement to the UN Security Council before Congressional review. In addition, it was only by chance that secret side agreements were discovered, which by law the President still has yet to submit to Congress. These actions were a breach of trust to the members of Congress and to the American people whom they represent. This weakens the credibility of the administration in its case to Congress and the nation.
Due to the Administration’s premature actions, much damage will have been done to the sanctions regime regardless of the Congressional decision. It seems that the Administration was determined to bypass Congress and to make this agreement inevitable. Nevertheless, our economic influence is broad and it is reasonable to expect our allies to ultimately help us if this deal is rejected. It has been common throughout our history for Congress, which takes a longer view of agreements pertaining to national interests, to reject agreements that fail to adequately meet their goals.
In conclusion, we are paying a great price over an agreement which will provide a terrible adversary with resources enough to make it one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations. It might be worth the price to permanently avoid a nuclear-armed Iran. It is certainly not worth it to agree to something subpar, kick the can down the road, and pass the buck to our kids, who will in the relatively near future have a more difficult problem to remedy.
Members of Congress have devoted their lives to the good of the country and the world. I urge our elected officials in Congress to oppose this deeply flawed agreement and help work towards a better long-term solution. It is obvious that this will be more difficult given the premature actions of the Administration. Fortunately, America is a great nation and, God willing, will be up to the task.
Dr. Ben Chouake is the National President of NORPAC. More NORPAC information can be found at www.Norpac.net
By Dr. Ben Chouake
