Another Missed Deadline For Bad Deal

Once again, the deadline for Iran nuclear negotiations is not going to be met. The deadline had been set for today, July 7^th. The parties have established a new deadline for Thursday, July 9^th. Neither side is treating the new July 9th date as a hard deadline, but rather a continuation of prior talks. Both US and Iranian officials have emphasized the importance of achieving the “right” agreement as opposed to spouting something out to meet a deadline.

If an agreement is met and delivered by Thursday, the U.S. Congress has 30 days to review the agreement in accordance with the rules agreed to in the Corker-Cardin legislation. If an agreement is not made by Thursday, “then Congress claims the right to take 60 days to review the text.”

The Obama administration is wary of a continuation of Congress’ review period, because the longer that process takes, the longer it would take to deliver economic relief as well as billions of dollars in incentives to Iran.

A couple of the main issues still holding up a formal agreement with Iran are the issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and the broader arms embargo. The interesting part behind Iran’s insistence on being allowed possession of ballistic missiles is that a US official appears to have been the one to broach the possibility of revealing missile sanctions under the nuclear deal umbrella. Now, as a result of such a declaration, Iran has decided to insist upon this allowance.

Foreign ministers such as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, have mentioned that a few major differences still need to be ironed out, including access to Iranian sites for international monitors. However, this is no small difference. The question of whether or not inspections on all nuclear sites, including military sites, would be allowed is one of the most vital components of the entire agreement. Yet, on the other hand, Iran is still insisting upon a “quick easing of sanction and a rejection of any inspections of military sites or interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists”.

While Iran continues to declare its nuclear activities “are purely for peaceful purposes”, they are insisting on conditions such as those listed above, which only make sense in a military context.  As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated, “It [the nuclear deal] would give them [Iran] a jackpot of hundreds of billions of dollars which to continue to fund their aggression and terror-aggression in the region, terror throughout the world”.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) published a report last month stating, “Iran has been trying to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact and retain the capability to produce nuclear weapons”. NCRI also stated last week that, “without complete unrestricted access…Iran could not be trusted to abide by the terms of the international agreement”.

Given that Iran has already been unfaithful to the existing Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), why does the Administration continue to insist on an agreement?

Even Iran hadn’t insisted that ballistic missiles be allowed, demanded that arms sales embargoes be lifted, and even if the administration was not promising Iran billions in incentives, it would be exceedingly difficult to imagine any agreement that could be made without fear of treachery.

We must rely on Congress to do its part in combatting this agreement. It seems likely that negotiators will not meet this tentative July 9^th deadline, and therefore Congress should have the time it needs to properly examine, and shut down, this bad deal. The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and Fred Fleitz have published what a good deal with Iran could look like. The agreement negotiators are currently discussing is far from the Center’s version. Hopefully with Congress’ help in the following weeks, the two will become more similar sooner than later.