Before Congress, Experts Undermine Admin’s Iran Deal

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tuesday appeared to be Iran Day on Capitol Hill with two major hearings for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The first hearing, “Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Administrations Case” had three witnesses, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew, and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. Before skeptical politicians, the three cabinet secretaries sought support for the Iran nuclear deal before Congress votes. Despite Kerry and his fellow peer’s attempts to clarify so-called “misunderstandings” in relation to the deal, their testimonies and responses to questions left politicians seeking answers more questions than they had going into the hearing.

Later on in the day a joint hearing for House Foreign Affairs subcommittees for on the Iran-North Korea Strategic Alliance, explored the relationship between the two rogue states, with witnesses Ilan Berman, Claudia Rosett, Larry Niksch and Jim Walsh. All but Walsh stressed the important role Iranian-North Korean cooperation plays in nuclear weapons development. The second hearing directly contradicted much of the previous testimony by Kerry, Lew and Moniz.

Kerry’s prepared remarks on the Iran Nuclear Agreement were fairly run of the mill. In his formal testimony, he stressed that the deal is a good one that greatly sets back the Iranians’ timetable of developing nuclear weapons, and that there is no tangible alternative to his prized deal. Kerry became discernibly flustered and frustrated as the questioning went on through the four-hour hearing, declaring multiple times that rather than complaints he wanted to hear an alternative option from the opponents of the deal.

However, when unable to utilize his scripted responses to various Representatives’ grilling questions, Kerry faltered.  When Representative Brad Sherman (D-California) probed Kerry about what would happen if Congress overrode President Obama’s presidential veto to block the deal, asking, “Will you follow the law even though you think it violates this agreement clearly and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?” Kerry sat in silence for a few seconds, struggling to compose an answer. He finally responded with, “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the president.”

Understandably, Sherman was surprised by the Secretary of State’s response, saying, “So you’re not committed to following the law?”

Kerry’s inability to answer a simple question of whether he would follow the law or not if the deal is blocked highlighted his and his peer’s overall incoherence when it comes to the repercussions this deal has on the United States’ own national security, and the security of our allies.

Despite Kerry’s claims yesterday that it is “much easier to push back against an Iran that doesn’t have a nuclear weapon,” witnesses in the joint subcommittee hearing on the Iran-North Korea Strategic Alliance pointed out that there is nothing keeping Iran from purchasing nuclear weapons or to move forward with their program on North Korean territory. Rosett pointed out that according to Chinese estimates, North Korea has a substantial amount of nuclear warheads, arguably more than they truly need. She furthered her analysis by suggesting it wouldn’t be impossible for North Korea to sell their surplus weaponry to Iran, who will now be in a financial position to do so. While Kerry assured lawmakers in his statements that he was convinced this deal successfully closed of any pathways Iran had to a nuclear bomb he completely ignored the significance of Iran’s close relations with North Korea.

Secretary of Treasury Lew stated in his testimony from the earlier hearing that, “should Iran violate its commitments once we have suspended sanctions, we have the mechanisms ready to snap them back into place. For U.S. sanctions, this can be done in a matter of days.”Claudia Rosett explained however that that snapback sanctions could actually make it easier for Iran to cheat on the deal as it provides disincentives for the US to utilize such snapbacks.

Any snapback sanctions must come from the United Nations Security Council, which as Rosett noted could take years to implement. Under the terms of the deal, Iran has the ability to remove itself from any commitments while still pocketing any gains it already has and walk away. Iran has cheated on every other nuclear agreement they have ever had, and there is no reason to believe this agreement will be any different. The flaw in the snapbacks, and the US’ resistance to penalize Iran for failing to uphold agreements, has already be foreshadowed earlier this month when it was widely reported that Iran was not following the terms of the interim agreement and the Administration turned a blind eye in order to continue negotiations.

The final claim, that of Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, in which, “environmental sampling can detect microscopic traces of nuclear materials even after attempts are made to remove the nuclear material,” remains true, however fails to take into account the fact that Iran could utilize its relations with North Korea to continue its nuclear weapons program with no detection. The nuclear deal lays out terms of the IAEA’s ability to suspicious sites in order to test for nuclear material. While that sounds good in theory, it fails to consider what if the Iranians use North Korean territory to test weapons. North Korea has not been shy in the past with its tests of ballistic missile technology, and there is speculation a new launch is planned in North Korea in October. Rosett pointed out in her testimony such a test is a prime example of how Iran could test its own technology in plain sight.

The two hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday in relation to the Iran nuclear deal proved there are still many unknowns in relation to the deal. What is not unknown is that the Administration remains extraordinarily hesitant to openly discuss key elements of the deal, and that the more that is learned about it, the worse it sounds for the US.

Please Share: