The United States Congress will soon debate approval of President Barack Obama’s deal between world powers and
dictatorship in regard to its nuclear weapons program. The resolution to disapprove the deal is
supported by a large bipartisan majority in both houses in which Republicans
are in the majority, but the resolution is likely to be short of the two thirds
supermajority necessary to override a threatened presidential veto, as most
liberal Democrats in both houses support the deal.
The deal legitimatizes the Iranian government, as well as its nuclear weapons program, which the agreement only temporarily suspends while allowing
to continue nuclear development that can quickly be converted to weapons
The enforcement provisions of the deal are weak. The Iranian regime may delay inspections for weeks and is even allowed self-inspection in some cases, while the
U.S. is obliged to
program from sabotage. Undisclosed
Iranian nuclear weapons facilities would be oft-limits to inspectors, as would
most Iranian military facilities. There
is no requirement under the deal that Iran be investigated for violations
of previous nuclear non-proliferation agreements. Iran has demonstrated its bad faith
by already openly violating the terms of the tentative agreement reached
earlier this year.
In exchange for the agreement, global economic sanctions on
would be suspended and $150 billion of the terrorist-sponsoring regime’s assets
would be unfrozen. Even sanctions on its
long-range ballistic missile program would be lifted. The lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of
assets would strengthen the Iranian economy, which has been weakened currently
because of the sanctions and the drop in oil prices. Therefore, if sanctions were to be re-imposed
for violating the deal, they would be less effective, meaning that the Iranian
regime would be less deterred from violating the terms of the agreement. The world powers would be reluctant to
declare Iran in violation
anyway, even apart from the harm it would cause to their own emerging commerce
as they have staked their reputations on the success of the deal. The deal also includes amnesty for a terrorist
who murdered scores of innocent civilians.
Therefore, even if this agreement were successful in temporarily delaying
Iran’s nuclear weapons program,
which is doubtful, the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets would
boost the Islamist Iranian regime and would thus make it necessary to reject
neighbors, Israel and Saudi Arabia,
are particularly either opposed to the deal or worried about its weakness. The Obama Administration’s pledge of
increased weapons for these American allies proves the Administration knows the
deal will not adequately safeguard them from Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would thereby accelerate an arms
race in the volatile Middle East. The deal would certainly boost Iran’s ability
to sponsor terrorism, not only in the region, but globally. The Islamist regime is the worst state
sponsor of terrorism in the world, as it believes in spreading its type of
Islamism around the world by any means necessary.
The deal would have to be approved by the Iranian Islamist parliament. Iranian parliamentary approval is uncertain because of differences in interpretation of the deal and the Iranian supreme leader’s insistence that sanctions be lifted permanently instead of suspended temporarily. Nevertheless, the deal is scheduled to be debated in the U.S. Congress in the meantime.
Congress must disapprove the deal and override Obama’s veto. If it fails to override the veto, Congress must find ways to block the implementation of the agreement. The
U.S. and its
allies must continue to find other means to thwart the Iranian nuclear weapons
program while providing better support for the Iranian opposition that seeks
liberty, respect for human rights, representative government and peace.
Otherwise, the world will have to be saved from this deal that emboldens the Islamist terrorist-sponsoring Iranian regime from a new conservative Republican President in January of 2017.