US Rep. Pompeo: One year later, Obama’s Iran nuclear deal puts us at increased risk

By Rep. Mike Pompeo

Today marks one year since Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Zarif agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  On this date, we ought to take the opportunity not to re-litigate that “political commitment,” but evaluate whether it has helped protect the United States, our people, and our interests.  Unfortunately for our country’s future, the answer to that inquiry is a resounding no.  As a result, Congress must act to change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian regime.
The JCPOA can perhaps delay Iran’s nuclear weapons program for a few years.  Conversely, it has virtually guaranteed that Iran will have the freedom to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons at the end of the commitment.  Further, in the past year, the Islamic Republic of Iran has launched multiple ballistic missiles – testing increasingly complex and longer range missiles.  It has grown its support of terrorist groups, and it continues to take hostages.  The deal has, in fact, made our country less safe.
Every year since 1984, the U.S. State Department has designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism, a finding the Department renewed again last month.  Yet the Obama administration still holds out that its political commitment, drafted by a few bureaucrats committed to getting a deal at any cost, can change decades of Iran’s entrenched and militant commitment to “death to America.”  As a result of the billions of dollars flowing into Iran after the JCPOA, the Iranian regime is able to increase its support to terrorist group groups like Hezbollah.  That group’s chief said recently that “Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, are from the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Americans are not behind Iran deal: Mark Mellman

Americans rallying in New York against Iran nuclear deal

The Hill, 8 September 2015
By Mark Mellman
In our representative democracy, public policy only imperfectly reflects public opinion.
Fortunately, Democrats passed healthcare reform despite the fact that, among the public at the time, opponents outnumbered supporters by 5 to 15 points. Republicans shut down the government in 2013 despite 3-to-1 opposition from voters. 
And, of course, Republicans stopped legislation mandating background checks for all gun purchasers even though voters favor the proposal by a 75-point margin.
The Iran nuclear agreement is about to join this list of legislation whose ultimate disposition is contrary to the desire of the majority of Americans.
Of course, the path to that outcome is paved by unusual rules: Only one-third of one chamber of Congress is required to “pass” the agreement.
If it were up to voters, though, Congress would reject it.
The most recent surveys on the deal, by Quinnipiac and Pew, found voters opposing it by 30 and 28-point margins, respectively. Moreover, by 2-to-1, Americans say it will make the world less, rather than more, safe.
A somewhat earlier CBS News poll found voters opposing the agreement by a 13-point margin. In the same survey, Americans opined that “the United States could have negotiated an agreement that was more favorable” to us, by 2-to-1. 
Of course, a few polls of late have offered divergent results.
One, from the University of Maryland, was not intended to measure opinions but rather to create them. It gives respondents literally a page and a half of explanations and arguments before soliciting their views.
In other surveys, the cues have been more subtle.
In an earlier column, I explained that survey questions that argue, in effect, that it’s a good deal, find Americans supporting it. However, when people are asked their opinion in an unbiased way that reflects their own understanding of the agreement, they oppose it.
Americans, I argued, would favor an agreement with Iran that worked. Most doubt this one will and therefore oppose it.more

Congress Should Reject Iran Deal

The following is an article posted by Kim R. Holmes in the Trend website on August 22, 2015.

You’ve heard the argument. If Congress turns down the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran will rush to get a nuclear bomb within two to three months. Our only alternative then is war.
But what about Congress voting “no” and adjusting the terms of the agreement?
Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, recently made such a proposal. He argues that congressional disapproval would provide time to correct some of the agreement’s flaws. Most experts believe that it would take until spring 2016 at the earliest for Iran to comply with the terms of the agreement. Since none of the U.S. sanctions will be suspended by then, there would still be time for the U.S. to take remedial measures to strengthen the deal.
Among these could be reaching understandings with the European partners “on the appropriate penalties to be imposed for a broad spectrum of Iranian violations.” Other actions could include a clearer declaratory policy that military force will not be taken off the table and ramping up tougher sanctions against Tehran’s terrorist and other non-nuclear activities that destabilize the region.
Satloff’s alternative is a noble effort to save an obviously weak deal. It recognizes a major flaw in the agreement: that the terms of re-imposing “snapback” sanctions are so onerous that they will likely never be enforced. It also points to a negotiating principle that the Obama administration has tried to obscure: strong sanctions are what forced whatever concessions Iran made. Keeping or strengthening sanctions enhances America’s bargaining leverage. Even if Congress disapproves the deal, that leverage will remain.
This last point is key. We should remember that no sanctions relief kicks in from anybody—including the United Nations and the Europeans—until the IAEA certifies that Iran has complied with its initial commitments under the agreement. If Tehran responds to a congressional “no” vote by thumbing its nose at everybody, it will only be back where it started, which is not where it wants to be. In fact, it could face even stronger sanctions (or worse) from the U.S. if it should hit the accelerator on its nuclear program.
Satloff’s idea is a good start. Unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. The only way to get Iran to give up its nuclear program short of war is to force it to decide between retaining its nuclear weapons potential and having sanctions completely lifted. Neither Satloff’s option nor Obama’s deal forces that choice....more

Bad Iran Deal Breeds Warranted Skepticism

By Michaela Dodge

On Wednesday, President Obama will make a personalpush to sell the flawed Iran deal to the American public and Congress.
The president’s efforts to sell his bad deal are unsurprising, considering that the more Americans have learned about the deal, the less they like it.
They have plenty of reasons for skepticism.
The deal with Iran is deeply flawed and rewards years of Iranian cheating and lying about the nature of its nuclear program.
Iran has never reasonably explained its nuclear activities.
This is because the only plausible answer is that Iran interested in pursuing a nuclear weapon program, including experiments with explosives.
This is definitely more than an academic interest in shaping highly enriched uranium to a spherical shape (one needs two such spheres for a nuclear device).
The deal leaves the Iranian nuclear infrastructure largely intact—and dismantles sanctions that successive administrations and Congress have put into place, including on Iranians directly responsible for American deaths.
Even the Obama administration recognized that these sanctions likely slowed down Iran’s nuclear progress.
The American people are also skeptical of the administration’s efforts to circumvent Congress.
Last week U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted as much when he said that the agreement wasn’t treated as a treaty “because you can’t pass a treaty anymore.”
Political expediency was clearly not the primary concern of our founding fathers when the Constitution was drafted. If the Iran deal can’t pass as a treaty, then John Kerry has no one but himself to blame.
Had the administration done a better job in negotiating the agreement and not give in to Iran’s dangerous demands, the deal would have sailed through Congress and Americans would have supported it.
To add insult to injury, the president chose to send the deal to the United Nations before he sent it to Congress.
Americans like to be guided by the old adage: “Trust, but verify.”
Obama does not lack trust when it comes to dealing with Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism—but he is short on verification.
Americans are not permitted to be a part of inspections teams that will go to Iran to monitor its nuclear progress. more

Obama: Iranian oil, good, Canadian oil, bad, American oil, bad

President Obama’s confusing approach to energy encourages our enemies who shout “death to America” as it penalizes our closest allies and even our own job creators.
Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations netted a deal that allows it to resume oil exports. International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran currently has about 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea.
It is believed that it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions disappear — if Congress approves the terms of the deal — Iran wants to be ready to move its oil.
On July 17, the Financial Times (FT) reported: “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail — moving the oil closer to customers in Asia.
Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached — which is, according to the FT: “signaling its looming return to the oil market.”
Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal has been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of the recent gains.
While the Obama Administration’s actions allow Iran to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, the White House hurts our closest ally but putting delay after delay in front of the Keystone pipeline, which would help Canada export its oil.
So, the Obama Administration lobbies Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan while constraining Canadian and American oil. How is that in the “national interest?”
It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots...morehttp://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/36394/Obama-Iranian-oil-good-Canadian-oil-bad-American-oil-bad

Congress ought to reject the Iran deal

By Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Ron DeSantis
We are faced with a bad deal that will significantly degrade our national security
Over the last several months the Obama Administration has consistently maintained that no deal with Iran is better than a bad deal, but we now know this claim — as with many claims made throughout these negotiations — was merely political spin. The deal announced by the Obama Administration last week provides Iran with $150 billion in unfrozen assets with which to fund terrorism, puts our national security at risk, and does little to stop Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon. For these reasons and others we believe that Congress must reject this deal.
President Obama promised that a deal with Iran would “make our world safer”, but it’s difficult to believe that giving the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism more money contributes anything to our safety. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iranian-supplied roadside bombs accounted for as many as 1,500 American combat deaths. These deaths were orchestrated by the Quds Force from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and its leader, Qasem Soleimani. For those that served there this memory is still raw. When we remember those fallen comrades as well as those who lost their lives in Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks it is difficult to believe we would enter into a deal with a regime that supports such behavior.
The recent rantings of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei are sufficient to dispel any notion that this deal with Iran will cause the ayatollahs to disavow terrorism and join the civilized world. When followers of the ayatollahs chant “death to America” in the streets, they mean it. They will stop at nothing to end our way of life. Worse, the Obama administration has acknowledged that the Iranian regime will plow a portion — if not all — of the monetary windfall it receives from the deal into terrorism. That terrorism is likely to be targeted at the United States and our allies.
During his reelection campaign, President Obama also promised that any deal with Iran would require Iran to “give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place,” which do not permit Iran to enrich uranium. The president said flatly that “the deal we’ll accept is to end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.” In fact, it didn’t end up being so straightforward. The deal goes beyond the mere acceptance of an Iranian nuclear program; it requires the international community to facilitate Iran’s program, even to assist Iran in protecting its program from sabotage. Just a few years ago, a deal that permitted Iran to develop advanced centrifuges would have been unthinkable. The deal makes the international community, including the United States, active sponsors of Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons capability fortified against outside efforts to sabotage it.
When explaining the deal to the American people, President Obama said it was based on verification, not trust. Yet this deal forces us to rely on a convoluted bureaucratic process to even initiate the inspections of undeclared nuclear sites that are critical to ensure that Iran is not assembling a nuclear weapon. Iran can drag that process out for 24 days, concealing any offending conduct in the meantime. This is a far cry from “anytime, anywhere” inspections his administration lauded earlier in the negotiating process.
And if violations are identified the deal includes an explicit provision relieving Iran of its obligations under the deal in the event that the sanctions are reinstated. This represents a “nuclear snapback” that will likely negate the prospect of imposing sanctions in response to Iranian violations. Worse, the deal even lifts sanctions on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, including Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, whose activities killed so many American servicemen in Iraq.more

After the Nuclear Agreement, a Ticking Clock

By Alireza Jafarzadeh
At the White House recently, President Barack Obama hailed the just-announced nuclear agreement with Iran as “the best deal.” A closer look at the details of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, however, provides little cause for celebration.
First and foremost, the agreement does not actually prevent Tehran from having a nuclear weapons capability. To the contrary, it guarantees the regime several potential paths for building the bomb in the future. That’s because the JCPOA preserves and legitimizes Iran’s basic nuclear infrastructure — including an industrialized uranium enrichment program — with some restrictions that phase out in as little as a decade.
The deal also allows the regime to conduct research and development on advanced centrifuges. This gives Iran the opportunity to master its technology and be in a position to create a small covert facility with only a few hundred advanced centrifuges, sufficient to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.
Contrary to the White House talking points, the agreement does not in fact provide “anytime, anywhere access” to suspect nuclear sites, including military sites. Instead it provides “managed access” to sites, which....more  
 

To balance the nuclear deal, defeat Isis and confront Iran

 

In the next couple of months, the US Congress will debate whether the Iranian nuclear deal is likely to work 

  as arms control. But the bigger debate is whether the agreement, with its relaxation of sanctions, means America is halfhearted — at most — in confronting Iranian sponsorship of so much of the violent chaos that is spreading across the Middle East. That is why the US should choose this moment to develop a serious, full-bodied strategy to defeat the barbaric Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isis) in Syria as well as Iraq.
This strategy confronts Iranian ambitions in both places and would therefore be the ideal companion to diplomacy that stops an Iranian nuclear threat. Such an exertion of US power to build a powerful coalition would reassure many in Washington and around the world who are ambivalent about the deal. It would also be the right move to protect America and its allies.
The terrorist danger Isis presents is rising towards the level that al-Qaeda presented in the years immediately before the 9/11 attacks on the US. Leaders should ask themselves: if Isis carries out a truly catastrophic attack, in the region or in America, what would they wish they had done before that day? Those post-catastrophe plans must be prepared now, before such an event. Surely no one thinks the current level of effort really is all America could or would do.
As executive director of the 9/11 Commission, I saw that cycle of horror, recrimination and reaction close up. I remember all too well what people wished they had done in the preceding years. There were political and military options short of an invasion and indefinite occupation of Afghanistan but they were deemed too risky. So, having refused to take limited risks to prevent a catastrophe, Americans have paid and are still paying a far heavier price.
A powerful coalition to defeat Isis must lead with a new political strategy before the military one. And that means confronting Iranian ambitions.more