President Obama’s statement last week parallels Clinton’s two decades ago. Obama declared that his deal “is good for the security of the United States, for our allies, and for the world.” Obama said the deal would “stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program” and that “international inspectors will have unprecedented access” to all existing facilities. Obama promised, “this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.” It’s almost as if there is a template on White House computers for announcing terrible nuclear deals.
The words may be similar, but the framework Obama reached with Iran is actually worse than the one Clinton negotiated with North Korea. North Korea had to cheat on its deal to break out as a nuclear power. Iran does not have to cheat. That’s because most provisions of the deal expire in 10 years, and the deal does not require Iran to dismantle or destroy any of its nuclear facilities, allow snap inspections, stop enrichment, stop research and development on advanced centrifuges or stop the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Worse, the deal reportedly front-loads the suspension of sanctions, which have cost the regime $130 billion over just two years. Lifting those sanctions will immediately infuse Iran’s economy with tens of billions of dollars — money it can use to keep its nuclear program going, continue destabilizing the region and build ballistic missiles that can reach New York and Washington.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member