- Gentlemen, start your drones: Judge’s ruling opens door for commercial use
- Soldier who hid, bragged about not saluting flag to be punished — in secret
- ‘Maverick’ of the seas: ‘Top Gun’ school for U.S. ship officers to launch
- Putin declares Sochi Paralympics open amid Ukrainian protest
- ‘In Jesus name, we pray’ sparks ire at Ohio council meeting
- Navy’s first laser weapon ready for prime time; drone killer to deploy this summer
- Billionaire backer: Rick Santorum ‘needs to be heard’ in 2016
- Obamacare fallout: 49 percent pessimistic; 45 percent ‘scared’
- DHS accused of holding U.S. citizen at airport, using emails to pry into her sex life
- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
Doubts rise on Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran; Appeasement or deterent?
A preliminary deal designed to halt Iran’s nuclear program will take effect next week, the White House said Sunday, but some U.S. lawmakers and analysts have little faith that the Middle Eastern nation will comply.
In exchange for about $7 billion in economic sanctions relief, Iran on Jan. 20 will stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent — a level high enough for energy purposes but not nuclear weapons — and will begin to dilute its existing stockpile of 20 percent uranium. Iran also has pledged not to construct more centrifuges and will submit to rigorous inspection of its facilities, though it does not have to shutter any existing centrifuges.
The U.S. and five international partners agreed to those terms in November when they reached an accord with Iran, the first step in a longer-term process aimed at ensuring Iran never acquires nuclear bombs that could be used to threaten Israel or otherwise destabilize the region.
The Obama administration touted the deal as a key victory that averts potential military action by Israel or others and vindicates the notion that diplomacy, combined with tough economic sanctions, can bring real change inside Iran.
Analysts, however, say key problems with the deal remain. Chief among their concerns is that international inspectors will have access only to Iran’s declared facilities.
“In theory, they should be able to monitor the declared facilities, assuming the Iranians don’t obfuscate and cheat and play their usual games,” said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “But there’s a still a big blind spot with respect to their covert facilities. They’ve always had a covert nuclear infrastructure that they’ve never admitted. We don’t know if they exist or where they are. That’s a huge concern.”
Many lawmakers have blasted the deal because it allows Iran to continue enriching uranium up to 5 percent. Critics of the agreement believe Iran should have to cease all uranium enrichment and take apart its existing nuclear facilities, though Iranian leaders surely would have rejected a proposal with such demands.
“The underlying agreement does nothing to reverse Iran’s nuclear program, allows it to continue industrial-scale enrichment of uranium and fails to address critical aspects of Iran’s weaponization research,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, said in a statement soon after the Jan. 20 start date was announced.
President Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and others within the administration have stressed over the past several months that they were going into the deal with their eyes wide open and had little trust for the words of Iranian leaders.
They view the agreement not as the end, but the beginning of a lengthy, complex process that will be stopped immediately if Iran isn’t acting in good faith.
“We have made concrete progress. I welcome this important step forward and we will not focus on the critical work of pursuing a comprehensive resolution that addresses our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “I have no illusions how hard it will be to achieve this objective, but for the sake of our national security and the peace and security of the world, now is the time to give diplomacy a chance to succeed.”
On Capitol Hill, a growing number of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle doubt Iran’s sincerity and believe compliance can be achieved only by tightening, not loosening, the economic sanctions regime credited by the president and Mr. Kerry for bringing Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.
Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, and Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, have put forth legislation — which now has nearly 60 co-sponsors and support among a majority of senators — that would set up a framework for more sanctions against Iran.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Ben Wolfgang covers the White House for The Washington Times.
Before joining the Times in March 2011, Ben spent four years as a political reporter at the Republican-Herald in Pottsville, Pa.
He can be reached at email@example.com.
- Russia besieges Crimea as U.S. seeks diplomacy
- Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to meet with Obama at White House
- Cruz: Putin taking advantage of Obama's weakness
- Gates: Obama strategy won't stop Putin
- Paul takes veiled shot at Cruz, says GOP must focus on growth
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Rand Paul wins 2014 CPAC straw poll, Ted Cruz finishes a distant second
- Six Senate seats could hinge on Keystone pipeline
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Senate Democrats, Republicans spar over restoring unemployment benefits
- 80 people publicly executed across North Korea for films, Bibles
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- SAUERBREY: Taxing Marylanders until they flee
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- Russias Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Pope Francis meets his 'mini-me'
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Winter storm hits states — again