Ambassador Dennis Ross, who served as President Obama’s special adviser on Iran during his first term, co-chaired a task force whose report, published Monday, offers a stark and pointed assessment of last year’s P5+1 interim agreement over the Iranian nuclear program, also known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPA). The report,written by the Iran Task Force of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), notes that though the JPA “set back Iran’s breakout timing by nearly one month,” it nonetheless has allowed “Iran to enrich uranium more rapidly than before the deal; steadily reduce the pressure on Tehran from sanctions; and fail to resolve international concerns about Iran’s weaponization activities.”
The executive summary of the JINSA report then elaborated on those areas where the JPA falls short.
This is based on three key trends we observe thus far, all of which are permitted under the JPA. First, increased centrifuge efficiency could negate the ongoing neutralization of Iran’s most advanced uranium stockpile. As a result, Tehran’s overall progress toward nuclear weapons capability could be unchanged, or even advanced, during the interim period. Second, even as the JPA leaves Iran’s potential breakout timing unchanged, it is decreasing U.S. leverage for compelling Iran to conclude and adhere to an acceptable final deal. Specifically, we estimate increased oil exports resulting from the JPA’s unlacing of sanctions will yield Iran $9-13 billion more in revenue between the deal’s announcement in November 2013 and the end of the six-month interim deal than if it had not been agreed. Third, despite some transparency improvements, Iran continues to deny the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full access to suspected military dimensions of its nuclear program. As before the JPA, this leaves inspectors largely in the dark about the true extent of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin summed it up: “The JPA is allowing Iran to get closer to its goal while impeding the West’s ability to stop its illicit nuclear weapons program.”
In addition, while failing to roll back Iran’s nuclear program significantly, the report also notes that “the Islamic Republic remains the leading international sponsor of terrorism and the backbone of the Syrian regime’s brutal suppression of its own citizens.”
Two of the issues highlighted by the JINSA report were underlined by news reports this week. Reuters reported that a UN panel of experts has found that it is likely that Iran has “learned how to outsmart security and intelligence services in acquiring sensitive components and materials.” The Associated Press reported that efforts to learn about possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear research have been stymied by Iran’s refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The AP reports that with this dead end “hopes that Iran and six world powers can meet their July target date for an overarching nuclear deal.” JINSA similarly observed that the “JPA is not making a comprehensive agreement on Iran’s nuclear program more likely to be achieved.”
Ross’s name on this report critiquing the administration’s approach to Iran is significant. In 2008 he endorsed President Obama, in part because he “saw how [Obama] focused on the urgency of the Iranian threat” and that the candidate understood that “for Israel’s sake and our own we must put far more pressure on Iran if we are to stop it from going nuclear.”
Dennis Ross isn’t the first former Obama administration official to critique the administration’s tactics in the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Robert Einhorn, who was a Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control in Obama’s first term, released a paper for the Brookings Institution (.pdf) at the end of March calling for Congress to pass laws to reimpose sanctions “the event of an Iranian attempt to break out and acquire nuclear weapons” and to pre-authorize military force in the case “of clear evidence that Iran has taken steps to abandon the agreement.” Einhorn argues that these steps are necessary “to convey clearly to Iran’s leaders that any attempt to abandon constraints and pursue nuclear weapons would be met with a firm international response that would be highly damaging to Iran’s interests” in order to “deter a future Iranian breakout decision.”
Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote Iran Is *Really* Good at Evading Sanctions for the September 2013 issue of The Tower Magazine and How A Weak Iran Deal Makes Us All Less Safe and War More Likely for the January 2014 issue.
[Photo: Nuclear Threat Initiative / YouTube ]