Pro-Iran, anti-sanctions groups call for Iranian impunity for terrorist attacks on the United States, oppose final deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, funded by the famously soft-on-Iran Ploughshares Fund (which also underwrites the notorious pro-Iran lobby NIAC, and has spent millions of dollars to influence the media and policy debate in favor of accepting Iran as a nuclear power), released a disturbing and misleading new attack on the Senate’s bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, now cosponsored by 59 Democrats and Republicans. The bipartisan proposal is described by its lead Democratic author as “a diplomatic insurance policy” that enhances our diplomacy, ensuring that any existing sanctions suspended under the interim first step agreement would be immediately reimposed should Iran cheat on its commitments, attack the United States with its global terrorist networks, or launch a long-range ballistic missile of the kind that could carry nuclear weapons. The bill also provides Congress the opportunity to register its concerns regarding a final agreement that would not preclude Iran from being able to produce nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing.
Get the facts below. And for more on Iran’s work on nuclear weapons see here and here
Disturbing Attack #1: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation author claims the bipartisan Senate legislation would impede negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program because it requires the President to certify that “Iran has not directly, or through a proxy, supported, financed, planned, or otherwise carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or United States persons or property anywhere in the world” during the nuclear negotiations.
FACT CHECK: This argument – which disregards Iran’s role as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism – is deeply disturbing and reveals the true views of those arguing for less pressure on Iran. The author suggests that Iran should not be held accountable and the United States should not re-impose sanctions on Iran if it carries out or aids a terrorist attack against the United States. Yes, you read that correctly, but read it again one more time: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation suggests that Iran should not be held accountable and the United States should not re-impose sanctions on Iran if they use their global terrorist network to attack the United States during nuclear negotiations. That is not the view of a credible voice.
Disturbing Attack #2: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation article claims the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act would “undercut President Obama’s efforts to obtain a comprehensive solution to Iran’s nuclear activities” because it insists on minimum requirements for any final agreement. Specifically, the author asserts it is unreasonable to demand that the final agreement should:
1) remove the “illicit nuclear infrastructure…and other capabilities critical to the production of nuclear weapons” from Iran;
2) bring Tehran “into compliance with all United Nations Security Council resolutions related to Iran’s nuclear program”’
3) require Iran to stop lying, and tell the truth so “all the IAEA’s issues regarding past or present Iranian nuclear activities be resolved”; and
4) establish “continuous, around the clock, on-site inspection…of all suspect facilities in Iran” to make it harder for Iran to cheat later
FACT CHECK: Any final deal that does not include the four criteria above would constitute a very bad deal for the United States, the West and global security. As Secretary of State John Kerry has said repeatedly, no deal is better than a bad deal. The author asserts that an acceptable final deal would allow Iran to keep everything it needs to produce nuclear weapons any time, should not require intrusive international inspections to prevent Iran from cheating and secretly developing nuclear weapons, and should not force Iran to come clean on its past nuclear warhead research and development activities, which experts say is absolutely necessary to know what Iran really has and what they may still be hiding. The author’s concept of a final deal constitutes an unacceptably dangerous and bad deal for America.
Disturbing Attack #3: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation article claims the bipartisan Senate bill “moves the goalposts” by requiring the President to re-impose “[a]ny sanctions deferred, waived, or otherwise suspended by the President pursuant to the Joint Plan of Action or any agreement to implement the Joint Plan of Action” if Iran violates its own commitments under that agreement.
FACT CHECK: Say what!? According to that logic, if Iran cheats and breaks the agreement, the United States should not put back in place the sanctions we loosened as part of the deal. You read that correctly, too. In fact, the President has already committed to re-impose sanctions suspended under the Joint Plan of Action if Iran cheats on its part of the deal. Supporting the agreement and American diplomacy, the bill codifies the administration’s commitments as well as those of the Iranians.
Disturbing Attack #4: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation article claims the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act would impede negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program because the bill would allow Congress to enact a joint resolution of disapproval on any final agreement.
FACT CHECK: A joint resolution of disapproval requires a 2/3 majority of both the House and Senate to override a likely presidential veto. With the Senate controlled by the President’s party, the only way such a resolution could succeed is if the final agreement is widely perceived as a “bad deal” – that is, it allows Iran to maintain the capability to produce nuclear weapons. It is also worth noting that despite the magnitude of the issue, the administration is refusing to treat the final agreement as a treaty, which would be subject to Senate ratification. For comparison sake, it is worth noting that even trade agreements (and, economic sanctions impact trade) must be approved by a majority of both the House and Senate, and every arms sale is subject to joint resolutions of disapproval. Given the gravity of the matter, Congress’ right to enact a joint resolution of disapproval, to protest and express reservations over a “bad deal” with Iran, is entirely reasonable and does not impede anything.
Disturbing Attack #5: The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation article claims the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran legislation would impede negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program because it requires the President to certify that “Iran has not conducted any tests for ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kilometers” during the nuclear negotiations.
FACT CHECK: As the U.S. Department of Defense reported last year, Iran is working to field test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. In addition to testing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking Europe and targets across Middle East, Iran has also been caught by the IAEA trying to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit them onto their missiles. As Bloomberg News reported November 9, 2011, “Iran continued working on nuclear weapons at least until last year, including efforts to shrink a Pakistani warhead design to fit atop its ballistic missiles, a report from United Nations inspectors said.”
The most important way Iran advances its long-range ballistic missile program is by flight testing. There is no reasonable explanation for Iran to conduct such aggressive and unnecessary tests. Why should Iran not be penalized for advancing the development of long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States? In fact, as the author points out, this activity is already prohibited by multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions. Interestingly, while the Center has expressed serious concerns about North Korean illicit missile testing, the article is willing to accept Iranian illicit missile testing.