by Lauri B. Regan
May 30, 2015
On Tuesday evening, I attended a debate in New York City sponsored by Intelligence Squared U.S. focusing on whether or not Obama’s Iran deal is good for the country….[Mark] Dubowitz, who was superb…discussed the “seven deadly flaws” of the deal, which make war more likely, not less:
- It will leave substantial portions of the nuclear infrastructure intact with only a one-year breakout, which, by year 15, will reduce to zero breakout time.
- Obama gave up on sanctions and U.N. resolutions, allowing Iran nuclear enrichment capabilities from the very beginning of negotiations, giving Iran a 1,200% increase in centrifuges from his starting point.
- Iran’s ballistic missile program is off the table (ICBMs are designed for one thing: to reach New York City).
- Obama has agreed to allow the heavily fortified Fordow facility to remain in place as a “medical isotope facility” easily converted.
- The sunset clause allows all restrictions to be removed by year 15.
- The verification and inspections regime that was promised to be “unprecedented” is worthless, given that Khamenei said inspections of military bases will be “met with hot lead.” Dubowitz pointed out that we missed the nuclear weapons programs of the USSR, China, India, Israel, and North Korea and underestimated the various aspects of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, concluding that we basically “have a lousy record.”
- The IAEA does not enforce agreements; the U.S. does, and the only way to enforce this agreement is with snapback sanctions.
Dubowitz then proceeded to describe what a better deal would look like…READ MORE