Worse than we could have imagined
President Barack Obama answers questions about the Iran nuclear deal during a news conference in Washington, Wednesday, July 15, 2015. (Susan Walsh/AP)
When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to revisit the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the final terms of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.
Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations? 
When asked Wednesday at his news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks. 
Are
 conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by 
definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?
Because
 Iran, joined by Russia — our “reset” partner — sprung the demand at the
 last minute, calculating that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry 
were so desperate for a deal that they would cave. They did. And have 
convinced themselves that they scored a victory by delaying the lifting 
by five to eight years. (Ostensibly. The language is murky. The interval
 could be considerably shorter.) 
Obama
 claimed in his news conference that it really doesn’t matter, because 
we can always intercept Iranian arms shipments to, say, Hezbollah.
But wait. Obama has insisted throughout that we are pursuing this Iranian diplomacy to avoid
 the use of force, yet now blithely discards a previous diplomatic 
achievement — the arms embargo — by suggesting, no matter, we can just 
shoot our way to interdiction.
ADVERTISING
Moreover,
 the most serious issue is not Iranian exports but Iranian imports — of 
sophisticated Russian and Chinese weapons. These are untouchable. We are
 not going to attack Russian and Chinese transports. 
The
 net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle
 East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but also to 
endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s 
acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our 
control over the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept 
open for international commerce for a half-century.
The other major shock in the final deal is
 what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. 
Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international 
inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then 
adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through 
several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’
 request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.
And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.
The action now shifts to Congress. The debate is being hailed as momentous. It is not. It’s irrelevant. 
Congress
 won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the 
agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days . Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.
Meaning:
 Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal 
underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran 
will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of 
painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight,
 irretrievably. 
Even if Congress 
rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the 
Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left
 isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran. 
Should
 Congress then give up? No. Congress needs to act in order to rob this 
deal of, at least, its domestic legitimacy. Rejection will make little 
difference on the ground. But it will make it easier for a successor 
president to legitimately reconsider an executive agreement (Obama dare 
not call it a treaty — it would be instantly rejected by the Senate) 
that garnered such pathetically little backing in either house of 
Congress.
It’s a future hope, but 
amid dire circumstances. By then, Iran will be flush with cash, 
legitimized as a normal international actor in good standing, recognized
 (as Obama once said) as “a very successful regional power.” Stopping 
Iran from going nuclear at that point will be infinitely more difficult 
and risky.
Which
 is Obama’s triumph. He has locked in his folly. He has laid down his 
legacy, and we will have to live with the consequences for decades.
Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. 
  Read more about this topic:  
Dana Milbank: Republicans’ knee-jerk hatred of the Iran deal
Michael Gerson: Obama’s Iran deal is a reckless bet
The Post’s View: A nuclear deal has been reached, but Iran must free Jason Rezaian
David Ignatius: After a well-crafted deal, the question is: Will Iran behave?
Dennis Ross: Iran deal leaves U.S. with tough questions
 
Dana Milbank: Republicans’ knee-jerk hatred of the Iran deal
Michael Gerson: Obama’s Iran deal is a reckless bet
The Post’s View: A nuclear deal has been reached, but Iran must free Jason Rezaian
David Ignatius: After a well-crafted deal, the question is: Will Iran behave?
Dennis Ross: Iran deal leaves U.S. with tough questions

No comments:
Post a Comment