Anyone who looks at the nuclear deal and sees success is
living in a world of rainbows and unicorns.
I’m always chasing rainbows,
watching clouds drifting by / My schemes are just like all my dreams, ending in
the sky.
The vaudeville song by Harry Carroll and Joseph McCarthy,
popularized by Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand, is all too appropriate to
this moment, as we consider the implications of a nuclear Iran and the prospect
of mushroom clouds over the Middle East.
President Obama has been chasing a rainbow in his
negotiations with Iran. He has forsaken decades of pledges to the civilized
world from presidents of both parties. He has misled the American people in
repeatedly affirming that the U.S. would never allow revolutionary Iran to
acquire nuclear weapons, which would guarantee a new arms race. In fact, one has
already started. Credible reports suggest Pakistan is ready to ship an atomic
package to Saudi Arabia, the Sunni nation that stands opposed to Shiite Iran’s
subversion throughout the region.
But Tehran is working
across religious lines as well. Though Hamas is Sunni, Iran has sent millions
of dollars to the terror group that controls Gaza to rebuild the tunnel network
that the Israeli Defense Force destroyed last summer.
How far Mr. Obama is prepared to chase the negotiation
dream is illustrated by the recent candor of his energy secretary, Ernest
Moniz, a nuclear physicist who has been party to the negotiations. In 2013 the
president answered questions about Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons
with these words: “Our assessment continues to be a year or more away, and in
fact, actually our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of
Israeli intelligence services.”
Yet on Monday Mr. Moniz told reporters at Bloomberg a
different story: “They are right now spinning. I mean enriching with 9,400
centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000,” he said. “It’s very little time to go
forward. That’s two to three months.” How long has the administration held this
view? “Oh, quite some time,” Mr. Moniz replied. The Bloomberg report suggests
“several years.”
This stunningly casual remark was based on information
apparently declassified on April 1. What is Mr. Obama up to? Why was he
reassuring in 2013 when he knew it was misleading? Is the declassification
intended to create a false sense of urgency?
Compare where we are today with the conditions Mr. Obama
laid down two years ago. Referring to Iran’s smiling new president, Hasan
Rouhani, Mr. Obama said: “If in fact he is able to present a credible plan that
says Iran is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but we’re not pursuing nuclear
weapons, and we are willing to be part of an internationally verified structure
so that all other countries in the world know they are not pursuing nuclear
weapons, then, in fact, they can improve relations, improve their economy. And
we should test that.”
Sure—let’s test it:
•
Enrichment: Before
the talks began, the Obama administration and U.N. Security Council insisted
that Iran stop all uranium enrichment. So did the 2013 framework agreement. Now
the deal enshrines Iran’s right to enrich.
•
Stockpile: In February, Iran had 10,000
kilograms of enriched uranium, which the deal says will be reduced to 300
kilograms. The remainder is to be exported to Russia and returned to Iran as
fuel rods for use in a power plant. But Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Abbas
Araghchi, told state media at the end of March that “there is no question of
sending the stocks abroad.”
•
Centrifuges: Iran has
about 19,000 centrifuges, and the U.S. initially called for cutting that to
between 500 and 1,500. The agreement now allows 6,104. Not only that, Iran’s
foreign minister has said that advanced IR-8 centrifuges, which enrich uranium
20 times faster than the current IR-1 models, will be put into operation as
soon as the nuclear deal takes effect—contrary to what the U.S. has asserted.
•
Infrastructure: The
closure of nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Arak has been an American goal
for a decade. Under the deal, the 40-megawatt heavy-water nuclear plant at
Arak, which produces plutonium, will remain, albeit with reduced plutonium
production. The deal allows the Fordow facility, which is buried in a mountain
fortress designed to withstand aerial attack, to be converted into a “peaceful
research” center. Iran will be allowed to keep 1,000 centrifuges there. Natanz
will remain open as well.
•
Missiles: Iran stonewalled on concerns about the military
dimensions of its nuclear program. U.S. negotiators dropped demands that Tehran
restrict development of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could be used
to deliver warheads.
•
Duration: Initially the U.S. wanted the deal to last 20 years. Now
the key terms sunset in 10 to 15 years. Rather than enabling American
disengagement from the Middle East, the framework is likely to necessitate
deepening involvement under complex new terms, as former secretaries of state Henry
Kissinger and George Shultz wrote in this newspaper earlier this month.
•
Enforcement: President
Obama promises: “If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something
suspicious, we will inspect it.” This is incredibly unrealistic. Over the past
year alone, Iran has violated its international agreements at least three
times. In November the International Atomic Energy Agency caught Iran operating
a new advanced IR-5 centrifuge. Disagreement about inspections under the deal
persists. Secretary Moniz has said that inspectors for the International Atomic
Energy Agency must be allowed access to any place at any time. Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei and his military say no way.
•
Sanctions: The deal gives
Iran exactly what it wanted: permanent relief from economic sanctions in
exchange for temporary restraints. Mr. Obama talks about being able to “snap
back” sanctions. But consider the attitudes of two of the big players in the
six-power talks. China’s press refers to “peaceful” Iran as if it were
Switzerland. Russia says the deal has freed it to sell S-300 air-defense
missiles to Tehran. Assuming that the West discovers a nuclear violation, it
will be nearly impossible to reimpose today’s sanctions.
•
Good behavior: Meanwhile,
Ayatollah Khamenei continues to denounce the U.S. as the Great Satan, making
clear that Iran doesn’t expect to normalize relations. His speeches indicate
that Iran still sees itself in a holy war with the West.
***
So here we are at the end of the rainbow, seemingly willing
to concede nuclear capacity to Iran, a country we consider a principal threat.
No wonder Saudi Arabia and Egypt are insisting on developing equivalent nuclear
capabilities. America’s traditional allies have concluded that the U.S. has
traded temporary cooperation from Iran for acquiescence to its ultimate
hegemony.
The sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table
took years to put in place. They have impaired Iran’s ability to conduct trade
in the global market. The banking freeze in particular has had a crippling
effect, since international businesses will not risk being blacklisted by the
U.S. and European Union to make a few dollars in Iran. Many of those who have
studied the problem believe that if the sanctions were to remain, they would squeeze
Tehran and force greater concessions.
President Obama seems to be willfully ignoring Iran’s
belligerent behavior and its growing influence over Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad
and Yemen’s capital, San’a. Free of sanctions, Iran may become even more
assertive.
There are no rainbows ahead, only menacing clouds.
Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News &
World Report.
We have had a series of articles by Kissinger and Shultz,
Bret Stephens, Charles Krauthammer, Tom Cotton, Jonathan Rosenblum, Martin Sherman,
Ari Shavit and now Mortimer Zuckerman, all pointing to the disastrous consequences
of Obama’s policy of appeasement of Iran. Yet no one is asking for Congress to impeach
President Obama on Iran. So have these authors apparently concluded that
nothing can be done and that nuclear war is inevitable?
