 |
| Charles Schumer |
Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to
cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue
are vociferous in their views.
Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat
such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered
explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure,
politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.
I have spent the last three weeks doing just that:
carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and
re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and
opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the
agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.
Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point
of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement
a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and
considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and
will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.
While we have come to different conclusions, I give
tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President,
Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing
Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the
President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the
Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s
far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive
Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a
nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all
fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in
combatting and containing Iran.
In making my decision, I examined this deal in three
parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear
restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and
consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the
agreement or without it?
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious
weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”;
the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would
likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that
delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and
improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into
building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.
Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site
where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay
would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that
site.
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot
demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member
Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate,
inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1
as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the
Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may
well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement
seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause
snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more
appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the
violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral
sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the
cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the
provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese
feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to
have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there
would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of
the deal – nuclear restrictions for the first ten years – that line of thinking
is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned
above make this argument less compelling.
Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict
Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President
would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing
to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After
fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and
better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the
agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear
threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a
green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than
it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a
nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.
If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under
this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be
very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement
signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran
is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement
than without it.
In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of
the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran
has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle
East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only
three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this
agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future
and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create
even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.
To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had
to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to
counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
(IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one
goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military
and terrorist actions.
Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to
build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment
their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic
weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have
been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.
When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I
think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than
with one.
Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not
whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it –
it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within
ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to
the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be
better off without it.
Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes
the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under
this agreement.
If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the
West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s
hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate
Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is
less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is
more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not
international adventurism.
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate
and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous
sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to
increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one
should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran
will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their
government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic
advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in
Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and
undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic
dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail
for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and
will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not
because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the
path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this
agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions
while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep
U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other
nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as
it may be.
For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove
is the right one.
