This morning I read a Washington Post op-ed that provided an especially prescient analysis of the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is seeking with Iran. The author said in the final two paragraphs of this piece:
The much-discussed terms of the impending agreement with Iran thus offer the theocracy all that it wants. The accord would concede a vast enrichment capacity, as well as accepting both a heavy water plant and a well-fortified underground enrichment facility that the United States once vowed to shutter. It would permit an elaborate research and development program and would likely rely on an inspection regime that falls short of indispensable “anytime, anywhere” access. In the meantime, the sanctions architecture will be diminished, and the notion of ever “snapping back” sanctions into place once they are lifted is delusional. And because the agreement itself would be term-limited, there would be no practical limits on Iran’s nuclear ambitions upon its expiration.
However, as disturbing as all this may be, the most important legacy of the prospective agreement many not even lie in the nuclear realm. The massive financial gains from the deal would enable the Islamic Republic’s imperial surge while allowing a repressive regime that was on the brink of collapse in 2009 to consolidate power. This would be no small achievement for Iran’s emboldened rulers.
Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and former Amb. to the UN John Bolton were not the authors of the Op-Ed questioning the Iran nuclear deal.
Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and former U.S. Amb. to the UN John Bolton were not the authors of the Op-Ed questioning the Iran nuclear deal.
Who wrote this devastating assessment? Joe Lieberman? John Bolton? Frank Gaffney? No, it was written by Ray Takeyh who covered Iran on President Obama’s National Security Council and authored the president’s letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader. He is now a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations.
Click HERE to read more.