Robert Satloff’s 10 Questions to President Obama about the Iran Deal:

Click here to view the web version.

 

I want to be sure you’ve seen the following noteworthy items regarding the Iran deal. Please continue to call members of Congress throughout the weekend and urge them to oppose this agreement. Important Op-Ed: “The Better Alternative to the Iran Deal” Yesterday, former Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and U.S. Marine Corps Gen. Charles Krulak published an op-ed in The Hill countering the claim that rejecting the nuclear deal will result in war or a decline in the American economy. “In fact,” they write, “none of the catastrophic predictions is accurate—and there is a better way.” Click here to read this op-ed. Two Informative AIPAC Memos AIPAC continues to send frequent communications to Capitol Hill regarding the dangers of this deal and historical precedent for disapproving agreements. Congressional offices received this memo this week, which outlines four unique examples in which foreign agreements were modified by the Senate. Click here to share this memo with your followers on Twitter. AIPAC also sent this memo to Capitol Hill, which considers four cases of nuclear disarmament and contrasts them with the case of Iran. Click here to tweet this memo. New CNFI Ad: Iranian Self-Inspections AIPAC’s partner organization, Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran (CNFI) published a new ad today, which highlights concerns regarding secret side agreements between Iran and the IAEA, as well new revelations that Iranian inspectors will be allowed to participate in investigations of their own nuclear sites. Click here to watch this ad. Please share this with your social network by posting to Facebook and Twitter. 10 Questions to President Obama about the Iran Deal Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has written 10 questions to President Obama regarding the Iran deal. I believe these questions raise important concerns about the proposed agreement and the implications of Congress approving it. They are included below my signature for your consideration. Sincerely, Brian Shankman Director of Regional Affairs and Development -- Robert Satloff’s 10 Questions to President Obama about the Iran Deal: 1. You have argued that the Iran deal enhances Israel’s security and those of our Arab Gulf allies. At the same time, your administration has offered the Gulf states a huge security package by way of compensation and you have expressed frustration that the government of Israel has not yet entered into discussions with you to discuss ways to bolster its security. But isn’t this a paradox? If the Iran deal bolsters their security, shouldn’t their security needs be going down, not up? 2. It is surely legitimate for you to argue that the Iran deal enhances U.S. security but it certainly seems odd for you to claim to understand Israel’s security needs more than its democratically elected leaders. Are there other democracies whose leaders you believe don’t recognize their own best security interests or is Israel unique in this regard? 3. Constructive, respected, well-informed observers, like your former [National Security Council] Iran policy advisor Dennis Ross, have urged you to propose transferring to Israel the “mountain-busting” Massive Ordnance Penetrator as a way to boost Israel’s independent deterrence against Iran. But you have not done so. Instead, in your letter to Congressman [Jerrold] Nadler, you highlighted your administration’s plan to send Israel a much less capable weapon. Why are you reluctant to send Israel the best item we have in our inventory to address this profound threat? 4. You have said that the Iran nuclear agreement provides a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Would you agree, therefore, that the pursuit of an independent nuclear option by another Middle East country—say, Saudi Arabia—would be clear evidence that the Iran deal had failed? 5. In your letter to Congressman Nadler, you refused to spell out the penalties Iran would suffer for violations of the agreement, saying that “telegraphing in advance to Iran the expected response for any potential infractions would be counterproductive, potentially lessening the deterrent effect.” On the surface, this is difficult to understand—after all, as a constitutional law professor, you can appreciate that having clarity in terms of penalties for lawbreaking is a basic element of our legal system. If you aren’t willing to publicly spell out this approach to penalties, can you guarantee that the United States and its European partners have already agreed, in writing, on precisely what actions they will collectively take in response to different types of infractions? Will you share these details with at least the leaders of the relevant committees in Congress? Or is the real reason you aren’t willing to “telegraph” these penalties in advance [is] because we and the Europeans can’t agree on them? 6. In your letter to Congressman Nadler, you also said you “reserved the right to deploy new sanctions to address continuing concerns.” Can you spell out what sort of new sanctions you have in mind? Specifically, wouldn’t it make sense for you to ask Congress to articulate new sanctions now that would come into effect if our intelligence agencies reported that Iran was using its sanctions-relief windfall to transfer large sums (or expensive weapons systems) to its allies and terrorist proxies? 7. You have argued that the global sanctions regime falls apart if Congress rejects the Iran deal. But the key variable here is not Europe, China or some other foreign country—it’s the United States. Specifically, the sanctions regime only collapses if the U.S. stops enforcing the sanctions with the same vigor it has enforced them [with] in recent years, and instead goes back to the policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations, which refused to enforce ILSA [Iran and Libya Sanctions Act] despite overwhelming votes for that law in Congress. In the event of a “no” vote, can you promise that your administration will expend the same effort and resources to enforce U.S. sanctions laws against Iran as has been the case the last few years? And if that’s the case, what’s your explanation for how or why sanctions will collapse? 8. The supreme leader clearly wants the benefits of the deal—both in terms of sanctions relief and the international validation it brings for Iran’s nuclear program. Yet you seem to bend over backwards to be wary of saying things that might upset him. (Given the supreme leader’s continued hostility toward America, this is a characteristic that he doesn’t seem to share.) Specifically, in your letter to Congressman Nadler, why did you resort once again to the “all options are on the table” formulation in the event Iran dashes toward a bomb? Since a “dash” implies Iran would be hell-bent toward achieving its goal, why not state bluntly that we would use force to stop them? If they are dashing, haven’t they already violated the core commitment in the Iran agreement not to pursue a weapon? If they are dashing, the threat of renewed sanctions surely isn’t an effective deterrent. Wouldn’t candor produce more deterrence than subtlety? 9. In your American University speech, you said the Iran agreement produced a “permanent” solution to the threat of the Iranian nuclear bomb. But just a few months ago, you told an NPR interviewer that Iran’s breakout time toward a bomb “would have shrunk almost down to zero” when restrictions on centrifuges and enrichment expire in after 10-15 years. Can both statements really be true? 10. In your final debate with Mitt Romney in October 2012, just before you came before American voters for the final time, moderator Bob Schieffer asked you specifically what sort of Iran deal you would accept. Your response was: “The deal we’ll accept is that they end their nuclear program.” Notwithstanding the significant achievements of the Iran agreement, it clearly falls short of “ending their nuclear program.” Moreover, you and your spokespeople regularly disparage as warmongers those who advocate what you once called for. Why did your own position in 2012 become warmongering by 2015? To read Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in The Atlantic referencing these questions, click here.

AIPAC | America's Pro-Israel Lobby 251 H Street NW • Washington, DC • 20001 • TEL 202-639-5200 Privacy Policy