The President stated, years ago, that there were demands he would insist upon, and there were conditions Iran demanded that he would not accept. Well, this deal doesn't even measure up to the original standards demanded by President Obama himself: The President set a ceiling of 500 to 1,500 centrifuges for Iran. The agreement gives them 6,000; He had insisted that Iran close its Fordow nuclear facility. Fodrow will remain open; He promised to “shut down” Iran’s production of ballistic missiles. The deal will end the embargo on ballistic missiles; He promised that some sanctions would remain in place, others be removed in phases.
According to the Iranians, The deal ends sanctions immediately; “Anytime” access was demanded for inspectors, but under the deal, inspections must be done in consultation with Iran, and Iran can delay inspections for 24 days; Restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program were to be permanent, but under the agreement will last only ten years.
The deal does not require Iran to release Americans who have been detained, it does not require them to recognize Israel's right to exist; it does not make them stop supporting terrorism, or stop trying to overthrow other governments; and, the lifting of sanctions means that Iran will be welcomed back into the community of nations and will gain perhaps a hundred billion in revenue each year, much of which we suspect will be funneled to terrorist groups or be used to purchase weapons of war and tools of oppression.
Two quotes illustrate the deal. Iran’s chief negotiator said, “We were following four objectives in the negotiations...all four objectives have been achieved.” These include Iran’s ability to continue its nuclear program, immediate lifting of sanctions, and annulment of “illegal” sanctions. Also, there are fundamental and, it would seem, irreconcilable differences in interpretation between the US and Iran. What value is there to an agreement in which the signatories have such sharp differences in what the agreement says?
The second quote: Last week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Congress, “Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” And yet the deal does exactly what the General warned Congress it must not do. How can the President thus claim that the deal is in America’s interests?
We note that the President is not submitting the agreement as a treaty (because he knows that it will never collect the necessary two-thirds approval in the Senate required to approve a treaty). Congress has 60 days to accept or reject relief from sanctions; if they reject it, the President can veto it; if it is not overridden, the agreement becomes law. Under the Constitution, approval of two-thirds of the Senate is required in order for a treaty to take effect. This deal requires that two-thirds of the Senate (and the House) vote against the deal or else it will become law. This completely stands the Constitution on its head. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve treaties. The present Supreme Court probably will find a way to make this agreement “Constitutional” but it clearly is not.
The President wanted “a deal,” and he got one, but he doesn’t really seem to care what the deal says. The deal itself was his goal – but his goal should be to advance America’s interests. This deal does not.