Costello OP-ED: Iran deal is a bad deal
September 14, 2015
In The News
As published in the Daily Local News
For the past several weeks, I have carefully studied the Administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). I have read it, listened to constituents input, and have listened to Secretary of State John Kerry and other officials detail the agreement and strategy moving forward. For as complex as this issue may be, my opposition is simple.
First, this deal allows Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, access to an estimated $150 billion. This is 25 times the annual budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which holds vast power and influence. While we can hope that Iran would use these funds for the betterment of its people, I believe it will be used as a slush fund for terrorism. Iran has a history of supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, militant groups like the Houthis, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There has been no indication that Iran’s behavior has changed or will change. As a result, I am concerned that the sanctions relief will inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists, not the Iranian civilians who need it the most.
Second, I have concerns with the inspection process set forth in the agreement, including the failure to include “anytime, anyplace” inspections. The inspection process in the agreement would grant Iran a 24 day timetable to fulfill an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) request for access to suspicious sites. This lengthy timeline allows Iran significant opportunity to relocate undeclared activities and hide evidence from inspection officials. Past records show that Iran has extensive experience in hiding nuclear activity from IAEA, and I do not believe there has been any indication of a shift in this practice.
Third, I joined 93 of my colleagues in requesting the President to provide Congress the text of the two secret agreements negotiated between Iran and IAEA. As clearly stated in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, of which I cosponsored and was signed into law, Congress is entitled to review these deals. These agreements concern past and present outstanding issues of Iran’s nuclear program and I could not support any agreement without fully reviewing the deal. Reports of these agreements have indicated that Iran would facilitate the inspection process — essentially tasking Iran with inspecting itself. This agreement was supposed to be built on verification and not trust. This process, as currently set forth, seems to be based entirely on trust.
Fourth, the agreement does not prevent Iran from a pathway to a weaponized nuclear program. In fact, this agreement would allow the existing UN Arms Embargo to be lifted in five years and restrictions on Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program to be lifted in eight years. These restrictions should have been non-negotiable — or in the words of the General Martin Dempsey, “under no circumstance, should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” This last-minute concession should never have been granted and is a danger to the U.S., the Middle East and the world.
Fifth, we must ask what would be the end result if we accepted this current, flawed agreement and Iran violates our trust. “Red lines” must be firm and true to our benchmark negotiating principles. It cannot be riddled with loopholes that allow for exploitation or manipulation. We still have time and opportunity to ensure that whatever agreement we accept is one that allows us the best chance to achieve a nuclear-free Iran.
When I voted to reject this agreement, I did so because it is a bad deal — one that leaves us worse off than we currently are. My vote is to send our negotiators back to the drawing board and signals that our national security, the security of our allies, and a refusal to empower state-sponsored terrorism are not subject to negotiation.
###