The Iran deal will make matters worse

The White House says the only alternative to the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran is war. However it is the deal itself that is pushing the Middle East towards conflict.

In his most recent Saturday radio address, President Obama said that without the proposed deal “there would be no limits on Iran’s nuclear program. There would be no monitoring, no inspections. The sanctions we rallied the world to impose would unravel. Iran could move closer to a nuclear weapon. Other countries in the region might race to do the same. And we’d risk another war in the most volatile region in the world.” But in fact the deal is more likely to cause those ills than prevent them.

The notion that absent the deal there would be no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program is factually wrong. Iran is a signatory state of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement, which specifically bans Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. The monitoring and inspections which the president says would not exist have been and would continue to be ongoing. Granted, the IAEA has been repeatedly thwarted in attempts to uncover the full scope of Iran’s weapons programs, but even under the proposed deal the “managed” inspection regime will be insufficient. If the mullahs want to cheat, they will still be able to, but with the increased legitimacy and enhanced post-sanctions income stream the proposed agreement provides. Iran could move closer to a nuclear weapon under the deal, only faster.

Obama also said that absent the deal there would be an arms race in the Middle East. But that race is already starting, and the United States is fueling it. On Monday, the Wall Street Journalreported that the U.S. is “looking at ways to expedite arms transfers to Arab states in the Persian Gulf and is accelerating plans for them to develop an integrated regional ballistic missile defense capability,” as a means of allaying concerns about Iran’s growing power. This would also give regional countries a jumpstart to arm themselves before the Iranian embargo on advanced conventional weapons is lifted in five years.

Policymakers believe that beefing up regional conventional forces will somehow make Iran’s neighbors less interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. But there is no empirical reason to believe that enhancing conventional forces would deter a nuclear Iran. Consequently, more Middle Eastern countries are discussing moving toward nuclear capability than ever before.

The White House counters that countries in the region do not have to seek nuclear weapons because the United States can extend its deterrence umbrella over them. But the Obama administration has simultaneously radically drawn down the U.S. nuclear arsenal, making the umbrella in question smaller and less credible. Furthermore, countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have legitimate questions about whether the United States would actually escalate to the nuclear level in their defense in case of a major crisis. Is Barack Obama prepared to be the first president since Harry Truman to use a nuclear weapon in war? Absolutely not; and because of that, every ruler in the region knows the only nuclear force he could rely on in a pinch is his own.

As for the overall risk of war, every sign points towards increasing conflict rather than stability, particularly from Iran. During prayers last Friday, senior Ayatollah Mohammad Ali Movahedi Kermani stated “we will trample upon America.” On Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s. Both speeches were accompanied by the usual chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Even Secretary of State John Kerry has termed those comments as “troubling,” but he should not be surprised. They reflect consistent Iranian policies that the proposed nuclear agreement will only reinforce. Now we have an emboldened Tehran, a sense of grim determination in Israel, a perception of peril in every capital on Iran’s periphery, and an utter lack of confidence in the United States throughout the region.

The most immediate way to restore American power and prestige is for the Congress resoundingly to reject the agreement with a veto-proof majority, and impose a new round of sanctions on Iran. The White House cannot be counted on to attempt to negotiate a better deal, so the new sanctions must contain specific objectives for their removal, such as Iran accepting much tougher “any time/anywhere” IAEA inspections under the Additional Protocol mechanism without a 24 day grace period to hide the illicit elements of their program. Congress could also attempt to force the release of U.S. citizens being held hostage by Iran, take a firmer line on ballistic missile production which the P5+1 negotiators virtually ignored, and punish Iran for its global support of terrorism. Congress should also close the loopholes that could allow President Obama to lift existing sanctions unilaterally after the proposed agreement is rejected.

The deal proposed by Obama’s team will lead to the very negative consequences it was supposed to prevent. Congress needs to act decisively before this deal can cause any more damage and put in place a new, tougher sanctions regime that has the potential for changing Iran’s reckless ways and restore faith in the United States as a durable friend and powerful ally.

Robbins is senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC.