Published: August 7th, 2015
You are currently on page: 1
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Photo Credit: SenatorSchumer YouTube screenshot / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJVAIhe57VI
(JNi.media) Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is slated to replace retiring Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Democratic leader, on Thursday came out against President Obama’s Iran deal. If nothing else, Schumer’s decision will probably make it possible for Senate Republicans to enlist the 14 Democratic Senators in overriding a presidential veto on their anticipated rejection of the deal.
“I have spent the last three weeks … carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered,” reads Senator Schumer’s statement, which concedes that “Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed.”
Topmost on Schumer’s list of concerns regarding the Iran agreement is the inability of the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect “anytime, anywhere” inside the Iranian nuclear facilities.
“In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement,” Schumer points out. “First, inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime'; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) — the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.”
“Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site,” Schumer states the obvious problem, which a string of officials, from Secretary of State Kerry down to Yukiya Amano, head of the IAEA, have failed to convince the Senate is not really a problem.
“Even more troubling is the fact that the US cannot demand inspections unilaterally,” Schumer writes. “By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.”
Schumer practically channels Prime Minister Netanyahu when he writes in his statement: “If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.”
And even more so, when he writes: “In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the US has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.”
No comments:
Post a Comment