Few share Obama’s belief that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a good thing. Even fewer share his opinion that the deal will lead to a regime change.
John Kerry’s struggle to convince lawmakers to approve the deal shows just how weak the agreement really is. Taking the “it’s better than nothing” stance seems to be the only way Kerry has been able to make headway. He’ll need either 146 votes in the House or 34 votes in the Senate to uphold a Presidential veto should one branch of Congress vote to disapprove the deal.
Thomas Friedman, reporter for the New York Times, says the deal would be okay with some improvements, such as having Congress pass legislation that would allow the US to use military force if Iran cheats. According to Friedman, the deal will prevent “Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years.” It is unclear what he means by “break out.”
Others believe we should push directly for a regime change instead of relying on the nuclear deal to do so.
The biggest roadblock for lawmakers seems to be the worry that the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will not be able to catch Iran if they cheat on the deal – and for good reason. Not only does the mullah regime have a history of cheating, but the inspection process allows delays of 24 days or longer between notices of violations and inspections.
It is almost certain that Iran will violate the deal by moving forward with nuclear research and development. It’s equally certain that we will not know about it; and if we do, it will be too late. Even worse, the deal includes the ambiguous stipulation that if any of the other signatories abandon their obligations, Iran can do the same.