Iran Deal: ‘Dangerous Farce’

President Obama’s Iran Pact ‘Disturbing’, ‘Oversold’, and ‘Frightening’‘Who In Good Faith Can Vote To Approve This Deal?’

LOS ANGELES TIMES: “It is far from a perfect deal, it promises less than many had hoped for, it has been oversold by its proponents…” (“Editorial Weighing The Iran Nuclear Deal: Far From Perfect, But The Alternatives Are Worse,” Los Angeles Times, 8/30/15)

• “The weaknesses in the agreement are significant. For example, while the inspection regime for known nuclear sites is robust, the procedures for inspecting so-called undeclared sites is both protracted and cumbersome, and falls far short of the ‘any time, anywhere’ inspections many had hoped for.” (“Editorial Weighing The Iran Nuclear Deal: Far From Perfect, But The Alternatives Are Worse,” Los Angeles Times, 8/30/15)

• “We're also troubled by the fact the IAEA and Iran have reached a side agreement — whose official text hasn't been released — that spells out conditions for inspections aimed at establishing whether Iran engaged in forbidden nuclear activities at a military installation at Parchin. News reports that the agreement allows Iran itself, rather than the IAEA, to collect evidence at the site are disturbing. As of now, the facts remain sketchy, but even the lack of transparency about the arrangements is unacceptable. The U.S. should press Iran and the IAEA to divulge the details of that agreement and another that deals with possible military dimensions of past nuclear research.” (“Editorial Weighing The Iran Nuclear Deal: Far From Perfect, But The Alternatives Are Worse,” Los Angeles Times, 8/30/15)

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS: “The dangerous farce that is the nuclear deal with Iran looks more dangerous and farcical by the day. The world has just learned that, according to the terms of a secret agreement between the UN’s nuclear watchdog and Iran obtained by the Associated Press, the regime in Tehran will get to use its own inspectors to monitor a site where it has been credibly accused of developing nuclear arms technology.” (“From Bad To Worse: A Side Agreement With Iran On Its Parchin Facility Makes The Nuclear Deal Look Even More Dangerous,” New York Daily News, 8/20/15)

• “Who in good faith can vote to approve this deal?” (“From Bad To Worse: A Side Agreement With Iran On Its Parchin Facility Makes The Nuclear Deal Look Even More Dangerous,” New York Daily News, 8/20/15)
• “Obama is selling his deal as both foolproof and as a tool for punishing Iran, including militarily, for violations. In fact, the agreement includes no standards for measuring whether breaches are major or minor and what the responses should be.” (“Schumer’s Bravery,” New York Daily News, 8/22/15)

WALL STREET JOURNAL: “In other words, the country that lied for years about its nuclear weapons program will now be trusted to come clean about those lies. And trusted to such a degree that it can limit its self-inspections so they don’t raise ‘military concerns’ in Iran.” (“Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections,” Wall Street Journal, 8/19/15)

• “The news raises further doubts about a nuclear pact that is already leaking credibility. Unfettered access to Parchin is crucial to understanding Iran’s past nuclear work, which is essential to understanding how close Iran has come to getting the bomb. Without that knowledge it’s impossible to know if Iran really is a year or more away from having the bomb, which is the time period that Mr. Kerry says is built into the accord and makes it so worth doing.” (“Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections,” Wall Street Journal, 8/19/15)

ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL: “The Iran nuclear deal was already of questionable value because it unlocked billions of dollars the rogue nation could use to further its terroristic ambitions and allowed such a huge window of time for inspections of suspicious sites that any checks and balances were rendered near meaningless. What happened to inspections ‘anytime, anywhere’? What happened to independent oversight? But the recently revealed side agreement between Iran and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency that allows Iran to conduct its own inspections of its own Parchin nuclear site, long suspected of being used to develop nuclear arms, makes a strong case that the deal is unacceptable.” (“Editorial: Secret deal Makes Iran Nuclear Pact Less Appealing,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/22/15)

• “So, no sanctions. Iran can inspect itself. And a boatload of money is coming Iran’s way that could help finance terrorism and anti-U.S. activities. And this is a good thing for the U.S. and its allies? The pact was already of doubtful value. In light of the new revelations, supporters in Congress, especially Udall and Heinrich, should reconsider their support for this President Obama vanity project and gin up the courage to vote against this faulty agreement and call for both sides to go back to the table.” (“Editorial: Secret deal Makes Iran Nuclear Pact Less Appealing,” Albuquerque Journal, 8/22/15)

DALLAS MORNING NEWS: “In spite of the U.S. negotiating team’s hard work, this is not the best or only deal we can get.” (“Editorial: Make The Iran Nuclear Deal Better, But Don’t Scrap It,” Dallas Morning News, 8/29/15)

• “Obama has presented Congress with a false choice, suggesting that the only option to this deal is war. How about resuming negotiations and hammering out a better deal? Of particular concern are the limits on international inspectors’ access, and the fact that Iran could retain a ‘breakout’ period of one year to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. That’s not good enough.” (“Editorial: Make The Iran Nuclear Deal Better, But Don’t Scrap It,” Dallas Morning News, 8/29/15)

NEW YORK POST: “What does Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad know that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry don’t — or that they won’t admit? Simply this: Their nuclear deal will leave Iran in a much stronger position. In an interview Tuesday with the Hezbollah terrorists’ Al-Manar TV network, Assad — who last month hailed the deal as ‘a great victory for Iran’ — said it would strengthen Tehran internationally, and so help him. (“Everyone But Team Obama Knows The Big Winner From The Iran Deal,” New York Post, 8/26/15)
PROVIDENCE JOURNAL: “President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, even in the outline initially revealed to the American people, seemed to substitute appeasement for firmness against an enemy that supports terrorism while vowing to annihilate Israel and attack the United States. It is not surprising that polls show a majority of Americans oppose the deal. But a frightening report by the Associated Press last week cannot help but further erode the public's trust in the president’s position. The AP discovered a secret side deal with a U.N. agency that will permit Iran, rather than the watchdog agency, to conduct inspections of a site where it was said to be developing nuclear weapons. In essence, the side deal may permit the fox to guard the hen house at one site.” (“Editorial: Trusting Iran?,” Providence Journal, 8/23/15)
[CALIFORNIA] PRESS-ENTERPRISE: “We’d like to know if Mr. Obama knew about the secret agreement between the IAEA and Iran. If he didn’t, it makes us wonder what other side agreements he didn’t know about before bestowing his presidential blessing upon the deal. And if he did, we think withholding such pertinent information from Congress should be a deal-breaker for Republicans and Democrats alike.” (“Editorial: Did U.S. Know About Iran Side Deal?,” Press-Enterprise, 8/28/15)
###
SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER