Iran Talks: Moral Equivalence and the Concession Frenzy

In a written statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) observed, “It’s outrageous that a senior U.S. official pointed out that if the United States wouldn’t allow weapons inspectors full access to its military installations, Iran shouldn’t either. The United States is the chief defender of freedom across the world and a democratic nation founded on principles of liberty and the rule of law.” He continued, “In stark contrast, Iran is the world’s chief state sponsor of terrorism.  It is governed by a rogue regime whose constitution explicitly calls for jihad.  And the ayatollahs have honored the call by killing innocent Americans for more than three decades. To suggest that the same standards applied to the United States should also apply to Iran is gravely insulting to Americans.” He concluded, “The Obama administration should accept nothing less than full access to any site for intrusive and unannounced inspections.”

… 

Meanwhile, sanctions gurus Mark Dubowitz, Annie Fixler and Rachel Ziemba of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are out with a new report documenting the benefit of Iran from sanctions relief. The authors find:

“The economic impact of sanctions relief is likely to be substantial, starting slowly after an agreement and building over time. This relief will enable economic growth, and increased resilience against future sanctions-induced economic pressure. Iran will benefit from regained access to its foreign assets, reduced transaction costs that facilitate first greater imports, then some increase in oil export volumes, and finally investment at home and from foreign players. The enforcement of the emerging nuclear deal is predicated on the ability of the United States and the European Union to re-impose, or “snap” sanctions back into place if Iran violates its commitments. The efficacy of the snapback, however, will diminish as Iran builds a more powerful and resilient economy and international consensus over Iran’s nuclear program weakens over time.” 

Even more ominous, they report, is that “the deal’s limits on certain Iranian nuclear activities will lapse—or ‘sunset’—after ten years and many of the key nuclear restrictions will sunset after fifteen years. At that point, Iran will likely emerge with an industrial-sized and widely dispersed nuclear program—with an advanced centrifuge-powered enrichment.” By contrast if the P5+1 does not strike a final deal, they experts conclude,  “Iran’s GDP growth would be weaker in 2015/16 10 . . . [whereas] an outright failure in the talks, we envision a much more adverse outlook for Iran’s economy, with growth flatlining and recession a possible risk if new sanctions are imposed. An outright failure in the negotiations could set in motion new sanctions, though the enforcement of these measures would depend on how the breakdown of the talks was interpreted in the international community and an assessment of the impact of U.S. secondary sanctions.” 

… 

Read the full article here.