Couple quick updates for you from last week. First off, regarding the attack in Chattanooga, I think the message should be pretty clear to everybody by now that the men and women of our military are being targeted for no other reason than their decision to put on the uniform of this nation. The idea that we’d leave them out there unprotected is unacceptable and you better believe I am pushing for a change in policy.
In other news, after hearing from you all and concluding much discussion, research, consultation, reflection, and debate, my mind is fully made up on the Iran deal. When the vote comes in a few weeks, I will oppose it.
If you saw last week’s newsletter, I explained some of the fundamental flaws in the “snapback” concept the President is pushing with the sanctions. In short, they don’t just “snap back”. In fact, there is no real guarantee they are reinstated at all if Iran cheats. Furthermore, as a former Israeli ambassador to the United States pointed out this week, the sanctions would exempt any deals that Iran signs during the period that the sanctions are lifted. That creates a natural incentive for prospective business partners to quickly close as many deals as possible.
To recap, Iran will have personal and state assets unfrozen totaling roughly 40% of their entire country’s GDP. They will be able to import the equipment to get their oil fields humming again. They will be able to trade worldwide. All of this means that in addition to a huge cash windfall, they’ll be able to grow their economy at a rapid rate – thus removing the internal public pressure on the regime and providing far more resources with which they can cause harm. Furthermore, after five years, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism will be able to again begin buying conventional weapons. And according to Israeli intelligence (whose access in Iran is far better than our own), the ambassador suggests that within a few years, Iran will have a ballistic missile capable of hitting the East Coast of the United States. While we may very well be able to detect any increased enrichment activity during the period this deal covers, detecting work on the explosive components of a nuclear weapon may be much harder to see.
If you’ve seen the news in the last few days, the Syrians apparently didn’t fully disclose the extent of their chemical weapons stockpile. Reports suggest the Syrian regime kept some chemical weapons hidden from inspectors and didn’t end up destroying all of their stockpile as promised. I know you all are shocked by that. But rest assured, the President would have you believe the Iranians are more trustworthy…
At the end of the day, the Iranians are getting everything they want – diminished discontent at home, massive amounts of financial resources to play with, the ability to upgrade their weapons systems and oil fields and they retain the basic capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they choose. In exchange, we buy ourselves perhaps eight, ten or fifteen years before we face the same issue we are facing now – a religious and ideologically driven autocracy capable of producing a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. At that point, Iran’s military will be much stronger than it is today. This deal may well ensure us temporary peace. But at what cost does it ensure that peace? Is it not worth trying to ratchet up the sanctions? The Iranian people are not poor and destitute. They are broadly well educated and more affluent than many of their neighbors. People who are enjoying a middle class lifestyle are far less likely to risk everything to overthrow a regime. As the economic screws have been tightened and the Iranian public has felt that pain, the unrest started to grow. The regime does not have the support of most of its people and it hasn’t since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. With this deal, we are helping the Iranian regime stay in power. We are not preventing them from being able to obtain a weapon. We are simply attempting to bribe them with hundreds of billions of dollars in hopes they will wait just a little while longer to have a bomb. I cannot look the people I represent in the eye and say this deal makes us safer. I can’t tell them that the world will be more secure. I don’t believe those things are true, certainly not in the long term. And while this may very well be the best agreement that the Iranians were willing to sign at this stage and under current circumstances, it seems to me the correct decision would be to change the circumstances – not to simply agree to a crummy deal just because it’s in front of us.
In any case, that’s where I’ve come down. I want you all to know that I don’t take this issue lightly. The White House is pushing the case hard that it’s this deal or war. I don’t accept that premise, but with my own kids still serving, it’s also not a possibility I can choose to ignore. This is very serious business and I hope all of my colleagues, regardless of where they come down, will leave any politics out of it. Politics in this country has traditionally stopped at the water’s edge. That’s as it should be. Thank you all again for your patience while we conducted the due diligence. I hope what I’ve said here makes sense. If you have any questions or concerns at all, please do let me know.
Congressman Rich Nugent represents The Villages in the U.S. House of Representatives.
