With the Iran deal signed, President Barack Obama is trying to persuade Congress the agreement is acceptable, but some Washington analysts aren’t convinced.
Robert Satloff, an expert at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, released an analysis of the agreement, pinpointing three major issues.
In Sotloff’s first point, Iran will be able to postpone any inspection of its nuclear sites for 24 days. “While it may take more than 24 days to scrub clean a massive underground enrichment facility, there is a lot of illicit activity that Iran can hide with 24 days notice,” he wrote.
Secondly, any violation of the agreement’s terms, whether or small or large, will theoretically result in a snapping back of sanctions against Iran. “That is like saying that for any crime — whether a misdemeanor or a felony — the punishment is the death penalty. In the real world, that means there will be no punishments for anything less than a capital crime,” according to Satloff.
The concept of reinstating sanctions has been criticized by observers who say a snap back is historically unprecedented. In his third point, Satloff says Iran will abandon the limits imposed by the deal if sanctions are restored, so the U.S. likely won’t have the political will to punish Iran for breaking the agreement unless it commits a major offense.
Iran and six world powers struck an agreement to limit Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions in Vienna Tuesday.
Delivering a speech early that morning, Obama claimed the deal “stopped the spread of nuclear weapons.” Iran will receive sanctions relief over time, as it fulfills the agreement’s requirements, according to the president. He emphasized “all sanctions” will be snapped back into place if Iran violates terms.
Obama addressed the nation Wednesday, speaking with reporters on the details of the controversial deal. But when questioned about why the agreement didn’t address the status of Americans imprisoned on trumped up charges in Iranian prisons, Obama told the CBS News correspondent his question was “nonsense” and that he “should know better.”
