These are excerpts...with commentary:
...it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran.
...
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement...the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.
...
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative.
Excellent point and I did not realize that.
...
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.
...it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran.
...
In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement...the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.
...
Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative.
Excellent point and I did not realize that.
...
Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of all sanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.
This is a confusing paragraph and he does not explain it well. The U.S. can unilaterally demand full "snapback" but not partial, which he says may be more appropriate sometimes. Why? When? "Because the violation is significant but not severe," doesn't cut it. And if we go whole hog then then the other countries may not comply. Then why did they sign the fucking agreement? This is very squishy reasoning by Schumer. How can other countries who signed the agreement that allows the U.S. to unilaterally trigger full snapback by all not comply if full snapback is triggered? It's damned if you do, damned if you don't reasoning. The Russians and Chinese spent 20 months with the U.S. negotiating this thing. They signed on the dotted line as permanent members of the Security Council. They are not going to comply with the terms of their own UN Resolution?
...
Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.
Fair warning: I have never liked this argument by opponents of UNSCR 2231.
Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.
That's the argument, I don't like it, I don't find it persuasive. It's another damned if you do, damned if you don't argument. If Iran went 10 years scrupulously complying with UNSCR 2231 that wouldn't be good enough for Schumer. There is no term of years that would be acceptable. He wants forever. He does not mention that paragraph iii of the Preamble and General Provisions states "forever." These two damned/damned paragraphs demonstrate that Schumer does not trust Obama, Russia, China, the Europeans, the UN, or Iran--which is everybody--to ever reach any agreement. It logically follows but of course he does not say this, that since no agreement would ever satisfy Schumer we must MOP Iran's permitted civilian nuclear facilities now, and that the only agreement acceptable to Schumer would be one in which Iran agreed to be MOP-PED now.
Right now, the U.S. and the international community have no inspections going on in Iran. Under UNSCR 2231 we would. Not good enough for Schumer. No inspection regime would be good enough for Schumer just as no term of years would be good enough for Schumer just as no agreement would be good enough for Schumer. MOP is the only answer for Schumer.
This is the aspect of his argument that proves the disingenuity of the whole. Friends and enemies, there are no "non-nuclear elements" of the agreement,"! JCPOA, now made binding international law under UNSCR 2231, is strictly a nuclear weapons agreement.
Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
That's it. It's terrible. Terrible argument. Embarrassing. He ends with urging a better deal. He has one specific suggestion about what a better deal to him would entail, something shorter than the 24-day wait for inspection-on-demand. He only has one suggestion to make because he does not want any deal. That's the best Schumer can do. I thought he was a smart guy. That's not a sign of great smarts I really thought I was going to be troubled by his argument. It became clear quickly that he did not want any deal and it was just awful argument.
