In so doing, Haley relied on a host of lies, distortions and
obfuscations to paint an Iran that is cheating on its nuclear
commitments and terrorizing the world. Lest the U.S. once again repeat
the mistakes that led the US to war with Iraq, it is worth rebutting
several of these lies:
"Iran has been caught in multiple violations over the past year and a half.”
The
IAEA, in its eighth report since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) went into effect, once again affirmed that Iran is abiding by
its nuclear commitments last week. Yet, Haley falsely asserted that Iran
has been caught in "multiple violations” since the accord went into
effect.
Her evidence centers around Iran exceeding a "limit” on
heavy water on two separate occasions in 2016. Unfortunately for her
accusation, there is no hard limit mandated by the JCPOA – which
indicates that Iran shall export its excess heavy water, and that Iran’s
needs are estimated to be 130 metric tons. Thus, there is no violation
on heavy water, and Iran continues to abide by the provisions of the
JCPOA – including notably on uranium enrichment and inspector access.
"There are hundreds of undeclared sites that have suspicious activity that they (the IAEA) haven’t looked at.”
In
the question and answer portion of the event, Haley asserted that there
were not one or two suspicious sites that the IAEA can’t access – but
hundreds! Of course, the U.S. intelligence community likely monitors
dozens, if not hundreds, of non-nuclear sites in an attempt to detect
any potential covert Iranian nuclear activities. Yet the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva stated in July that
"Based on the evidence that’s been presented by the intelligence
community, it appears that Iran is in compliance with the rules that
were laid out in the JCPOA.” Hence, there is no indication of Iranian
cheating and no need for the IAEA to knock on the door of hundreds of
"suspicious” sites, as Haley suggests.
If there is solid
evidence that a few of those suspicious sites that Haley cited are
harboring covert nuclear activities, the US can present the evidence for
those suspicions to the IAEA and press them to investigate. Critically,
however, Haley declined to do so at her meeting with the IAEA last
month. According to a U.S. official, "Ambassador Haley did not ask the
IAEA to inspect any specific sites, nor did she provide the IAEA with
any new intelligence.”
"Iranian leaders… have stated publicly
that they will refuse to allow IAEA inspections of their military sites.
How can we know Iran is complying with the deal, if inspectors are not
allowed to look everywhere they should look?”
While Iran barring
an IAEA request permitted under the accord would be concerning, the IAEA
has not recently had cause to request access to any non-nuclear site.
Again, Haley has reportedly even declined to present evidence to the
IAEA indicating that they should access any suspicious sites – military
or otherwise. Hence, one can reasonably conclude that Haley’s statements
are not based on legitimate fears, but are part of a political attack
on the deal that her boss wants to unravel.
In fact, initial
reporting on the US pushing for military site inspections cast it as a
justification for Trump withholding certification of the nuclear accord.
As a result, when considering Iranian statements on military site
access, one must also factor in the ample evidence suggesting that the
Trump administration is fabricating a crisis to withdraw from the
accord.
Further, there is little reason to take Iranian
statements in response to Haley’s at face value. Iran issued similarly
threatening statements ruling out inspections of military sites during
negotiations in 2015, yet eventually allowed IAEA Director General
Yukiya Amano access to the Parchin military base as well as the IAEA to
collect samples at the site later that year.
"The deal [Obama]
struck wasn’t supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. It was meant to
be an opening with Iran; a welcoming back into the community of
nations.”
As the Obama administration outlined ad-nauseam, the
nuclear deal was limited to the nuclear sphere. There is no annex in the
JCPOA directing the US and Iran to settle their differences on Iraq,
Syria or Yemen, or obligating Iran to comply with its international
human rights obligations or transform to a true democracy. The Obama
administration did hope that the JCPOA could build trust to enable the
US and Iran to potentially resolve issues outside of the nuclear sphere,
but such hopes rested on engagement outside of the contours of the
JCPOA. The JCPOA dealt with the number one national security threat
presented by Iran – the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Haley’s assertion to the contrary is merely meant to cast the deal in a
negative light.
"We should welcome a debate over whether the
JCPOA is in US national security interests. The previous administration
set up the deal in a way that denied us that honest and serious debate.”
The
US Congress held dozens of hearings over several years to examine the
Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran and – midway through the
negotiations ― passed a law instituting a 60-day period of Congressional
review wherein Obama could not begin to waive sanctions. Congress
engaged in heated debate, and opponents of the accord poured in tens of
millions of dollars in order to pressure members of Congress to vote
against the deal. No Republican legislator supported it despite there
being no favorable alternative, and enough Democrats backed the accord
in order to block resolutions of disapproval that would have killed the
JCPOA in its crib.
That intensely partisan, fact-optional debate
would once again decide the fate of the accord if Haley has her way –
only this time, there would be no filibuster. If Trump withholds
certification, even if Iran remains in compliance, Congress could
consider and pass sanctions that kill the deal under expedited procedure
thanks to little-noticed provisions in the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act. Trump could pass the buck to Congress and if every member of
Congress votes as they did in 2015, the deal would be dead.
Source: newsnow