Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, we learned that the Obama Administration, along with representatives of the so-called P5+1 countries, had reached an agreement with Iran on freezing nuclear enrichment and relieving a portion of the sanctions…
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, we learned that the Obama Administration, along with representatives of the so-called P5+1 countries, had reached an agreement with Iran on freezing nuclear enrichment and relieving a portion of the sanctions that have been rightfully levied against Iran.
I think it is a positive step to have engaged Iran and to have reached a multilateral agreement. Certainly, freezing their nuclear enrichment, diluting the enrichment levels of Iran's uranium stocks, and reestablishing intrusive IAEA inspections are improvements over the current situation.
However, while I appreciate the need for a course of action that addresses the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, I maintain strong concerns about this agreement.
Foremost, I have serious doubts about the amount of trust we can extend to Iran. Engaging in negotiations that merely freeze their nuclear enrichment is a far cry from Iran foreswearing nuclear weapons, not to mention their abhorrent support for terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and beyond. We must recall that this is the same fundamentalist regime that has supported the murder of Israelis in Argentina, has cast doubt on the existence of the Holocaust, and that enabled attacks on American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Amazingly, despite the supposed goodwill of the agreement, three Americans continue to be detained in Iran. I find it extremely regrettable that the release of these Americans--Pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and ex-FBI Agent Robert Levinson--was considered marginal to the nuclear issue, and could not be addressed simultaneously while negotiations occurred in Geneva. These Americans' families are understandably left in pain as they wonder about their loved ones' welfare, and what it will ultimately take to get them home. This speaks volumes about the intents and reputability of the Iranian regime--how can we trust a government to follow through on an agreement about nuclear issues when they continue to hold our citizens captive?
I am also very concerned about the implicit acceptance, if not endorsement, of Iran's right to enrich uranium. Numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions have stipulated that Iran must stop enrichment and set-aside its nuclear program. Yet, somehow, this agreement falls short of that previously established UN mandate. While it may be acknowledging the nuclear capacity that Iran has achieved, I cannot accept that.
It is unclear to me what peaceful need Iran has for uranium enrichment. There are international offers on the table to develop and fuel nuclear power plants and to provide medically necessary isotopes for Iran, in order to eliminate their purported need for indigenous nuclear capability. But Iran would prefer to deny those offers, and use the ruse of power and medicine to enable its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
This agreement even allows Iran to maintain the facilities, centrifuges and basic stockpiles that have enabled their nuclear pursuits. Remarkably, the Iranian military facility at Parchin, where research on a nuclear weapon has been widely suspected, is not included in the inspection program and imposes no restrictions on activities at this site.
Though the opportunity to use these implements may be forestalled for now, should a subsequent agreement not materialize, Iran could return to its current nuclear capacity in short order, and have billions of dollars' worth of sanctions relief in hand, with little long-term benefit to show from this short-term accord.
Yet, an agreement has been reached and we have to accept that as the reality at the moment. Nonetheless, I think it is important for the U.S. Congress to continue to pursue new sanctions that are contingent on Iran's absolute adherence to this agreement, and earnest engagement towards a deeper, longer-term agreement that further removes Iran's nuclear capacity. We must make clear that there will be swift and severe consequences should Iran deviate from the agreement. And, we must continue to aggressively counter their terrorism threat, meddling in the security affairs of the region, and abuse of human and religious rights.
We must maintain a strong posture towards the Iranian regime, as they have done nothing to earn the trust of the United States, or the western world in general. Iran remains a threat to regional and global security, and we must not neglect or forget that.
Implementing this agreement and pursuing any longer-term accord must be done with open eyes to the real threat that Iran has been and continues to be.