The fatal flaw in the Iran deal


WASHINGTON, DC: A sunset clause?

The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed. . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.

Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years—probably around 10—of good behavior and Iran would be home free.

The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.

Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.

Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.

Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.

Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.

Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica US carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.

There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.

Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point—no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.

And no sunset.

That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the US will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.

Consider where we began: six UN Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.



Please follow our commenting guidelines.


  1. Ikabod Bubwit on

    *** “Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges.” – Charles Krauthammer ***

    In the first place, Iran does not need to be granted the right to enrich Uranium. International Law does not prohibit that. Being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not prohibit anyone to use nuclear energy.

    On the other hand, Israel has nuclear weapons but nothing is being said about it (at least in the western imperialist media). Israel has been guilty of many atrocious acts and human rights violations against the Palestinians bordering on state terrorism.
    Iran has never invaded or attack any country in the last 100 years or more (except in self-defense from Iraq).

    Why then is there so much question over Iran’s nuclear energy development?

  2. victor m. hernandez on

    projections or forecasts are always on a straigth trajectory yet static. History tells us that when necessary men or governments adjusts and adapt. Life is always dynamic. While agreements are made, they are always temporary until another agreement is necessary.

  3. So, Obama’s possible “deal” w/ Iran means ~10 years of relative peace during which Iran builds up to nuclear arms capability. It’s a terrible deal, like Chamberlain’s own deal w/ Hitler. Hopefully, Congress does the right thing, since this Pres. is not looking out for the best interests of the free world.

  4. So totos it seems you think iran should have nuclear power. You sir are an idiot. They get a nuclear bomb the 3 rd world war starts. They will bomb israel, without a doubt. Then the west will bomb them & so it starts.
    Charles ive been watching & listening to you on fox news for 3 years now & i think you are brilliant. Ive never heard you once say something i disagreed with. We could do with people like you in government. I wish the philippines had just one person like you as he would transform this country.
    Your brilliant & i look forward to hearing you at every opportunity. Peace be with you charles, your a great man.

  5. E. G. Festin on

    Obama and Aquino really are alike in that they love to capitulate to the enemies of the republics of which they are presidents. Obama to Iran, Putin and the Communists in Cuba. Aquino to the MILF, Malaysia (re Sabah rights of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo) and to the Foreign Powers; anti-Philippine Republic sovereignty over Mindanao, and to the Venezuelan marketing company Smartmatic that now controls Philippine elections through its PCOS machines.

    • PNoy to RH and Obama to Obama care. Laws that do not respect life, conscientious objections and weaken family unit…….laws that are being challenged in the supreme courts of both countries.

      PNoy to MILF / BIFF and Obama to Iran / ISIS.

      Birds of the same feather