A bad Iran deal and a worse US legacy

Faced with the Iranian regime’s intransigence, the world powers decided to extend the deadline for a nuclear accord yet again, raising concerns that the deal will not be worth bragging about. Even several top aides of President Obama have publicly stated that it falls well short of the administration’s own standards for a good deal. In fact, the impending accord is a bad one because it offers too many concessions to a regime that cannot be trusted, and which is deplored by millions of Iranians. 

Last week, the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, set strict terms for the nuclear program in a nationally televised address. Backing down from earlier commitments his negotiators had made in April, Khamenei said, “Contrary to the Americans’ insistence, we do not accept long-term, 10-year and 12-year restrictions, and we have told them the acceptable number of years for restrictions.”

{mosads}Khamenei has insisted on three red lines for the negotiations: no inspections of the regime’s military sites; no access to Iranian nuclear scientists; and the continuation of research and development activities.

In the eyes of Khamenei, the talks must only focus on already disclosed sites and activities, not undisclosed sites or past activities related to the so-called Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of the regime’s nuclear program. Moreover, the weaponization infrastructure must remain intact.

In other words, Khamenei’s red lines protect the crucial dimensions of the regime’s nuclear weapons program. This is a telltale sign of the regime’s true intentions, and it should provide yet another indication that the regime cannot be trusted.

Tehran is insistent that access to military sites must not be given to international inspectors. Why? If it is truly serious about abandoning its weapons project, why is it so adamant about evading questions around the military dimensions of its current and past projects? What does it have to hide?

The intrinsic flaw in the impending accord is that it will solely address known sites. Yet Tehran has never voluntarily disclosed the secret aspects of its military program. It was the main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which revealed the regime’s clandestine nuclear activities for the first time in 2002. Since then, there has not been a single instance where Tehran has come clean with its activities. So, why should it be trusted now? 

Importantly, the clerical regime has refused to answer straightforward questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its past activities, another sign that it is trying to hide as much as it can from the eyes of the international community. It also refuses to allow access to inspectors for all its sites and scientists.

The international community should have censured Tehran for its lies, cheating and threatening activities. Instead, the West, especially the Obama administration, has rewarded Tehran with recognizing it as a nuclear threshold state.

The impending deal does not call for stringent inspections of all sites, including military sites anywhere and at any time. It is a watered-down accord that leaves Tehran with its nuclear infrastructure intact and rewards it with billions of dollars in unfrozen assets, not to mention the lifting of sanctions.

That is a good deal for Tehran’s rulers. It does not serve the interests of the international community, however.

The U.S. government needs to champion a firm and decisive policy that calls on Tehran to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions to dismantle its program, allow international inspectors to inspect all its sites, and answer key IAEA questions on its past activities.

Washington would not be alone in voicing such legitimate demands from a regime that cannot be trusted. Just this month, more than 100,000 Iranian expatriates and hundreds of prominent officials from around the world, including the U.S., gathered in Paris to call for fundamental democratic change in Iran. 

The keynote speaker at the rally, NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi, introduced a plan that calls for democratic, secular and non-nuclear Iran, which was overwhelmingly and enthusiastically welcomed by thousands of cheering Iranians. 

There is an alternative to negotiating with a regime — on the verge of being recognized as a nuclear threshold state — that is bent on regional domination. That alternative lies with the Iranian people. They want a different system of governance. This deal, however, legitimizes the current brutal theocracy, rewards it with cash, removes the shackles of international sanctions, and leaves its nuclear infrastructure in tact. That is hardly a legacy worth bragging about for any president.

Sadeghpour is political director for the Organization of Iranian American Communities.