By INU Staff
INU - Jamil N. Jaffer, the founder of the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, wrote an op-ed for US News in which he laid out how the US could forge a nuclear deal with Iran that actually stopped Iran from illicitly obtaining nuclear weapons.
The current nuclear deal is a failure; that is plain to see.
Jaffer wrote: “It was a terrible deal from the start, combining a significant weakening of the long-standing international position on ballistic missile development with offering Iran the opportunity to conduct advanced R&D on uranium centrifuges, a self-testing regime on nuclear military sites, and a potential long-term path to a weapon even in compliance with the deal. Moreover, Iran has proven itself to be an inveterate cheater.”
There are indeed numerous times when the Iranian Regime have violated the nuclear deal and its surrounding agreements, including:
• attempts to acquire carbon fibre, a centrifuge component
• multiple violations of heavy water limits, a plutonium component
• arms transfers
• travel ban violations
• support for terrorist groups, including Hezbollah
• destabilisation of the Middle East
So, why continue with a deal that Iran is so happy to break?
Jaffer stated that he was pleased that the Donald Trump administration was looking into alternatives but said that the best option would be to scrap the nuclear deal altogether, whether or not a replacement was found.
However, he understood that Trump may not be so keen on that option and suggested that the US could curb the Regime without ending the deal by simply certifying Iran as noncompliant with the nuclear deal at the October deadline.
This would allow the US to impose further sanctions against the Regime, would show that the US was prepared to get tough on Iran, and could bring Iran back to the negotiating table as they would not survive without the sanctions relief guaranteed under the nuclear deal.
Jaffer said: “Putting Iran to the choice of a new Trump-negotiated deal or tough sanctions to be reimposed in the immediate future would give the president and his team the opportunity to run a serious negotiation while simultaneously backing such an effort with the maximum leverage possible, leverage that was squandered during the last round of negotiations.”
Some have argued that sanctions would not simply roll back into place because the nuclear deal was not just between Iran and the US; it was also signed by the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the UN. However, given the choice of banking with Iran or banking with the US; everyone would choose the US.