Obama vs.

Schumer on Iran

On making
difficult
decisions:

On nuclear
weapons:

On the
likelihood of
war:

Obama

Schumer

Ive had to make a lot of tough calls

as President, but whether or not this
deal is good for American security is
not one of those calls. Its not even
close.

Advocates on both sides have strong

cases for their point of view that
cannot simply be dismissed.

When we carefully examine the

arguments against this deal, none of
them stand up to scrutiny. That may
be why the rhetoric on the other side
is so strident. I suppose some of it
can be ascribed to knee-jerk
partisanship.

I have learned that the best way to

treat such [momentous] decisions is to
study the issue carefully, hear the full,
unfiltered explanation of those for and
against, and then, without regard to
pressure, politics or party, make a
decision solely based on the merits.

We have achieved a detailed

arrangement that permanently
prohibits Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon.

If Irans true intent is to get a nuclear

weapon, under this agreement, it must
simply exercise patience.

This deal is not just the best choice

among alternatives this is the
strongest non-proliferation agreement
ever negotiated Let me repeat: The
prohibition on Iran having a nuclear
weapon is permanent. The ban on
weapons-related research is
permanent.

After fifteen years of relief from

sanctions, Iran would be stronger
financially and better able to advance
a robust nuclear program. Even more
importantly, the agreement would
allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to
be a nuclear threshold state with the
blessing of the world community. Iran
would have a green light to be as
close, if not closer to possessing a
nuclear weapon than it is today.

So lets not mince words. The

choice we face is ultimately between
diplomacy or some form of war a
maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three
months from now, but soon.

I will vote to disapprove the

agreement, not because I believe war
is a viable or desirable option, nor to
challenge the path of diplomacy. It is
because I believe Iran will not change,
and under this agreement it will be
able to achieve its dual goals of
eliminating sanctions while ultimately
retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear

power.
On the
durability of
sanctions:

Those who say we can just walk

away from this deal and maintain
sanctions are selling a fantasy.
Instead of strengthening our position
as some have suggested, Congresss
rejection would almost certainly result
in multilateral sanctions unraveling.

Better to keep U.S. sanctions in

place, strengthen them, enforce
secondary sanctions on other nations,
and pursue the hard-trodden path of
diplomacy once more, difficult as it
may be.

On
inspections:

While the process for resolving a

dispute about access can take up to 24
days, once weve identified a site that
raises suspicion, we will be watching
it continuously until inspectors get in.
And by the way, nuclear material isnt
something you hide in the closet. It
can leave a trace for years. The
bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can
catch them and we will.

Inspections are not anywhere,

anytime; the 24-day delay before we
can inspect is troubling. While
inspectors would likely be able to
detect radioactive isotopes at a site
after 24 days, that delay would enable
Iran to escape detection of any illicit
building and improving of possible
military dimensions (PMD) the
tools that go into building a bomb but
dont emit radioactivity.

If there is a reason for inspecting a

suspicious, undeclared site anywhere
in Iran, inspectors will get that access,
even if Iran objects.

It is reasonable to fear that, once the

Europeans become entangled in
lucrative economic relations with
Iran, they may well be inclined not to
rock the boat by voting to allow
inspections.

On Snapback
Sanctions:

If Iran violates the agreement over

the next decade, all of the sanctions
can snap back into place. We wont
need the support of other members of
the U.N. Security Council; America
can trigger snapback on our own.

The snapback provisions in the

agreement seem cumbersome and
difficult to useIf the U.S. insists on
snapback of all the provisions, which
it can do unilaterally, and the
Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel
that is too severe a punishment, they
may not comply.

On funding
terrorism and
ballistic
missiles:

It is true that if Iran lives up to its

commitments, it will gain access to
roughly $56 billion of its own money
revenue frozen overseas by other
countries. But the notion that this will
be a game-changer, with all this

Under this agreement, Iran would

receive at least $50 billion dollars in
the near future and would
undoubtedly use some of that money
to redouble its efforts to create even
more trouble in the Middle East, and,

money funneled into Irans pernicious

activities, misses the reality of Irans
current situation.

perhaps, beyond.

We need to check the behavior that

we're concerned about directly: By
helping our allies in the region
strengthen their own capabilities to
counter a cyber-attack or a ballistic
missile.

The hardliners can use the freed-up

funds to build an ICBM on their own
as soon as sanctions are lifted (and
then augment their ICBM capabilities
in 8 years after the ban on importing
ballistic weaponry is lifted),
threatening the United States.

If were serious about confronting

Irans destabilizing activities, it is
hard to imagine a worse approach
than blocking this deal.

When it comes to the non-nuclear

aspects of the deal, I think there is a
strong case that we are better off
without an agreement than with one.

On the future
of Iran:

The ruling regime is dangerous and

it is repressive. We will continue to
have sanctions in place on Irans
support for terrorism and violation of
human rights. We will continue to
insist upon the release of Americans
detained unjustly The deal before us
doesnt bet on Iran changing, it
doesnt require trust.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one

supports or opposes the resolution of
disapproval depends on how one
thinks Iran will behave under this
agreement. If one thinks Iran will
moderate, that contact with the West
and a decrease in economic and
political isolation will soften Irans
hardline positions, one should
approve the agreement.

On civil
debate:

I know its easy to play on peoples

fears, to magnify threats, to compare
any attempt at diplomacy to Munich.

While we have come to different

conclusions, I give tremendous credit
to President Obama for his work on
this issue.