Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is a moderate Republican who served in the House of Representatives for five terms before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2013.
Flake, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was expected to be the one nearly sure bet Republican to vote for the Nuclear Iran deal. Flake has gone against his party on issues such as re-starting relations with Cuba. U.S. President Barack Obama courted Flake heavily to support the deal, according to Politico.
But on Saturday, Aug. 15, Flake issued a statement that surprised many people, and probably made for some very long faces in the White House.
Flake’s opposition, unlike that of most others who have come out against the deal, is based not on the weaknesses in the part of the agreement dealing with Iran’s nuclear activity, but instead on how it will affect the ability of the U.S. and others to respond to the Islamic Republic’s regional behavior long before it might produce a nuclear weapon.
Flake said that although he supported the negotiations from the beginning, he could not vote to support the Nuclear Iran deal agreed to by the U.S. and its P5+1 partners.
Although the Senator believes the Agreement does limit Iran’s ability to produce “sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon for a period of time, particularly at its known nuclear facilities,” the ability of the U.S. and others to respond to Iran’s non-nuclear behavior in the region is insufficiently robust.
Flake said he raised this concern with President Obama as far back as February, and that he has raised this issue many times in many places and with many people, since the Agreement was announced.
Flake also cited Iran’s public position that it will consider any new or similar sanctions against it as a breach of the JCPOA, and for that reason he believes the Administration will be “even more reluctant to confront Iran on its regional behavior once the JCPOA is being implemented,” as that will leave everyone but Iran in a worse position than before the Agreement was made.
“As written, this agreement gives Iran leverage it currently doesn’t have,” Flake said in his statement.
“Hoping that Iran’s nuclear ambitions might change after a fifteen year sabbatical might be a bet worth making. Believing that Iran’s regional behavior will change tomorrow – while giving up tools to deter or modify such behavior – is not.”