“The bottom line,” Menendez said, “is that this agreement leaves Iran with the core element of a robust nuclear infrastructure.”
There were other egregious shortcomings in the JCPOA which Menendez explained in clear, unassailable language. A transcript of his full speech is available here.
WHAT A DEAL MUST INCLUDE
But the New Jersey senator not only explained why the agreed upon plan is a bad one. Menendez offered a fully fleshed-out set of conditions which would constitute a much better deal. He was unsympathetic to the notion that Iran is dealing from strength as against the P5+1 in negotiating the deal. He also utterly rejected the idea that the choice is one between accepting the terms of the JCPOA or war.
“We should have insisted on meeting the requirements we know are necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon today and in ten years, or we should have been prepared to walk away,” Menendez said.
Congress should “direct the Administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action” during those negotiations.
The critical elements for a true deal, Menendez believes, include a clause that allows “permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites,” a “ban on centrifuge R & D for the duration of the agreement”; the closure of the Fordow enrichment facility; a complete resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear programs; and a doubling of the tenure of the deal, so that Iran’s nuclear program would be under strict supervision for “at least 20 years.”
Menendez also believes it is essential that penalties for infractions be decided in advance of signing any agreement, and suggests that the Iran Sanctions Act be reauthorized so that “snapback” will actually be both possible and meaningful.
It was a lengthy, detail-packed speech from a man who has, for more than two decades, “followed and studied Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
