A year ago almost to the day, Hillary Clinton said that any nuclear deal with Iran should allow for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”
“This is a – this is the real nub of it, because if you cannot be persuaded that the Iranians cannot break out and race toward a nuclear weapon, then you cannot have a deal. I believe strongly that it’s really important for there to be so little enrichment or no enrichment, at least for a long period of time, because I do think that any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.”
However, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action just announced yesterday, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for the next 15 years. In addition, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states have already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.
Clinton’s endorsement of a deal that doesn’t meet her previous expectations is yet another example of the failed Clinton-Obama foreign policy that she undeniably now owns.
The draft nuclear agreement between Iran and the United Kingdom, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, was announced today after many missed deadlines.
While Hillary Clinton has endorsed today’s deal, her official comments on the nascent deal lacked substance. However, in previous statements Clinton offered more explicit expectations for any deal with Iran.
Under today’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran is allowed uranium enrichment up to 3.67% for 15 years. Clinton, however, called for “so little enrichment or no enrichment … for a long period of time” because she believed “any enrichment will trigger an arms race in the Middle East.” Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab stateshave already said they will “match” Iran’s enrichment capabilities.
Another area of contention for Clinton is Iran’s breakout time. Clinton has called for a breakout time of over a year, but the “limits imposed by today’s agreement impose abreakout time of only one year.”
Evoking bipartisan concern in the United States is the ”contentious” arms embargo. According to The New York Times, restrictions on missiles would end in eight years and a “similar ban on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons would be removed in five years,” but, especially concerning, is that both could be lifted earlier. Democrats are said to be “worrying” over the arms embargo, and several in the Senate indicated they could withhold their support of a deal that lifted the embargo. Clinton has so far been silent on how the US should approach the arms embargo in the nuclear agreement.
Finally, Clinton called for a deal that “imposes an intrusive inspection program with no sites off limits.” Although Clintonclaimed that today’s deal included “the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary,” The Wall Street Journal reports it is “unlikely” that the IAEA will “have access anytime and anywhere to Iran’s nuclear sites.” In addition, a New York Times report notes it is also “unclear whether the inspectors would be able to interview the scientists and engineers” who were key to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards’ “effort … to design a weapon that Iran could manufacture in short order.”
But unfortunately for Clinton, despite whatever rhetoric she ultimately comes up with to justify her support for the agreement, her previous qualifications for an agreement with Iran were not fully met with today’s deal. Indeed, Clinton will “own the agreement” that is being frowned upon by many in her own party, as Clinton is said to have “worked in harmony” on Iran with Obama during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Today, Hillary heaped praised on Israel and took a victory lap for her record on Israel in a speech at the American Jewish Committee’s Global Forum. But Hillary’s record at the State Department tells a different story.
Here are a few reasons why she might not have been as effective as she leads on:
1. As Secretary, Clinton only visited Israel twice herself and“spent little time” on peace negotiations. 2. Secretary Clinton and the State Department ignored Iran’s verbal attacks on Israel at the Human Rights Council to pursue negotiations with Iran. 3. Clinton harshly criticized the Israeli government over settlement construction in Israel repeatedly during her tenure. 4. Even at the yearly AIPAC conference in Washington, DC, Secretary Clinton took the opportunity to criticize settlement construction saying it “undermines” US-Israel relations.
