7/23/2019 Schumer vs Obama

1/3

Obama vs. Schumer on Iran

Obama Schumer

On making

difficultdecisions:

Ive had to make a lot of tough calls

as President, but whether or not thisdeal 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 thatcannot simply be dismissed.

hen we carefully e!amine the

arguments against this deal, none of

them stand up to scrutiny. "hat may

be why the rhetoric on the other side

is so strident. I suppose some of it

can be ascribed to knee#$erk

partisanship.

I have learned that the best way to

treat such %momentous& decisions is to

study the issue carefully, hear the full,

unfiltered e!planation of those for and

against, and then, without regard to

pressure, politics or party, make a

decision solely based on the merits.

On nuclear

weapons:

e 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 e!ercise patience.

"his deal is not $ust the best choice

among alternatives ' this is the

strongest non#proliferation agreement

ever negotiated(

)et me repeat* "he

prohibition on Iran having a nuclearweapon is permanent. "he 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. +ven more

importantly, the agreement wouldallow 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.

On the

likelihood of

war:

o lets not mince words. "he

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

7/23/2019 Schumer vs Obama

2/3

power.

On the

durability of

sanctions:

"hose who say we can $ust walk

away from this deal and maintain

sanctions are selling a fantasy.

Instead of strengthening our positionas some have suggested, -ongresss

re$ection would almost certainly result

in multilateral sanctions unraveling.

etter to keep /.. sanctions in

place, strengthen them, enforce

secondary sanctions on other nations,

and pursue the hard#trodden path ofdiplomacy once more, difficult as it

may be.

On

inspections:

hile the process for resolving a

dispute about access can take up to 01

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. "he

bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can

catch them ' and we will.

Inspections are not 2anywhere,

anytime3 the 01#day delay before we

can inspect is troubling. hile

inspectors would likely be able to

detect radioactive isotopes at a site

after 01 days, that delay would enable

Iran to escape detection of any illicit

building and improving of possible

military dimensions 4P567 ' 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 ob$ects.

It is reasonable to fear that, once the

+uropeans become entangled in

lucrative economic relations with

Iran, they may well be inclined not to

rock the boat by voting to allowinspections.

On Snapback

Sanctions:

If Iran violates the agreement over

the ne!t decade, all of the sanctions

can snap back into place. e wont

need the support of other members of

the /.8. ecurity -ouncil3 America

can trigger snapback on our own.

"he 2snapback provisions in the

agreement seem cumbersome and

difficult to use(If the /.. insists on

snapback of all the provisions, which

it can do unilaterally, and the

+uropeans, 9ussians, or -hinese 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 :;< billion of its own money

' revenue fro=en overseas by other

countries.

ut the notion that this will

be a game#changer, with all this

/nder this agreement, Iran would

receive at least :;> 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 5iddle +ast, and,

7/23/2019 Schumer vs Obama

3/3

money funneled into Irans pernicious

activities, misses the reality of Irans

current situation.

perhaps, beyond.

e need to check the behavior that

we?re concerned about directly* yhelping our allies in the region

strengthen their own capabilities to

counter a cyber#attack or a ballistic

missile.

"he hardliners can use the freed#up

funds to build an I-5 on their ownas soon as sanctions are lifted 4and

then augment their I-5 capabilities

in @ years after the ban on importing

ballistic weaponry is lifted7,

threatening the /nited tates.

If were serious about confronting

Irans destabili=ing activities, it is

hard to imagine a worse approach

than blocking this deal.

hen 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:

"he ruling regime is dangerous and

it is repressive. e will continue to

have sanctions in place on Irans

support for terrorism and violation of

human rights. e will continue to

insist upon the release of Americans

detained un$ustly("he deal before us

doesnt bet on Iran changing, it

doesnt reuire trust.

/ltimately, 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 est

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 5unich.

hile we have come to different

conclusions, I give tremendous credit

to President Bbama for his work on

this issue.