By Tong Kim
WASHINGTON ― Since the July 14 announcement of a settlement in the Iranian nuclear issue, designed to block Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon, American foreign policy institutions are all engaged in a debate on the deal.
Following a contentious hearing on July 23 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will also hold a hearing on the nuclear agreement for which the secretaries of state, energy and the treasury will appear to testify.
Through a previous agreement between the White House and Congress, the Iranian deal is now under scrutiny. Congress has two months for review before voting on the accord. The deal is dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
However, the two-month review period may be extended if the administration does not provide certain documents to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker, committee chairman, and Sen. Ben Cardin, Democratic ranking member, made a bipartisan request that the administration provide a document signed between IAEA and Iran regarding verification and inspection that they said is an integral part of the nuclear deal and therefore must be reviewed.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that document is confidential between IAEA and Iran, not to be shared with a third party, adding that he would share U.S. input for the inspection arrangement with Iran in a closed session.
Corker characterized the accord as "a critical path to codify a perfectly aged pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon by abiding the agreement," adding "I believe you've been fleeced." Republican Sen. Jim Risch from Idaho even said, "You guys have been bamboozled" into producing a bad agreement.
Secretary Kerry outlined the strengths of the deal, warning the alternative would be confrontation. Two other witnesses were Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who testified on the technical underpinnings of the deal and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who detailed the role of sanctions and sanction snap-backs if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.
Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, a Republican presidential candidate, criticized the accord as the "Obama administration's deal," alleging its implementation "is not guaranteed" beyond the term of the current administration.
"The alternative to the deal is not a better deal ― some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation," said Kerry. "That's a fantasy." Without the deal, Iran would be free to develop a nuclear weapon without restriction and without inspections. If the deal is rejected, Iran "would not come back to negotiate with the United States."
The administration argues that the deal will block all paths for Iran to make a nuclear weapon. Currently Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 10 to 12 nuclear bombs. Iran will get rid of its nuclear stockpile by 98 percent.
With the deal, the breakout time ― the time Iran would take to produce enough fissile material to make one nuclear bomb, not including the time needed to manufacture an actual bomb ― will increase from as little as two to three months to at least 10 years.
In other words, if Iran breaks the deal, the international community will have more than a year to deal with it.
Some critics argue that Iran may use its new revenue to pursue its nuclear weapons program, build its arms to threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, and also to support terrorists and its proxies to destabilize the region.
Despite this, the deal is likely to move forward to implementation, even if Congress rejects it.
President Obama vowed to "veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation" of the deal. Congress does not seem to have a two-thirds veto-proof vote to override the presidential veto.
WASHINGTON ― Since the July 14 announcement of a settlement in the Iranian nuclear issue, designed to block Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon, American foreign policy institutions are all engaged in a debate on the deal.
Following a contentious hearing on July 23 of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will also hold a hearing on the nuclear agreement for which the secretaries of state, energy and the treasury will appear to testify.
Through a previous agreement between the White House and Congress, the Iranian deal is now under scrutiny. Congress has two months for review before voting on the accord. The deal is dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
However, the two-month review period may be extended if the administration does not provide certain documents to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker, committee chairman, and Sen. Ben Cardin, Democratic ranking member, made a bipartisan request that the administration provide a document signed between IAEA and Iran regarding verification and inspection that they said is an integral part of the nuclear deal and therefore must be reviewed.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that document is confidential between IAEA and Iran, not to be shared with a third party, adding that he would share U.S. input for the inspection arrangement with Iran in a closed session.
Corker characterized the accord as "a critical path to codify a perfectly aged pathway for Iran to get a nuclear weapon by abiding the agreement," adding "I believe you've been fleeced." Republican Sen. Jim Risch from Idaho even said, "You guys have been bamboozled" into producing a bad agreement.
Secretary Kerry outlined the strengths of the deal, warning the alternative would be confrontation. Two other witnesses were Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who testified on the technical underpinnings of the deal and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who detailed the role of sanctions and sanction snap-backs if Iran fails to comply with the agreement.
Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, a Republican presidential candidate, criticized the accord as the "Obama administration's deal," alleging its implementation "is not guaranteed" beyond the term of the current administration.
"The alternative to the deal is not a better deal ― some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation," said Kerry. "That's a fantasy." Without the deal, Iran would be free to develop a nuclear weapon without restriction and without inspections. If the deal is rejected, Iran "would not come back to negotiate with the United States."
The administration argues that the deal will block all paths for Iran to make a nuclear weapon. Currently Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 10 to 12 nuclear bombs. Iran will get rid of its nuclear stockpile by 98 percent.
With the deal, the breakout time ― the time Iran would take to produce enough fissile material to make one nuclear bomb, not including the time needed to manufacture an actual bomb ― will increase from as little as two to three months to at least 10 years.
In other words, if Iran breaks the deal, the international community will have more than a year to deal with it.
Some critics argue that Iran may use its new revenue to pursue its nuclear weapons program, build its arms to threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, and also to support terrorists and its proxies to destabilize the region.
Despite this, the deal is likely to move forward to implementation, even if Congress rejects it.
President Obama vowed to "veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation" of the deal. Congress does not seem to have a two-thirds veto-proof vote to override the presidential veto.
![[INTERVIEW] Hip-hop group Uptown returns after 13 years with new lineup](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/0eae35da5e9c40c38cf439e550a2eb3e.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] ASTRO members aim to shine in musical theater](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/df16760dc50f469d93434f66a069465c.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
