The more I get into the Iran nuclear deal, the more it feels like the television show “Mad Men”— you know, those slick advertising geniuses who seduce you with promises but downplay the fine print.
It’s like one of those radio commercials for hot new car deals, where the announcer chokes on his breath at the end while reading the qualifiers: “MSRP excludes taxes, title, other options and dealer charges, higher MSRP will affect lease price, dealer sets actual prices, lessee responsible for insurance, closed-end lease offered to approved customers only through participating dealers, additional charges may apply at lease end, supplies limited, offer ends March 1. See dealer for details.”
Oh my, what a deal.
Well, it certainly reminds me of the Iran deal, which is littered with fine print, some of it quite treacherous. This is particularly ominous when we’re dealing with an evil regime that virtually everyone agrees has a pedigree in cheating and cannot be trusted.
“Anytime, anywhere” was a wonderful promise… until we discovered the qualifier that Iran can delay inspections of its nuclear sites by more than 24 days. In fact, the process is so cumbersome and bureaucratic it can easily stretch out, according to the Wall Street Journal, to three months or more.
Three months or more! That’s like telling a drug dealer you’ll be busting his house next Tuesday at noon. As Jackie Mason noted, restaurants in New York City have a much tougher inspections regime than what we negotiated with Iran, because they can be inspected at any time without any notice.
Why is this issue so critical?
Because a super tough inspections regime was supposed to be our consolation prize for allowing Iran to keep its nuclear infrastructure. If you’ll recall, the original goal of diplomacy was pretty straightforward: America and its partners would make a major concession—the end of nuclear sanctions—in return for Iran making a major concession—the end of its nuclear program.
When we decided to concede to Iran the right to keep most of its nuclear infrastructure, inspections became the decisive deal point. Anything short of ironclad would seriously weaken the deal. Can anyone argue with a straight face that the inspections regime we negotiated is ironclad?
As bad as that is, though, it gets worse.
“Anytime, anywhere” came with another exciting promise: “snapback sanctions.” In combination, these two promises created an irresistible sales pitch: “We’ll surely catch Iran if it cheats, and when we do, the sanctions will snap right back!”
Irresistible, yes, but wait until you see the fine print.
Simply put, in the unlikely event that we ever do catch Iran cheating and try to “snap back” sanctions, there won’t be many sanctions left to snap back to.
Here is how Washington Institute executive director Robert Satloff explains it: “Let’s say that the UN Security Council does order the reimposition of sanctions. According to my read of the agreement, all contracts signed by Iran up until that point are grandfathered in and immune from sanctions. That means one can expect a stampede of state-to-state and private sector contracts — some real, many hypothetical — all designed to shield Iran from the impact of possible reimposition of sanctions, thereby weakening the impact of the punishment.”
In other words, Iran can quickly rack up a slew of deals with Russia, China and Europe worth over $100 billion, and, even if we catch them building a nuclear bomb behind our back, we will have zero power to undo those deals.
I don’t care if you’re Republican or Democrat, this fine print stinks.
The grandfather loophole is especially lethal. After all, once the Persian mullahs make their irrevocable deals, why would they need us? Why should they fear us? It will be difficult enough to catch them cheating– what will restrain them if they’re not even afraid to get caught?
As the emotions are heating up in our community over this deal, I’d like to suggest a less emotional reaction: Stay calm and study the fine print.
I have, and that’s why I oppose the deal. It’s full of nasty surprises. There are many other examples, like the sneaky switch from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which says Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, to the current deal, which only says Iran is called upon not to undertake such activity. From the mandatory “shall” to the permissive “called upon”— sneaky, indeed.
The Iran nuclear deal may be complex and hard to understand, but, in my book, the real danger is in the fine print. Study it closely. This is not about partisanship or politics. It’s about something we all have in common: We hate getting ripped off, especially by slick Mad Men.
David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at [email protected]