The Iran nuclear deal was already of questionable value because it unlocked billions of dollars the rogue nation could use to further its terroristic ambitions and allowed such a huge window of time for inspections of suspicious sites that any checks and balances were rendered near meaningless.
What happened to inspections “anytime, anywhere”?
What happened to independent oversight?
But the recently revealed side agreement between Iran and the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency that allows Iran to conduct its own inspections of its own Parchin nuclear site, long suspected of being used to develop nuclear arms, makes a strong case that the deal is unacceptable.
And still, Democrats in Congress, including New Mexico’s Sen. Tom Udall and Sen. Martin Heinrich, are lining up to support it.
But with this latest disclosure, how does that make sense?
The broader deal requires Iran to dismantle most of its nuclear program for at least a decade in exchange for having international sanctions lifted. And if Iran was a nation that could be trusted and conditions allowed for frequent, random and independent inspections, it would be acceptable.
But without a real verification process, how can the rest of the world believe Iran is complying?
Supporters say that if Iran violates the agreement, snapback sanctions would bring it back into line. But one argument proponents make is that sanctions already in place won’t stop Iran. And it is highly unlikely all six of the nations that forged the deal would agree to restore sanctions once their business interests have established roots in the country.
So, no sanctions. Iran can inspect itself. And a boatload of money is coming Iran’s way that could help finance terrorism and anti-U.S. activities.
And this is a good thing for the U.S. and its allies?
The pact was already of doubtful value. In light of the new revelations, supporters in Congress, especially Udall and Heinrich, should reconsider their support for this President Obama vanity project and gin up the courage to vote against this faulty agreement and call for both sides to go back to the table.
This editorial first appeared in the Albuquerque Journal. It was written by members of the editorial board and is unsigned as it represents the opinion of the newspaper rather than the writers.