Op-Eds

“It’s the third quarter and Iran is 25 points behind the rest of the world,” Abilene Reporter News (May 9, 2018)

Since the NBA playoffs are ongoing, we can use a basketball analogy: “Iran, the ball is in your court.”

On Tuesday, team coach Donald Trump announced the U.S. is withdrawing from the JCPOA — the Iran nuclear weapons deal. He instructed his assistants and players to prepare for two rounds of tough economic sanctions unless Iran agrees to stop testing ballistic missiles, sponsoring terrorism and abusing human rights.

“Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions have destabilized the Middle East, threatened our allies and pose a danger to American national security," he said.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has not stopped Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, only pausing the program for about 10 years. The threat of a nuclear region looms.

"If I allowed this deal to stand, there would soon be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,”  Trump said. “Everyone would want their weapons ready by the time Iran had theirs.”

Iran now influences the politics of Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Qatar. And who can forget Syria? That civil war has made refugees of half the population due to Iran’s snipers, thousands of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp soldiers, secret Quds Force and annual payments of several billion dollars to Bashar al Assad, who gasses and kills his people.  Syria provides a platform for Iran to stockpile more than 150,000 missiles for Hezbollah to attack Israel.

Iran now has a Shia Crescent around half of the Middle East, from Lebanon to Yemen, moving to threaten Egypt and Saudi Arabia and world oil.

How will Team Iran respond to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA? Will they play by the rules of international relations and international law? Or start throwing elbows or worse, as they have since the 1979 Revolution, ushered in a new sort of coach and playbook?

The day after Trump’s announcement, President Hassan Rouhani warned that Iran might restart its nuclear program. Traveling.

Then the Iranian Parliament burned the U.S. Flag while chanting “Death to America.”  Technical foul.

On Wednesday, in a speech in Tehran, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared, “I say on behalf of the nation of Iran, Mr. Trump, you won’t do a damn thing!”  Another technical foul.

The Ayatollah further said, “Wait for the day when Trump is dead, his corpse is fed on by snakes and insects, but the system of the Islamic Republic will still be standing.” Third technical foul.

(If we were following NBA rules, the coach would be kicked out of the game for a second technical).

Also on Wednesday, Yemen’s Shiite Houthi rebels fired ballistic missiles at Riyadh. Foul, away from the play.

Iran still holds seven Americans hostage in Evin Prison, despite North Korea’s release of American citizens there. Illegal screen.

On Thursday, Iran directly attacked Israel for the first time, with over 20 missiles shot from Syria.  Flagrant 1 Foul.  Some were shot down by Israel, some landed short.  But the deadly escalation makes it clear Iran wants to continue fortifying several dozen military bases in Syria.

There are 194 teams in our league, all the countries of the world. In the words of Henry Kissinger, it is now up to Iran to decide “whether it is a nation or a cause” — a normal state, or a revolutionary one, disrupting and foul-plagued.

Change will not come easy—the IRGC army controls more than half the economy, and the Basij police roam the streets, looking for offenses such as females not wearing head coverings.

But Iran’s economy is in shatters, due to ongoing massive governmental corruption and economic mismanagement.  Iran can choose to have a functioning economy, free of sanctions and open to investment, in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons and terrorism.

After returning from North Korea, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo now will work with European “coaches” Macron and May, and friendly teams in the Middle East and Asia to persuade them to full-court press Iran.  It appears the U.S. is in the bonus.

Of course, the basketball analogy is not perfect in the real world. But the ayatollah and his assistants and players are on notice they must start following the rules or they will find themselves ejected.

Neal Coates is chairman of the Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at Abilene Christian University.

“Enough is enough in Iran”, Abilene Reporter News (January 7, 2018)

You have seen the good news—in over 100 cities in Iran, hundreds of thousands of people have been demonstrating against the Iranian Regime over the past several days.  The long list of complaints, years in the making, are due to great lack of freedom, massive government corruption, bureaucratic mismanagement, forty percent unemployment for young adults, and foreign policy debacles in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere that have robbed hundreds of billions of dollars from needed public works.  These include for transportation, education, medical facilities, refineries, and even more desalination plants.

The first major protests were in 2009, when the Regime altered the results of the presidential election and ensured that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stayed in power for a second term.  Millions protested, thousands were arrested, many were tortured in prison, and the two other rivals in the election remain to this day under house arrest and silenced.

Now, as 2018 begins, is not the time for us to be quiet, as the U.S. administration was in 2009.  Expect a bloody crackdown by the Regime—that is how they took power in 1979, with tens of thousands of Iranians killed, and how the dictatorship stayed in power in 2009.  The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Court has now warned that protesters could face the death penalty for “waging war against God.”  But the Iranian people will not be stopped, and neither should those of us who love freedom.

It appears the Iranian people are saying enough is enough.  They are also upset over revelations about the upcoming national budget.  Secret portions have been leaked, including huge financial amounts to Shiite religious institutes, and an increase of twenty percent in the billions going to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.  This is despite the national budget ending subsidies for millions of Iranians and raising the price of gasoline.

The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, blames “enemies” for the protests, whether internal rebels or the U.S. or Israel or Saudi Arabia or the UAE.  He is ruthless and dependent on the martyr syndrome on which Shia Islam is based.  But those countries did not create the spontaneous parades inside Iran.  They are a product of the Leader’s and the Regime’s actions and policies.

Americans and our government should condemn the Regime, continue sanctions against Iran for its terrorism, ballistic missile program, and human rights abuses, and now offer moral, communications, and other support to the people of Iran.  There is much at stake—the future relationship of our two countries, and even Middle East peace.

The U.S. and other countries should declare and at the U.N. support the Iranian people’s right to protest.  We should warn the Leader and IRGC against violent suppression.  And of the hundreds currently arrested, there will certainly be abuse in jail by authorities.  President Trump is right to say the world is watching.

U.S. officials should urge Iran to stop blocking social-media sites, and ask companies like Telegram, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Instagram to not comply with Regime demands to block communication.

Let’s use the Voice of America’s Persian Service and Radio Farda to support Iranian citizens’ claims.  They are valid and have been underreported for years.

Congress should pass a resolution supporting the people of Iran’s efforts to promote basic freedoms that lead to a freely elected, open, and democratic political system.

Our government can assist embassies and human-rights groups in compiling names of those arrested, murdered, and tortured, and publicize these in Farsi-language media. 

The treatment of detainees should be linked to diplomacy with Iran.  No Western diplomat should meet with an Iranian diplomat without protesters’ fate first on the agenda.

We should also ask Barack Obama to right the mistakes of 2009, and promote the cause of Iranian freedom through his large network of supporters who are strong believers in human rights.  President Trump should ask former President Obama for his assistance.

Regardless of what happens in the next few weeks, and remember that the Regime has survived mass demonstrations and riots before, the Iranian people now understand they have more power to debate, complain, and protest.  They will do it again.  And again.  This 1979 Regime will fall someday, and something better will come.  The Iranian people have such a long history and are industrious, proud, and smart.  They do not want to be at odds with their neighbors or the United States.

Let’s help them.  What can you do?  Post the latest news on the protests on your social media to help get the word out in Iran and other repressive countries.  Ask your Congress member to support the Iranian people.  Let us all speak in favor of freedom.

Neal Coates is the Chair of the ACU Department of Political Science & Criminal Justice

“How About a New Year’s Resolution Concerning Iran,” Op-Ed, Abilene Reporter News (January 7, 2016)

It’s that time again, to look at the weight scale and consider promises to keep after the New Year rings in.  But as we all commit to doing better on important things in our lives, the White House is deciding to do nothing in response to Iran’s threatening actions, including its violations of international sanctions for firing ballistic missiles which can carry nuclear warheads.

First, in case you missed an important point late in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency declared in December that Iran has had a nuclear weapons program since at least 2003.

Next, remember as 2016 begins that Iran will not abide by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  They want their hands on the $100 billion currently frozen. 

President Obama is committed to preventing Congress from changing the terms of the JCPOA—this is for legacy purposes, as he seeks credit as the president who successfully negotiated with Iran.

Obama, though, does not have a comprehensive Iran policy.  In fact, since 1979, no administration has responded well to the underlying nature of the Iranian state.  The Islamic Republic is a revolutionary regime, and to a great extent it relies upon having an external foe—the Great Satan—to justify its existence and hardline policies.

The Administration is ignoring a U.N. expert panel report that concluded Iran violated a Security Council resolution by testing a new ballistic missile on October 10, the Emad, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, with a range of 800 miles.  A second launch was held on November 21.

Lack of U.S. retort to the missile tests raise fears about what the hard-liners and Supreme Leader will do next, including whether they will comply with the nuclear deal.  Twenty one Senate Democrats have sent a letter to the President to take action.  Thirty five Republican senators have done the same, writing that the Administration should delay lifting sanctions under the JCPOA.

Concerns in the Congress have grown since Iran sent more IRGC troops to Syria, a vessel was intercepted off the Oman coast in September with banned Iranian arms, the escalation of Iran’s cyberespionage program, and the unfair conviction of a Washington Post reporter held by Tehran more than 500 days.

These threats continue and are even intensifying with a recent serious incident in the Strait of Hormuz when an Iranian naval vessel fired rockets 1,500 yards from the American aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and a U.S. destroyer.  The ships, along with a French warship and other commercial craft were traveling the Strait’s internationally recognized maritime traffic lanes and in Oman’s territorial waters when the navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps suddenly announced a “live-fire exercise.”  The U.S. ships, under orders, did not respond.

But the U.S. Navy has just reported these events have escalated during the past year.  Iranian boats launched rockets on October 20, 2014, ten miles from the carrier George H. W. Bush, on this April 15 just six miles from the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and now on December 26 less than a mile from the Truman.

I hope you can keep your New Year’s resolutions.  Unfortunately, it seems the President is resolved in 2016 to do nothing to enforce existing ballistic missile sanctions against Iran, and won’t respond to missiles fired closer and closer to our aircraft carriers.  We will have to rely on Congress to hold Iran accountable.

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.

“Surprise!  There Are Two Nuclear Agreements,” Op-Ed, Abilene Reporter News (October 27, 2015)

A hallmark of international law, throughout the centuries, is that after negotiating an agreement the document is presented to the national ratifying bodies, such as a Senate or Parliament, for final approval.  But if one of those ratifying institutions then changes the agreement, often called a reservation, the entire process begins anew and the negotiators for the countries must meet again.  A simple way of understanding this is that both sides have to ultimately agree on the final wording of their deal.  Sounds simple, right?

So how can there be two Iran nuclear deals?

It was welcome news just a few days ago when we learned Iran’s Parliament had ratified the nuclear agreement hammered out in July by the diplomats from Iran and the United States, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany.  The approval process here in the U.S. took 60 days and was a highly publicized and contentious affair, but the Congress ultimately confirmed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in September.

And we have also just learned that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has endorsed the nuclear deal.  However, the Supreme Leader warned that all sanctions must be lifted or Iran would consider the agreement broken and would walk away.  The JCPOA requires sanctions be suspended but can snap them back into place if Iran violates the agreement.  Was the Ayatollah just declaring his hopes despite the language of the JCPOA and to satisfy other hardline members of the regime?

According to the Obama Administration and most media, Iran’s Parliament (the Majlis) has now endorsed the nuclear deal.  But these reports were inaccurate.  Instead, on October 13 the Majlis approved its own quite different 1,000 page document.  The Middle East Media Research Institute examined the bill and reports that it requires sanctions be cancelled and not re-imposed.  In addition, this new document requests the Iranian government to expand its centrifuge program over two years so that enriched-uranium output will reach 190,000 SWUs (separate work units).  This is at least 25 times the current output of Iran’s 9,000 centrifuges, which are supposed to drop under the JCPOA to only 5,060 centrifuges for 10 years.

Khamenei’s announcement on October 21 endorsed the Parliament’s bill.  This is a classic bait-and-switch.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the JCPOA is not yet in effect—Iran hasn’t even approved it, and has a different version of reality.  Will the U.S. government continue the fiction that a binding nuclear deal with Iran actually exists?  Will we ever hold the Ayatollah and Iran accountable?

No wonder that Congress is again forced to speak out on our foreign policy.  Eleven Senate Democrats, most of whom voted for the JCPOA, have just asked the Administration to respond to Iran’s recent test of a ballistic missile which can carry a nuclear weapon and violates U.N. sanctions set against Iran in 2010.  The senators wrote in their letter that the ability to enforce the nuclear deal “must be fortified by a zero-tolerance policy to respond to violations of the agreement and of applicable UN resolutions.”  There are also calls in the Senate to extend the Iran Sanctions Act, set to expire in 2016.

Buckle your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy ride trying to implement an agreement which hasn’t been concluded under international law, while Iran continues its nuclear program and missile tests.

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.

“All for the Iranian Deal … If You’re Iranian,” Op-Ed, Abilene Reporter News (August 9, 2015)

It’s now up to Congress under the Iran Review Act to approve or issue a veto-proof disapproval of President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran by mid-September.  Here’s why I’m for the agreement.

It is not persuasive that 48% of Americans disapprove of the deal while 38% approve, or that 54% are not too or at all confident in the U.S. and international agencies’ ability to monitor Iran’s compliance.

After all, Iran has always said its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, such as electricity generation and medical isotopes.  So ignore the regime’s insistence on keeping massive uranium and plutonium sites, appearing engineered and protected for a weapons program.

Iran needs help rebuilding its tattered economy.  The U.S., E.U., and U.N. will suspend sanctions and release $100 billion from frozen accounts toward highways, schools, water lines, and hospitals.  We can be sure Iran, long accused as the leading terrorism sponsor, would never use billions of restricted monies for more bad deeds.

Instead, there will be a robust and verifiable inspections program.  I don’t mind the U.S. gave up insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections.  Instead, Iran can deny inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site.  Denials will be adjudicated by a committee and several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits.  Even if inspectors prevail, the approval process can take 24 days.  I have no fear of scrubbing at suspected sites—managed access will work.

Likewise, there is a separate and confidential side agreement (it doesn’t matter the actual document can’t be seen by Congress) between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency for inspections at the Parchin base where Iran is alleged to have carried out prohibited work on high explosives for nuclear weapons.  It is only fair, since it is sovereign territory, that Iran can be responsible for taking samples.

We must believe Iran will now live up to its agreements.  Ignore statements such as from Major General Jafari, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, that the U.N. resolution for the pact was unacceptable and “clearly in contradiction” of Iran’s red lines.

If Iran is caught violating the agreement, the U.S. and U.N. will “snapback” the sanctions.  I’m not concerned the very language of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, in Paragraphs 26 and 37, appears to contradict Obama’s claims that sanctions will be re-imposed.  “Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.”  Certainly it can’t be read that if sanctions return that Iran can continue its nuclear program unabated and the deal is off—there must be some other explanation for this provision inserted by Iran’s skillful negotiating team.  Perhaps their goal was to persuade Congress the only alternative to approving the agreement was war.

Don’t pay attention after the agreement ends that Iran can produce unlimited nuclear material.  In a decade, it could be weeks from a bomb.  The U.S. says the regime can become a trusted member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—prohibited from developing weapons and subject to IAEA inspection.  Let’s trust Iran will not simply withdraw from the treaty, as North Korea in 2003.  And I’m certainly not worried other Middle East countries will begin nuclear programs to offset Iran’s.

Ignore that the deal does not release four American hostages held by Iran, along with the millions of damages due to the 1979 Crisis diplomats or the hundreds of millions due to U.S. victims of terror as finalized in U.S. courts.

Now to the charges “Death to America” represent Iran’s ultimate goal.  Supreme Leader Khamenei appeared after the agreement was announced to say Iran would continue supporting groups in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen, and the chants again were heard.  But this is for show and represents the regime’s culture.  It does not matter media outlets did not mention that at the podium he held a rifle so its barrel was directly under his speech notes.  He is committed to the agreement despite saying, “Our policy toward the arrogant U.S. government won’t change at all.  We have nothing to talk to America about with regard to global and regional issues.”

In conclusion, part of the study of American foreign policy centers on how policy makers reach rational decisions that are in the best interests of national security, including how leaders act within cognitive limits and as emotional beings.  Wishful thinking is part of this line of study, and U.S. decision makers have sometimes been found to believe whatever they have decided will work, especially if their worldview strongly drives them.

I hope Barack Obama is not ignoring anything regarding the Iran agreement.

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.

“Iran Not Conceding Much Thus Far,” Op-Ed, Abilene Reporter News (June 26, 2015)

We now know half the story.  Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Obamacare insurance exchanges, giving the President a large victory in his signature domestic policy.  And in a few days we will most likely see the written document describing Barack Obama’s attempts at changing Iran and the Middle East.

Obama’s foreign policy legacy will be defined according to the final agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program.  He is dealing directly (through negotiators) with the Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  The agreement, based on a framework announced in April, is supposed to have a deadline of June 30 and includes Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany.  The P5+1 are trying to complete a deal requiring Iran to limit its nuclear activities to civilian purposes in exchange for relief from heavy economic sanctions.

That deadline is in great danger of being passed, and the terms of any agreement are tilting toward Iran.

Just this past weekend, with some members calling, ‘‘Death to America,’’ Iran’s Parliament overwhelmingly voted to bar access to military sites, scientists, and documents.  Second, Parliament required the complete lifting of all U.S., U.N., and E.U. economic sanctions once a nuclear accord is completed.  They also limited future considerations of the agreement to Iran’s National Security Council, headed by Khamenei.  Any pretense of the public having a say through their elected body is surrendered.

This seems the final blow to those hoping for flexibility from Iran.  According to multiple reports, the draft agreement does not limit ballistic missile work, allows centrifuge R&D, does not require answers to the IAEA’s possible military dimension questions (crucial to knowing if Iran is really a year from a bomb), and does not provide strict and verifiable monitoring of uranium enrichment.  In short, Iran will still have a nuclear program that is not peaceful.

Western negotiators describe the draft as patches of text with dozens of blank spaces due to Iran’s stubbornness on about 10 main elements.  The diplomats say Iran and the six powers are far apart on all major issues and must extend the talks beyond June 30.  Iran is trying to avoid commitments, wanting the U.S. to give more and more.  Senator Bob Corker, chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to President Obama this week that the U.S. should abandon the talks instead of backing off its original demand Iran submit to inspections of nuclear sites at any time.

Further evidence of Iran intransigence was provided last week in the State Department’s annual terrorism report.  Iran continued its “terrorist-related” activity in 2014 and maintained its huge military support to Syria.  Iran also refuses to identify or produce a number of senior Al Qaeda members it is protecting.  Instead, from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Bahrain to Yemen, Iran sends weapons and soldiers and funding, pressuring Sunni monarchies and democratic Israel.  In Iraq, Iran’s sectarian militias threaten to split the country into three as the Shiite forces attack the Islamic State but also use some of the same brutal tactics as ISIS.  In essence, the election of President Hassan Rouhani nor the process of negotiating an agreement has produced moderation by the Supreme Leader, who has his own legacy to pursue.  The U.S. has made few public protestations and backed down from Assad’s use of chemical weapons against Syrians.  And without U.S. opposition, Iran has executed on the average one person every two hours during June.

Obamacare is part of the law of the land until Congress or the next president acts.  Now, in the next several days, Barack Obama still has time to ensure the nuclear agreement is a good deal and not let Iran move toward nuclear weapons and regional domination of the Middle East.  This is important when dealing with what some claim is a messianic apocalyptic cult that uses terror and criminal activities.

But if the President completes this particular legacy deal with the Leader, there will be time for us all to weigh in and call for sanctions to continue and even threaten other actions until Iran stops its nuclear weapons program.  The U.S. Congress recently passed its own law, reluctantly signed by Obama, allowing that if Congress receives an agreement by July 9, it has 30 days to review it before the President could suspend sanctions.  Postponement beyond that increases review to 60 days.

Let’s all speak loud and long against the agreement between Obama and Khamenei.

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.

“Good Deal or Bad Deal?,” Op-Ed, Abilene Reporter News (April 4, 2015)

Readers are aware that op-eds are penned a couple of days before publication.  As I wrote this article on Thursday, after learning a few hours earlier of the new agreement between Iran and the U.S. (and the rest of the P5+1) to limit Tehran’s nuclear program, the question in everyone’s minds was “is it a good deal?”  Will the agreement ensure it would take Iran a year to produce enough material for a weapon?  Will Iran allow inspections anywhere and anytime?

One way to begin to determine if Iran means what it says is to ask whether there are early signs of goodwill.  We learned President Obama’s comments about the agreement were carried on live television in Iran (with translation).  Of more import, we may all know the answer by Sunday’s edition of the Reporter News, but not because the terms of the agreement have been released and thoroughly examined.  It will be because of what happened at the University of Tehran on Friday.

The political framework’s terms were more specific than expected.  Iran’s centrifuges for uranium at Natanz will be halved to 5,000, the Fordo underground enrichment facility is to be converted to nuclear research and producing medical isotopes, and the Arak reactor reconfigured to not make enough fuel for a bomb.  In return, the U.S. and E.U. will begin to lift sanctions after a final agreement is signed in June.

One aspect of the agreement is controversial, that it “sunsets” after 10 years.  Iran will be free to use reactors to produce as much nuclear material as it wants during the term, and with a stockpile of enriched uranium it could be weeks from having a bomb.  U.S. officials say Iran can work to rejoin the international community as a more trusted member of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which the country will be prohibited from developing weapons and subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  But Iran may simply withdraw from the treaty, as North Korea in 2003.

Will this turn out to be a good deal, and with Iran not backing out?  Let us consider and watch just one person in the Iranian government.  The face of the negotiations for Iran has been Foreign Minister Zarif, backed by public statements and even tweets by President Rouhani.  But they are not the power in Iran, and did not authorize the Thursday announcement.  The P5+1 states were negotiating through the Iranian diplomatic team directly with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who set the red lines which his negotiators could not cross.  Even until the last day of the negotiations, and the three days of extensions, did anyone really know what the Ayatollah would decide.

Khamenei was a leading member of the clerics who ousted the Shah, started the Islamic Revolution, and broke relations with the U.S.  He became Supreme Leader in 1989 after the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, died, and has not left Iran since.  Khamenei is commander-in-chief and chief of state, appointed for life by the Assembly of Experts.  He controls every major decision directly or through loyalists and institutions, including the powerful Revolutionary Guard, the judiciary, and intelligence services.  The Supreme Leader is sworn to the survival of the 1979 Revolution, and a key pillar of the Regime’s strategy has been strong anti-American language and policies, and even the use of terror.

Perhaps Khamenei will keep his 10-year agreement with the West to maintain his title as the world’s richest man.  He controls Setad, worth more than $95 billion, a business juggernaut with stakes throughout the Iranian industry.  Setad was created to assist war veterans and widows but has morphed into the systematic seizure of thousands of properties belonging to religious minorities like Bahai and Iranians living abroad.  Threats by Congress to impose harsher sanctions against Iran, along with the drop in oil prices, may now have convinced Khamenei that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons is too expensive.

So what happened two days ago?  Will this deal really be good?  Every week across Iran, the major event of Friday Prayers is held, and the most important of these gatherings is at the University of Tehran.  Often, and certainly on major occasions, the Ayatollah himself delivers the lesson.  And since 1979, during Prayers there is often heard the chant “Death to America.”  So check the news.  Did the Ayatollah speak Friday?  Were the attendees led to chant?  The world will know very soon whether the Ayatollah will begin to change his policies, and if the Regime and its worshippers will follow.  Can they begin to chant “Deal with America”?

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.

“Mideast Perils Should Eclipse Protocol Concerns,” Op-Ed, Waco Tribune-Herald (March 3, 2015)

Where will you be in ten years?  Where will America be?  What about the Middle East?  One thing is becoming increasingly certain.  By the year 2025, Iran will most likely have nuclear weapons due to the implicit approval of the U.S. government in 2015.  And during the next decade, multiple countries in the Middle East will be swept up in a dangerous nuclear arms race.

For a number of months now, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council—United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China—along with Germany have allowed the U.S. to take the lead in negotiations with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program.  The talks will close March 31 after a decade.  U.S. officials have told various media about the status of the issues under consideration, including that thousands of uranium centrifuges will remain spinning and work will continue at the Arak plutonium reactor as the tough economic sanctions are relaxed in phases, as long as Iran doesn’t take final steps to producing weapons.  Iran insists its nuclear power is only for electricity and cancer treatment.

The AP and Politico, however, have now carried the startling news that the final agreement will include a “sunset” provision.  This means that despite whatever restrictions are set by the U.S. and the other P5+1 states, the prohibition against weapons will terminate in as short as ten years when the deal ends.

This is a surprise to Congress.  And greatly concerns Israel and our Arab allies in the Gulf.

After the expiration of any deal, Iran will be free to use its reactors to produce nuclear weapons.  With a stockpile of enriched uranium or plutonium, this long-standing goal would be weeks away.

U.S. officials defend a sunset and say Iran can work to rejoin the international community as a more trusted member of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that Iran is prohibited by the treaty from developing weapons.  After all, Iran is a long-term member of the treaty since the Shah joined in 1970, and the Ayatollah claims to honor it.  But there are three problems.  First, Iran may try to fool International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors during or after an agreement.  Second, Iran is likely to argue that the permanent members of the UN Security Council who are also NPT members can have weapons, so why can’t Iran?  Third, and much more likely, Iran would simply withdraw from the treaty, as North Korea in 2003.  We’ve seen what happened there.

It is vitally important to also realize that the proposed Iranian deal would undermine the NPT, leading to additional dangers in the Middle East.  Very quickly Saudi Arabia would buy nuclear weapons, and the UAE and Egypt and Turkey and Kuwait may develop their own.  Any agreement with a sunset is a bad deal.

We cannot forget that Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world.  Since 1979 when the Embassy hostages were taken in Tehran, the U.S. has been attacked hundreds of times.  Thousands have been killed.  Four U.S. hostages are now held, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard conducts naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz against a model U.S. aircraft carrier, cyberwarfare is now regularly used against our government and some major businesses, and Iran continues its ICBM program.  And a Shiite Arc of influence now runs from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen.

Current U.S. policy has entirely flipped from its historical siding with Israel and the Gulf states against Iran.  Now the Administration is negotiating with the Grand Ayatollah to allow an industrial nuclear program for the next ten years, but criticizes the Prime Minister of Israel for addressing Congress about the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  We must instead insist that sanctions not be lifted and even be strengthened.  Iran must give up its nuclear program.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will soon take up legislation giving the Senate power to review any nuclear agreement.  President Obama is not intending to sign a treaty with Supreme Leader Khamenei, which would require Senate approval—he wants to use executive action or a national security waiver.  But if this Congress won’t take action to correct the White House, we must look for a next president who will reject the deal with Iran, complete with its sunset provision.

And when you think about it, doesn’t it seem odd that our definitions have changed?  The U.S. used to think of a “sanction” as an economic penalty against Iran for its nuclear program, a penalty for disobedience of the NPT.  Now it seems like we’ve moved to that other meaning of the word, to authorize, approve, allow, to ratify or confirm.

Where will we all be in ten years?  It depends on what the U.S. does today.

Neal Coates is professor and chair of political science at Abilene Christian University and teaches courses on international relations and the Middle East.