Iran Nuclear Deal Supporters Privately Admit Its Flaws

American arms experts are starting to admit flaws in the Iranian nuclear deal that took effect 20 months ago, wrote Eli Lake for Bloomberg News on September 14. He noted that while many of these experts publicly criticize United States President Donald Trump for doubting the deal, in private they are starting to admit its flaws. Next month, the Brookings Institution will hold an off-the-record meeting to discuss the problems with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (jcpoa).

The “battleground issues” highlighted by Brookings are:

• What happens to Iran’s nuclear program after the deal’s first decade?

• How does the deal address concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s past nuclear work?

• Is iaea [International Atomic Energy Agency] access to sensitive sites timely enough?

• What is the significance of restrictions on conventional arms transfers and ballistic missile activities?

• What are the implications of sanctions relief, including release of $100-plus billion in restricted assets?

• What are the consequences of rejecting the deal?

The meeting was organized by Robert Einhorn, a former State Department special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control. Einhorn said he wants to discuss “the nuclear deal’s ‘sunset’ problem” and warned that “when key nuclear restrictions of the jcpoa expire, Iran will be free to build up its nuclear capabilities, especially its enrichment capacity, and drastically reduce the time it would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.” Lake wrote:

This was a key objection voiced by Israel in 2015 when it publicly opposed Obama’s deal with Iran. Between 2025 and 2030, the agreement to limit Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium and the number of centrifuge cascades it can operate will expire, allowing Iran to erect an industrial-scale nuclear program if it chooses.

At the time, Israel’s objections were dismissed and derided by the White House. Obama called the deal’s critics warmongers.

Today, former Obama officials are singing a different song. Einhorn, who served from 2009 to 2013 in the Obama administration, told me: “Everyone recognizes that the deal is not ideal. I think President Obama would say the deal is not ideal.” He added: “There have been all kinds of ideas for how it can be strengthened. Strong supporters of the deal would acknowledge that. Let’s think of a strategy for how some of its shortcomings can be remedied.”

In August 2015, Obama spoke about the plan of action as a “very good deal ” and said, “After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb” (emphasis added).

Despite efforts to “cut off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb,” Iran has successfully been able to, since the creation of the deal, advance its nuclear centrifuges and test illegal ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Days after the implementation of the nuclear deal on Jan. 16, 2016, Iran test-fired a ballistic missile . The new deal clearly states that Iran had to wait up to eight years to continue developing missiles, yet Iran started immediately.

Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote that the U.S. and the European Union “lifted sanctions on Iran, released over $100 billion in frozen assets, and welcomed Iran into a whole rush of economic deals. And they received nothing in return. … This deal did not make the world safer—it was a disaster for the world !”

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Trump to talk about a plan to “fix ” the Iran deal. Netanyahu reiterated to reporters after the meeting that Trump agreed that the deal was “terrible” and needed to be changed or dismantled altogether .

The problem with the nuclear deal goes much deeper than “what will happen after the deal expires.” Mr. Flurry wrote in “America’s Deadly Nuclear Deal With Iran ”:

How can we consider ourselves a superpower when we make such a ridiculous deal? How can you explain America now being the number one state sponsor of the number one state sponsor of terrorism? …

Iran has terrorists all over the world. It wants to find a way to explode a bomb but leave people wondering who did it! This nation that America is funding is aiming to cause nuclear terror and ultimately take over the world.

As early as 1972, Plain Truth editor in chief Herbert W. Armstrong was also talking about Iran, noting its far-reaching goals as an important and influential country in the Middle East. Mr. Flurry has continued to warn about Iran in the Trumpet magazine, beginning as early as 1992. Because of Bible prophecy, he was able to warn far in advance about the threat posed by the Iranians. Daniel 11:40 describes a “king of the south” that will eventually push at another power called “the king of the north.” The nuclear deal marks a major increase in power for the king of the south, which is radical Islam, led by Iran (read our booklet The King of the South for proof).

Merely recognizing the flaws in the nuclear deal is unfortunately not enough. Iran’s influence has infiltrated countries all over the world through its acts of terror. Negotiating with a terrorist nation is not going to solve problems. As Mr. Flurry writes in The King of the South: “[Americans] fail to see the root of terrorism. We must pull the terrorist tree up by the roots. They lack the will to deal with Iran—to hold Iran accountable for its terrorist acts of war!”

To learn more about Iran in biblical prophecy, request your free copy of The King of the South.  ▪