Claim that Iran will not direct sanctions relief towards foreign aggression strains credulity
[ Page 3 ]
In response to this claim, the Obama administration baldly asserts that Iran’s terror machine simply will not benefit from the influx of cash. Colin Kahl, the vice president’s national security advisor, recently went so far as to say that the Iranians “are not going to spend the vast majority of the money on guns, most of it will go to butter.”
This argument is absurd on its face. Over the course of the last thirty-six years, the Islamic Republic has consistently sacrificed a very significant portion of its potential earnings in order to support its terror machine and build a nuclear program. The butter-not-guns argument asks our allies to believe that Iran will suddenly drop its support for terror even though doing so is not a condition of sanctions relief. The guiding assumption here appears to be that neither Iranian rhetoric nor behavior from 1979 up until yesterday has any connection whatsoever to what Iranian leaders will do tomorrow. Who in their right mind would swallow such an assumption? When, in the course of human history, did getting $100 billion at the stroke of a pen ever convince anyone that they have been wrong all along?
"Testimony of Michael Doran: Implications of a Nuclear Agreement with Iran (Part I)
." Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, July 9, 2015. [ More (3 quotes) ]
Iran's regime is dedicated to spreading its revolutionary ideology and has a well-established network of terrorist proxies that it funds. If the nuclear deal is completed without addressing Iran's aggressive foreign policy, then it will only add fuel to this fire by giving Iran access to over $100 billion in sanctions relief as well as billions of dollars more in potential foreign direct investment and trade.