Problems with the Iran Nuclear Deal

Matthew RJ Brodsky joins Professor of Economics of the Middle East Nader Habibi of Brandies University and Asieh Namdar on CCTV America to discuss the pros and cons of the nuclear deal reached between the P5+1 and Iran. Brodsky explains that President Obama promised to secure a good deal or walk away but he did neither. Instead he walked away from his commitments made to the American people and Middle East allies while walking away from every position his administration promised to stick to in the negotiations. The deal reached guarantees Iran will be a nuclear threshold state with a zero break out time in 10 years at best -- and that's if Iran sticks to the deal.

Instead of the "anytime anywhere" inspections that the Obama administration promised to secure as a result of prior concessions that allowed Iran to keep its nuclear program intact, there will be managed inspections that will take 24 days to inspect a site suspected nuclear activity in a good-case scenario. That's more than enough time to hide any activity. The U.S. and world powers will concede their only point of leverage -- sanctions relief -- upfront and that will remove Iran's incentive to stick to the deal, while filling the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism with billions dollars. Nothing in the agreement is behavior-based, but rather it runs on autopilot, freeing Iran to be as agressive as it wishes.

Unlike the straw man arguments put forth by the Obama administration that the choices are between this nuclear deal or war, the alternative is a better deal. This agreement paves Iran's path to a nuclear weapon; it doesn't prevent it and that was supposed to be the point of these negotiations.