Iran Is Not Trustworthy

Statement

It was revealed this month in a New York Times article that President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes manufactured a false narrative regarding the situation in Iran in order to sell the president's controversial deal to the American people. If you haven't had the opportunity to read the piece, I strongly encourage you to do so. It is a look inside a political operation that openly -- and apparently proudly -- admits it has manipulated the American people in order to get its way.

"The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented - that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country - was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal."

It's no wonder the American people are fed up with Washington and have no trust in the federal government when top officials behave this way.

One of the primary reasons I decided to run for the US Senate is because of my opposition to the backroom deal the Obama Administration struck with Iran. Let's look at the facts:

Iran has proven time and again it is absolutely not a trustworthy actor, yet much of the deal requires the world to trust them. For example, Inspectors are required to request access from Iran to inspect some of their nuclear sites.

If Iran violates the deal and the UN wants to reinstitute the sanctions, all of the P5 countries -- the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China -- must agree. China and Russia have made it clear they have no intentions of reinstituting the sanctions because they want to trade with Iran. In other words, it is highly unlikely sanctions will be reinstituted even if Iran violates the deal.

The deal only lasts for 15 years. So if Iran actually follows the agreement -- something highly unlikely considering their actions both before and after the deal was signed -- they are still able to restart their nuclear program after the deal expires. In other words, the deal just kicks the can down the road.

In the meantime, with sanctions lifted, Iran has the ability to bring in anywhere between $50 billion and $150 billion in new revenue -- money that could be reinvested in their nuclear program once the deal expires…or potentially before. After all, there aren't really any guaranteed ramifications if they violate the deal.

The Obama Administration did not address any of Iran's serious human rights violations nor did they negotiate the release of any of the American hostages Iran continues to hold in their jails.

Just a few months after the deal was signed, Iran made it crystal clear it had zero intentions of ever following it. In March, Iran test-fired ballistic missiles with "Israel must be wiped out" written on them.

These missiles had a range of 1,250 miles, meaning they could easily reach Israel. The test-fire violated the deal, so according to the president's promise of "snapback sanctions" Iran should have been sanctioned by the UN. But the deal required all P5 countries to agree to the sanctions -- and Russia refused. With one vote, Vladamir Putin and his new trading ally Iran laughed in the faces of the American people and sent a clear message to Israel: Beware.

Yet Congressman Chris Van Hollen supports the Iran nuclear deal -- even while admitting that Iran still poses a threat to the region and to Israel. That doesn't just show a poor lack of judgment. It shows a serious naivety that can put American citizens at risk and certainly can make the world a more dangerous place.

We need leaders in Washington who recognize the threats we face and are willing to stand up to our adversaries -- not career politicians who only serve as a rubber stamp for their political party's leadership. Iran is absolutely not trustworthy and we cannot continue to treat them as though they are.

Source