As world powers seek to enter a new nuclear deal with the regime ruling Iran, momentum is increasing among those opposing an agreement that does not address all the regime’s threats. In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans alike are voicing more concerns over a deal that will merely put a temporary hold on the regime’s controversial nuclear program, which acts as a known cover for the mullahs’ clandestine nuclear weapons drive.
A group of Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives are sounding alarm over the Administration’s intention to reach a nuclear deal with Tehran, emphasizing that the terms of the reported deal are deeply troubling.
Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Elaine Luria of Virginia led a group of 18 Democrats in a press conference on Wednesday, April 6, underscoring that the U.S. should not enter into a bad deal with the mullahs that fails to also curtail the regime’s terrorist activities and/or prevent the regime from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon permanently.
“We understand that while the recent negotiations have not concluded, we feel that we can’t stay quiet about the unacceptable and deeply troubling turn that these talks have reportedly taken,” Luria said at the news conference while joined by another fellow Democrats.
Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif., criticized the Biden administration for keeping Congress in the “dark” and the administration’s method of managing the secret talks, saying all this is a troubling reminder of the original and highly flawed 2015 deal.
House Republicans are also pressing the administration to ensure Congress is provided a say and vote on a new Iran nuclear deal.
Rep. Michael McCaul, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Wednesday he’s launching a discharge petition in the House to guarantee that the White House complies with the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act,” passed back in 2015 following the initial nuclear deal. The law requires congressional review and a vote over any nuclear deal with Iran.
“We’re drafting a discharge petition to mandate that the administration comply with the law,” McCaul, R-Texas, said Wednesday at a press conference with many other Republicans who oppose the U.S. entering a new nuclear agreement with the mullahs’ regime.
Just recently, the parties engaged in the ongoing negotiations over the Iranian regime’s nuclear program were regularly talking about being very close to a final agreement, taking the final steps, a return to the nuclear deal being imminent, etc.
But in the past few weeks, the ballooned optimism over a nuclear deal has fizzled, and according to news reports and statements made by both sides, the key point of tension is the removal of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) from the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).
The IRGC delisting has become a point of dispute not only between the parties involved in the nuclear talks but also among officials in Iran and politicians in the U.S.
Furthermore, in response to a proposal of an FTO delisting in return for the IRGC curbing its malign role in the Middle East, the IRGC has made it abundantly clear that they will not allow any compromise on their terrorist activities and the development of ballistic missiles.
In a statement published on March 31, the IRGC declared that “Iran’s missile capability and its regional influence is linked to the name of the Revolutionary Guards” and is a “red line.” “We explicitly declare that powerful Iran never defined its path to deterrence power and guaranteed security based on the whims of the rulers of the White House and their evil allies, and it will not change its path through their evil pressure, threats, or media and evil propaganda.”
The IRGC controls the lion’s share of all levers of power in Iran. As a result, the delisting of the IRGC has become a red line for the regime and the mullahs are showing zero tolerance at even so much as hinting to the contrary.
Speaking at the recent Doha Forum conference, Kamal Kharrazi, a close advisor to regime Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, stressed that the IRGC must be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.
It is worth noting that the IRGC is the main body behind Tehran’s foreign terrorism and warmongering. In March, the IRGC carried out a missile attack against Erbil, Iraq. And its terrorist proxies are causing mayhem in the region. In the past months alone, the Houthis in Yemen, funded and backed by the IRGC, have carried out several drones and missile attacks against the United Arabic Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
Middle East countries are also concerned that the removal of the IRGC from the FTO will further cause insecurity on their soil as it will give the regime free rein to fund its terrorist proxies in their countries. They are now looking toward regional alliances and agreements to ensure their security should the U.S. proceed with giving Tehran such concessions.
In the past few years, it has become all the more evident that any agreement that focuses solely on the regime’s nuclear program and fails to address its terrorist threats, ballistic missile program, and human rights abuses will only result in more insecurity and war.
As things stand, the Vienna talks will depend on the West’s resolve to take a tough stance against the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and its main terrorist arm, the IRGC. Although it is not clear whether Tehran’s nuclear interlocutors will cave in and remove the IRGC from the FTO list, what is certain is that any deal that does not take a holistic approach vis-à-vis the regime’s multifaceted threats will—like its predecessor—be short-lived while rendering a far less stable the Middle East. Something the world can surely do without considering the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War and its global ramifications.
