US Congressman Opposes Nuclear Agreement in Interview with Radio Farda

A Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee stated in an exclusive interview with Radio Farda that the President of the United States has made significant and irreversible concessions to the Islamic Republic of Iran in the nuclear talks. In the US, Republican senators have made considerable efforts in the second week of May to process a joint bill that would facilitate Congress's input on the final nuclear agreement with Iran. The initial bill was unanimously approved on April 14 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but some Republican senators, dissatisfied with the concessions made to Iran, have jeopardized its approval by proposing amendments, as President Barack Obama has warned that he will veto the bill if any changes are made to the Foreign Relations Committee's resolution. Nevertheless, despite detailed explanations from senior officials of the Obama administration and their emphasis on the benefits of the nuclear agreement with Iran, which was outlined after the Lausanne talks, opposition to the draft nuclear agreement in Congress continues. Among them, Chris Smith, a Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expresses some of his reasons for opposition in an exclusive interview with Radio Farda. Mr. Smith states: "The President of the United States hastily agreed to talks that the UN Security Council will judge. Many demands, including unlimited inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, have been set aside, thus the US has given significant concessions to Iran, and in the meantime, the issue of human rights in Iran has been forgotten. When sanctions were in place and had a significant impact, which I believe forced the Iranian government to sit at the negotiating table, exceptions were made, especially regarding China and other countries for purchasing Iranian oil, which were troubling. Sanctions have been effective, and to counter the acquisition of a destructive nuclear bomb, we must be serious in all policies, and we have not been. In response to a question about the assurances from Secretary of State Kerry and other senior US officials regarding the IAEA's role in verifying Iran's commitments, Chris Smith expresses skepticism, stating: "Not at all. We have repeatedly heard from Ayatollah Khamenei, Hassan Rouhani, and senior military commanders in the Islamic Republic that they will not allow inspections of military facilities. So how do you think they procure nuclear materials from uranium and perhaps even plutonium? Without these inspections, nothing can be observed, and without access to facilities, inspections will be futile and meaningless. The IAEA reported last February that without access to such facilities, inspectors would not be able to prepare comprehensive reports and provide documented evidence. Under such circumstances, as soon as the agreement is signed, it will be very difficult and hard to reinstate sanctions, and eventually, a day will come when Iranian officials will declare, like North Korea, that we also have a nuclear bomb." When I ask Mr. Chris Smith what he believes the best solution in this regard could be, this Republican representative of the House Foreign Affairs Committee refers to a historical event during the Cold War. Mr. Smith states: "I hope the President of the United States acts like Ronald Reagan, who avoided signing a bad agreement with Gorbachev at the Reykjavik conference [the capital of Iceland]. The historical example mentioned by Chris Smith refers to the Strategic Defense Conference regarding the number of intermediate-range nuclear missiles between the US and the Soviet Union in October 1986 in Reykjavik, Iceland, which failed at the last moment due to the US President's steadfastness in his government's demands, but a year later, an agreement was signed between the two countries. The nuclear agreement between the six major powers, especially the US and the Iranian government, has not yet been finalized, and according to officials from both countries, several significant differences remain, which may take a long time to reach an agreement, even in an optimistic scenario. Some analysts have interpreted recent statements by Joseph Biden, Obama's vice president, and Ashton Carter, the US Secretary of Defense, regarding not yielding to the demands of the Islamic Republic leaders and the potential use of military options as related to these significant differences.