Published in the New York Times
By Jennifer Rubin, December 16, 2015

While most of the foreign policy focus of late has been on the Islamic State, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), former ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had his eye on the ball yesterday, bashing the decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency to close an investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. In a written statement, he argued:
I don’t accept that the IAEA report competently or fully addresses the true nature of Iran’s past weapons of mass destruction program.  The report was a whitewash.  And it certainly doesn’t give us any more insight into Iran’s past activities or future intentions.  The U.S. should not have agreed to shut the door on further investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear weapon programs based on a diluted, inconclusive investigation.
This sets a terrible precedent for the IAEA with respect to investigations in other countries and more importantly, does not provide the United States with full information on the scope and progress of Iran’s nuclear weapons program — information that is critical to guide the IAEA’s inspection and verification regime under the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].
It is also a green light for Iran’s regime, which is watching closely, and which will continue to test the limits of the JCPOA and the international community.  If ever there is a time to send a strong message, the time is now.  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in extending the Iran Sanctions Act beyond its 2016 sunset.
Menendez’s co-sponsor, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), agreed, urging passage of “bipartisan legislation now in preparation for future Iranian cheating.” Kirk and Menendez are right, but sanctions should severely tighten any executive waiver and should accompany new sanctions for Iran’s non-nuclear behavior.
And speaking of Iran’s other violations, its missile test, also according to the United Nations, violated its Security Council resolution. As the Wall Street Journal reported, this has even Democrats who supported the Iran deal upset:
“I fear the Iranians are taking action after action in this area and others to demonstrate that they are willing to flout international rules, regulations and restrictions, and in the absence of our decisive action, these misdeeds by the Iranians will simply continue and escalate,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) on the Senate floor.
Mr. Coons and other U.S. lawmakers said that if the U.N. doesn’t retaliate with punishment as allowed by Security Council resolutions still in force, then the U.S. should take unilateral action.
Someone should ask Hillary Clinton whether she agrees.
It is evident that the administration, having snookered Senate Democrats with a promise of enforcement and sanctions for non-nuclear misbehavior, is in full appeasement mode.
During arms control negotiations with the Soviets in the early 1980s, the commentarial blasted Reagan as naive for insisting that the Soviet Union remove all its intermediate-range missiles from Europe. And yet in 1987, Moscow did exactly that. Facing grave internal problems, the Soviets had little choice but to negotiate; the same should hold true for Iran today, especially with greater pressure from and patience on the part of the United States.
That suggests new pressure needs to be applied to Iran. The authors suggest, “In addition to revising the nuclear agreement, the United States should punish Iran for its regional aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, or human rights abuses. To do so, it should segregate Iran from the global economy by restoring as much of the sanctions architecture as possible. . . . And it should launch a campaign of political warfare to intensify the Iranian public’s disenchantment with the regime and deepen dissension within the ruling circle.” Specifically, they argue for designating “Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization, which would mean that international firms that established commercial ties with the group would jeopardize their access to the U.S. market. And the U.S. government should designate a greater number of officials within the group as human rights abusers.”
They also emphasize the need to construct an anti-Iran coalition to roll back Iran’s moves toward regional domination. That includes knocking out its junior partner Bashar al-Assad and shrinking Iran’s influence elsewhere. That entails wooing the Turks back in a fight against Assad, setting up a no-fly zone, stemming Iranian influence in Iraq, rebuilding alliances with Sunni states and re-engaging Sunni tribes in Iraq and, yes, aiding a larger Arab force, with a discrete contingent of U.S. forces — not hundreds of thousands of troops. Rather than pretend that Assad is our ally or that Russia is fighting the Islamic State, the next president will need to reassert U.S. leadership to combat Iran’s influence as it destroys the Islamic State:
A regime as dangerous to U.S. interests as Tehran requires a comprehensive strategy to counter it. That means exploiting all of Iran’s vulnerabilities: increasing the costs of its foreign adventures, weakening its economy, and backing its domestic discontents. Pursuing that strategy will take time, but eventually, it will put the United States in a position to impose terms on Iran, including in the nuclear realm. Washington should strive for a stringent arms control agreement, not one that presages an Iranian bomb. It should compel Iran to cease much of its regional subversion, not create power vacuums that encourage it. And it should move human rights up the agenda, not look the other way as Iran’s leaders oppress their people.
The GOP presidential candidates should begin laying out their own strategies, for we know Clinton has no intention of undoing the handiwork she and the president leave behind.
 

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.