Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) sent a letter to President Obama querying him on the recent Iranian missile test. They write:
This ballistic missile test is troubling for three primary reasons. First, this test furthers Iran’s ICBM program. An ICBM is not tangential or unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program. The sole purpose of an Iranian ICBM is to enable delivery of a nuclear weapon to the United States. . . .
Second, this long-range ballistic missile that Iran tested last weekend likely improves Tehran’s ability to target Israel—our closest and most reliable ally in the Middle East. A threat combines hostile intent and capability. . . .
Third, despite the recently finalized Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this latest violation of international law demonstrates Tehran’s continued willingness to ignore its obligations. As White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday, “We have seen Iran…almost serially violate the international community’s concerns about their ballistic missile program.” We could not agree more.
So what is the Obama administration prepared to do about it? That’s what the senators ask, reminding him that “then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. . . testified in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that ‘Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities.’ ”
They ask a series of questions relating to the acknowledged violation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1929 and the president’s response.
Putting this in larger perspective, it is fair for them and others in Congress and outside the administration to ask what our Iran policy is, and if we even have one. In selling the nuclear deal, the administration swore up and down that the deal would not affect our efforts to defend allies in the region or to confront Iran on issues not covered by the JCPOA. Since the deal has been inked, Iran has launched a missile test in violation of the U.N. resolution and moved troops and weapons into Syria, heightening its support for Bashar al-Assad. If this is objectionable, you would never know it from the total lack of response (other than empty words, qualified and delivered by non-senior officials).
And let’s not forget that Iran is refusing to fully comply with the JCPOA. (“In the past two weeks, after Iran had largely brushed off serious questions about its past nuclear activities, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and some Western governments directly warned Tehran that it must increase cooperation if it wanted IAEA board members to conclude it had sufficiently addressed their concerns.”) The administration’s argument that we can ignore the U.N. violation because Iran keeps its nuclear obligations is as untrue as it is misguided.
As Eliot Cohen recently wrote:
The Administration seems not to take seriously the repeated humiliations that the United States has received from Russia and Iran, among others. The President apparently (judging by his recent interview on “Sixty Minutes”) does not even believe that we have been humiliated, as when the Russians fail even to notify us of their bombing runs until an hour before they occur and even then, in a deliberate mockery, pass the word in Iraq. The Obama foreign policy has eroded our credibility and reputation—not its least consequence by far. A new administration will have to restore them—not its least challenge. The reconstruction of American foreign policy will require making a coherent case to the American people and to the world about our interests and our values, and how we aim to secure both.
This issue should be front and center in Congress, in oversight hearings and a legislative response.
Iran should be a defining issue in the presidential campaign. Are we simply prepared to let Iran do whatever it pleases without consequences? It sure looks that way. If not, what are we prepared to do?
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.
