EDITOR'S NOTE: A Justice investigation has found that three sections of this article include plagiarism. 

The first plagiarized section reads: "According to Obama, 'The bottom line is if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.' The fact that inspectors may not get access to undeclared facilities for at least 24 days is apparently a non-issue, because nuclear material 'isn’t something you hide in the closet. It leaves traces for years.'" This excerpt comes from a Aug. 6, 2015 article in Shadow Government, titled "What the President Got Wrong in His Defense of the Iran Deal."

The second plagiarized section reads: "President Obama vowed that international economic sanctions will 'snap back' into place as punishment for any Iranian transgressions." This excerpt comes from a July 21, 2015 article in NPR, titled "A Look At How Sanctions Would 'Snap Back' If Iran Violates Nuke Deal."

The third plagiarized section reads: "The fact is that this deal does contain crucial flaws. The deal won’t prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons threshold state. Fifteen years from now, Iran will still possess an industrial-size nuclear infrastructure, and by Obama’s own admission, the capacity to break out at will." This excerpt comes from a July 14, 2015 article in Foreign Policy, titled "We Got to Yes. Now It’s Time for a Reality Check."

We have chosen to keep this article online because the opinions and arguments presented are original work. The plagiarized sections are presenting empirical support for those opinions without rephrasing the information into the author's own words. The Justice condemns plagiarism in all formats.

For more information, please refer to this Letter from the Editor and this statement by the author. 

Ever since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was announced between the P5+1 countries and Iran on July 14, President Barack Obama has faced stiff opposition to the deal that he hopes will constitute his foreign policy legacy.

As such, it is understandable that he tries, arms swinging, to reassure the American people and Congress that the deal curbs the Iranian nuclear threat. Yet the president, in his efforts to sway public opinion for the deal, has resorted to making controversial ad hominem statements that indirectly bring up memories of old stereotypes, ignoring and denying explicit flaws in the deal and labeling all skeptics of the deal as warmongers.

His rhetoric has divided the country across lines of “pro-war” and “anti-war,” and “Democratic” and “Republican” and they have made acceptable the denunciation of critical debate regarding the deal’s merits and legitimate criticisms—such as the JCPOA’s weak inspections regime, sunset provisions and cash flow for Iran-sponsored terrorism, consequences that can only serve to harm the United States in the future through exacerbating the culture of political polarization that already exists in the country.

President Obama claims his opponents are all partisans, warmongers and even collaborators with Iranian hardliners, as reported by Politico. In a speech at American University on August 5, Obama declared that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

The president has consistently used the Iraq War comparison to rally support for his policies—thereby implying that people who oppose his positions desire war and to lead the United States astray. The “many people” the president referenced are widely assumed to be a reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the organization leading the fight against the president’s deal as well as other Jewish groups that have come out in opposition to the deal, such as the American Jewish Committee and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Yet the president’s claim is false—AIPAC took no position on and did not lobby in support of the Iraq war, and it desires a more effective Iran deal, not military action. Furthermore, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), another opponent of the deal, noted in an August 18 speech that he was one of the minority that did not vote for the Iraq War.

Ironically enough, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton did vote in support of the Iraq War in 2002. Thus, the architect of the deal, Secretary of State John Kerry, voted for it, not simply a potential portion of those who oppose the JCPOA.

Moreover, the president’s statement implies that members of the Jewish community who oppose the deal are pushing for warfare or placing ties to Israel over the interests of the United States, language that could end up “fueling and legitimizing anti-Semitic stereotypes out there that Jews are warmongers,” according to former Anti-Defamation League head Abraham Foxman.

The president has also made known that almost none of the concerns about the deal stand up to scrutiny. According to Obama, “The bottom line is if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.”

The fact that inspectors may not get access to undeclared facilities for at least 24 days is apparently a non-issue, because nuclear material “isn’t something you hide in the closet. It leaves traces for years.”

This is despite testimonies by the former head of safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency Olli Heinonen and former nuclear physicist David Albright that the deal’s inspections regime is frighteningly weak. Legitimate improvements that can be made to the inspections regime include demanding the anytime, anywhere clause that was originally stated to be the administration’s position (although this was later denied), as well as unfettered access to Iran’s secret military sites.

As John Hannah, a senior counselor at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, noted in an op-ed in Foreign Policy, “You’d hope that this president, in particular, so conscious of the lessons of Iraq, might be a bit more tempered in his judgements about our capabilities to know in real-time everything that’s happening in the dead of night in the darkest corners of a ruthless dictatorship that’s made lying and deception about its nuclear program a way of life for at least two decades.”

Faulty American intelligence led the Bush administration to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which led the United States into a costly war. Yet President Obama apparently believes our intelligence on Iran’s nuclear work will be completely accurate and timely.

Moreover, the president’s continued refusal to acknowledge the profound challenges posed by the deal’s 15-year sunset provisions, namely, that after eight to 15 years the bulk of the deal’s provisions expire and Iran will be able to develop a nuclear weapon at will and with substantially more funds, is dishonest. The provisions preclude his claim that the deal “permanently” solves the Iranian nuclear crisis and takes away all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon. In fact, the agreement carves out a path to Iranian bomb; to obtain a nuclear weapon Iran will simply need to exercise patience.

President Obama vowed that international economic sanctions will “snap back” into place as punishment for any Iranian transgressions. Yet this, too, is unlikely, at best; as a result of the JCPOA and the removal of sanctions on Iran, there will be a massive influx of cash, investment, trade and technology flowing into Iran over the next 15 years, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Does President Obama truly believe that in 15 years countries such as China and Russia will agree to reinstate their sanctions on the Iranian government and undo the successful business of the previous decade? Further, even if sanctions were reinstated, Iran would be within a few weeks’ length of obtaining nuclear weaponry, according to an article in Israel’s Arutz Sheva. Sanctions would no longer be effective at that point.

Additionally, President Obama’s sanctions argument is highly illogical. He stated in his August 5 speech that the only alternative to the JCPOA is war because sanctions will not deter the Iranians. Yet, as political commentator Charles Krauthammer has noted, “If sanctions don’t work, how can you argue that the Iranians will now be deterred from cheating by the threat of . . . sanctions? Snapback sanctions, mind you, that will inevitably be weaker and more loophole-ridden than the existing ones.”

The fact is that this deal does contain crucial flaws. The deal won’t prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons threshold state. Fifteen years from now, Iran will still possess an industrial-size nuclear infrastructure, and by Obama’s own admission, the capacity to break out at will.

In exchange for a mechanism to only constrain Iran’s nuclear weapons pretensions, we are giving Iranians billions in sanctions relief legitimizing a repressive regime and solidifying its hold on power (not, as some have suggested, creating potential for moderation). We are also alienating key allies in the region, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, among others, as noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article, and paving the way for Iran’s expansionist policies in the Middle East.

President Obama’s denial of these flaws is highly unfortunate, and it’s not befitting the manner of the leader of the free world. His rhetoric seeks to shut down honest debate, not encourage it, and to silence skeptics instead of persuading them. If the JCPOA is as exceptional as Obama says it is, he should gain support for the deal by highlighting its merits, not attacking its opponents. The country deserves better than what it has received from its Commander in Chief.