Press Releases

I’m extremely concerned with many key components of the nuclear agreement with Iran that was announced this morning. While a negotiated solution has always been the preferred way out of the Iranian nuclear impasse, the U.S. cannot afford a deal that leaves Iran with an intact pathway to nuclear weapons, and gives us no credible ability to inspect and verify all of Iran’s actions—or lack thereof. Throughout the negotiating process, Iran has resisted adapting the necessary constraints to guarantee that its illicit nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful over the next decade and beyond.

As a Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I’ve participated in numerous hearings and briefings regarding nuclear negotiations with Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry testified that these negotiations would be used to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program – that was the goal; instead, the agreement allows Iran to retain a vast enrichment capacity, continue its research and development, and gain an industrialized nuclear program once key provisions of this agreement begin to expire in as little as ten years.  

Additionally, Obama Administration officials initially told Congress that an ICBM program would need to “be addressed” as part of a final agreement, yet they failed to mention that “addressing” the program means lifting restrictions in just eight years. As we all know, countries build ICBMs for one reason and one reason only:  to deliver nuclear weapons. 

Throughout the negotiations, the Obama Administration repeatedly said that, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Well, this is a bad deal.  The essence of this agreement is permanent concessions in exchange for temporary benefits, and that’s only if Iran doesn’t cheat - like it’s done in the past, and as North Korea did as well.   

Supporters of the agreement present it as the only alternative to war with Iran. Recent history fails to comport with this logic. Coordinated economic sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table.  The Obama Administration should have walked away from this deal and sought stronger sanctions from Congress in order to gain better negotiating leverage.