Yesterdays announced framework agreement regarding Irans nuclear program

raises a number of concerns. While we appreciate the hard work and diplomatic
efforts of the U.S. administration and its P5+1 partners, as AIPACs statement
indicates, this framework could result in a final agreement that will leave Iran as
a threshold nuclear state.
We are also concerned that some have presented the available options to
address Irans nuclear program as a false choice between this framework
agreement, capitulation, or war. As we have advocated for nearly two decades,
we continue to believe:

Diplomacy with continued pressure remains the best path to prevent Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons capability;
The United States and its P5+1 partners continue to have an array of
viable options to achieve that goal; and
Congress must review the elements of the framework and any final
agreement both in light of that goal and the viable alternatives.

The AIPAC Memo below outlines what we see as the fallacies in the false
choice scenario that some have presented. We will be sharing this analysis with
members of Congress. I urge you to share this important piece with your friends
and family, and remind them of this critical moment for the security of America,
Israel and the entire world.
At this time of year, as many of us celebrate Passover and Easter holidays
commemorating historic moments of salvation and freedom, your work with
AIPAC is more important than ever to ensure that we will continue to provide
vital support for the safety and security of the United States and our democratic
ally, Israel. Thank you for your deep and constant commitment to the U.S.-Israel
relationship.
With best wishes to you and your families for happy Passover and Easter
holidays.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Cohen
AIPAC President
********
AIPAC Responses to Key Arguments Made in Favor of the Iran Framework
We have significant concerns about the framework for a nuclear deal with Iran
announced by the P5+1 on April 2. The emerging deal could leave Iran as a
nuclear threshold state and encourage a Mideast nuclear arms race.
We appreciate the work and laudable motives of the negotiators. However,
proponents argue this deal is the best that could have been achieved, leaving
the world now with only three choices: (1) accept this framework; (2) bomb
Irans nuclear infrastructure and start another war in the Middle East; or (3)
abandon negotiations and hope for the best. These are false choices the real
choice is between a deal that would leave Iran on the threshold of a nuclear
weapons capability 10 or 15 years from now, and a deal that present an
opportunity to reach the stated goal of the negotiations: preventing Iran from
ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Here are AIPACs responses to arguments made by proponents of the
framework deal:
Best Deal Argument: This is the best possible deal. Iran is not going to simply
dismantle its program because we demand it to do so. Thats not how the world
works or what history shows us.

Response: This cannot be the best possible deal. As negotiations

began in 2013, Irans economy was on the brink of collapse, and the
clerical regime felt challenged at home. We failed to maximize our
leverage and present Tehran with the choice of even more drastic
sanctions unless it changed course. Instead, we eased sanctions and
conceded its right to enrich uranium. We missed that opportunity, but
there is still time to recreate it. If we dont demand that Iran give up its
most dangerous capabilities, Iran will be able to build nuclear weapons at
a time of its choosing, truly confronting us then with the choice of

bombing Iran or acquiescing to an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Good Enough Argument: While we did not achieve the objectives of nuclear
and missile dismantlement, this agreement is good enough.

Response: Good enough cannot be the standard, especially for

something so consequential. As it is said, Good enough never is. An
agreement that leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state with a
reinvigorated economy and missiles that could hit the United States is
clearly not in anyones interest, except Iran.

No Role for Congress Argument: This will be an executive branch agreement,

as are many foreign policy agreements, not requiring congressional approval.

Response: Congress must have a role. An agreement with such

profound national security implications as this one must be subjected to
our constitutional system of checks and balances that is the bedrock of
our democracy. If the agreement is as good a deal as the negotiators say
it is, then it is likely to withstand congressional scrutiny, and the president
should welcome congressional review. All of our most important arms
control treaties have been supported by strong bipartisan majorities in the
Senate.

Critics Want War Argument: Congressional critics, Israel, the pro-Israel

movement, and the Sunni Arab neighbors of Iran all want war with Iran, not an
agreement.

Response: No one wants war. This argument is outrageous and meant

to silence and delegitimize any critics of the deal. Each of these parties
wants a diplomatic solution that truly guarantees Irans nuclear program
can only be used for peaceful purposes. They all fear that an agreement
based on the current frameworks parameters wont meet that test and
will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Increased Access Argument: International inspectors will have unprecedented

access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that
supports Irans nuclear program. If Iran cheats, the world will know it.

Response: Iran has never provided complete access. It has always

sought to hide its nuclear capabilities and still does, preventing the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to suspect sites and
refusing to answer questions about its nuclear weaponization efforts.

Moreover, a verification regime in which Russia and China can exercise a

veto cannot be considered reliable. Everything we have discovered about
Irans illicit nuclear program came through our intelligence or through
evidence provided by defectors and dissidents. Inspections could add to
our capabilities but cannot substitute for the security that would be
achieved through dismantlement if we fail to move Iran away from its
status as a nuclear threshold state.
Collapsing Sanctions Argument: Should negotiations collapse because it
appears we rejected a fair deal, we will not be able to hold the current sanctions
regime together.

Response: American leadership can hold the international

community together. Because of the absolute necessity for the worlds
financial institutions to have access to the American financial system, we
have unique leverage in seeking to maintain sanctions. We should
dedicate our diplomatic efforts to holding the coalition together and
stepping up the pressure on Iran.

Iran Can Be Trusted Argument: Iran has met all of its obligations under the
Joint Plan of Action (JPOA).

Response: Irans leaders cannot be trusted. Iran is the worlds largest

state sponsor of terror, which it continues to promote on a global basis; it
has lied and cheated under its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
obligations for three decades, building a whole nuclear infrastructure
clandestinely. And it is actively cheating still. Iran continues to refuse to
answer the IAEAs questions about its efforts to weaponize, it continues
to refuse access to IAEA inspectors, and it continues its illicit activity of
importing sensitive nuclear technology. Until Iran comes clean, Iran cant
be trusted.

The Rush to a Bomb Argument: If we dont go forward with this agreement, or

if Iran walks away from the negotiating table, then Iran could rush to develop a
nuclear weapon

Response: A return to negotiations is more likely than immediate

nuclear weaponization. Over the last 10 years, Iran walked away from
the table on multiple occasions, only to return after facing increased
sanctions. The risk of Iran walking away and staying away are low.
Continued sanctions will bring them back, just as sanctions brought them
to the table in the first place. Iran knows a rush to weaponize risks a

military attack on the very infrastructure that it has spent billions of dollars
to build.
Inevitable War Argument: Do you think a verifiable deal, if fully implemented, is
a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?

Response: This agreement would allow Iran to be a nuclear

threshold state and will likely set off a nuclear arms race in the
Middle East. If a verifiable deal achieves our objective of preventing Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, of course it would be better
than another war. But a deal that fails to meet our most minimal
objectives, as this one may, guarantees either that there will be military
action in the near term or that Iran and several other nations in the region
will develop nuclear weapons capability. Additionally, it threatens globally
the survival of the NPT.

Preserving Options Argument: This framework enables the president to

preserve all options for use against Iran in the future.

Response: All options are not preserved if Iran gains a nuclear

weapons capability. If the sanctions regime is dismantled and Irans
economy recovers, Tehran can far more aggressively pursue its
objectives in the region. It will be far more difficult to act in the future
against a hegemonic nuclear-threshold Iran.

International Community Argument: The international communitys approval

should suffice as the ratifying entity for the deal.

Response: Members of the U.N. Security Council, such as

Venezuela, Malaysia, and Angola, should not have greater say than
the U.S. Congress. Recent polling data (Pew Research Center,
Rasmussen Reports, and Quinnipiac University) show the American
people overwhelmingly support congressional review of any deal. The
way ahead is to encourage bipartisan support for congressional review.
Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), announced on
April 2 their intention to move forward with the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee mark up and vote on the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act of 2015. The markup and vote is scheduled for Apr. 14. The
legislation reasserts Congress ability to accept or reject any nuclear deal
and prohibits the president from suspending congressional sanctions for
60 days following an agreement.