The group expresses concern that a pending accord to stem Iran’s nuclear program “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement” and laying out a series of minimum requirements that Iran must agree to in coming days for them to support a final deal.
Iran and the world powers in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) agreed in April a framework to a comprehensive nuclear deal, paving the way for negotiations to begin towards a long-term accord, which must be agreed by June 30.
However, both sides have since indicated differences over fundamental issues such as Iran’s use of advanced centrifuges, the pace of sanctions relief and provision for international inspections.
The letter was released under the auspices of the influential Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The signatories, include Dennis Ross, advisor on Iran and the Middle East during Obama’s first term, former-CIA chief David Petraus, former-National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Robert Einhorn who was part of the US negotiating team with Iran and Gary Samore, a former-Obama advisor on nuclear policy.
“Most of us would have preferred a stronger agreement,” the letter suggests tougher terms on sanctions relief and international inspections. It also says that, “The United States must go on record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including military force,” to prevent Iranian nuclear armament.
The letter says also that the agreement ‘’does not purport to be a comprehensive strategy towards Iran. It does not address Iran’s support for terrorist organizations (like Hezbollah and Hamas), its interventions in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen (its “regional hegemony”), its ballistic missile arsenal, or its oppression of its own people.”
“The U.S. administration has prioritized negotiations to deal with the nuclear threat, and hopes that an agreement will positively influence Iranian policy in these other areas. Even granting this policy approach, we fear that the current negotiations, unless concluded along the lines outlined in this paper and buttressed by a resolute regional strategy, may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a “good” agreement.”
Several of the senior officials said the letter was prompted by concern that President . Obama’s negotiators were headed toward concessions that would weaken international inspection of Iran’s facilities, back away from forcing Tehran to reveal its suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian research and development that would put it on a course to resuming intensive production of nuclear fuel as soon as the accord expires.
The officials urge the U.S. administration not to treat June 30 as an “inviolable” deadline. ‘’Stay at the negotiating table until a “good” agreement that includes these features is reached,’’ they write in the letter which was given to the White
House and State Department on Wednesday. A senior administration official, asked about the contents, said that it “in large part tracks with the U.S. negotiating position inside the negotiating room.”
Earlier this week, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei appeared to toughen his stance in a televised speech. He said, “Inspection of our military sites is out of the question,” and also ruled out limiting Iranian nuclear research while insisting that all sanctions be lifted immediately once an agreement is reached.
