Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) announced his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal in a speech Tuesday, saying that "if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it."
In an address at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey, Menendez laid out a comprehensive case against the accord, citing national security concerns, failure to limit Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a poor verification regime and the sanctions relief bestowed upon the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism.
"I have looked into my own soul and my devotion to principle may once again lead me to an unpopular course, but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it," Menendez said. "It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto."
Menendez said there was far too much reliance on "hope" for the deal to be tenable.
"Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on hope," he said. "Hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires, Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration. Hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals. And hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate.
"Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy."
Menendez, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, directly addressed Obama's previous remarks to NPR that within 15 years, Iran's nuclear breakout time would be zero.
"If that's true, in essence, this deal does nothing more than kick today's problem down the road for 10 or 15 years, and, at the same time, undermines the arguments and evidence we'll need, because of the dual-use nature of their program, if we have to convince the Security Council and the international community to take action," he said.
Menendez laid out his proposal for an alternative and noted disappointment that a dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure did not occur, in spite of the P-5+1's massive advantages when negotiations began.
"It is difficult to believe that the world's greatest powers, the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and the European Union, sitting on one side of the table, and Iran sitting alone on the other side, staggering from sanctions and rocked by plummeting oil prices, could not have achieved some level of critical dismantlement," he said. "I believe we should have insisted on meeting the requirements we know are necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon today and in ten years, or we should have been prepared to walk away.
"I believe we could still get a better deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement without rejecting the entire agreement. We should direct the administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action, including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran's benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA."
Menendez joins Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) as the only other Democratic senator who has stated public opposition to the agreement. To date, the Associated Press reports, "21 Senate Democrats and Independents of the 34 needed to sustain a veto are backing the deal."
Obama has engaged in sharp partisan rhetoric in pushing for the agreement, which at one point included saying Iranian extremists had "common cause" with the Republican caucus because they both opposed the deal.
Menendez pointed out he voted with Obama 98 percent of the time in 2013 and 2014 to underscore his principled disagreement in this case.
"President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb," he said. "Let’s be clear—what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well."
In closing, Menendez acknowledged that his position could be unpopular for him, politically.
"I know that, in many respects, it would be far easier to support this deal, as it would have been to vote for the war in Iraq at the time," he said. "But I didn't choose the easier path then, and I’m not going to now. I know that the editorial pages that support the agreement would be far kinder, if I voted yes, but they largely also supported the agreement that brought us a nuclear North Korea."