In a security briefing Thursday, U.S.-born Israeli journalist Caroline Glick said that the Iran nuclear deal poses just as much a threat to American security as it does to Israel.
"As a result of the Israel-centric focus of the debate, the issue of Iran’s strategic threat to the United States has been thrown by the wayside," Glick said. "As Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, those ICBMs are not for Israel, they are for the United States of America."
Glick said there are three central flaws that will hamper efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran.
The deal would immediately enrich Iran with $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief. Glick said Iran is more likely to use this money to fuel regional aggression than "to finance domestic economic growth."
Iran is "a state with hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East, genocidal ambitions towards Israel and the United States, and with international aspirations to foment an international jihad," Glick said. "Putting this kind of money in the hands of the ruler of this regime is a recipe for disaster."
Glick said the deal’s timeline would allow Iran to resume the development of nuclear capabilities and is skeptical that Iran would even abide by those measures given lax inspection rules. She predicted that the deal would delay nuclear development by a matter of three or four months, rather than several years.
"This guarantees that Iran will become a nuclear power at the end of this agreement," she said. "At the end of this agreement … they can develop to the tune of a dozen nuclear weapons a month. And if they are only allowed to develop ICBM technology in eight years, that means that they will have ICBM technology in their possession when this deal expires."
She also worried about the exit measures that could give the regime room to wiggle out of its obligations to the West under the agreement. Glick said that Iran is allowed to leave the agreement with five weeks’ notice.
"Once they get the money, Iran essentially doesn’t need to remain in the deal any longer," Glick said. "Whenever they’re done, they can leave, they are within their rights under this agreement to do so."
In addition to not preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Glick said that the Iran Deal exacerbates the threat that Iran poses to American security in areas unrelated to nuclear arms. She focused on the threat of terrorism in and around America.
Glick said that the military and economic relationships Iran has secured with countries in Latin America, including Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia, enhance Iran’s ability to "conduct terrorist operations against the United States" while "operating [from] other countries around America."
The infusion of billions of previously frozen funds would enhance operations near American shores. The deal would also allow the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps companies operating in Latin America to "reinstate, reinvigorate, and expand their operations… without any fear of repercussions from the international community."
President Obama is currently trying to win Senate approval of the deal, but faces bipartisan opposition that may block it, including a recent defection from prominent lawmaker Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., NY).
"You cannot support this agreement if you care about America’s national security," Glick said. "Opposing this agreement is a supreme act of patriotism."
UPDATE 11:52 P.M. Sat., August 8: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that Democratic lawmakers Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Tammy Baldwin had voiced opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. This is incorrect, and we regret the error.