U.S. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-Garden City) has voiced opposition to the Iran nuclear deal in an editorial published Monday in the 5 Towns Jewish Times newspaper.
“President Obama entered into negotiations with Iran because he is a president interested in peace, in Israel’s security, and in avoiding the human and financial sacrifices of another American war in the Middle East,” Rice wrote in the op-ed, which was published to the publication’s website. “I share these goals, and I genuinely believe the President sees this deal as the best chance of achieving them. But I do not.”
Rice’s rejection comes less than a week after local Democrats — led by North Hempstead Town Supervisor Judi Bosworth — signed a letter to Rice, U.S. Rep. Steve Isreal (D-Huntington) and Democratic U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand urging them to reject the proposal, citing a belief that an Iranian nuclear program would jeopardize Israel’s national security.
Rice, who said she consulted with negotiators, nuclear experts and constituents, agreed.
“Iranian nuclear ambition isn’t the nation’s only irresponsible agenda. Iran wants international legitimacy,” she wrote. “I’m bothered that we seem poised to grant such legitimacy without requiring Iranian concessions on its sponsorship of terror.”
“I’m unwilling to help economically empower an Iranian regime that could use the cash influx to make more muscular its support of terror and more aggressive its antagonism of Israel and our other allies in the region,” she continued. “And I’m unwilling to grant such economic and political legitimacy to a regime that prides itself on its persecution of women, children, journalists, religious minorities and political dissidents.”
According to Rice, the deal is ambiguous in its ability to punish Iran for any potential violations of the treaty.
Rice added that President Obama was showing a level of optimism in Iran’s social progress that she cannot match, despite the treaty’s snapback provisions that would incur if Iran were found to be in violation of the treaty.
She said the priority for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon is a truth that is ‘inarguable’ and stated that the strongest argument in favor of ratifying the treaty was that war would be the lone alternative to be incorrect.
“As President Obama has stated, his actions and economic sanctions brought Iran to the table. If that is true, and I believe it is, then why wouldn’t continued political and economic pressure improve our leverage in forcing Iran to agree to a better deal?” she wrote. “The tipping point in such leverage must be Iran giving up its nuclear arms ambition, and renouncing and defunding its terror tentacles in the region and abroad.”
Rice wrote she believes the U.S. and the members of the P5+1 — which includes China, Germany, France, Russia and the United Kingdom — can get a better deal despite Russia and China’s desire to begin trading with Iran.
Despite her opposition, Rice wrote she believes the treaty will be ratified.
“I suspect this deal will pass. “I hope that history will ultimately prove President Obama right in his gamble on diplomacy and social progress in Iran. But for me, it is a risk I cannot support,” she wrote. “It’s a gift of political legitimacy and economic empowerment that requires too little Iranian maturation across too little of its dangerous agenda. For the sake of peace, we can do better.”
