On Sunday, freshman Rep. Brendan Boyle published an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer to announce that he would not support the agreement. Boyle argued that approving the Iran deal would increase the likelihood of war in the Middle East.
The proposed deal would require Iran to surrender its centrifuges and 97% of its uranium stock. Iran would also be mandated to limit their uranium enrichment capacities and submit to inspections of its nuclear facilities.
If Iran accepts and abides by the terms of the agreement, they will be freed from economic sanctions.
Rep. Boyle, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, critiqued three aspects of the proposed deal: the consequences of lifting sanctions, the restrictive grounds for inspection, and the 15-year expiration date.
Boyle contends that the deal would inject at least $56 billion into the Iranian regime, ”enabling them to fund terror in the Middle East.” The sum Boyle refers to is the money that would enter the Iranian economy after sanctions are lifted.
He also argued that the terms for inspections were too restrictive, since foreign parties would be required to give Iran 24 days of notice before conducting a search of nuclear facilities. (Boyle has already expressed skepticism about the inspections, asking Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to defend the 24-day grace period in a July briefing.) Finally, he expressed concern that Iran could violate all terms of the deal after it expires in 15 years.
“We would be better off with no deal,” Boyle wrote, responding to lawmakers who say that an imperfect agreement is better than nothing. “[No deal] would ensure that Iran does not get $56 billion it can use to funnel to Hamas and Hezbollah. While some of the international sanctions would fray if the deal were rejected (especially those from Russia and China), our sanctions would remain. I would much prefer the imperfect status quo over a post-agreement world in which Iran is flush with cash for its terror proxies and free to develop a full-fledged nuclear program in merely 15 years.”