Sen. Scott: Iranian Nuclear Program Must be Dismantled

Charleston, SC- U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) and 30 of his Senate colleagues have demanded the White House clarify what concessions the administration is willing to make in talks centered on Iran’s nuclear program. Over the weekend, it was reported that the Obama Administration was considering simplyasking Iran to unplug their centrifuges, as opposed to permanently destroying them. The Senators wrote, “As nuclear talks with Iran resume in New York this week, we have learned that the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a “deal.” Given that a nuclear Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to the security of the United States, Israel, and other allies, we are gravely concerned about the possibility of any new agreement that, in return for further relief of U.S.-led international sanctions, would allow Iran to produce explosive nuclear material.” The full text of the letter is below, or can be viewed on Senator Scott’s websitehere. The Honorable John Kerry Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 Dear Secretary Kerry: As nuclear talks with Iran resume in New York this week, we have learned that the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a “deal.” Given that a nuclear Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to the security of the United States, Israel, and other allies, we are gravely concerned about the possibility of any new agreement that, in return for further relief of U.S.-led international sanctions, would allow Iran to produce explosive nuclear material. We therefore ask that you provide immediate answers to the following questions. (1) Will the Administration propose or accept an alternative to dismantlement of Iranian centrifuges for uranium enrichment? Is the so-called “disconnection” of centrifuges or centrifuge cascades acceptable to the Administration as part of a deal with Iran? (2) Will the Administration propose or accept an alternative to the elimination of Iranian centrifuges? Is it instead considering limits on the annual output of Iran’s fleet of centrifuges, as measured in annual separative work units (“annual SWU”) caps, as part of a deal with Iran? (3) Will the Administration propose or accept anything less than the dismantlement of the heavy water reactor at Arak, a nuclear facility that a former high-ranking U.S. State Department official once dubbed a “plutonium bomb factory”? (4) Will the Administration propose or accept a new nuclear agreement with Iran that would have a duration of 20 years or less? We look forward to your prompt reply. Sincerely,

###