Late last month, the Obama administration announced its intention to purchase 32 tons of Iranian heavy water for $8.6 million. The justification provided for the purchase is that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) mandates Tehran only hold a certain amount of heavy water in its possession, and Iran has stockpiled more, so the excess has to be sold.
In the days following the announcement, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., proposed an amendment to a $37.5 billion energy and water-oriented spending bill restricting the US from future purchases of Iranian heavy water. The reaction to Cotton’s proposal was astounding. At first, Senate Democrats derailed the entire spending bill. Eventually, the minority party agreed to allow a vote on Cotton’s amendment, but only if Republicans agreed to require a 60-vote threshold for passage. The amendment failed after receiving 57 votes in support.
Parroting Obama administration talking points, the New York Times editorial board explained its view of the controversy, “Cotton’s measure would have blocked the administration from purchasing heavy water used in Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran has to get rid of the water to comply with the deal. By denying Iran an American market, Mr. Cotton and other Republicans hoped to undermine the deal, which they hate.”
Here’s the rub: Cotton’s amendment would not have had any impact on the planned purchase of the 32 tons of Iranian heavy water. As the senator recently noted, “The Obama administration stated that this purchase is a one-time deal… This amendment would simply hold [the] administration to its promise by ensuring that taxpayer dollars cannot be used again for the same purpose.”
Since Cotton’s amendment would have had no impact on the planned purchase, Iran’s current stockpile of excess heavy water will be sold and Tehran will remain in compliance with the JCPOA. Restrictions on future purchases of the product should be moot. After all, Energy Secretary Moniz did in-fact tell the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon that this was a one-time purchase.
But this isn’t about a single acquisition. It’s about funneling money to Tehran, and maintaining Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Consider that in the same interview with the Journal, Moniz also said of the purchase “That will be a statement to the world: ‘You want to buy heavy water from Iran, you can buy heavy water from Iran. It’s been done. Even the United States did it.'”
Iran does not need to continuously produce excess heavy water. It is doing so because selling this “previously unsellable product” nets the Islamic Republic a profit. Iran’s excess heavy water scheme is tantamount to a pipeline of cash direct to the Mullahs, and Cotton’s amendment would have turned off the American spigot.
But that’s not all. If Iran does not keep its heavy water production facilities operational, they will deteriorate and the technical know-how to operate them will atrophy. This shouldn’t matter to a country uninterested in having a great number of heavy water nuclear reactors. But it would matter if down the road (say when key portions of the JCPOA expire) Iran seeks to build heavy water nuclear plants – the central component in garnering plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
In short, the Iranian excess heavy water scheme will result in U.S. taxpayer dollars subsidizing Iranian-backed terror and keeping active the Islamic Republic’s nuclear infrastructure. Recently Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told leaders of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad that the United States is its main enemy. Apparently no one told the president.
Gary Bauer is the Washington director of the Christians United for Israel Action Fund. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
