John Kerry Before Congress: Iran Deal “Only Viable Option”
[guest post by Dana]
John Kerry is in Washington today attempting to persuade lawmakers to support the Iran nuclear deal:
“If the U.S., after laboriously negotiating this multilateral agreement with five other partners, were to walk away from those partners, we’re on our own” Mr. Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
A Congressional rejection of the accord, Mr. Kerry said, would amount to “a great big green light for Iran to double the pace of its uranium enrichment, proceed full speed ahead with a heavy water reactor, install new and more efficient centrifuges, and do it all without the unprecedented inspection and transparency measures that we have secured.
“Everything we have prevented would then start taking place,” he said.
Which is interesting given his comments this weekend:
DICKERSON: Last question. If you don’t get majority in Congress to support this deal, doesn’t that undermine the deal?
KERRY: No, not in the least. The Congress — they don’t care over there whether it’s majority or a minority or whatever it is, as long as the deal is implemented.
And that’s what we care about, that this deal be implemented. We would love see the Congress listen carefully. And we’re going to go up and we’re going to meet with them. We’re going to do our utmost to persuade people.
But, no, I don’t think that undermines this deal. This deal will stand ultimately on the fact that there’s unprecedented inspection, unprecedented access, unprecedented restraint in their program which they have agreed to. There will be an increase in the breakout time for fissile material for one weapon from two months to one year for the next 10 years.
In spite of Code Pink greeting Kerry with cheers and applause, it didn’t take long for Republicans to accuse Kerry of being “fleeced” and “bamboozled” as well as Marco Rubio telling him the “deal was fundamentally flawed” and that it would “weaken our national security and make the world a more dangerous place”.
(Fortunately for Kerry, Sen. Boxer (CA-D) stood at the ready to to defend him from the cruelty, “Republicans had been “disrespectful and insulting.” Their accusation, she said to Mr. Kerry, goes to the secretary of state’s “core as a human being and your intelligence, and I think you are very intelligent.” *She then batted her eyes while Kerry trembled with gratefulness for her quick intervention on his behalf…)
Kerry was unyielding, claiming that it was “fantasy” to believe that the US could have held out for a better deal from Iran.
Today’s meeting follows Kerry finding it “very disturbing” that shortly after the deal was struck, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly vowed to “defy American policies in the region” while his audience chanted “Death to America”. It also follows the White House acknowledging “side” deals between Iran and the IAEA. These raise concerns about “inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development” and “how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program.”
From Rush:
It turns out the US made a secret side deal with Iran on two of the more important sticking points in the negotiations. Number one, the inspection of a military base where Iran had done major nuclear weapons research in the past, and, number two, the requirement that Iran tell us about their past nuclear work, which is necessary in order to for there to be a baseline for the inspectors.
Senator Tom Cotton and Congressman Mike Pompeo, “there will be a secret, opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements.” They say, “Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement].
“This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal,” which means Congress will have no way of knowing whether Iran complied with either of these side agreements. “The United States has been shut out of this aspect of the verification of the deal, the inspection of a military base where Iran had done major nuclear weapons research.”
We have no access to it. We agreed to this! Secretary of State Kerry agreed to this, and the requirement that Iran tell us about their past nuclear work so we can get a baseline of how far they had made it? Not allowed to know that. Two side deals were made between the United States and Iran to eliminate the US ability to learn either data point.
*This may or may not have happened. Likely not.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (86e864) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:02 pmChicken hawk warmongers lose again!
I am not gay I never have been gay! (903635) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:05 pmYeah, over and over again I see that the Obama Administration’s talking point they have disseminated to their follows is this: If not this deal, then should we instead go to war? It’s as if the status quo was somehow untenable when we in fact saw vividly that it was making things tough for the mullahs in Tehran. Sure Iran would continue to speed ahead towards a weapon (not like they won’t under the “deal” anyway), but we would leave in place the sanctions which according to several sources were causing significant hardship and social unrest in Iran.
But no, now we’ll just start sending them all the economic aid their hearts could desire while at the same time allowing them to proceed with their nuke ambitions. It’s a complete win for Iran, the question is whether that will become clear before of after Obama leaves office. I can’t wait to hear how Hillary! tries to triangulate on this one.
JVW (ba78f9) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:13 pmSo funny, I draft and post my comment about how the idiots tried to make this a choice between accommodation or war, and perry posts just ahead of me to prove my point!
JVW (ba78f9) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:14 pmWhen Iran tests a bomb (and probably after Israel then declares war and nukes them), the Democrats and the press will find a way to blame Bush.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:18 pmIf Cotton is correct, then the agreement with Obama that the Congress made to foreswear their treaty rights should be considered void.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:21 pmTed Cruz
John Cornyn
James Inhofe
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:40 pmSide note: Why I included the portion about Boxer rushing to defend Kerry as if he were God, was I found it so telling in light of Kerry’s belief that there could, in no way, have been a better deal made. Only he alone could, and did, secure the best deal to be had. None are up to his God-like abilities and talents. So much hubris and ego went into this deal. It’s scary when one considers what is at stake.
Dana (86e864) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:52 pmIf not this deal, then should we instead go to war?
JVW,
It’s the either/or play on fear that Kerry and company are depending upon to draw up support for the deal. Urgent! Immediate! No time to delay!
Dana (86e864) — 7/23/2015 @ 1:58 pmThere is a spectacular irony, a cosmic and wickedly cruel irony, a laugh-so-hard-you’re-tempted-to-slit-your-wrists-in-despair irony, in the fact that John F’n Kerry is our SecState.
This, the man who left his U.S. Navy uniform hanging in his closet while on his honeymoon, which he interrupted to travel on to Paris to contrive with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives to the Paris Peace Talks before he returned to Washington to throw his (or someone’s) medals over the White House fence and testify before the Senate in support of those self-same American enemies’ craven surrender “peace plans.”
That he is trying now to give Iran the Bomb is … utterly predictable.
May he burn in hell.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:01 pmSo now that Obama has outsourced this to the international community will Iran meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty it signed 45 yrs ago? Or did Obama actually blow up the NNPT through this convoluted agreement and the expected reaction by Iran’s neighbors?
crazy (cde091) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:08 pmI had a little set-to with a good friend last night who was whining about the Iran deal. I asked her if she and her husband had contacted their congresscrone and she said, “no. It will not do any good it’s Schakowski”. I told her to get on the horn and contact Schakowski anyway and Turban Durbin, too. They need to hear loudly from their angry constituents whether they care to or not. Same goes for Boxer and Pelosi and Schumer and Feinstein, et.al. Anybody who posts here complaining about this who has not already contacted their senators and congressperson are not performing their duty as citizens IMHO.
elissa (80fbe9) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:10 pmIf it’s this deal or war, then the Iranians have a decision to make.
ropelight (4276b4) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:32 pmelissa (#12) — Good advice, but I’m pretty sure the entire GOP delegations from Texas in both the House and Senate are already adamantly opposed, and the Texas Democrats are of course irredeemably hopeless.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:42 pmwhat’s the point of having B-2 bombers and GBU-57A/Bs if not to knock out all known & suspected nuke sites in Iran?
and, if they get froggy after that, mine their harbors, take out railroad yards, electrical stations, major bridges and all their telecom nodes, to include radio & television. no ground troops needed.
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:47 pmI think the only way out for Schumer is to persuade Obama to renounce his own agreement – or get the Iranians to do so.
Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 7/23/2015 @ 4:44 pm#10: What Beldar said. And redc1c4 has an answer.
bobathome (f50725) — 7/23/2015 @ 5:57 pmThey already have. The say-anything administration has already claimed Bush let the Iranian nuclear program progress too far so Obama “inherited” another Bush mess.
It’s a lie of course. We already know, since Obama plans on sticking around, that when the Iranians inevitably get their nukes because Obama has committed the US to assisting and protecting their efforts to do so he’ll claim that the follow on administrations screwed up his perfect plan.
The Republicans are being far too polite. Obama isn’t Chamberlain. That’s an insult to Chamberlain, who was an honorable man which is why Churchill kept him on. And Chamberlain didn’t pay Hitler to take the Sudetenland. No, Obama is Quisling, and Benedict Arnold testified before Congress today.
As Kerry kept droning on about how we couldn’t go back and there were no alternatives, I kept thinking the only reason we can’t go back is because this administration has been burning those bridges and there are fewer alternatives because this administration had been taking them off the table and destroying them.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/23/2015 @ 6:27 pmHere in my corner in Tejas, elissa, I don’t really need to get on the horn and tell my Congressional delegation what to do about this. We’re on the same page.
Cornyn’s statement was weaker, but still in the right direction.
And Cruz? What can I say.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/07/23/ted-cruz-joins-protest-against-iran-nuclear-deal-at-white-house/
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/23/2015 @ 6:37 pmAwesome video at the link.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/ted-cruz-crushes-code-pink.php
I’ll probably contact my Congressional delegation at some point about this, but I just don’t feel any great urgency since they’re already leading the charge against this deal.
And Cruz is kicking @$$ and taking names.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/23/2015 @ 7:07 pmgoes to the secretary of state’s “core as a human being and your intelligence, and I think you are very intelligent.”
Oh, brother and LOL. That sounds like a variation of the cliche of “some of my best friends are black (or Jewish).” But in this case an affirmation along the lines of “some of my best friends are mentally impaired (or retarded).”
Mark (69948d) — 7/23/2015 @ 7:38 pmA Question for the SecState:
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/23/2015 @ 11:45 pmWe’ve recently been told that the price for pre-born infant body parts is a Lamborghini;
What is the current price for selling out your country (or to be specific, the one who issues your paycheck as SecState)?
Steve57: I agree entirely. Cruz is on a mission to educate and enlighten — the public, and his fellow public servants. It’s an essential mission regardless of how he does in the primaries.
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/23/2015 @ 11:46 pm(Reagan did the same thing in 1964.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/23/2015 @ 11:47 pmhttp://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-iraq-war-nuclear-deal/399404/
Apparently some people think Peter Beinart is intelligent and I have no idea why.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 8:58 amThe biggest threat:
Judy Eaton (0bfcdb) — 7/24/2015 @ 9:10 amhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXodRLLkth4&feature=youtu.be
Beldar’s comment was so damn good it should be repeated ….
“There is a spectacular irony, a cosmic and wickedly cruel irony, a laugh-so-hard-you’re-tempted-to-slit-your-wrists-in-despair irony, in the fact that John F’n Kerry is our SecState.
This, the man who left his U.S. Navy uniform hanging in his closet while on his honeymoon, which he interrupted to travel on to Paris to contrive with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives to the Paris Peace Talks before he returned to Washington to throw his (or someone’s) medals over the White House fence and testify before the Senate in support of those self-same American enemies’ craven surrender “peace plans.”
That he is trying now to give Iran the Bomb is … utterly predictable.
May he burn in hell.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 7/23/2015 @ 3:01 pm
JD (afdf01) — 7/24/2015 @ 9:29 amhttp://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/24/kerry-any-action-by-israel-would-justify-irans-pursuit-of-nukes/
I need to expand my vocabulary. Vile and despicable just doesn’t do this man justice. Or his boss.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 10:11 am*Vile and despicable just doesn’t do this
mantraitorous verminous scum justice. Or his boss.*My mistake. I never should have called Theresa Heinz Kerry’s gelding a man.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 10:15 amSteve–I agree that Kerry is a p.o.s.m to AngloSaxon your phrasem but I think Captain Ed is wrong on this one. To me Kerry was simply saying Iran would use Israeli actions as an excuse to openly build the bomb and strengthen their defenses…a fairly easy prediction to make, even for a person with Kerry’s limited abilities. To use something as a justification and to be justified by that something are two totally different things.
kishnevi (870883) — 7/24/2015 @ 10:43 amThe logic is demented, kishnevi. If Iran weren’t building a nuclear weapon then Israel would have no reason to bomb them.
It is entirely irrational to say that if a state you are threatening with annihilation attempts to stop you from acquiring the means to do so, that is evidence that you must acquire the means to annihilate that state.
It turns the aggressor into the victim.
Speaking of traitors.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/24/bowe-bergdahl-found-during-california-pot-raid-released-by-officials/
Defects to the enemy. Provides aid to the enemy. Pothead.
Yup. Definitely Obama’s kind of guy.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 3:06 pmBy Kerry’s rationale, if Iran tries to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and Israel successfully defends itself, that would justify Iran’s claim that Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 3:09 pmhttps://twitter.com/popehat/status/624276949624582145?refsrc=email&s=11
Steve57 (7aa1f2) — 7/24/2015 @ 3:24 pmMy main beef with the GOP members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is that they’ve been far too deferential and solicitous toward John Kerry and his stooge of a boss.
He’s not on that committee, but today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Senator Tom Cotton said Kerry was acting like Pontius Pilate.
It’s a start.
Hopefully some other Senators will develop the same spirit of attack (“Victory is born of the spirit of attack” – Baron Manfred von Richtofen) and go after the Democrats, in particular this administration, with the same fire Cruz went after McConnell.
“Damn the historic first black president, full speed ahead” – Admiral David Farragut, Battle of Mobile Bay.
Steve57 (0412d7) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:21 pmI was of course paraphrasing ADM Farragut.
Steve57 (0412d7) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:22 pmyes, even Cruz signed on to the Corker bill, when no one else would join,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:23 pmThe Corker bill may not have been as bad a move as I earlier thought. On another thread elissa posted a link to an interview with a Senate officer who pointed out that since FDR the Senate has been largely sidelined. That without the Corker bill Congress would not have had a say at all.
And now that the WH has acknowledged the fact that they made side deals, but they’re secret and Congress can’t see them, Tom Cotton is making a compelling case that the 60 day clock hasn’t started. The Corker/Cardin bill laid out in detail what the WH must provide Congress for review. Not just the agreement itself but “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”
Obama is admitting he’s violating the agreement he signed into law. There’s no dispute about that. Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the UN and all around lying whore (don’t take it personally, ladies, John Kerry and Josh Earnest are Obama’s lying whores, too) said she read the agreement and she’s happy with it.
Yet they won’t show it to Congress.
This won’t be enough to shake any Democrats loose from the Obama personality cult. But Obama can not legally lift sanctions unless Congress fails to act within its review period. If the clock never starts, the sanctions remain in effect.
Steve57 (0412d7) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:44 pma fair point, but it gives all the major parties, like the siloviki, I regard Volodya as an extension of that system, the PLA an excuse,
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:47 pm*… she read the agreement and she’s happy with it.
Yet they won’t show
itthem to Congress…*There are at least two side agreements. I don’t know why I keep referring to them as if there’s only one.
Steve57 (0412d7) — 7/24/2015 @ 6:48 pm