Kerry asserts here that the deal makes it “physically impossible” for Iran to make a nuclear bomb. If everything Kerry says in this interview were true, it is hard to see why the Israelis or the Republicans would have the slightest objection to the deal. Their reading of the agreement with Iran differs sharply from his. It would be wisest to hope he is correct by preparing as if he isn’t.
This Administration, however, is not going to do that. Note also his breezy assertion that we have “huge mechanisms by which we can push back and make the counter-difference” if Iran begins to use the money it receives from sanctions relief to arm Assad (which may not be a bad thing, given the Islamic State) and Hizballah. Those “huge mechanisms” haven’t made any significant headway against the Islamic State.
And as for “screwing” the ayatollah, and the idea that he will never negotiate again if these negotiations had failed, is based on the assumption that any deal with Iran is better than none. Unproven, at best.
“Kerry Warns Congress About Risk of ‘Screwing’ the Ayatollah,” by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, August 5, 2015 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
…Goldberg: Do you believe that Iranian leaders sincerely seek the elimination of the Jewish state?
Kerry: I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. Whether or not that translates into active steps to, quote, “Wipe it,” you know…
Goldberg: Wipe it off the map.
Kerry: I don’t know the answer to that. I haven’t seen anything that says to me—they’ve got 80,000 rockets in Hezbollah pointed at Israel, and any number of choices could have been made. They didn’t make the bomb when they had enough material for 10 to 12. They’ve signed on to an agreement where they say they’ll never try and make one and we have a mechanism in place where we can prove that. So I don’t want to get locked into that debate. I think it’s a waste of time here.
I operate on the presumption that Iran is a fundamental danger, that they are engaged in negative activities throughout the region, that they’re destabilizing places, and that they consider Israel a fundamental enemy at this moment in time. Everything we have done here, Jeff, is not to overlook anything or to diminish any of that; it is to build a bulwark, build an antidote. If what Bibi says is true, that they are really plotting this destruction, then having the mechanism to get rid of nuclear weapons is a prima facie first place to start, and you’re better off eliminating the nuclear weapon if that’s their plan. Then we can deal with the other things.
Goldberg: Let me posit this analysis: that the deal is actually good, but then it becomes bad 10 years down the road. As a confidence-building measure, you’ve curtailed their ability to get to a bomb, but 10 or 15 years down the road, their breakout time shrinks back down to a month or two.
Kerry: Jeff, I fundamentally, absolutely disagree with this premise. It’s not true; it’s provable that it’s not true. And close analysis of this agreement completely contradicts the notion that there is a 15-year cutoff, for several different reasons. Reason number one: We have a 20-year televised insight into their centrifuge production. In other words, we are watching their centrifuge production with live television, taping the whole deal, 24-7 for 20 years. But even more important, and much more penetrating, much more conclusive, we have 25 years during which all uranium production—from mine to mill to yellowcake to gas to waste—is tracked and traced. The intelligence community will tell you it is not possible for them to have a complete, covert, separate fuel cycle. You can’t do the whole cycle; you can’t do the mining and milling covertly. So it’s not 15, it’s 25, and it’s not even just 25. I went back and reread the Additional Protocol the other day, just to make sure I was accurate—Marie, could you go get me my white book, it’s on the floor underneath the desk with all the tabs.
[Harf goes to Kerry’s study, off his main office.]
Goldberg: Marie, could you get the maps of the West Bank while you’re there?
Harf: Haha, very funny.
Kerry: [Pauses] Doable. But not unless somebody wants to do it….
Goldberg: In your mind, they couldn’t possibly move to 90 percent [enrichment] without every bell—
Kerry: Physically impossible. And therefore, when you add the Additional Protocol with 25 years of uranium tracking, we’re more than confident that this is something unusual that doesn’t exist in any other agreement in the world. They will not be able to get a bomb.
Goldberg: There’s a political component to what you’ve been—
Kerry: There is a big political component in America.
Goldberg: So let me ask you, in your mind, how much of this is about Jewish fear, and how much of this is about the exploitation of Jewish fear?
Kerry: I can’t answer that. That’s getting analytical, and my attitude is that I take the fear seriously. The fear is real, based on history—based on 2,000-plus years. I mean, I am extremely sympathetic to the fear that people feel, and I understand the historical argument. The reason I disagree with it is that we don’t give up any option whatsoever—and I know that a president of the United States, if you tell the president that if you don’t do something in the next three weeks Iran is going to get a bomb, the president is going to do what we have to do, and everybody in Congress will support it.
Goldberg: There is an option you’re giving up, in the sense that the money that is going to be released to Iran is irreversibly released.
Kerry: I disagree that we’re giving it up and I’ll tell you why. Sanctions are already fraying, Jeff. We’ve pressed our case hard and the reason people went along with us is that we went to negotiations and we were in negotiations. People agreed to what was happening in negotiations. If we unilaterally walk away from this process and turn our back on their cooperation, they’re gone. I know they’re gone. Russia? China? Russia and China didn’t even want an arms embargo or a ballistic-missile embargo. They’re gone.
Goldberg: Iran needs this deal more than we need this deal. They need the money. Therefore if Congress was to say, “Go get a better deal with the Iranians,” why do you think the Iranians would just walk away?
Kerry: I know they would walk away for several different reasons. It’s not a “think”—it’s a “know.” You need to talk to the intel community. You know, we had pretty good insight in the course of this process. Our evaluations out of the intel community informed us about where the reality was, what the market would bear.
The ayatollah approached this entire exercise extremely charily. He gave a kind of dismissive OK to [President Hassan] Rouhani and company to go do this, in the sense that he didn’t want to be blamed if this didn’t work. It was all Rouhani’s risk. He was playing the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps], and this and that. And so it was clear to me from my many conversations with Zarif and from the entire dynamic how fragile that journey was with him. The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them. This will be the ultimate screwing. We cut a deal, we stand up, it’s announced, five other countries believe in it—six other countries, because Iran signs off, and we’re the seventh—but you know, China, Russia, France, Germany, Britain, all sign off. Now the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.
Moreover, our friends who kept the sanctions in place because we were negotiating in good faith—here’s the other problem. We don’t control the money in the banks. It’s not in our banks. That $55 billion is in India, China, Abu Dhabi. It’s being held at our request and our insistence. But if we break this … And by the way, if Congress votes the way they vote, the president doesn’t have the ability to waive anything.
Goldberg: Let me go to another concern, the moral side of this. This is a bad moment for the people of Syria, in the sense that this money we’re talking about, some of it will be flowing to bad actors in the region. I mean, your own department labels Iran the world’s chief state sponsor of terrorism.
Kerry: Here’s the problem. We are totally eyes absolutely wide open. We have every awareness in the world about the ways in which Iran destabilizes the region.
Goldberg: But does it bother you that money will be going to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and Hezbollah?
Kerry: Yes, but it’s not dispositive. It’s not money that’s going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening. We have huge mechanisms by which we can push back and make the counter-difference. And the biggest, most important thing this is doing is that it is galvanizing a stronger, more defined security relationship between us and the Gulf states, and it will with Israel. We have countless ways to push back against those activities. And this will put to test whether or not Rouhani and Zarif are serious when they say they want a different relationship with the region….
Angemon says
Heaven forbids you’d “screw” the people who claim for America’s destruction, right? Oh, the poor things *think* you’re trying to screw them? And your response to that is being extra nice to them? This is a very, very, very naive approach – you’re just going to take Iran’s words at face value (well, some words – you don’t seem to mind with their chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel”) and hope for the best?
http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/death-500×337.jpg
Don McKellar says
That cartoon you really spells it out!
Don McKellar says
posted
Mahmoud says
“If everything Kerry says in this interview were true, it is hard to see why the Israelis or the Republicans would have the slightest objection to the deal”
No deal with Iran that involves any sort of compromise could satisfty the Israeli government or the Republicans. This is because they view the Iranians as inferior and irrational, and undue respectful treatment.
“Those “huge mechanisms” haven’t made any significant headway against the Islamic State.”
Straw-man. He said those mechanisms can target Iran, not the islamic state.
“And as for “screwing” the ayatollah, and the idea that he will never negotiate again if these negotiations had failed, is based on the assumption that any deal with Iran is better than none. Unproven, at best.”
Here you are at least somewhat honest. You do not belive the Iranian goverment deserves respectful treatment. And that may also be defendible position, but at least state your opinion honestly and argue for that. Your other points are just straw-men and they make your opposition to the deal look irrational.
John Thomas says
“This is because they view the Iranians as inferior ” – no, it is because the Iranians have sworn to wipe them (Israel) off the map. I think you’d get a bit uneasy if you lived a few minutes’ ICBM ride from a state which swore to destroy you; you wouldn’t care about their possible inferiority or superiority.
Angemon says
Mahmoud posted:
“No deal with Iran that involves any sort of compromise could satisfty the Israeli government or the Republicans.”
Man, I wish I had your mind-reading powers!
“This is because they view the Iranians as inferior and irrational, and undue respectful treatment.”
You mean it has nothing to do with Iran’s government and populace repeatedly and publicly expressing their spite of America and Israel? You know, shouting “Death to America”, “We’ll wipe Israel off the map”, “No one will be allowed to inspect our reactors”. etc?
Do you really expect anyone to believe that Israelis and/or Republicans are the ones at fault here when they stand against this agreement?
Oliverrr says
The Iranians CHANT DEATH TO AMERICA. DEATH TO ISRAEL. THEY HAD A CARTOON OF KILLING OBAMA.
And the Republicans and Israelis just think Iranians are inferior?
I think-although your name sounds Islamic- but in case you are not- you (and those who think like you) should do what a drill sergeant, when I was in the army, would tell soldiers who were or appeared stupid.
TAKE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLACE IT ON YOUR LEFT EAR.
TAKE YOUR LEFT HAND, PLACE IT ON YOUR RIGHT EAR.
NOW YANK.
YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASSHOLE.
i think that that is appropriate, here.
Mark says
Oliverrr, I don’t think getting his head up of his ass will help him……….
citycat says
It may help him, it may not.
Getting your head outta your arse means stop focusing on the crap of the past and focus on the reality that’s happening before your very here eyes and hopefully is relayed to your mind if your mind is still capable of learning new stuff that’s right here today. If not then give up the drink and start re-learning.
gravenimage says
Mahmoud wrote:
“If everything Kerry says in this interview were true, it is hard to see why the Israelis or the Republicans would have the slightest objection to the deal”
No deal with Iran that involves any sort of compromise could satisfty the Israeli government or the Republicans. This is because they view the Iranians as inferior and irrational, and undue respectful treatment.
…………………………………
What absolute rot. Israel and the Republicans are concerned about Iran making good on its long threats of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!”, as well s threats to “wipe Israel off the map”.
Unless, of course, you believe that taking issue with someone wanting to destroy you is indicative of failing to show them “respectful treatment”.
And why wouldn’t you? Pious Muslims have every right—as they see it—to destroy “filthy” Infidels, especially Jews.
The US had no issue with Iran until they seized our diplomatic staff and held them hostage for over a year.
More:
“Those “huge mechanisms” haven’t made any significant headway against the Islamic State.”
Straw-man. He said those mechanisms can target Iran, not the islamic state.
…………………………………
So far, none of these “huge mechanisms” have done much to safeguard us against *any* ravening Mohammedans.
More:
“And as for “screwing” the ayatollah, and the idea that he will never negotiate again if these negotiations had failed, is based on the assumption that any deal with Iran is better than none. Unproven, at best.”
Here you are at least somewhat honest. You do not belive the Iranian goverment deserves respectful treatment. And that may also be defendible position, but at least state your opinion honestly and argue for that.
…………………………………
This isn’t what Robert Spencer is saying at all. The idea that Iran is only receiving “respectful treatment” if they are allowed to proceed without sanctions and develop nuclear arms without oversight is something only a Muslim supremacist would demand.
More:
Your other points are just straw-men and they make your opposition to the deal look irrational.
…………………………………
The idea that Infidels are “irrational” if they resist their Muslim overlords in any way is, in fact, a core tenet of Islam.
oldwhiteguy says
every time I see the idiot Kerry’s face the tune from the wizard of oz comes to mind, “if I only had a brain”.
Where is Ronald Regan says
Kerry is merely trying to both deliver Obama’s legacy and turn a Sow Ear into a Silk Purse.
How stupid is the American majority to believe anything good will come from a deal with side deals. 24 days before we can inspect what we want to inspect. Accepting a bad deal is not better than no deal. Let Iran continue to choke on sanctions and continue to be removed from the rest of the world. Park the US Navy up stream of Iran.
This is a case where we need the left to shut up while the rest of America Carries a Big Stick.
Champ says
Great comment, Where is Ronald Regan!
BTW, I love your moniker! 🙂
Rob Crawford says
John Kerry has never met an enemy of the US he wouldn’t serve.
somehistory says
Having much reason to be thankful and glad today: not having to sit across from this fool and listen to his incoherent babble.
He said, “If what Bibi says is true, that they are really plotting this destruction,….”
He must be so busy plotting out his next babble time, he has no time to listen to what the iranians are saying and have been saying since they began speaking: ‘Death to Israel. Death to America’….etc, etc.
And just what are the “huge mechanisms” for preventing iran from doing what they have vowed to do since day one?
Armageddon is soon to be and there are not “mechanisms” “huge” enough to stop it.
John C. Barile says
RIDICULOUS.,/b> Imbecilic pandering to those “moderate” murderous supremacist tyrants.
We don’t deserve such fools.
John C. Barile says
RIDICULOUS. What imbecilic pandering to murderous tyrants this all is.
We need a sharp 180-degree turn of the Ship of State.
K. from Germany says
“Kerry: I think they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment. ”
WTF? This “particular moment” lasts for 1400 years already. I know polititians can say incredibly stupid things, but that hits rock bottom.
DP111 says
Obanga and Keranga: a Peace Epic
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/obanga-and-keranga-a-peace-epic-t16747.html
Karen says
Three problems with Mr. Kerry’s analysis;
1) Our allies are disinterested in enforcing the current sanctions (they are ‘fraying’). Ok, so once they are removed, our allies will be even less interested in enforcing ‘snap back’. Our allies want the dough from trade with Iran, that’s all, accept it. It’s very similar to our new position on Cuba.
2) Everyone knew that the Senate had to approve this. This is not a surprise, and the expectation that the deal was done should never have been raised until that was accomplished. This is not ‘screwing’ the ayatollah. Kerry sounds like he enjoys being painted into a corner, if it can ‘screw’ the Senate instead.
3) It’s this deal or nothing…..well, time will tell about that one.
Martin Vink says
Kerry should never have been confirmed as Secretary. Here is a man who has acted against America’s interests in Vietnam with traitor Jane Fonda. He is now on the Dhimmi side of politics being manipulated by Valerie Jarred, another traitor. Was he negotiating for Iran? Was he convincing our allies that appeasement is the best way? Did they know his Iranian affiliations through his daughter? He should be impeached for this deal and thrown into prison for the betrayal of America.
Champ says
Kerry asserts here that the deal makes it “physically impossible” for Iran to make a nuclear bomb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry can’t possibly be that ignorant — oh wait, he is!
And he’s made a deal with the devil, but Kerry is worried about not “screwing” the Ayatollah? Newsflash Kerry: the Ayatollah is plotting to have your head served up on a rusty metal platter, but you’re too busy enabling this evil man and Iran — which is putting the rest of us in harms way.
D.C. Watson says
To Hell with the Ayatollah. He may be Barry’s and Kerry’s puppet master, but he damn sure isn’t ours.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
And good to see you posting.
Oliver says
Two points:
1. Goldberg IS USUALLY AN OBAMA SUPPORTER. HERE HE IS NOT.
2. CLEARLY, KERRY IS NOT PUSHING FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE US.
Wellington says
To begin with, America should not negotiate with anyone calling for America’s death and destruction. It should be a sine qua non that such vile rhetoric ends completely before even the minimum of discussions might ensue. The death to America garbage is not something the Iranian regime can’t control. Quite the contrary, said terroristic regime is directly behind it and America under strong leadership should have done everything to strengthen the economic sanctions all the while putting Iran on notice that if they ever developed nuclear weapons all bets are off the table. The only things brutes understand are hardship and force. And what have Obama and Kerry done? Why, they have lessened the hardship rather than increasing it and have oozed weakness at every turn. Pathetic.
gravenimage says
Kerry: Rejecting deal would be “screwing” the ayatollah
………………………………..
Whereas Kerry—and Obama—want to make sure the Ayatollah is the one doing the screwing here…
God Almighty says
Kerry is as screwy as a corkscrew, and is not fit for purpose. His immediate superior for that matter is on a par with him!
Geddy says
I am a retired veteran and disabled. There are two things that all the vets at VA seem to agree on. Well really three things. 1 & 2 are that John Kerry and John McCain are a disgrace to all servicemembers. We are ashamed of them and consider them traitors and treasonous. 3 is, of course, BHO is going into history as the worst, most corrupt president ever. He makes Carter look brilliant and the clintoons look honest and trustworthy.
duh_swami says
Kerry bin Obama reminds me of the movie ‘Little Big Man’, where one of the Indians did everything backwards.
Hoover wrote a book about communists, called, ‘Masters of Deceit’…Mahoundians have always been good at that, (taqiyya), and Obama bin Kerry have adopted those methods. Problem for them is, they are not as good at it as are the Iranian Mullahs.
They are not good enough to fool you and me…But they can fool the unwashed masses who believe anything the gov says.
ich says
maybe america needs to redraw borders again
pussys on one side
heroes on the other
take the fight to them
could u imagine an america like that of ww2 ?!!
kirche says
kerry just spews generalities and rhetoric to questions he’d prepared answers for… nothing specific, he could just say anything he liked and the interviewer, and us, have nothing to bounce it off of. you can’t fact check anything he said.
of course, kerry’s aware of this and with this administrations track record of obfuscation, deception and outright lying to advance their policies, well, you tell me if you believe this deal is lock tight, as kerry describes it?
george beacock says
I just want to know who is screwing who, because Kerry and Obama and the rest of the group involved in this farce with Iran don’t realise that it is them that are being screwed