Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

President Obama: “The issues at stake here are matters of war and peace”

From the Rose Garden – President Obama on the International Nuclear Framework with Iran:

President Obama:

This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.

… if we can get this done and Iran follows through on the framework that our negotiators agreed to, we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security and to do so peacefully.

A reminder to Congress and perhaps the 2016 GOP presidential field:

So when you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East? Is it worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspections?

… the issues at stake here are bigger than politics. These are matters of war and peace.

… this is not simply a deal between my administration and Iran. This is a deal between Iran, the United States of America and the major powers in the world, including some of our closest allies. If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.

Full Transcript: Statement by the President on the Framework to Prevent Iran from Obtaining a Nuclear Weapon

Rose Garden 2:25 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody.

Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

As president and commander in chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people, and I am convinced that if this framework leads to a final, comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our world safer. This has been a long time coming.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades. By the time I took office, Iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the materials for a nuclear bomb. And Iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility.

I made clear that we were prepared to resolve this issue diplomatically, but only if Iran came to the table in a serious way.

When that did not happen, we rallied the world to impose the toughest sanctions in history, sanctions which had a profound impact on the Iranian economy.

Now, sanctions alone could not stop Iran’s nuclear program, but they did help bring Iran to the negotiating table. Because of our diplomatic efforts, the world stood with us, and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world’s major powers: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China as well as the European Union.

Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas.

And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, that we could not verify their compliance, and the interim agreement would fail. Instead, it has succeeded exactly as intended. Iran has met all of its obligations.

It eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material, inspections of Iran’s program increased, and we continued negotiations to see if we could achieve a more comprehensive deal.

Today, after many months of tough principle diplomacy, we have achieved the framework for that deal. And it is a good deal, a deal that meets our core objectives.

This framework would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal is not based on trust. It’s based on unprecedented verification.

Many key details will be finalized over the next three months. And nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed. But here are the basic outlines of the deal that we are working to finalize.

First, Iran will not be able to pursue a bomb using plutonium because it will not develop weapons grade plutonium. The core of its reactor at Arak will be dismantled and replaced. The spent fuel from that facility will be shipped out of Iran for the life of the reactor. Iran will not build a new heavy water reactor. And Iran will not reprocess fuel from its existing reactors, ever.

Second, this deal shuts down Iran’s path to a bomb using enriched uranium. Iran has agreed that its installed centrifuges will be reduced by two thirds. Iran will no longer enrich uranium at its Fordo facility. Iran will not enrich uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. The vast majority of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium will be neutralized.

Today, estimates indicate that Iran is only two or three months away from potentially acquiring the raw materials that could be used for a single nuclear bomb. Under this deal, Iran has agreed that it will not stockpile the materials needed to build a weapon. Even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb. And the strict limitations on Iran’s stockpile will last for 15 years.

Third, this deal provides the best possible defense against Iran’s ability to pursue a nuclear weapon covertly, that is in secret. International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program, from uranium mills that provide the raw materials to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program.

If Iran cheats, the world will know it. If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. Iran’s past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed.

With this deal, Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. So, this will be a long-term deal that addresses each path to a potential Iranian nuclear bomb.

There will be strict limits on Iran’s program for a decade. Additional restrictions on building new facilities or stockpiling materials will last for 15 years. The unprecedented transparency measures will last for 20 years or more. Indeed, some will be permanent. And as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.

In return for Iran’s actions, the international community has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions. Our own sanctions and international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be phased, as Iran takes steps to adhere to the deal. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place.

Meanwhile, other American sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced.

Now let me re-emphasize, our work is not yet done. The deal has not been signed. Between now and the end of June, the negotiators will continue to work through the details of how this framework will be fully implemented and those details matter.

If there is backsliding on the part of the Iranians, if the verification and inspection mechanisms don’t meet the specifications of our nuclear and security experts, there will be no deal.

But if we can get this done and Iran follows through on the framework that our negotiators agreed to, we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security and to do so peacefully.

Given the importance of this issue, I have instructed my negotiators to fully brief Congress and the American people on the substance the deal. And I welcome a robust debate in the weeks and months to come.

I am confident that we can show that this deal is good for the security of the United States, for our allies and for the world.

But the fact is we only have three options for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. First, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal, like this one, and peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The second option is we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East and setting back Iran’s program by a few years. In other words, setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. Meanwhile, we’d ensure that Iran would raise their head to try and build a bomb.

Third, we could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or add additional ones and hope for the best. Knowing that every time we have done so, Iran has not capitulated, but instead has advanced its program. And that in very short order, the breakout timeline would be eliminated and a nuclear arms race in the region could be triggered because of that uncertainty.

In other words, the third option leads us very quickly back to a decision about whether or not to take military action because we’d have no idea what was going on inside of Iran. Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so.

That’s not how the world works. And that’s not what history shows us. Iran has shown no willingness to eliminate those aspects of their program that they maintain are for peaceful purposes, even in the face of unprecedented sanctions.

Should negotiations collapse because we, the United States, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, it’s doubtful that we could even keep our current international sanctions in place.

So when you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question: Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East? Is it worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspections?

I think the answer will be clear. Remember, I have always insisted that I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and I will.

But I also know that a diplomatic solution is the best way to get this done and offers a more comprehensive and lasting solution. It is our best option by far. And while it is always a possibility that Iran may try to cheat on the deal in the future, this framework of inspections and transparency makes it far more likely that we’ll know about it if they try to cheat, and I or future presidents will have preserved all of the options that are currently available to deal with it.

To the Iranian people, I want to reaffirm what I’ve said since the beginning of my presidency. We are willing to engage you on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

This deal offers the prospect of relief from sanctions that were imposed because of Iran’s violation of international law. Since Iran’s supreme leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, this framework gives Iran the opportunity to verify that it’s program is, in fact, peaceful. It demonstrates that if Iran complies with its international obligations, then it can fully rejoin the community of nations, thereby fulfilling the extraordinary talent and aspirations of the Iranian people. That would be good for Iran, and it would be good for the world.

Of course, this deal alone, even if fully implemented, will not end the deep divisions and mistrust between our two countries. We have a difficult history between us.

And our concerns will remain with respect to Iranian behavior so long as Iran continues its sponsorship of terrorism, its support for proxies who destabilize the Middle East, its threats against America’s friends and allies, like Israel.

So make no mistake, we will remain vigilant in countering those actions and standing with our allies.

It’s no secret that the Israeli prime minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue. If in fact Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option.

And I believe our nuclear experts can confirm that.

More importantly, I will be speaking with the prime minister today to make clear that there will be no daylight, there is no daylight when it comes to our support for Israel’s security and our concerns about Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats towards Israel.

That’s why I’ve directed my national security team to consult closely with the new Israeli government in the coming weeks and months about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel and make clear our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s defense.

Today, I also spoke with the king of Saudi Arabia, to reaffirm our commitment to the security of our partners in the Gulf. And I am inviting the leaders of the six countries who make up the Gulf Cooperation Council, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain to meet me at Camp David this spring to discuss how we can further strengthen our security cooperation while resolving the multiple conflicts that have caused so much hardship and instability throughout the Middle East.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, played a critical role in our current Iran policy, helping to shape the sanctions regime that applied so much pressure on Iran and ultimately forced them to the table.

In the coming days and weeks, my administration will engage Congress once again about how we can play — how it can play a constructive oversight role. I’ll begin that effort by speaking to the leaders of the House and the Senate today.

In those conversations, I will underscore that the issues at stake here are bigger than politics. These are matters of war and peace. And they should be evaluated based on the facts, and what is ultimately best for the American people and for our national security. For, this is not simply a deal between my administration and Iran. This is a deal between Iran, the United States of America and the major powers in the world, including some of our closest allies.

If Congress kills this deal not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.

The American people understand this, which is why a solid majority support a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue. They understand instinctively the words of President Kennedy, who faced down the far greater threat of Communism, and said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” The American people remembered that at the height of the Cold War.

Presidents like Nixon and Reagan struck historic arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, a far more dangerous adversary, despite the fact that that adversary not only threatened to destroy our country and our way of life, but had the means to do so.

Those agreements were not perfect. They did not end all threats. But they made our world safer. A good deal with Iran will do the same. Today I’d like to express my thanks to our international partners for their steadfastness, their cooperation.

I was able to speak earlier today with our close allies, Prime Minister Cameron and President Holland and Chancellor Merkel, to reaffirm that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder in this effort. And most of all, on behalf of our nation, I want to express my thanks to our tireless — and I mean tireless — Secretary of State John Kerry and our entire negotiating team. They have worked so hard to make this progress. They represent the best tradition of American diplomacy.

Their work, our work, is not yet done and success is not guaranteed. But we have a historic opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in Iran and to do so peacefully, with the international community firmly behind us. We should seize that chance. Thank you. God bless you. And god bless the United States of America.

END 2:43 P.M. EDT

(Bolding added)

~

Transcript: Vox – the international statement on the Iranian nuclear deal

Transcript: WaPo – Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif on the ‘framework’ for a nuclear deal

~


26 comments


  1. First, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal, like this one, and peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    The second option is we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East and setting back Iran’s program by a few years. In other words, setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. Meanwhile, we’d ensure that Iran would raise their head to try and build a bomb.

    Third, we could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or add additional ones and hope for the best. Knowing that every time we have done so, Iran has not capitulated, but instead has advanced its program. And that in very short order, the breakout timeline would be eliminated and a nuclear arms race in the region could be triggered because of that uncertainty.

    In other words, the third option leads us very quickly back to a decision about whether or not to take military action because we’d have no idea what was going on inside of Iran. Iran is not going to simply dismantle its program because we demand it to do so.

    Two choices, really: a chance for lasting peace … or war.

  2. bfitzinAR

    The problem as far as Congress and the Rs are concerned is that they are NOT sane by any definition we would recognize.  They don’t have a problem with the alternative being war.  They want war.  They specifically want war in the Middle East involving Israel.  These are the “End-Timers” pretending to be Christians.  These are the folks with the hubris to think that if Jesus won’t come again of his own accord, they can force him to do so by creating the “conditions” that are supposed to bring him.  These are the madmen with such a sense of entitlement that they think they will be the winners of Armageddon.  These are the sociopaths who do not notice much less care about the number of people who will die because of their proposed actions.  They are the core of the R party and have been since at least Nixon if not before (James Watt wasn’t being funny when he said – paraphrased here – when the last tree falls Jesus returns.)

    We are not now and haven’t been for some time dealing with sane people.  We cannot appeal to anything in them that would convince us to any action.  Especially actions that would prevent war in the Middle East.  The only thing we can do is go around them until they are no longer in the positions of power that allow them to threaten the World on so many counts – and work our butts off to get them out of those positions of power.

  3. princesspat

    What Are the Experts Saying About the Iran Deal?

    From what I’ve read so far, Max Fisher does the best job of explaining what has been agreed to so far in a way that those of us who are non-experts can understand. He calls on several experts to evaluate various measures of the deal and comes to the conclusion that the most significant part are the inspections that have been agreed to.

    Even though the agreement is only a framework, the summary released on Thursday goes into striking detail on an issue that was always going to be among the most crucial: inspections.

    Whatever number of centrifuges Iran has or doesn’t have, whatever amount of uranium it’s allowed to keep or forced to give up, none of it matters unless inspectors have enough authority to hold Tehran to its end of the deal – and to convince the Iranians that they could never get away with cheating. To say that the US got favorable terms here would be quite an understatement; the Iranians, when it comes to inspections, practically gave away the farm.

    “I would give it an A,” Stein said of the framework. When I asked why: “Because of the inspections and transparency.”

  4. The Iranian Nuclear Talks: It Isn’t Just About The Nukes

    But the talks are also part of President Obama’s much broader quest to repair the fractured relations between the U.S. and Iran, one defined by bitter recriminations in the 36 years since Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979.

    “To the Iranian people, I want to reaffirm what I’ve said since the beginning of my presidency. We are willing to engage you on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect,” Obama said in remarks at the White House immediately after the nuclear framework was announced.

    His approach to Iran has been in contrast to his general posture on the Middle East, where he’s sought to scale back the high-profile U.S. presence in several areas. But with Iran, the president has pursued improved relations based on the notion that this could eventually reorder the Middle East.

    And to underscore that, the president’s speech was shown LIVE on Iranian TV and evoked these reactions:

    The public reaction in the Iranian capital to the preliminary agreement Iran and six world powers have reached on the Islamic republic’s nuclear program has so far been positive. […] Cars on the streets of Tehran blared their horns and there was chanting and clapping

  5. (how did that turn out, by the way?)

    Senator Compares Iran Deal To Appeasing Nazis

    Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) compared the negotiated framework announced by the United States and its international partners on Thursday to contain Iran’s nuclear program to an event that helped spark World War II.

    According to Roll Call reporter Niels Lesniewki, Kirk said, “Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from Adolf Hitler,” referring to the former British Prime Minister, who in 1938 signed the so-called Munich Agreement with German leader Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain ceded a region of Czechoslovakia to Germany in return for peace, but in 1939 Hitler violated the accord by invading Poland, thus sparking World War II.

    Er, no. From Paul Waldman:

    If these talks break down, Iran isn’t going to say, “No wait! We’ll give you everything you asked for!” There will be little to stop them from ramping up their nuclear program.

    And I strongly suspect that’s just what the Iran hawks really want. They think that Iran is going to do that regardless, and the sooner we realize it the better so the war can begin and we can stop them permanently. The lesson of Munich isn’t: “Make sure you negotiate carefully and get the best deal possible.” The lesson of Munich is: “Negotiations with evil tyrants only delay the inevitable war.”

    … this agreement won’t give us everything we would want in a perfect world – that’s what happens when you negotiate with an adversary. But if you’re going to advocate war with Iran, you should at least have the courage to admit that’s what you’re after. Any time you hear the words “appeasement,” “Chamberlain,” or “Munich” in the coming days and weeks – and you will – know that war is exactly what’s being promoted.

    And what about that war?

    Israel’s intelligence minister reiterated on Thursday that Israel will consider military action against Iran should it feel that the country’s nuclear program threatens the Jewish state. […]

    American and Israeli military leaders warn that any strike against Iran would only set Iran back two or three years and could gravely destabilize the region. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, predicted, such action would “bring together a divided nation, it will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons.” The Bush administration also considered military intervention in Iran but decided against it after concluding that bombing “would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent – an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret” and would likely require military occupation.

    Experts point also point out that a strike against Iran “could not be accomplished in a single sortie and would require employing much greater force than Israel used against Iraq.”

  6. Bill O’Reilly Shocks Fox News Anchor By Expressing Support For Iran Deal

    Appearing on the conservative network just minutes after President Barack Obama held a news conference in the White House Rose Garden laying out the broad outlines for how the United States hopes to limit Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, O’Reilly – a harsh critic of Obama’s foreign policy – argued that conservatives should give diplomacy a chance.

    “You don’t want a war with Iran,” he explained. “You don’t want to bomb that country because the unintended consequences will set the world aflame. So if you can get something that’s decent, you give it a shot. I think that’s a legitimate point,” O’Reilly said to a surprised Gretchen Carlson, host of the network’s daytime show, The Real Story.

    O’Reilly also warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against immediately rejecting the compromise, counseling the long-time opponent of talks to wait and see “specifically what the Iranians are going to agree to.”

    It is good that was April 2nd otherwise I would have thought it was an April Fools Day prank.

    Good for him.  

  7. Steven Benen at the MaddowBlog: “Obama, Iran, and the unseen anger translator”

    … listening to Obama’s address, it seemed if there was a text and a subtext. There’s the message we heard, coupled with the message lurking just below the surface.

    The sketch comedy show “Key & Peele” has an amazing recurring bit in which Americans hear from Obama, played by Jordan Peele, and his “Anger Translator” Luther, played by Keegan Michael Key. The idea is simple: the president will state a simple truth, which Luther will then repeat in an aggressive, confrontational, no-holds-barred sort of way.

    The author said he was looking for Luther at key points during the speech:

    There’s what Obama said ….

       “Today, the United States – together with our allies and partners – has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

    … and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:

       “All of those folks who say they don’t want Iran to have nukes? They haven’t done anything. I did. You’re welcome.”

    And this:

    There’s what Obama said ….

       “By the time I took office, Iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the materials for a nuclear bomb – and Iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility.”

    … and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:

       “Let’s all pause to thank the Bush/Cheney administration. When we’re making a list of the messes I had to clean up, this one ranks pretty high.”

    My favorite:

    There’s what Obama said ….

       “Over a year ago, we took the first step towards today’s framework with a deal to stop the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and roll it back in key areas. And recall that at the time, skeptics argued that Iran would cheat, and that we could not verify their compliance and the interim agreement would fail.”

    … and there’s what Obama probably wanted to say:

       “I wonder, are Republicans ever right? I mean, really, ever? About anything? I’m starting to feel a little sorry for them.”

    There’s more at the link. You’re welcome. 🙂

  8. Greg Sargent at the Plumline: Scott Walker: I’ll blow up any Iran deal, no matter what our European allies think

    The 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls are all but certain to oppose the emerging framework, and Congressional Republicans (with the help of some Democrats) will probably try to scuttle any deal before it is signed. But staking out a position against the deal – and trying to sink it – could prove a bit more complicated than it appears.

    This is driven home by a new interview that Scott Walker gave to a Wisconsin radio personality, in which he said that not only would he undo any deal with Iran on his first day as president; he would do so even if our European allies wanted the deal to continue.

    Walker had previously said that he would undo any deal with Iran on his first day. But radio host Charlie Sykes asked him a good follow-up question, and this happened:

       SYKES: You have said that you would cancel any Iranian deal the Obama administration makes. Now would you cancel that even if our trading partners did not want to reimpose the sanctions?

       WALKER: Absolutely. If I ultimately choose to run, and if I’m honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing – not just for the region but for this world – we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…

    In this scenario, of course, the European countries would still see continuing the deal as the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. But that wouldn’t matter – Walker would pull the U.S. out of the deal, anyway.

    Charlie Sykes, by the way, is one of the right-wing Milwaukee radio hosts who found Scott Walker, a back bencher in the Wisconsin state assembly, promoted him to the post of Milwaukee County Executive and then ratcheted up the racial animus that won him the governorship.

    Sargent continues:

    The pledge to undo any Obama nuclear deal with Iran is already emerging as a key litmus test for the 2016 GOP contenders. But they are essentially framing the question as a narrow one: Will I stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One? You’re damn right I will! But in the real world, a deal would involve not just Obama, but our major European allies, and undoing it could unleash all sorts of international complications. […]

    [All this should] lead to at least some kind of pressure on members of Congress who are looking to kill a deal – not to mention the 2016 GOP hopefuls –  to say what they support doing instead beyond thwarting Obama. “The bottom line is that it’s unclear what Walker and others who think like him want out of this process,” [Mideast analyst Peter] Juul says. “If no deal could possibly satisfy them, they should say so.”

    I think we had that once, it was the McCain “Bomb Bomb Iran” Foreign Policy. Let’s see if that resonates with ordinary Americans in 2015 as well as it did in 2008.

  9. Portlaw

    try to derail this, one of the most important triumphs of the past few decades. Am going to write Pres Obama and thank him. No point in writing Schumer, he never replies. Will try Gillibrand.

Comments are closed.