Kerry: Under Deal, 'Guarantee' Iran 'Won’t Possibly Be Able to Advance' Nuke Program

     In an editorial for the new issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Bill Kristol notes the "ludicrous" "guarantee" Secretary of State John Kerry made last week regarding Iran's so-called breakout capacity towards nuclear weapons. Kerry told Israelis:

I say to every Israeli that today we have the ability to stop [the Iranians] if they decided to move quickly to a bomb and I absolutely guarantee that in the future we will have the ability to know what they are doing so that we can still stop them if they decided to move to a bomb.

     This is not the first time Kerry has used the word "guarantee" in reference to the Iran nuclear deal. A month ago, in an interview with PBS's Judy Woodruff, Kerry responded as follows when Woodruff asked if this deal was more about delaying Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons than about denying those weapons altogether:

SECRETARY KERRY: Absolutely not. Not in the least. No, it is not just about that. It’s about denying them a nuclear weapon. And the reason I can say that with confidence is that we will have a sufficient level of transparency, of inspections, of accountability, of tracing of uranium, of following the production of their centrifuges, of knowing what is happening in their program, that if they began to increase their enrichment in order to be able to move to create a nuclear weapon, we would know immediately and be able to take actions.

So I don’t agree with that assessment. This is a guarantee that for the next 15 to 20 years they won’t possibly be able to advance that program. And then when they become a more legitimate member of the nonproliferation community and subject to lifetime inspections and investigation, we will have accountability.

      As Kristol points out in his editorial, absolute guarantees when it comes to Iran's nuclear progress are wishful thinking at best. And even though the deal purportedly binds Iran for 10 years, Kerry sanguinely extends his "guarantee" to "15 to 20 years."
     In any case, as with all guarantees, it's the fine print that matters. And with the extent of Congress's oversight of the proposed deal still in doubt, it remains to be seen whether or not anyone will read that fine print before a final deal with Iran is signed.


Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Kerry Claims 'Great Respect' for 'Religious Importance' of Khamenei's Fatwa

    While addressing the press on Saturday during a visit to Egypt, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the ongoing negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear programs. As he and President Obama have several times in the past, Kerry cited a report that Iran's "Supreme Leader" has issued a "fatwa" against the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, a fatwa that remains unpublished according to a recent article by U.S. News. Nevertheless, Kerry said that the United States has "great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa." Here are his remarks in context:

Now I want to be very clear. Nothing in our deliberations is decided until everything is decided. And the purpose of these negotiations is not just to get any deal; it is to get the right deal. President Obama means it when he says, again and again, that Iran will not be permitted to get a nuclear weapon. As you all know, Iran says it doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, and that is a very welcome statement that the Supreme Leader has, in fact, incorporated into a fatwa. And we have great respect – great respect – for the religious importance of a fatwa. And what we are effectively trying to do is translate that into legal language, into everyday language within the framework of a negotiated agreement that everybody can understand, which requires everybody to have certain obligations and ultimately be able to guarantee that Iran’s program, its nuclear program, will be peaceful now and peaceful forever.

    Given the history of fatwas issued by Iranian leaders in the past, Kerry's "great respect... for the religious importance of a fatwa" seems curious. The most notorious of these fatwas was issued in 1989 and called for the death of Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses. Although various reports have surfaced over the years regarding the status of that fatwa, as recently as last month a senior Iranian cleric affirmed that it is still in effect. Other fatwas over the years have called for things as varied as the death of Jerry Falwell to prohibitions against members of the opposite sex chatting online.
    Secretary Kerry's reference to the "religious importance" of Iran's purported anti-nuclear fatwa seems particularly significant given the vehemence with which Kerry and President Obama deny any connection between the Islamic State and true Islam. Iran, officially the Islamic Republic of Iran as the White House and State Department routinely refer to it, is the most significant state sponsor of terror in the world according to the State Department and has been on the list for over 30 years. Yet the Obama administration exhibits no reticence when it comes to ascribing "religious importance" to a fatwa issued by those in Iran who claim to represent Islam. The State Department did not reply to a request for comment on this apparent disparity.
    In spite of Kerry's glowing reference to the anti-nuclear arms fatwa and its "religious importance", reporters at Kerry's press appearance in Egypt appeared unmoved. Of the four questions asked of Kerry after his remarks, only one addressed the Iranian nuclear negotiations, and that one inquired as to the possible fallout from the letter Senator Tom Cotton and 46 fellow GOP senators to the Iranian leadership. Margaret Brennan of CBS News inquired, "...Given the recent comments by the Supreme Leader as well as some of U.S. allies, do you think that the GOP letter has undermined the diplomacy and made reaching of an agreement that much harder?" Unsurprisingly, Kerry's reply strongly suggested he agreed.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Ahead of Deal, Top Intel Organization Plays Down Iran's Sponsorship of Terrorism

    Sunday night, Stephen Hayes noted (via Twitter) a Times of Israel article that the 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Communities delivered annually by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to a Senate committee had "removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats" after having been included in prior years.
    For each of at least the past four years, the report from Clapper has featured a section early in the document entitled "Terrorism". In the 2015 report, that section spans pages 4 and 5 of the report and is completely silent about both Iran and Hezbollah. Other sections of the report mention Iran as a cyber threat and talk about Iran's nuclear program as a potential threat, but even when discussing specific threats country by country, the section dedicated to Iran (four paragraphs on page 14) does not mention terrorism as a reason that nation is an "ongoing threat" to the United States. The open sentence reads:

The Islamic Republic of Iran is an ongoing threat to US national interests because of its support to the Asad regime in Syria, promulgation of anti-Israeli policies, development of advanced military capabilities, and pursuit of its nuclear program.

     In stark contrast to the 2015 report, each of the three preceding reports not only singles out Iran for terrorism, but actually gives the country (sometimes paired with Hezbollah) its own subheading. Here are excerpts from the Terrorism section of each of those three reports:

2014:

2013:

2012:

    As Hayes noted on Twitter regarding the removal by US intelligence of Iran and Hezbollah as worldwide terror threats, "If true, jaw-dropping." This closer look at the last four annual reports seems to indicate that it is indeed true.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

State Dept. in January: Giving in to Terrorist Demands 'Perpetuates the Action' of Kidnappings

    Time Magazine is reporting that, during an interview about the deal to trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees from Guantanamo, when "[a]sked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, a commander laughed. 'Definitely.'" The response should not come as a surprise to the Obama administration given an exchange that took place at a State Department press briefing in January of this year.
    A reporter asked spokesperson Jen Psaki about a UN resolution to discourage private companies from paying ransom to terrorists for the release of kidnap victims. The reporter said that "basically, these companies paying a ransom through their own insurance is really one of the only ways that we’ve seen success of release of these kidnapping victims." Despite the apparent "success", Psaki told the reporter that giving in to the terrorists' demands simply "perpetuates the action":

MS. PSAKI: Well, our concern is, as I mentioned, the – what this perpetuates, which is the fact that terrorists kidnap people and they have raised well over $120 million in ransom payments. So the belief here, clearly, by the UN Security Council, but the United States, is that this is not an approach that can continue because it perpetuates the action. But beyond that, I’d have to check with our team and see if there’s more specifics on it.

    The Washington Posts has reported that early in the Bergdahl ordeal, the Taliban's demands for his release included "$1 million and 21 Afghan prisoners." Spokesperson Marie Harf could not confirm or deny this week whether or not cash payments were considered as part of the deal as executed by the Obama administration last week when five Taliban commanders released into Qatari custody. But in the January press briefing, Psaki warned against not just ransom, but "concessions" as well [emphasis added]:

So we commend the consensus adoption of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2133 on kidnapping for ransom, which identifies kidnapping for ransom as a source of terrorist financing and expresses the Council’s determination to secure the safe release of hostages without ransom payments or political concessions... 

The resolution is also directly in line with the United States longstanding policy to make no concessions.

 However, this week, Harf would not concede that releasing the five detainees even amounted to a concession:

QUESTION: Well, it’s just – it’s very general, but it relates to this. When people are saying the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorist groups, is that statute or is that general policy? And -- 

MS. HARF: Well, our line is that we don’t make concessions -- 

QUESTION: That’s what I was about to ask you. 

MS. HARF: -- which is different. I mean, that’s the – you’re quoting it colloquial. That’s actually not what you’ll hear us say from the podium (inaudible). 

QUESTION: Okay. And how do you define the difference? 

MS. HARF: How do we define the difference? Well, I -- 

QUESTION: Between making concessions and negotiating. 

MS. HARF: I think it’s clear that we don’t make concessions to terrorists. And that’s a judgment, right, that we don’t – I think – I don’t know. I think those words, using Matt, I think are fairly well defined. 

QUESTION: So releasing five of their prisoners or five of their -- 

MS. HARF: Is not making a concession. 

QUESTION: It’s not a concession? 

MS. HARF: No. It is consistent absolutely with what’s happened in previous wars, including Korea, including Vietnam. I think one of the large tranches of prisoners in Vietnam, it was something like around 500 Americans for 1,200 North Vietnamese. So again, this has a long history in the United States of prisoner swaps.

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

State Dept. Won't Identify "Specific Scenarios of Noncompliance" in Iran Deal

    Yesterday, the Obama administration announced an agreement regarding Iran's nuclear program had been reached.  But a statement about the enforcement of the deal made by a senior administration official during a background briefing on Sunday, however, is likely to further worry critics of the deal.  The official declined to cite a single example of an "individual instance of noncompliance" that would trigger the reversal of the sanctions relief put into effect by the deal:

QUESTION: ... If Iran violates any part of this deal, does the deal come to an end immediately? I know you said that there would be more sanctions. But what specifically does it mean for the deal?...
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: ... I think the bottom line is this agreement is based on the two sides taking steps that fulfill their commitment, and the implementation plan provides for a roadmap for the timing and sequencing of those steps. I couldn’t speculate onto specific scenarios of noncompliance. What I would say, though, is that if Iran does not comply with the agreement, then the relief that they’ve accessed as part of the agreement is reversed. And we have said that we would move to impose additional sanctions, including working with Congress to do so.
So the short answer to your question is yes, if we were to assess that Iran had not complied, then they would not be able to access the relief that they’re slated to get through this agreement, and we would move to additional sanctions. Now, the specifics of those scenarios remain hypothetical, so at this point, I wouldn’t want to speculate as to what an individual instance of noncompliance is.

    The official went on to say, "Our hope and expectation is that Iran will comply."


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.