Kerry calls talk of better Iran deal a 'fantasy'

[webfact]

Kerry calls talk of better Iran deal a 'fantasy'
By DAVID ESPO and DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Countering Republican criticism, Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday it is "fantasy plain and simple" to claim that President Barack Obama failed to insist on enough restraints on Iran's nuclear program before agreeing to lift economic sanctions long in place.

"So what's your plan? ... Totally go to war?" he challenged lawmakers who want to torpedo the deal.

Republicans were unpersuaded — and said so — at an occasionally contentious Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that marked the opening of a new phase in the administration's drive to prevent Congress from undermining the accord.

"You guys have been bamboozled," said Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, complaining that the agreement wouldn't permit neutral testing at Iran's Parchin military complex to guard against cheating.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the panel's chairman, told Kerry moments after opening the hearing, "Not unlike a hotel guest that leaves only with a hotel bathrobe on his back, I believe you've been fleeced." He later sought to soften the criticism to avoid singling anyone out, saying, "We've been fleeced."

The deal, reached earlier this month, will take effect unless Congress blocks it. Republicans in control of the House and Senate hope to do that by passing legislation in September to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions that lawmakers put in place over several years.

Obama has promised to veto any such bill. That would lead to a vote to override his veto, and the administration is searching for 34 votes in the Senate or 146 in the House to assure a veto would stick.

Democrats and allied independents control 46 seats in the Senate, and so far Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico have announced support for the plan. In the House, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has expressed optimism that a veto can be upheld.

The hearing unfolded as House Speaker John Boehner hinted at additional steps to stop the deal beyond the legislation, which is expected to be voted on after lawmakers return from an August vacation. "I think there's a lot of tools at our disposal," he told reporters, although he did not elaborate.

Given the political calculus, the Senate hearing wasn't so much an attempt by Kerry to persuade Republicans to support the plan as it was an opportunity to reassure Democrats.

Even so, no matter the objections — and Republicans leveled many in a hearing that stretched until midafternoon — Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew were ready with responses.

Kerry read supportive comments from former Israeli intelligence officials who hold views diametrically opposed to the ones held by Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's, arguably the pact's fiercest opponent.

He also said he expects support for the deal from Saudi Arabia, Iran's rival in the Middle East. Half a world away, by coincidence or not, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said the agreement appears to have the provisions needed to curtail Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals, and al-Jubeir met separately with Kerry and Obama last week.

When Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential hopeful, asked a question suggesting the deal would require the United States to support Iran if Israel launches a military strike, Moniz had a one word answer: "No."

"It does not?" Rubio asked skeptically.

"No," said Moniz.

With the exception of Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Democrats questioned administration officials far more gently than the Republicans, suggesting they will side with Obama on a deal he has called historic.

At its heart, the agreement calls for the United States and other world powers to end economic and military sanctions in exchange for concessions from Iran in its nuclear program. Tehran says its program is entirely peaceful, but the U.S. and most other nations believe it is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons. They imposed sanctions on Iran to bring it to the bargaining table.

Across more than four hours in the witness chair, Kerry sought repeatedly to blunt one of the Republicans' core objections, that Obama settled for a less favorable deal than he could have gotten had he insisted on more.

"The alternative to the deal we've reached isn't what we're seeing ads for on TV," he said, referring to commercials backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which strongly opposes the deal.

"It isn't a better deal, some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That's a fantasy, plain and simple."

Kerry also said that Obama has "made it crystal clear we will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran." More than that, he said, "he is the only president who has developed a weapon capable of guaranteeing that. And he has not only developed it, he has deployed it."

That appeared to be a reference to a "bunker buster" bomb, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator.

Kerry said that when the negotiations began, experts calculated that it would take Iran only two to three months to produce enough material for a bomb.

"If the deal is rejected, we return immediately to this reality, except that the diplomatic support we have been steadily accumulating in recent years would disappear overnight," he said.

The United Nations Security Council has already voted to lift the international sanctions in place, effectively accepting the deal that the United States and other powers have struck with Iran. As a result, administration officials say the U.S. would be left trying to enforce more limited sanctions, without the support of other nations.
___

Associated Press writers Donna Cassata and Matthew V. Lee contributed to this story.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-07-24

[EnglishJohn]

Go to war now, or go to war in 15 years against a nuclear armed Iran.

Hobson's choice. The first will lose them the next election so they choose the second and hope by some miracle that something will happen to prevent it.

But from what I have seen of Kerry, I doubt the best deal was reached. I'm amazed he is still in this job : does he have naked pictures of Obama's wife or something ?.

[Ulysses G.]

"You guys have been bamboozled,"

You guys have been "fleeced".

Congress is finally getting it, but since Obama and Kerry cheated congress (and the American people), went around them and directly to the UN, probably too late. Netanyahu had this one pegged. What an avoidable disaster.

How Obama kneecapped the US Congress on Iran — again

If only President Obama were as hard-nosed and clever in undermining our adversaries as he is in kneecapping the US Congress, the country’s strategic position might be transformed.

The Iran deal went to the UN Security Council for approval Monday, months before Congress will vote on it, and got unanimous approval. The UN vote doesn’t bind Congress, but it boxes it in and minimizes it — with malice aforethought.

http://nypost.com/2015/07/20/how-obama-kneecapped-the-us-congress-on-iran-again/

Edited July 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Loptr]

"You guys have been bamboozled," . You guys have been "fleeced". Congress is finally getting it, but since Obama and Kerry went around them and directly to the UN, probably too late. Netanyahu had this one pegged. What an avoidable disaster.

What better way to destroy strategic alliances in the region than to get in bed with the enemy...

[ABCer]

EnglishJohn, there is a third way. Let Israelis take care of the problem and then vote against them in UN.

Ulysses G, Americans elected him to be their President. Twice! Democracy in action... Your Congress still has a chance to snub both UN and Obama. If they still wear pants in Washington.

Loptr, getting in bed with enemy is only half of the problem. Who has got who is another half. US doesn't look good in this bed business...

As to Kerry - my diagnosis would be senility of the highest degree. He shouldn't be let out of the clinic.

Edited July 24, 2015 by ABCer

[Halion]

Following decades of deceit and mistrust Kerry and Co. claim to have pulled a rabbit out of a hat.

Iran will, as shown by history, not comply with this agreement. They will maximize their options from the lifting of sanctions and pretend to be compliant whilst covertly following their own agenda.

In the months to come this accord will fall flat on its face and the free world will again be at risk from the Iranian ideology as it has been for decades. Leopards do not change their spots and the whole of the middle east is heading for disaster owing to US ineptitude and arrogance.

[FangFerang]

Every opponent of an Iran deal has an unspoken agenda. The hawks want to buy more weapons and kill more people. those with Jewish constituencies want re-elected. And those who generally oppose the President's party oppose anything effective being done about anything, unless they do it.

Talk of a "better deal" is double speak for "We want to frame a deal we know they will reject."

Whiners and liars both want the same thing -- inertia and misinformation.

i am not buying it or selling it for them.

[dexterm]

The only people being fleeced are the American public and Congress by the Israeli lobby propaganda machine attempting to inveigle the US into yet another war to be fought on Israel's behalf.

This sounds exactly like the pretext last time...non existent WMD. Are people such slow learners. I hope voters will not be duped once more. I am certain there will never be a coalition of the willing again to fight Israel's wars on its behalf. The war mongering pariah state doesn't deserve defending.

When Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican presidential hopeful, asked a question suggesting the deal would require the United States to support Iran if Israel launches a military strike, Moniz had a one word answer: "No."

"It does not?" Rubio asked skeptically.

"No," said Moniz.

I doubt Mr Rubio will be the first to enlist, nor will Trump be enthusiastically demonstrating how not to be captured. But they are all gung ho to start yet another war to send American sons and daughters to their deaths, so long as its not their own.

Europeans won't be so dumb, and I hope the US public won't be either.

[sammygood]

lift sanctions, so mcdonals, kfc, big pharma can invade the country in a soft matter & start poisening them on the long run ...

[USNret]

Netanyahu is saying this deal with bring a nuclear Iran within 10 years. Is that a bad thing? When he spoke before Congress a few months ago, he told them Iran was months away from a bomb. Sounds like this deal has set Iran back by a decade. Not such a bad deal, esp since the U.S. gave up essentially nothing.

[up-country_sinclair]

Netanyahu is saying this deal with bring a nuclear Iran within 10 years. Is that a bad thing? When he spoke before Congress a few months ago, he told them Iran was months away from a bomb. Sounds like this deal has set Iran back by a decade. Not such a bad deal, esp since the U.S. gave up essentially nothing.

The P5+1 did an excellent job during the negotiations and this is an extremely good deal for the world community.

But guess who is standing alone (again) and engaging in a disinformation campaign (again) about the deal? Israel and its apologists (again).

[Ulysses G.]

More like Iran its apologists - except they can't help snickering up their sleeve.

Appeasing Iran Ignores the Lessons of History

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement. While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on.

First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421484/iran-deal-appeasement-nuclear

Edited July 24, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[HughJass]

this guy may look a little wacko but he seems to know what hes talking about

[ggold]

EnglishJohn, there is a third way. Let Israelis take care of the problem and then vote against them in UN.

Ulysses G, Americans elected him to be their President. Twice! Democracy in action... Your Congress still has a chance to snub both UN and Obama. If they still wear pants in Washington.

Loptr, getting in bed with enemy is only half of the problem. Who has got who is another half. US doesn't look good in this bed business...

As to Kerry - my diagnosis would be senility of the highest degree. He shouldn't be let out of the clinic.

Well it wasn't the Iranians who got shafted! Which kind of makes Obama the bottom to Iran's top in the above scenario

Figuratively speaking!

Edited July 24, 2015 by ggold

[ABCer]

this guy may look a little wacko but he seems to know what hes talking about

Thanks, HughJass.

You are right - he is a wacko. LOL!

He is wearing an Orthodox Uniform and an unshaven beard,

he is telling absolutely outrageous lies, which sounds natural for his looks and Mitra

but why, WHY in the name of God! he speaks with a Jewish accent? Have another look:

This guy looks and sounds as if he is wearing KGB uniform under his black cassock.

Edited July 24, 2015 by ABCer

[HughJass]

i believe grew up as a jew and is now an orthodox christian hence the black attire and beard

he is telling absolutely outrageous lies,....is that Mr Netanyatu you are referring too?

if not then please enlighten me as to the "lies" he is telling

[up-country_sinclair]

The only people being fleeced are the American public and Congress by the Israeli lobby propaganda machine attempting to inveigle the US into yet another war to be fought on Israel's behalf.

Exactly correct.

Israel is worried that it won't be able to con the US military to die in a war that only it wants, and also con the US taxpayers to paying for that war. That is why they are currently engaged in yet another in a long line of Israeli disinformation campaigns.

Despicable, really.

[Pakboong]

More like Iran its apologists - except they can't help snickering up their sleeve.

Appeasing Iran Ignores the Lessons of History

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement. While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on.

First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421484/iran-deal-appeasement-nuclear

In the history I learned, Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, they did attack India when they were called Persia over 200 years ago. But I do completely understand how Israel can bring the worst out of anybody.

[Steely Dan]

There is a myth promulgated by Obama that nobody gave any suggestions as to an alternative deal. This is a bold faced lie. Here is a suggestion from the Israeli left, but I would observe that had Obama stood by his own red lines the deal would have been ok, but he didn't and he and Kerry returned with a rug each. Iran has a strict no returns policy on rugs so this sole part of Kerry's 'fantasy' deal is indeed real.

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/07/0723-links-pt1-israeli-leftist-nukes.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

P.s I guess this is one article from Haaretz some of our esteemed members will not be quoting.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

There is a myth promulgated by Obama that nobody gave any suggestions as to an alternative deal. This is a bold faced lie.

How about sticking to his guns and not allowing them to enrich uranium as he claimed he was going to do in the first place. EVERYONE (but Iran) would have been happy with that.

[ggold]

Kerry saying a better deal is Fantasy, is an admission that they got the worst deal. No deal would have been better than any deal!

I also think some of you have got it wrong. Israel never asked the Americans to go to war, they just didn't want sanctions removed or for Iran to be allowed to get the bomb. Israel could do the job themselves if need be they don't need the Americans to take out a few nuclear reactors!

[ABCer]

In the history I learned, Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, they did attack India when they were called Persia over 200 years ago. But I do completely understand how Israel can bring the worst out of anybody.

I recognise this your position and like the style.

It usually starts with: - "As for me - I'm not an anti-semite. Not even a Jewdophobe."

And ends with watching Jews bashed and killed saying: - "I didn't do it... But they brought it unto themselves".

No Pak can hide his boong.

[ABCer]

Actually Kerry is saying a 90% true thing.

Any Iran Deal is a Fantasy!

[Chicog]

Has anyone actually read the agreement yet?

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

Or if you want to read it offline:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

Only it's hard to take anyone seriously if they haven't at least done that.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Chicog

[Pakboong]

In the history I learned, Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, they did attack India when they were called Persia over 200 years ago. But I do completely understand how Israel can bring the worst out of anybody.

I recognise this your position and like the style.

It usually starts with: - "As for me - I'm not an anti-semite. Not even a Jewdophobe."

And ends with watching Jews bashed and killed saying: - "I didn't do it... But they brought it unto themselves".

No Pak can hide his boong.

As for me, I have no reason to hide my position. I am anti-Israel on pretty much every issue and I will take an anti-semetic position should such a position feel appropriate. I certainly do not avoid an anti-semeitic position for any politically correct reason. On this matter at hand, I am trying to understand why Netanyahu is not on the chopping block for allowing the second greatest tragedy to the Jewish people of Israel. I do know that Sheldon Adelson is his great protector.

The treaty is “bad”. Not just bad, but “catastrophic”. Not just catastrophic, but “one of the most terrible disasters in the entire history of the Jewish people”. Something close to a “second Holocaust” Netanyahu

If a Japanese leader had failed this miserably, we would be talking hari-keri or whatever it is called.

My best guess is that the opposition offers nothing by way of a serious challenge.

"Yair Lapid, the leader of a shrunken “centrist” party now in opposition (the Orthodox did not allow Netanyahu to bring him into the government) denounces the treaty as a historic disaster for the Jewish people. This being so, he asks loudly, why is Netanyahu not compelled to resign after his failure to prevent it? The more so since there is a much more able leader ready to take his place and lead the fight, a man named Yair Lapid." Uri Avnery

It is odd for anybody to take such a strong position against a US president, much less the country we claim to be our strongest ally. It will be interesting to see how the 18 Jewish Democratic [congressmen vote on the matter and their individual reason why, should they ever be made public. Will they vote American or Israeli.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Pakboong

[lovetotravel]

More like Iran its apologists - except they can't help snickering up their sleeve.

Appeasing Iran Ignores the Lessons of History

The now-concluded Iran nuclear negotiations predictably reflect ancient truths of appeasement. While members of the Obama administration are high-fiving each other over a deal with the Iranian theocracy, they should remember unchanging laws that will surely haunt the United States later on.

First, appeasement always brings short-term jubilation at the expense of long-term security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a beloved peacemaker after the Munich Agreement of 1938 with Adolf Hitler but derided as a conceited fool and naif by May 1940.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421484/iran-deal-appeasement-nuclear

In the history I learned, Iran has never attacked another sovereign nation, they did attack India when they were called Persia over 200 years ago. But I do completely understand how Israel can bring the worst out of anybody.

Iran may not have attacked another sovereign nation via an out and out war, but they are creating havoc in the region with their support of Hezbollah and various other insurgent groups. Which they admit in public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and was primarily formed to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.^[3] Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.

[Ulysses G.]

As for me, I have no reason to hide my position. I am anti-Israel on pretty much every issue and I will take an anti-semetic position should such a position feel appropriate.

Don't worry. You are just like most of the other obsessive Israel haters except you will also admit to anti-Semitism. They are more concerned with tricking other people into agreeing with them, than being honest about what they think and feel.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[simple1]

Believe the following is a fair summary of the pros and cons.

The nuclear agreement highlights the limits of American power—something the president’s opponents won’t accept.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-obama/398450/

[RickBradford]

I bet there are plenty of smart people on overtime working on Stuxnet 2.0 . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

[Chicog]

I bet there are plenty of smart people on overtime working on Stuxnet 2.0 . . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Including Iranians