U.S., Iran finesse inspections of military sites in nuclear deal
.. thanks F6 for the excellent post .. the naysayers are negatively focused at the lowest order .. actually, i don't understand their problem as guessing they all have their God on their side, and 'he' has obviously accepted it ..
.. here just a little added detail on the verification process ..
WASHINGTON | By Arshad Mohammed
Technicians of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation in a control room supervise resumption of activities at the Uranium Conversion Facility in Isfahan, Iran in an August 8, 2005 file photo. Reuters/stringer/files
Major powers and Iran finessed how U.N. inspectors will get access to Iranian military sites in Tuesday's nuclear agreement, with a formula that gives the United Nations strong inspection powers while allowing Tehran to save face.
Deep in the deal's details is a procedure under which Iran would have to provide access to suspect sites, including at its military facilities, within 24 days. If Iran refused, it would face the possibility of U.N. sanctions being slapped back on it.
The procedure was crafted to ensure U.N. inspectors could get access to allay their suspicions about Iran's nuclear activities. But it does not explicitly force Iran to admit that its military sites could be open to foreign inspections, leaving some uncertainty over the access Iran will allow in practice.
In Tuesday's landmark deal, Iran and six major powers struck a compromise under which Tehran will limit its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions.
One of the most controversial issues in the negotiations was whether the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be able to visit military sites if they had questions about suspected nuclear activities or facilities within them.
The matter became even harder to resolve, diplomats said, after Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on June 23 said granting access to Iran's military sites was a "red line."
In the end, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States agreed on language with Iran that requires more of Tehran than the existing global nonproliferation system while avoiding a direct mention of the sensitive military site issue.
"This is rather clever and reflects the interests of all sides," said George Perkovich, vice president of studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank.
INSPECTIONS, 'WITHOUT SAYING SO'
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's "Additional Protocol," the IAEA may ask for "managed access" to any site, including military, but a country can legitimately bar access by tying the U.N. nuclear watchdog up in endless negotiations.
This deal aims to close such loopholes with a process under which Iran would give access or otherwise allay IAEA concerns within 24 days, a time frame experts say is tight enough to keep it from sanitizing unauthorized nuclear work.
Iran and the IAEA have 14 days to resolve disagreements among themselves. If they fail to, a joint commission comprised of eight members - the six major powers, Iran and the European Union - would consider the matter for a week.
A majority of the eight could then inform Iran of the steps it would then take within three more days.
Majority-rule means the United States and its European allies -- Britain, France, Germany and the EU -- could insist on access or any other steps and that Iran, Russia or China could not veto them.
"This almost inevitably means inspections but without saying so. That’s why diplomats make the big bucks," Perkovich added.
Nonproliferation experts said the regime falls short of the "anywhere, anytime" inspections demanded by critics of the deal, including many Republicans, but said that would only be possible in a country that has been defeated militarily.
"It’s not a perfect procedure. It would be good to get no notice inspections, but that simply wasn’t in the cards," said Bob Einhorn, a nonproliferation specialist at the Brookings Institution think tank and former U.S. negotiator with Iran.
NO ACCESS TO IRANIAN "BEDROOMS"
In hailing the agreement on Tuesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said it meant that "inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities."
Obama, who on Wednesday said the deal represented the "most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated," was referring only to Iran's declared nuclear sites.
Sites that the IAEA has suspicions about, including any that may be within Iran's many military complexes, fall under the separate procedure with its 24-day time limit.
The word "military" occurs only once in the agreement, where it says that access requests would not be aimed at interfering with Iranian military or other national security activities.
Senior Iranian officials said they would provide the "managed access" called for under the Additional Protocol and said little about the additional procedures stipulated under the new deal.
"Managed access" is a mechanism to allow the minimum needed IAEA oversight to ensure there is no diversion to clandestine nuclear or nuclear-related activities, while limiting access to protect a legitimate military or industrial secrets.
"We have nothing to hide. We have always cooperated with the IAEA and allowed them to visit our sites," a senior Iranian official told reporters in Vienna on Tuesday. "However, it does not mean that we are going to share our intelligence with others or allow them to enter to our bedrooms to investigate."
U.S. officials said they believed that Tehran had committed to providing access to any site, including military, though they acknowledged the possibility it might refuse.
If it found Iran to be in breach of the deal, the United States could, single-handedly, move to "snap back" U.N. sanctions on Iran.
Under an agreement among Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, the U.N. Security Council's permanent members who each have veto power, a resolution to re-impose sanctions would be drafted in such a way that none could block it.
Reinstating the U.N. sanctions in full would be to a wield a heavy hammer against Iran and one that the major powers might be loathe to use.
However, a senior U.S. official raised the possibility of re-imposing some but not all sanctions through a "partial snapback," making the punishment more a scalpel than hammer.
Asked if Washington expected Tehran to honor demands for access, and hence avoid any need to reimpose U.N. sanctions, a senior U.S. official told Reuters: "I hope so."
(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed; Additional Reporting By Louis Charbonneau, Parisa Hafezi, John Irish and Shadia Nasralla; Editing By Stuart Grudgings)
The following are excerpt remarks from a press briefing at the White House with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Press Secretary Josh Earnest on April 6.
SECRETARY MONIZ: So, first of all, we say that there are four pathways to a bomb in Iran. One is a plutonium pathway through a research reactor, a heavy water reactor. I’ll come back to these. Second, there are two pathways to a uranium bomb; that involves the facilities at Natanz and at Fordow. And the fourth pathway is covert activities. So let me just walk through those four and what we have nailed down in the understanding for the final agreement.
Let me start with plutonium. In the plutonium pathway, the Iranians will retain a research reactor using heavy water. The following characteristics, however, are critical. Number one, it will be redesigned to have substantially less plutonium production; it will not be weapons-grade plutonium. However, we have an agreement that all of the spent fuel -- that is the fuel that contains the plutonium -- will be sent out of the country for the entire lifetime of the reactor. In other words, it will produce less plutonium and it won’t stay in the country anyway.
Secondly, with regard to the plutonium produced by any other reactor, like Bushehr, there will be no re-processing to extract plutonium; no re-processing R&D; no other heavy water reactor for at least 15 years; and any excess heavy water will be sold on the international market. This is lockdown of the plutonium pathway.
Let me turn to the uranium pathways, which involve enrichment. There’s been a lot said about they will continue to enrich with 5,000 centrifuges; this is correct. But let me put that in context. We’re starting with 19,000 -- number one. Number two, they will be, in this first 10-year period, allowed to use only their first-generation centrifuge for that. Third, in terms of our key objective of having a so-called breakout period of at least one year, what you really need is three numbers together. You need the number of centrifuges. You need the stockpile of enriched uranium; that’s going to be reduced from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms. And it will be enriched only less than 3.7 percent. Those three numbers come together and say breakout period of at least a year.
R&D -- there will be no R&D in the first 10 years at the scale you need to deploy a machine for any advanced centrifuge model. And that is despite the fact that today they are operating for two models -- such a full-scale cascade, is what it’s called. That’s going to be torn down and put into storage under IAEA monitoring and seal.
Then there is the facility at Fordow; that’s the one that’s put into a mountain. Nearly two-thirds of that will be immediately disassembled, stripped down -- centrifuges and infrastructure. About just over 10 percent there will be some spinning. However, no enrichment, no enrichment R&D; no fissile material, no uranium, is even allowed in the facility, with continuous monitoring from the IAEA; and a transition of that facility over time to basically a physics research laboratory and medical isotope laboratory.
Fourth pathway -- covert. Actually, the other pathways, as well, depend upon an unprecedented access and transparency for the IAEA. It starts with the additional protocol. For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s an add-on to the standard safeguards agreements, which will provide access to undeclared facilities as well as declared facilities. There will be insight, eyes and ears -- eyes mainly, maybe some ears -- on the full supply chain -- this is unprecedented -- going back to the Iranian mines all the way through to the final facilities. And, by the way, that insight on the early parts of the supply chain is a 25-year commitment, not a 10 or a 15-year commitment.
So we think that, again, the access and transparencies is unprecedented, and the additional protocol is an example of a forever agreement in what we have negotiated.
And so, finally, just to say that -- I've already said it in effect, but I want to say this is not an agreement for 10 years, or 15 years, or 20 years; it is a long-term agreement with a whole set of phases. And if Iran earns over this time period trust and confidence in their peaceful objectives, well, then, over time, the constraints will, in phases, ease up, but never get lower than the additional protocol and all of the access that it provides.
So that's the way we think about it. It's not a fixed-year agreement; it’s a forever agreement, in a certain sense, with different stages.
QUESTION: Is the U.S. and Iran on a very different page even in terms of this interim agreement?
SECRETARY MONIZ: No, we're not. We all recognize that -- we emphasize very strongly, we have to talk about the same agreement. We understand emphases may be different. And so let me give you an example. They emphasize, well, we have 5,000 centrifuges spinning; this is true and we acknowledge that. But we also say they’re first generation; they must be taken together with this extraordinary limitation on their stockpile. They fail to mention that, or the 3-plus percent enrichment. And it's those numbers together that say we have a one-year breakout time.
So it's not so much inconsistent as it, as I would say, is emphasizing only certain parts of the agreement.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you said that Fordow will be stripped down, but the President seemed to promise the American people something much different in December of 2013, when he said, “We know that they don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program.” He wasn’t talking about stripping it down. He was saying either wiping it out or shutting it down altogether. What changed?
SECRETARY MONIZ: Well, to me, the key is and our objective was to make sure it was not a breakout pathway. It is not. There is even no fissile material allowed into that facility. It is not an enrichment facility. So it is closed down as an enrichment facility.
As I said, it will be transitioning over time to a research facility involving international collaboration. And, in fact, those international collaborators will, in fact, add additional transparency. So I'll give you an example of two projects being discussed both with an international partner.
One is on the stable isotopes, as I mentioned -- molybdenum for medical treatments; another is to bring in an electronic accelerator for various experimental purposes -- materials, medical research, et cetera. So over time, as those collaborations build up, that's what the facility will become.
QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary. What if Iran cheats? The President, in an interview over the weekend, mentioned that there would be some type of mechanism where if you suspect that there’s something going on that's fishy, that you can request an inspection. And if Iran does not agree to that, that the international community has this mechanism to ensure that. What is that mechanism? And how much of the one-year breakout time could that eat up?
SECRETARY MONIZ: First of all, the answer to the last part is a very short time compared to the year. And at the end of that time, in contrast to some current arrangements around the world where, frankly, things can get -- shall we say, cans can get kicked down a very long road, this has a definite ending, way inside the year. And if access is denied at that point, that is a breach of the agreement, and with all the consequences that come with that, including snap-back of sanctions, resort to diplomatic or other tools. No options for the United States or others is taken off the table.
QUESTION: So is this like a one-strike deal? One time we catch Iran doing something they said they wouldn't do in the agreement, the whole thing is off and we ramp up sanctions?
SECRETARY MONIZ: I think clearly one will see how that plays out in terms of -- obviously, judgment has to be used in terms of severity. Without getting into details, I'll just say that, for example, in the current agreement, everyone is saying that Iran has been studious in honoring the current agreement. Actually, I don't know if I can say this, but -- I won't get into specifics -- there was one time in which something was done that was not in the agreement. It was rapidly resolved as a mistake of somebody who didn’t know what they were doing wasn’t there, shut down immediately.
So, so far in the interim agreement, they’ve been very good. We will see if that persists now for the next 10, 15, 20 years.
MR. EARNEST: Major.
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, talking about the covert path, what kind of things need to still be negotiated to increase Western and American confidence that covert actions, either at facilities you’ve identified or places not yet identified, can be locked down? That is to say you can have a level of confidence that on the covert side things will not create a pathway to a nuclear weapon. And secondly, when you were answering Josh’s question on sanctions, do we have an agreement with the United Nations countries, meaning our partners, P5+1, to snap back the sanctions, or just us snapping back the sanctions if there is a disagreement or a violation?
SECRETARY MONIZ: No, first of all, I should say even more broadly, I think one of the remarkable outcomes of these last weeks -- I've been involved for, roughly, six weeks. One of the remarkable outcomes is, in fact, the level of coherence among the P5+1. That was actually quite rewarding, I would say.
In terms of the snap-back of the sanctions, there are certainly issues remaining to be negotiated in terms of specific timing and milestones. However, the key elements are all decided. And so, for example, in terms of snap-back of sanctions, let’s just say, for example, no one country could block the snap-back of sanctions.
QUESTION: No one has veto power within the conversation?
SECRETARY MONIZ: Correct. I'm not going to go to the majority, et cetera, but that will be evolving and coming out in time as to what the precise arrangements are. But these are very, very good in terms of our ability; out ability, for example, to snap back, if called upon to do so, will be there.
QUESTION: And the access on the covert side that you have yet to negotiate the kind of things you need to achieve between now and July 1st to --
SECRETARY MONIZ: Those are largely in place in terms of the access, as I mentioned, including unprecedented access in terms of the entire supply chain. I mentioned uranium mines. There’s also continuous surveillance of centrifuge manufacturing plants. So it is really quite a strong arrangement.
MR. EARNEST: Jim.
QUESTIONS: Two quick questions. You said that -- which I don't really understand -- they’re going to continue to produce plutonium, small amounts of it, and they’ll send it out of the country. Why produce it at all if you're going to send it out of the country?
SECRETARY MONIZ: Because, I should add, that any nuclear reactor by its nature produces plutonium. Our power reactors in the United States produce plutonium as they operate. That's unavoidable, okay? The question is whether one optimizes for producing plutonium, especially a weapons-grade. And I'm saying this redesigned reactor will not do that, and it will produce very small amounts. You cannot avoid it at some level, but it will produce small amounts and it will go out of the country anyway.
QUESTION: After your difficult negotiations, are you convinced that the Iranians are, in fact, content to only produce peaceful nuclear power, that this is their goal as they say it is? Do you, as one of the chief negotiators, trust their motives?
SECRETARY MONIZ: This is not built upon trust. This is built upon hardnosed requirements in terms of limitations on what they do at various timescales and on the access and transparency.
QUESTION: But are they trying to at any time put in measures that would allow them to continue to produce weapons-grade uranium? Do you see an effort on their part to somehow save a pathway?
SECRETARY MONIZ: First of all, I should reemphasize, they have not produced weapons-grade uranium. They did produce earlier up to 20 percent, which is still considered low -- it's the limit of low-enriched uranium. But I would say the answer to that is, no. Clearly, the negotiation was tough in terms of specific parameters, but we just held to it -- sorry -- like the one-year breakout period is an absolute, unshakeable requirement. We can shift around a little bit, stockpile number of uranium and number of centrifuges. But that was the nature of it.
QUESTION: So at the end of this, they’ll be held to this and there’s not going to be any wiggle room, there’s not going to be any subject to interpretation? It seems right now a lot is seemingly up to interpretation whether you're in Washington or in Tehran.
SECRETARY MONIZ: Well, no, I disagree with that in the sense -- in fact, going back to the very first question -- that there’s no doubt that right now there’s a different narrative, but not in conflict with what’s written down, just selective. However, if you look at our parameter sheet -- I don't know if you have seen that, it's four pages of bullets. And what is the reaction that we are receiving, and I think quite appropriately, is a certain level of amazement at the specificity. We got numbers, and those have got to go into the agreement. Very specific and comprehensive.
QUESTION: The White House has made clear that you're open to having Congress have some way to express their views about this. But the specific proposals put forward by a lot of members of Congress about voting on a deal, that kind of thing, the President has rejected. So I'm wondering if you could give us an example of a way that Congress could have a role beyond just listening to briefings from you all…
MR. EARNEST: The White House does take very seriously, and across the administration we take very seriously the responsibility that we have to engage with Congress throughout this process. And that's what we have done. That started years ago when Congress passed tough sanctions against Iran that were instrumental to building an international coalition that put enormous pressure on the Iranian economy. That is what we believe led to Iran sitting down at the negotiating table and to actually engaging in conversations that were constructive.
Throughout that process, we’ve kept Congress in the loop on those negotiations. And just in the last three or four days since an agreement was announced, there have been a substantial number of telephone conversations, starting from the President on down -- other senior members of the President’s national security team, the Secretary of State, I believe Secretary Moniz even made some telephone calls, the Vice President, the White House Chief of Staff, others who have made calls to members of Congress to make sure that they actually understand the details of what’s been agreed to. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that we continue to believe that while Congress, certainly understandably, should understand what we're working on here, that it's the responsibility of the President of the United States -- any President of the United States -- to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. This is something that our Founding Fathers envisioned. This has been true of Democratic and Republican Presidents back through history. And this kind of effort to reach a diplomatic agreement about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is consistent with that history.
Now, the third thing is that Congress will at some point have to vote to remove the sanctions that they put in place. That is not something that the President of the United States can do unilaterally. But what Congress envisioned in their legislation -- they wrote into the bill, into the sanctions bill, waiver authority for the President of the United States to relax some aspects of the sanctions in pursuit of a diplomatic agreement.
So, in effect, Josh, what we're planning to do is to implement this agreement consistent with exactly the way Congress described. Now, there are some in Congress who, you point out, are now suggesting that they have changed their mind and they would rather weigh in on this agreement in a different way. But because of the longstanding precedent of the President of the United States being the chief negotiator for the United States, and the fact that we know a lot of Republicans in Congress are only using a vote like that -- or proposing a vote like this, because they oppose the deal in the first place.
QUESTION: But, Josh, it’s not just Republicans. I mean, it’s quite a few prominent Democrats on foreign policy.
MR. EARNEST: But to be clear, what I was saying about Republicans -- it’s Republicans who have been most forceful in denouncing this agreement, and those are the people that I’m referring to when I say that they’re trying to use this vote as cover to just try to undermine the agreement. You’re right that there are other Democrats who have spoken up, saying that Congress should have the opportunity to weigh in on the deal. And what we have said is, look, it is clearly within the purview of the President of the United States to conduct foreign policy, and we do believe that Congress should play their rightful role in terms of ultimately deciding whether or not the sanctions that Congress passed into law should be removed.
QUESTION: And if they [lawmakers] decide they don’t want to remove the sanctions, it actually doesn’t matter because the President already has authority under the existing sanctions to waive them by himself. I mean, is that an accurate synopsis of the role that you see for Congress?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I would just tailor the last part of what you said, because this is important as well -- that we would envision a scenario where after Iran has already demonstrated sustained compliance over a long period of time, then we would contemplate a situation where we would dismantle the sanctions architecture that did apply so much pressure to the Iranian economy. And that is something that only Congress could do.
I don’t want to speak for the Iranian regime, but presumably that’s something that they would like to see. They wouldn’t just want to see a waiver; they’d actually like to see that sanctions architecture dismantled -- and I think for understandable reasons -- frankly, because they know that as long as that sanctions architecture is in place, the President with a stroke of a pen, at a moment’s notice, could snap those sanctions back into place. And that is part of what Congress originally envisioned when they passed sanctions legislation. It’s also part of what this administration envisions for holding Iran to account. Because we have said that if we detect, based on the intrusive inspections plan that we have for Iran’s nuclear program -- if we detect that they are deviating from the plan, then we can at a moment’s notice snap those sanctions back into place.
QUESTION: [I]n Tehran, they’re describing the way those sanctions will be lifted as an immediate timeline, whereas what we’re hearing here is that there’s going to have to be some results before sanctions are lifted. Can you explain the discrepancy between those timelines? And is the President concerned about that difference and whether or not there will be an agreement before the end of June?
MR. EARNEST: Well, Julia, this issue that you have highlighted is one of those that still needs to be negotiated. There are still details about the phase-out, if you will, of the sanctions that have not yet been agreed to. And it is the strong view of the administration that it would not be wise, and it would not be in the interest of the international community, to simply take away sanctions -- take away all of the sanctions on day one.
It is our view that, based on Iran’s history, that it would be most conducive to the success of the agreement for Iran to continue to have an incentive for complying with the agreement. And that is why we believe that this sort of phased approach is the best one, and it certainly is one that we will insist upon. There are many of those who are sitting around the negotiating table -- on our side of the negotiating table -- who share that view. And that’s what we will insist upon.
The reasons that you’re hearing a slightly different message out of Iran is that this is -- the details of this arrangement have not yet been agreed to. … The Iranians are insisting that every sanction should be removed on day one. The President has forcefully advocated in a way that’s consistent with the thinking of the international community that what we should see is a phased reduction in sanctions to ensure that Iran continues to comply with the agreement and continues to have an incentive to comply with the agreement.
QUESTION: So there is no bill that could be offered, some sort of accommodation that suggests Congress is getting its proper oversight role and the administration gets to conduct its foreign policy, that you could see the administration signing off on this before June 30th?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I wouldn’t be in a position of sort of ruling out hypotheticals like that. But certainly the legislation that’s being most actively discussed on Capitol Hill right now is the legislation that Senator Corker has put forward.
And, again, I’ll mention that Senator Corker is somebody who has considered this issue in a very principled way. But in this fashion we have a pretty strong disagreement with him -- because in the mind of the President, it could potentially interfere with the ongoing negotiations that are slated to continue through June.
It also could interfere with the ability of the United States to implement the agreement successfully. And it does interfere with a scope of responsibilities that it’s clearly within the purview of the President of the United States. So we’ve made clear about what our differences are with the piece of legislation that’s been most actively discussed on Capitol Hill.
Hillary's running for president because everyday Americans need a champion—and she wants to be that champion. Watch her announcement video to kick off the campaign. http://hillaryclinton.com/join/
*
Transcript: Hillary Clinton Announces Run for President
Apr 12, 2015
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm getting ready for a lot of things, a lot of things.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's spring, so we're starting to get the gardens ready and my tomatoes are legendary here in my own neighborhood.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My daughter is about to start kindergarten next year. And so we're moving, just so she can belong to a better school.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKING IN SPANISH WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLE: My brother and I are starting our first business.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After five years of raising my children, I am now going back to work.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Every day, we're trying to get more and more ready and more prepared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A baby boy coming your way.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right now, I'm applying for jobs. It's a look into what the real world will look like after college.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm getting married this summer to someone I really care about.
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: I'm going to be in a play and I'm going to be in a fish costume. The little tiny fishes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm getting ready to retire soon. Retirement means reinventing yourself in many ways.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, we've been doing a lot of home renovations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But most importantly, we really just want to teach our dog to quit eating the trash.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And so we have high hopes for 2015, that that's going to happen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've started a new career recently. This is a fifth-generation company, which means a lot to me. This country was founded on hard work and it really feels good to be a part of that.
HILLARY CLINTON: I'm getting ready to do something, too. I'm running for president. Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.
Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion. So you can do more than just get by, you can get ahead and stay ahead, because when families are strong, America is strong.
So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote, because it's your time and I hope you'll join me on this journey.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made her first visit to South Carolina for her 2016 campaign. She highlighted her goals for achieving equal pay for women and talked about broadening the middle class and being a champion for working class Americans.
This speech at the Columbia Marriott Hotel was the keynote address at the South Carolina House Democratic Women’s Caucus and the South Carolina Democratic Women’s Council [ http://scdwc.org/ ]’s Third Annual Day in Blue. (Duration: 47:43)
2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke at Texas Southern University, a historically black college in Houston. In her speech she outlined her proposals for improving the voting process. Her ideas included automatic voter registration when citizens turn 18, expanded in-person early voting, and restoring voting rights to felons after serving their terms. She also urged Congress to restore parts of the Voting Rights Act. (Duration: 57:54 [complete event, at which Hillary accepted the Barbara Jordan Gold Medallion for Leadership; her comments beginning at the 18:00 mark])
Over a four-decade career in public service, Hillary Clinton has fought for children and families who needed a champion. She doesn't give up, and she doesn't quit. Everyday Americans need a fighter like her in the White House.
Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign Launch Speech
June 13, 2015
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held the first major event in her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination at a rally in which she outlined why she was making a second run for the presidency. At the rally held in Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City she laid out a theme of “four fights” involving the economy, families, increased opportunities, and democracy. She talked about her upbringing and ideals, and topics including the divide between the rich and poor, the need to strengthen middle class families, and the foreign policy challenges the country faces. She was joined onstage by her husband and daughter at the end of her speech. (Duration: 1:20:04 [complete rally])
*
Transcript: Read the Full Text of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Launch Speech
June 13, 2015 As prepared for delivery
CLINTON: “Thank you! Oh, thank you all! Thank you so very, very much.
It is wonderful to be here with all of you.
To be in New York with my family, with so many friends, including many New Yorkers who gave me the honor of serving them in the Senate for eight years.
To be right across the water from the headquarters of the United Nations, where I represented our country many times.
To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt’s enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be.
And in a place… with absolutely no ceilings.
You know, President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired presidents who followed. One is the man I served as Secretary of State, Barack Obama, and another is my husband, Bill Clinton.
Two Democrats guided by the — Oh, that will make him so happy. They were and are two Democrats guided by the fundamental American belief that real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all.
President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American answered. He said there’s no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America: “Equality of opportunity… Jobs for those who can work… Security for those who need it… The ending of special privilege for the few… The preservation of civil liberties for all… a wider and constantly rising standard of living.”
That still sounds good to me.
It’s America’s basic bargain. If you do your part you ought to be able to get ahead. And when everybody does their part, America gets ahead too.
That bargain inspired generations of families, including my own.
It’s what kept my grandfather going to work in the same Scranton lace mill every day for 50 years.
It’s what led my father to believe that if he scrimped and saved, his small business printing drapery fabric in Chicago could provide us with a middle-class life. And it did.
When President Clinton honored the bargain, we had the longest peacetime expansion in history, a balanced budget, and the first time in decades we all grew together, with the bottom 20 percent of workers increasing their incomes by the same percentage as the top 5 percent.
When President Obama honored the bargain, we pulled back from the brink of Depression, saved the auto industry, provided health care to 16 million working people, and replaced the jobs we lost faster than after a financial crash.
But, it’s not 1941, or 1993, or even 2009. We face new challenges in our economy and our democracy.
We’re still working our way back from a crisis that happened because time-tested values were replaced by false promises.
Instead of an economy built by every American, for every American, we were told that if we let those at the top pay lower taxes and bend the rules, their success would trickle down to everyone else.
What happened?
Well, instead of a balanced budget with surpluses that could have eventually paid off our national debt, the Republicans twice cut taxes for the wealthiest, borrowed money from other countries to pay for two wars, and family incomes dropped. You know where we ended up.
Except it wasn’t the end.
As we have since our founding, Americans made a new beginning.
You worked extra shifts, took second jobs, postponed home repairs… you figured out how to make it work. And now people are beginning to think about their future again – going to college, starting a business, buying a house, finally being able to put away something for retirement.
So we’re standing again. But, we all know we’re not yet running the way America should.
You see corporations making record profits, with CEOs making record pay, but your paychecks have barely budged.
While many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined. And, often paying a lower tax rate.
So, you have to wonder: “When does my hard work pay off? When does my family get ahead?”
“When?”
I say now.
Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers.
Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations.
Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain too.
You brought our country back.
Now it’s time — your time to secure the gains and move ahead.
And, you know what?
America can’t succeed unless you succeed.
That is why I am running for President of the United States.
Here, on Roosevelt Island, I believe we have a continuing rendezvous with destiny. Each American and the country we cherish.
I’m running to make our economy work for you and for every American.
For the successful and the struggling.
For the innovators and inventors.
For those breaking barriers in technology and discovering cures for diseases.
For the factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day.
For the nurses who work the night shift.
For the truckers who drive for hours and the farmers who feed us.
For the veterans who served our country.
For the small business owners who took a risk.
For everyone who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out.
I’m not running for some Americans, but for all Americans.
Our country’s challenges didn’t begin with the Great Recession and they won’t end with the recovery.
For decades, Americans have been buffeted by powerful currents.
Advances in technology and the rise of global trade have created whole new areas of economic activity and opened new markets for our exports, but they have also displaced jobs and undercut wages for millions of Americans.
The financial industry and many multi-national corporations have created huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too little on long-term value… too much on complex trading schemes and stock buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs, and fair compensation.
Our political system is so paralyzed by gridlock and dysfunction that most Americans have lost confidence that anything can actually get done. And they’ve lost trust in the ability of both government and Big Business to change course.
Now, we can blame historic forces beyond our control for some of this, but the choices we’ve made as a nation, leaders and citizens alike, have also played a big role.
Our next President must work with Congress and every other willing partner across our entire country. And I will do just that — to turn the tide so these currents start working for us more than against us.
At our best, that’s what Americans do. We’re problem solvers, not deniers. We don’t hide from change, we harness it.
But we can’t do that if we go back to the top-down economic policies that failed us before.
Americans have come too far to see our progress ripped away.
Now, there may be some new voices in the presidential Republican choir, but they’re all singing the same old song…
A song called “Yesterday.”
You know the one — all our troubles look as though they’re here to stay… and we need a place to hide away… They believe in yesterday.
And you’re lucky I didn’t try singing that, too, I’ll tell you!
These Republicans trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations without regard for how that will make income inequality even worse.
We’ve heard this tune before. And we know how it turns out.
Ask many of these candidates about climate change, one of the defining threats of our time, and they’ll say: “I’m not a scientist.” Well, then, why don’t they start listening to those who are?
They pledge to wipe out tough rules on Wall Street, rather than rein in the banks that are still too risky, courting future failures. In a case that can only be considered mass amnesia.
They want to take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any credible alternative.
They shame and blame women, rather than respect our right to make our own reproductive health decisions.
They want to put immigrants, who work hard and pay taxes, at risk of deportation.
And they turn their backs on gay people who love each other.
Fundamentally, they reject what it takes to build an inclusive economy. It takes an inclusive society. What I once called “a village” that has a place for everyone.
Now, my values and a lifetime of experiences have given me a different vision for America.
I believe that success isn’t measured by how much the wealthiest Americans have, but by how many children climb out of poverty…
How many start-ups and small businesses open and thrive…
How many young people go to college without drowning in debt…
How many people find a good job…
How many families get ahead and stay ahead.
I didn’t learn this from politics. I learned it from my own family.
My mother taught me that everybody needs a chance and a champion. She knew what it was like not to have either one.
Her own parents abandoned her, and by 14 she was out on her own, working as a housemaid. Years later, when I was old enough to understand, I asked what kept her going.
You know what her answer was? Something very simple: Kindness from someone who believed she mattered.
The 1st grade teacher who saw she had nothing to eat at lunch and, without embarrassing her, brought extra food to share.
The woman whose house she cleaned letting her go to high school so long as her work got done. That was a bargain she leapt to accept.
And, because some people believed in her, she believed in me.
That’s why I believe with all my heart in America and in the potential of every American.
To meet every challenge.
To be resilient… no matter what the world throws at you.
To solve the toughest problems.
I believe we can do all these things because I’ve seen it happen.
As a young girl, I signed up at my Methodist Church to babysit the children of Mexican farmworkers, while their parents worked in the fields on the weekends. And later, as a law student, I advocated for Congress to require better working and living conditions for farm workers whose children deserved better opportunities.
My first job out of law school was for the Children’s Defense Fund. I walked door-to-door to find out how many children with disabilities couldn’t go to school, and to help build the case for a law guaranteeing them access to education.
As a leader of the Legal Services Corporation, I defended the right of poor people to have a lawyer. And saw lives changed because an abusive marriage ended or an illegal eviction stopped.
In Arkansas, I supervised law students who represented clients in courts and prisons, organized scholarships for single parents going to college, led efforts for better schools and health care, and personally knew the people whose lives were improved.
As Senator, I had the honor of representing brave firefighters, police officers, EMTs, construction workers, and volunteers who ran toward danger on 9/11 and stayed there, becoming sick themselves.
It took years of effort, but Congress finally approved the health care they needed.
There are so many faces and stories that I carry with me of people who gave their best and then needed help themselves.
Just weeks ago, I met another person like that, a single mom juggling a job and classes at community college, while raising three kids.
She doesn’t expect anything to come easy. But she did ask me: What more can be done so it isn’t quite so hard for families like hers?
I want to be her champion and your champion.
If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you.
The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top.
To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it.
The middle class needs more growth and more fairness. Growth and fairness go together. For lasting prosperity, you can’t have one without the other.
Is this possible in today’s world?
I believe it is or I wouldn’t be standing here.
Do I think it will be easy? Of course not.
But, here’s the good news: There are allies for change everywhere who know we can’t stand by while inequality increases, wages stagnate, and the promise of America dims. We should welcome the support of all Americans who want to go forward together with us.
There are public officials who know Americans need a better deal.
Business leaders who want higher pay for employees, equal pay for women and no discrimination against the LGBT community either.
There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing.
There are union leaders who are investing their own pension funds in putting people to work to build tomorrow’s economy. We need everyone to come to the table and work with us.
In the coming weeks, I’ll propose specific policies to:
Reward businesses who invest in long term value rather than the quick buck – because that leads to higher growth for the economy, higher wages for workers, and yes, bigger profits, everybody will have a better time.
I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not quick trades or stashing profits overseas.
I will give new incentives to companies that give their employees a fair share of the profits their hard work earns.
We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan.
We will restore America to the cutting edge of innovation, science, and research by increasing both public and private investments.
And we will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
Developing renewable power – wind, solar, advanced biofuels…
Building cleaner power plants, smarter electric grids, greener buildings…
Using additional fees and royalties from fossil fuel extraction to protect the environment…
And ease the transition for distressed communities to a more diverse and sustainable economic future from coal country to Indian country, from small towns in the Mississippi Delta to the Rio Grande Valley to our inner cities, we have to help our fellow Americans.
Now, this will create millions of jobs and countless new businesses, and enable America to lead the global fight against climate change.
We will also connect workers to their jobs and businesses. Customers will have a better chance to actually get where they need and get what they desire with roads, railways, bridges, airports, ports, and broadband brought up to global standards for the 21st century.
We will establish an infrastructure bank and sell bonds to pay for some of these improvements.
Now, building an economy for tomorrow also requires investing in our most important asset, our people, beginning with our youngest.
That’s why I will propose that we make preschool and quality childcare available to every child in America.
And I want you to remember this, because to me, this is absolutely the most-compelling argument why we should do this. Research tells us how much early learning in the first five years of life can impact lifelong success. In fact, 80 percent of the brain is developed by age three.
One thing I’ve learned is that talent is universal – you can find it anywhere – but opportunity is not. Too many of our kids never have the chance to learn and thrive as they should and as we need them to.
Our country won’t be competitive or fair if we don’t help more families give their kids the best possible start in life.
So let’s staff our primary and secondary schools with teachers who are second to none in the world, and receive the respect they deserve for sparking the love of learning in every child.
Let’s make college affordable and available to all …and lift the crushing burden of student debt.
Let’s provide lifelong learning for workers to gain or improve skills the economy requires, setting up many more Americans for success.
Now, the second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong.
And today’s families face new and unique pressures. Parents need more support and flexibility to do their job at work and at home.
I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days.
I believe you should receive your work schedule with enough notice to arrange childcare or take college courses to get ahead.
I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety.
That you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there when you need it, without breaking the bank.
I believe we should offer paid family leave so no one has to choose between keeping a paycheck and caring for a new baby or a sick relative.
And it is way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job — and women of color often making even less.
This isn’t a women’s issue. It’s a family issue. Just like raising the minimum wage is a family issue. Expanding childcare is a family issue. Declining marriage rates is a family issue. The unequal rates of incarceration is a family issue. Helping more people with an addiction or a mental health problem get help is a family issue.
In America, every family should feel like they belong.
So we should offer hard-working, law-abiding immigrant families a path to citizenship. Not second-class status.
And, we should ban discrimination against LGBT Americans and their families so they can live, learn, marry, and work just like everybody else.
You know, America’s diversity, our openness, our devotion to human rights and freedom is what’s drawn so many to our shores. What’s inspired people all over the world. I know. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
And these are also qualities that prepare us well for the demands of a world that is more interconnected than ever before.
So we have a third fight: to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity.
No other country on Earth is better positioned to thrive in the 21st century. No other country is better equipped to meet traditional threats from countries like Russia, North Korea, and Iran – and to deal with the rise of new powers like China.
No other country is better prepared to meet emerging threats from cyber attacks, transnational terror networks like ISIS, and diseases that spread across oceans and continents.
As your President, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe.
And if you look over my left shoulder you can see the new World Trade Center soaring skyward.
As a Senator from New York, I dedicated myself to getting our city and state the help we needed to recover. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I worked to maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, strongest military, ready for today’s threats and tomorrow’s.
And when our brave men and women come home from war or finish their service, I’ll see to it that they get not just the thanks of a grateful nation, but the care and benefits they’ve earned.
I’ve stood up to adversaries like Putin and reinforced allies like Israel. I was in the Situation Room on the day we got bin Laden.
But, I know — I know we have to be smart as well as strong.
Meeting today’s global challenges requires every element of America’s power, including skillful diplomacy, economic influence, and building partnerships to improve lives around the world with people, not just their governments.
There are a lot of trouble spots in the world, but there’s a lot of good news out there too.
I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we exercise creative and confident leadership that enables us to shape global events rather than be shaped by them.
And we all know that in order to be strong in the world, though, we first have to be strong at home. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans.
We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people.
We need Justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections.
If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That’s why I’ve proposed universal, automatic registration and expanded early voting.
I’ll fight back against Republican efforts to disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities, and people of color.
What part of democracy are they afraid of?
No matter how easy we make it to vote, we still have to give Americans something worth voting for.
Government is never going to have all the answers – but it has to be smarter, simpler, more efficient, and a better partner.
That means access to advanced technology so government agencies can more effectively serve their customers, the American people.
We need expertise and innovation from the private sector to help cut waste and streamline services.
There’s so much that works in America. For every problem we face, someone somewhere in America is solving it. Silicon Valley cracked the code on sharing and scaling a while ago. Many states are pioneering new ways to deliver services. I want to help Washington catch up.
To do that, we need a political system that produces results by solving problems that hold us back, not one overwhelmed by extreme partisanship and inflexibility.
Now, I’ll always seek common ground with friend and opponent alike. But I’ll also stand my ground when I must.
That’s something I did as Senator and Secretary of State — whether it was working with Republicans to expand health care for children and for our National Guard, or improve our foster care and adoption system, or pass a treaty to reduce the number of Russian nuclear warheads that could threaten our cities — and it’s something I will always do as your President.
We Americans may differ, bicker, stumble, and fall; but we are at our best when we pick each other up, when we have each other’s back.
Like any family, our American family is strongest when we cherish what we have in common, and fight back against those who would drive us apart.
People all over the world have asked me: “How could you and President Obama work together after you fought so hard against each other in that long campaign?”
Now, that is an understandable question considering that in many places, if you lose an election you could get imprisoned or exiled – even killed – not hired as Secretary of State.
But President Obama asked me to serve, and I accepted because we both love our country. That’s how we do it in America.
With that same spirit, together, we can win these four fights.
We can build an economy where hard work is rewarded.
We can strengthen our families.
We can defend our country and increase our opportunities all over the world.
And we can renew the promise of our democracy.
If we all do our part. In our families, in our businesses, unions, houses of worship, schools, and, yes, in the voting booth.
I want you to join me in this effort. Help me build this campaign and make it your own.
Talk to your friends, your family, your neighbors.
Text “JOIN” J-O-I-N to 4-7-2-4-6.
Go to hillaryclinton.com and sign up to make calls and knock on doors.
It’s no secret that we’re going up against some pretty powerful forces that will do and spend whatever it takes to advance a very different vision for America. But I’ve spent my life fighting for children, families, and our country. And I’m not stopping now.
You know, I know how hard this job is. I’ve seen it up close and personal.
All our Presidents come into office looking so vigorous. And then we watch their hair grow grayer and grayer.
Well, I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman President in the history of the United States!
And the first grandmother as well.
And one additional advantage: You’re won’t see my hair turn white in the White House. I’ve been coloring it for years!
So I’m looking forward to a great debate among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I’m not running to be a President only for those Americans who already agree with me. I want to be a President for all Americans.
And along the way, I’ll just let you in on this little secret. I won’t get everything right. Lord knows I’ve made my share of mistakes. Well, there’s no shortage of people pointing them out!
And I certainly haven’t won every battle I’ve fought. But leadership means perseverance and hard choices. You have to push through the setbacks and disappointments and keep at it.
I think you know by now that I’ve been called many things by many people — “quitter” is not one of them.
Like so much else in my life, I got this from my mother.
When I was a girl, she never let me back down from any bully or barrier. In her later years, Mom lived with us, and she was still teaching me the same lessons. I’d come home from a hard day at the Senate or the State Department, sit down with her at the small table in our breakfast nook, and just let everything pour out. And she would remind me why we keep fighting, even when the odds are long and the opposition is fierce.
I can still hear her saying: “Life’s not about what happens to you, it’s about what you do with what happens to you – so get back out there.”
She lived to be 92 years old, and I often think about all the battles she witnessed over the course of the last century — all the progress that was won because Americans refused to give up or back down.
She was born on June 4, 1919 — before women in America had the right to vote. But on that very day, after years of struggle, Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment that would change that forever.
The story of America is a story of hard-fought, hard-won progress. And it continues today. New chapters are being written by men and women who believe that all of us – not just some, but all – should have the chance to live up to our God-given potential.
Not only because we’re a tolerant country, or a generous country, or a compassionate country, but because we’re a better, stronger, more prosperous country when we harness the talent, hard work, and ingenuity of every single American.
I wish my mother could have been with us longer. I wish she could have seen Chelsea become a mother herself. I wish she could have met Charlotte.
I wish she could have seen the America we’re going to build together.
An America, where if you do your part, you reap the rewards.
Where we don’t leave anyone out, or anyone behind.
An America where a father can tell his daughter: yes, you can be anything you want to be. Even President of the United States.
Thank you all. God bless you. And may God bless America.
Hillary Clinton at the 2015 U.S. Conference of Mayors
Published on Jun 20, 2015 by Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton spoke at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors on the need to address systemic racism in the wake of the shooting in Charleston.
Hillary Clinton Community Meeting in Florissant, Missouri
June 23, 2015
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton met with community members at the Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Missouri, near Ferguson. She addressed the June 17, 2015, shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Topics included gun background checks and the Confederate flag. (Duration: 1:34:09)
Hillary has fought for access to quality, affordable health care for more than 25 years. She'll continue to defend the Affordable Care Act to keep this promise for every American. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/signup/health-care/
Today was a big day, but there is so much more that needs to be done. Watch and share this video of South Carolinians weighing in on what today means to them and the future of South Carolina.
2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton outlined her economic policy plan at The New School, a progressive university, in New York City. In her remarks she said that she would work to build an economy that benefits everyone. She also discussed comprehensive immigration reform as being good economic policy for the U.S. (Duration: 55:42)
Hillary Clinton Transcript: Building the ‘Growth and Fairness Economy’
Jul 13, 2015
CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, President Van Zant, and thanks to everyone at the New School for welcoming us today. I’m delighted to be back.
You know, over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to listen to Americans’ concerns about an economy that still isn’t delivering for them. It’s not delivering the way that it should. It still seems, to most Americans that I have spoken with, that it is stacked for those at the top.
But I’ve also heard about the hopes that people have for their future — going to college without drowning in debt; starting that small business they’ve always dreamed about; getting a job that pays well enough to support a family and provide for a secure retirement.
Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again.
For 35 years, Republicans have argued that if we give more wealth to those at top by cutting their taxes and letting big corporations write their own rules, it will trickle down, it will trickle down to everyone else. Yet every time they have a chance to try that approach, it explodes the national debt, concentrates wealth even more and does practically nothing to help hard-working Americans.
Twice now in the past 20 years, a Democratic president has had to come in and clean up the mess left behind.
(APPLAUSE)
I think the results speak for themselves. Under President Clinton — I like the sound of that — America saw the longest peacetime expansion in our history.
(APPLAUSE)
Nearly 23 million jobs, a balanced budget and a surplus for the future, and most importantly, incomes rose across the board, not just for those already at the top. Eight years later, President Obama and the American people’s hard work pulled us back from the brink of depression. President Obama saved the auto industry, imposed new rules on Wall Street and provided health care to 16 million Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
Now today — today, as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer- term challenges come into focus, I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy. You can’t have one without the other. We can’t create enough jobs and new businesses without more growth, and we can’t build strong families and support our consumer economy without more fairness. We need both.
Because while America standing again, we are not yet running the way we should. Corporate profits are at near record highs and Americans are working as hard as ever. But paychecks had nearly budged in real terms. Families today are stretched in so many directions, and so are their budgets. Out of pocket costs of health care, child care, hearing for aging parents, are rising a lot faster than wages.
I hear this everywhere I go. A single mom talked about juggling a job and classes at community college while raising three kids. She doesn’t expect anything to come easy. But if she got a raise, everything would not be quite so hard.
The grandmother who works around the clock providing child care to other people’s kids. She’s proud of her work, but the pay is fairly enough to live on, especially with the soaring price of her prescription drugs.
The young entrepreneur whose dream of buying a bowling alley where he worked as a teenager was nearly derailed by his student debt. If he can grow his business, he can pay off his debt and pay his employees, including himself, more, too.
Millions of hardworking Americans tell similar stories. Wages need to rise to keep up with cost, paychecks need to grow. Families who work hard and do their part deserve to get ahead and stay ahead. The defining economic challenge of our time clear. We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans, so they can afford a middle-class life. We must drive steady income growth that lifts up families, and lifts up our country. And that…
(APPLAUSE)
And that will be my mission, from the first day I am president to the last. I…
(APPLAUSE)
I will get up every day thinking about the families of America, like the family I came from, with a hard-working dad who started a small business and scrimped, and saved, and gave us a good middle- class life. I will be thinking about all the people that I represented in New York and the stories that they told me, and that I worked with them to improve. I will, as your president take on this challenge against the backdrop of major changes in our economy and the global economy that did not start with the Recession and will not end with the recovery.
You know, advances in technology and expanding global trade have created new areas of commercial activity and opened new markets for our exports. Too often they are polarizing our economy, benefiting high skilled workers, but displacing and downgrading blue-collar jobs and other mid-level jobs that used to provide solid incomes for millions of Americans.
Today’s marketplace focuses too much on the short-term, like second to second financial trading, and quarterly earnings reports, and too little on long-term investments. Meanwhile, many Americans are making extra money renting out a small room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car. This on-demand, or so-called gig economy is creating exciting economies and unleashing innovation.
But it is also raising hard questions about work-place protections and what a good job will look like in the future.
So, all of these trends are real and none, none is going away. But they do not determine our destiny. The choices we make as a nation matter. And the choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage for what American life in the middle class and our economy will be like in this century.
As president, I will work with every possible partner to turn the tide to make these currents of change start working for us more than against us, to strengthen, not hollow out, the American middle class. Because I think at our best, that’s what Americans do. We are problem solvers, not deniers. We don’t hide from change; we harness it.
The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hardworking families, not just for successful CEOs and money managers and not some just arbitrary growth targets untethered to people’s lives and livelihoods.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to see our economy work for the struggling, the striving and the successful. We’re not going to find all the answers we need today in the playbooks of the past, we can’t go back to the old policies that failed us before, nor can we just replay the successes.
Today is not 1993. It’s not 2009. So we need solutions for the big challenges we face now.
So today, I’m proposing an agenda to raise incomes for hardworking Americans, an agenda for strong growth, fair growth and long-term growth.
Let me begin with strong growth. More growth means more jobs and more new businesses. More jobs give people choices about where to work.
And employers have to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to compete with each other to hire new workers and keep the productive ones. That’s why economists tell us that getting closer to full employment is crucial for raising incomes.
Small businesses create more than 60 percent of new American jobs on net, so they have to be a top priority. I’ve said I want to be the small-business president, and I mean it. And throughout this campaign, I’m going to be talking about how we empower entrepreneurs with less red tape, easier access to capital, tax relief and simplification.
I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas.
(APPLAUSE)
And I know it’s not always how we think about this, but another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive immigration reform.
(APPLAUSE)
I want you to hear this. Bringing millions of hardworking people into the formal economy would increase our gross domestic product by an estimated $700 billion over 10 years.
(APPLAUSE)
Then there are the new public investments that will help establish businesses and entrepreneurs, create the next generation of high-paying jobs.
You know, when we get Americans moving, we get our country moving. So let’s establish an infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds…
(APPLAUSE)
… channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports.
(APPLAUSE)
And let’s built those faster broadband networks and make sure there’s a greater diversity of providers so consumers have more choice.
(APPLAUSE)
And really, there’s no excuse not to make greater investments in cleaner renewable energy right now.
(APPLAUSE)
Our economy obviously runs on energy, and the time has come to make America the clean-energy superpower. I advocate that because these investments will create millions of jobs, save us money in the long run and help us meet the threats of climate change.
And let’s fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries, just as the project to sequence the human genome did in the 1990s and President Obama’s initiatives on precision medicine and brain research will do in the coming years.
I will set ambitious goals in all of these areas in the months ahead.
But today, let me emphasize another key ingredient of strong growth that often goes overlooked and undervalued: breaking down barriers so more Americans participate more fully in the workforce, especially women.
(APPLAUSE)
We are in a global competition, as I’m sure you have noticed. And we cant afford to leave talent on the sidelines. But that’s exactly what we’re doing today. When we leave people out or write them off, we not only shortchange them and their dreams, we shortchange our country and our future.
The movement of women into the American workforce over the past 40 years was responsible for more than $3.5 trillion in economic growth. But that progress has stalled.
The United States used to rank 7th out of 24 advanced countries in women’s labor force participation. By 2013, we had dropped to 19th. That represents a lot of unused potential for our economy and for American families.
Studies show that nearly a third of this decline relative to other countries is because they’re expanding family-friendly policies like paid leave and we are not.
We should be making it easier for Americans to be both good workers and good parents and caregivers. Women who want to work should be able to do so without worrying every day about how they’re going to take care of their children or what will happen if a family member gets sick.
You know, last year –
(APPLAUSE)
– last year while I was at the hospital here in Manhattan, waiting for little Charlotte to make her grand entrance, one of the nurses said, thank you for fighting for paid leave. And we began to talk about it. She sees firsthand what it means for herself and her colleagues as well as for the working parents that she helps take care of.
It’s time to recognize that quality, affordable childcare is not a luxury. It’s a growth strategy. And it’s way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job and women of color making even less.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, all this lost money adds up. And for some women, it’s thousands of dollars every year. Now I am well aware that for far too long these challenges have been dismissed by some as women’s issues. Well, those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, childcare are essential to our competitiveness and our growth. And we can do this in a way that doesn’t impose unfair burdens on businesses, especially small businesses. As president, I’ll fight to put families first, just like I have my entire career.
(APPLAUSE)
Now beyond strong growth, we also need fair growth and that will be the second key driver of raising incomes. The evidence is in. Inequality is a drag on our entire economy. So this is the problem we need to tackle. Now, you may have heard Governor Bush say Americans just need to work longer hours. Well, he must not have met very many American workers.
(APPLAUSE)
Let him tell that to the nurse who stands on her feet all day, or the teacher who in that classroom or the trucker who drives all night. Let him tell that to the fast worker marching in the streets for better pay. They do not need a lecture. They need a raise.
(APPLAUSE)
The truth is the current rules for our economy do reward some work, like financial trading, for example much more than other work, like actually building and selling things, the work that has always been the backbone of our economy. To get all incomes rising again, we need to strike a better balance. If you work hard, you ought to be a fairly. So, we do have to raise the minimum wage, and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime, and then we have to go further.
(APPLAUSE)
I will crack down on bosses who exploit employees by mis- classifying them as contractors or even steal their wages. To make paychecks stretch, we need to take on the major strains on family budgets. I will protect the Affordable Care Act and build on it to lower out-of-pocket health care costs.
(APPLAUSE)
And to make prescription drugs more affordable. We will help families look forward to retirement by defending and enhancing Social Security and making it easier to save for the future. Now, many of these proposals are time-tested and more than a little battle scarred. We need new ideas, as well, and one I believe in and will fight for is profit-sharing. Hard-working Americans deserve to benefit from the record corporate earnings they help produce.
So, I will produce ways to encourage companies to share profits with their employees. That is good for workers and good businesses. Studies show that profit sharing that gives everyone a stake in the company’s success can boost productivity and put money directly into employees’ pockets. It’s a win-win. Later this week in New Hampshire, I will have more to say about how we do this.
Another priority must be reforming our tax code. Now, we hear Republican candidates talk a lot about tax reform. But take a good look at their plans. Senator Rubio’s would cut taxes for households making around $3 million a year by almost $240,000, which is way more than three times the earnings of a typical family.
Well, that is a sure budget busting giveaway to the super wealthy, and that’s the kind of bad economics you are likely to hear from any of the candidates on the other side. I have a different take…
(APPLAUSE)
… guided license principles. First, hard-working families need and deserve tax relief and simplification. Second, those at the top have to pay their fair share. That’s why I support the Buffet Rule, which makes sure millionaires do not pay lower rates than their secretaries. I have called for closing the carried interest loophole, that lets wealthy financiers pay an artificially low rate.
And let’s agree that hugely successful companies that benefit from everything that America has to offer, should not be able to game the system and avoid paying their fair share, especially while companies who can’t afford high-priced lawyers and lobbyists end up paying more. (APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Alongside tax reform, it’s time to stand up to efforts across our country to undermine worker bargaining power, which has been proven again and again to drive up wages. Republican governors like Scott Walker have made their names stomping on workers’ rights, and practically all the Republican candidates hope to do the same as president. I will fight back against these mean-spirited, misguided attacks. Evidence –
(APPLAUSE)
– evidence shows that the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among men, so if we want to get serious about raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting union workers.
(APPLAUSE)
And let me just say a word here about trade. The Greek crisis as well as the Chinese stock market have reminded us that growth here at home and growth an ocean away are linked in a common global economy. Trade has been a major driver of the economy over recent decades, but it has also contributed to hollowing out our manufacturing base and many hard-working communities.
So we do need to set a high bar for trade agreements. We should support them if they create jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. And we should be prepared to walk away if they don’t. To create fair growth, we need to create opportunity for more Americans.
I love the saying by Abraham Lincoln who, in many ways, was not only the president who saved our union but the president who understood profoundly the importance of the middle class and the importance of government playing its role in providing opportunities. He talked about giving Americans a fair chance in the race of life. I believe that with all my heart, but I also believe it has to start really early, at birth.
High quality early learning, especially in the first five years, can set children on the course for future success and raise lifetime incomes by 25 percent. And –
(APPLAUSE)
– and I’m committed to seeing every 4-year-old in America have access to high quality pre-school in the next 10 years. But I want to do more. I want to call for a great outpouring of support from our faith community, our business community, our academic institutions, from philanthropy and civic groups and concerned citizens, to really help parents, particularly parents who are facing a lot of obstacles, to really help prepare their own children in that 0 to 4 age group.
Eighty percent of your brain is physically formed by the age of 3. That’s why families like mine read, talk and sing endlessly to our granddaughter. I’ve said that her first words are going to be enough with the reading and the talking and the singing.
(LAUGHTER)
But we do it not only because we love doing it, even though, I’ll admit, it’s embarrassing, you know, reading a book to a two-week-old or a six-week-old or a 10-week-old, but we do it because we understand it’s building her capacity for learning. And the research shows by the time she enters kindergarten, she will have heard 30 million more words than a child from a less advantaged background.
Think of what we are losing because we’re not doing everything we can to reach out to those families, and we know, again, from so much research here in the United States and around the world that that early help, that mentoring, that intervention to help those often stressed-out young moms understand more about what they can do and to avoid the difficulties that stand in the way of their being able to really get their child off to the best possible start.
We also have to invest in our students and our teachers at every level, and in the coming weeks and months, I will lay out specific steps to improve our schools, make college truly affordable and help Americans refinance their student debt.
And let’s embrace –
(APPLAUSE)
– let’s embrace the idea of lifelong learning. In an age of technological change, we need to provide pathways to get skills and credentials for new occupations and create online platforms to connect workers to jobs.
There are exciting efforts underway and I want to support and scale the ones that show results.
As we pursue all these policies, we cant forget our fellow Americans hit so hard and left behind by this changing world from the inner cities to coal country to Indian country.
Talent is universal; you find it everywhere. But opportunity is not. There are nearly 6 million young people aged 16 to 24 in America today who are not in school or at work. The numbers for young people of color are particularly staggering.
A quarter of young black men and nearly 15 percent of all Latino youth cannot find a job. We’ve got to do a better way of coming up to match the growing middle class incomes we want to generate with more pathways into the middle class.
I firmly believe that the best anti-poverty program is a job but that’s hard to say if there aren’t enough jobs for people that were trying to help lift themselves out of poverty.
That’s why Ive called for reviving the new markets tax credit and empowerment zones to create greater incentives to invest in poor and remote areas. When –
(APPLAUSE)
– when all Americans have the chance to study hard, work hard and share in our country’s prosperity, that’s fair growth. It’s what I’ve always believed in and it’s what I will fight for as president.
Now the third key driver of income, alongside strong growth and fair growth, must be long-term growth. Too many pressures in our economy push us toward short-termism. Many business leaders see this. They’ve talked to me about it.
One has called it the problem of quarterly capitalism. They say everything is focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price and the result is too little attention on the sources of long-term growth: research and development, physical capital and talent.
Net business investment, which includes things like factories, machines and research labs, have declined as a share of the economy.
In recent years some of our biggest companies have spent more than half their earnings to buy back their own stock and another third or more to pay dividends. That doesn’t leave a lot left to raise pay or invest in the workers who made those profits possible or to make new investments necessary to ensure a company’s future success.
These trends need to change. And I believe many business leaders are eager to embrace their responsibilities, not just to today’s share price but also to workers, communities and ultimately to our country and, indeed, our planet.
Now I’m not talking about charity; I’m talking about clear-eyed capitalism. Many companies have prospered by improving wages and training their workers that then yield higher productivity, better service and larger profits.
Now it’s easy to try to cut costs by holding down or even decreasing pay and other investments to inflate quarterly stock prices but I would argue that’s bad for business in the long run and it’s really bad for our country.
Workers are assets. Investing in them pays off; higher wages pay off. Training pays off. To help more companies do that, I proposed a $1,500 tax credit for every worker they train and hire. And I will soon be proposing a new plan to reform capital gains taxes to reward longer-term investments that create jobs, more than just quick trades.
(APPLAUSE)
I will also propose reforms to help CEOs and shareholders alike to focus on the next decade rather than just the next day.
(APPLAUSE)
Making sure stock buybacks aren’t being used only for an immediate boost in share prices; empowering outside investors who want to build companies, but discouraging cut and run shareholders who act more like old-school corporate raiders. And nowhere will the shift from short-term to long-term be more important than on Wall Street.
As a former senator from New York, I know firsthand the role that Wall Street can and should play in our economy, helping main street grow and prosper, and boosting new companies that make America more competitive globally.
But as we all know in the years before the crash, financial firms piled risk upon risk, and regulators in Washington either could not or would not keep up. I was alarmed by this gathering storm and called for addressing the risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight.
Under President Obama’s leadership we have imposed tough new rules that deal with some of the challenges on Wall Street. Those rules have been under assault by Republicans in Congress and those running for president. I will fight back against these attacks and protect the reforms we have made. We can do that, and still ease burdens on community banks to encourage responsible loans to local people and businesses they know and trust.
We also have to go beyond Dodd-Frank. Too many of our major financial institutions are still too complex and too risky. And the problems are not limited to the big banks that get all the headlines. Serious risks are emerging from institutions in the so-called shadow banking system, including hedge funds, high-frequency traders, non- bank finance companies. So many new kinds of entities, which receive little oversight at all.
Stories of misconduct by individuals and institutions in the financial industry are shocking. HSBC allowing drug cartels to launder money, five major banks pleading guilty to felony charges for conspiring to manipulate currency exchange and interest rates. There can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.
(APPLAUSE)
And while institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all, even when they have already pocketed the gains. This is wrong, and on my watch it will change. Over the course…
(APPLAUSE)
… over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans to rein in excessive risks on Wall Street and ensure that stock markets work for everyday investors, not just high-frequency traders and those with the best or fastest connections. I will appoint and empower regulators who understand that too big to fail is still too big a problem. We will ensure…
(APPLAUSE)
We will ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee. And we will also process individuals as well as firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrongdoing.
(APPLAUSE)
When the government recovers money from corporations or individuals for harming the public, it should go into a separate trust fund to benefit the public. It could, for example, help modernize infrastructure or even be returned directly to taxpayers.
Now, reform is never easy, but we’ve done it before in our country, and we have to get it right this time. And yes, we need leadership from the financial industry and across the private sector to join with us.
Two years ago, the head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Terry Duffy, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that really caught my attention.
He wrote, and I quote, “I’m concerned that those of us in financial services have forgotten who they serve and that the public knows it. Some Wall Streeters can too easily slip into regarding their work as a kind of moneymaking game divorced from concerns of the Main Street,” unquote.
I think we should listen to Terry Duffy. Of course, long-term growth is only possible if the public sector steps up as well.
So it’s time to end the era of budget brinkmanship and stop careening from one self-inflicted crisis to another. It’s time to stop having debates over the small stuff and focus how we’re going to tackle the big stuff together.
How do we respond to technological change in a way that creates more good jobs than it displaces or destroys? Can we sustain a boom in advanced manufacturing? What are the best ways to nurture startups outside the successful corridors, like Silicon Valley?
Questions like these demand thoughtful and mature debate from our policymakers and government, from our leaders in the private sector, our economists, our academics, others who can come together to the table and on behalf of America perform their patriotic duty to make sure our economy keeps working and our middle class keeps growing.
(APPLAUSE)
So government has to be smarter, simpler, more focused itself on long-term investments than short-term politics and be a better partner to cities, states and the private sector. Washington has to be a better steward of America’s tax dollars and Americans’ trust. And please, let’s get back to making decisions that rely on evidence more than ideology.
(APPLAUSE)
That’s what I’ll do as president. I will seek out and welcome any good idea that is actually based on reality.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
I want to have principled and pragmatic and progressive policies that really move us forward together, and I will propose ways to ensure that our fiscal outlook is sustainable, including by continuing to restrain health care costs, which remain one of the key drivers of long-term deficits.
I will make sure Washington learns from how well local governments, businesses and nonprofits are working together in successful cities and towns across America.
You know, passing legislation is not the only way to drive progress. As president, I will use the power to convene, connect and collaborate to build partnerships that actually get things done, because above all, we have to break out of the poisonous partisan gridlock and focus on the long-term needs of our country.
(APPLAUSE)
I confess, maybe it’s the grandmother in me, but I believe that part of public service is planting trees under whose shade you’ll never sit, and the vision I’ve laid out here today for strong growth, fair growth and long-term growth all working together will get incomes rising again, will help working families get ahead and stay ahead. That is the test of our time.
And I’m inviting everyone to please join me to do your part. That’s what great countries do. That’s what our country always has done. We rise to challenges. It’s not about left, right or center; it’s about the future versus the past.
I’m running for president to build an America for tomorrow, not yesterday, an America built on growth and fairness, an America where if you do your part, you will reap the rewards, where we don’t leave anyone behind.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you all. Thank you. I just want to leave you with one more thought. I want every child, not just the granddaughter of a former president or former secretary of state, but every child to be able to reach for her God-given potential. Please join me in that mission — let’s do it together.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, held a town hall meeting in the City Hall of Dover, New Hampshire. She outlined her vision for the nation’s economic future, including her plan for corporate profit-sharing. She took questions from the crowd on topics including higher education costs, healthcare funding, Social Security, and climate change. (Duration: 1:31:12)
Presidential Candidates at Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame Dinner
July 17, 2015
The five 2016 Democratic presidential candidates spoke at the 2015 Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame Celebration. The event was the first the five declared candidates had shared the same stage. Each of the candidates outlined their reasons for running for president and agenda if elected president. (Duration: 1:51:42 [complete event])
the following YouTubes of the candidates' speeches at the event are presented in the order of the candidates' appearances:
*
Governor Lincoln Chafee, 7/17/2015
Governor Lincoln Chafee, Democratic presidential candidate, addresses the Iowa Democratic Party Hall of Fame Dinner on July 17, 2015
Hillary Clinton Draws Scrappy Determination From a Tough, Combative Father
Hillary Rodham Clinton, second from left, with her father, Hugh Rodham, far left, brother Hugh Jr. and mother, Dorothy, in the 1950s.
Mrs. Clinton greets her father and mother, before departing the White House for Camp David in 1993. Her father died of a stroke later that year. Credit Clinton Presidential Library
Video [embedded] Hillary Clinton: What Our Lives Are Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the first lady, gave an existential speech at the University of Texas at Austin in 1993, a day before her father died of a stroke. (Duration: 4:49) By University of Texas at Austin on Publish Date July 19, 2015.
By AMY CHOZICK JULY 19, 2015
As a little girl, if Hillary Rodham forgot to screw the cap back on the toothpaste, her father would toss the tube out the bathroom window. She’d scurry around in the snow-covered evergreen bushes outside their suburban Chicago home to find it and return inside to brush her teeth, reminded, once again, of one of Hugh E. Rodham’s many rules.
When she lagged behind in Miss Metzger’s fourth-grade math class, Mr. Rodham would wake his daughter at dawn to grill her on multiplication tables. When she brought home an A, he would sneer: “You must go to a pretty easy school.”
Mrs. Clinton [ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/13/us/elections/hillary-clinton.html ] has made the struggles of her mother, Dorothy Rodham, a central part of her 2016 campaign’s message, and has repeatedly described Mrs. Rodham’s life story to crowds around the country. But her father, whom Mrs. Clinton rarely talks about publicly, exerted an equally powerful, if sometimes bruising, influence on the woman who wants to become the first female president.
The brusque son of an English immigrant and a coal miner’s daughter in Scranton, Pa., Mr. Rodham, for most of his life, harbored prejudices against blacks, Catholics and anyone else not like him. He hurled biting sarcasm at his wife and his only daughter and spanked, at times excessively, his three children to keep them in line, according to interviews with friends and a review of documents, Mrs. Clinton’s writings and former President Bill Clinton’s memoir.
“By all accounts he was kind of a tough customer,” said Lissa Muscatine, a longtime friend and adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “Hard-working, believed in no free rides, believed you had to earn what you’re going to get, believed his kids could always do better.”
Presidential candidates often turn to hard-knocks family stories to help them connect with voters, but for years Mrs. Clinton refrained from sharing a detailed portrait of her childhood. In her 2016 campaign, she has shown an increased willingness to talk about her mother, a warm and devoted parent who had been abandoned by her own parents and who worked as a housekeeper as a teenager before she met and married Mr. Rodham.
But Mrs. Clinton refers in only oblique ways to her father.
At a house party in Iowa this month, a supporter gave Mrs. Clinton garlic pills to help her fend off illness on the campaign trail. The unexpected gift brought about an olfactory, and impromptu, memory. “My late father was a huge believer in garlic,” and not the odorless kind, Mrs. Clinton said. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw him eating a garlic and peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”
“I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together,” she wrote of Mrs. Rodham, who died in 2011. “An America,” Mrs. Clinton continued, “where a father can tell his daughter: Yes, you can be anything you want to be. Even President of the United States.”
It is unclear what Mr. Rodham, an ardent conservative, would have thought about his only daughter’s trying (again) to capture the Democratic nomination.
When Mr. Clinton eulogized Mr. Rodham, he described him as “tough and gruff” and said he “thought Democrats were one step short of Communism — but that I might be O.K.”
‘A Force in the Family’
If Mrs. Rodham, a homemaker who never attended college but who raised her daughter to be confident and caring, is forming the emotional core of Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 campaign, invoked as the inspiration behind her decades of public service, then Mrs. Clinton’s father quietly represents the candidate’s combative, determined and scrappy side. The inspiration, friends said, that toughened his daughter up to not just withstand but embrace yet another political battle.
“He was such a force in the family, and there’s a lot of him in Hillary,” said Lisa Caputo, a friend and former White House press aide who knew Mr. Rodham. “The discipline, the tenacity, the work ethic, a lot of that’s from him.”
When Mrs. Clinton does invoke her father on the campaign trail, she talks about him as a small-business owner who “just believed that you had to work hard to make your way and do whatever you had to do to be successful and provided a good living for our family.” (Mr. Rodham shut his drapery business in 1965.)
Or Mrs. Clinton reminds people that her father was a Republican, an aside to show she can work with the other side. She did highlight her father’s geographic roots in her 2008 campaign, when she tried to win white working-class voters in the Democratic primaries against Barack Obama. Mr. Rodham was born to strict Methodists in working-class eastern Pennsylvania.
His father, Hugh Simpson Rodham, toiled in a Scranton lace mill, and his mother, Hannah Jones Rodham, came from a long line of coal miners. When she was a girl, Hillary and her two brothers spent summers at a cabin in the Pocono Mountains that had no indoor bath.
Mrs. Clinton tries to visit her father’s grave, in the Rodham plot at the Washburn Street Cemetery in Scranton, when she passes through. (The headstone was toppled by vandals, and restored, shortly after she announced her campaign in April.)
She will return to Scranton on July 29 to raise money, her first trip back since she began her 2016 campaign.
“My grandfather, like so many of his generation, came to this country as a young child, as an immigrant, went to work at age 11 in the lace mills in Scranton,” she says. “So when my dad was born in Scranton, he was born with that American dream.”
But unlike her mother’s struggles, the darker parts of her father’s biography rarely come up when Mrs. Clinton speaks.
Depression ran in the family. Mrs. Clinton’s father found his brother Russell hanging but alive in the attic of his parents’ home and had to cut him down. Russell came to live with the Rodhams in their one-bedroom Lincoln Park apartment in Chicago. (In 1950, when Hillary was a toddler, the family moved to a two-story brick house in the affluent suburb of Park Ridge, Ill. Russell rented an apartment nearby, but he died in 1962 when he left a cigarette burning, setting his home afire.)
Mr. Rodham, who was 230 pounds and 6-foot-2, with thick black hair and furrowed eyebrows, had played football at Pennsylvania State University and worked as a fitness instructor in the Navy during World War II.
He would hurl criticism at his wife around the kitchen table at 235 Wisner Street. When she encouraged Hillary to learn for learning’s sake, Mr. Rodham, who drove a Cadillac, would quip: “Learn for earning’s sake.” If his children asked for an allowance for their many household chores, he would reply bluntly: “I feed you, don’t I?”
Her relationship with her father had deteriorated as she drifted away from the party of Barry Goldwater and got swept up in the liberalism of the late 1960s. “In typical Hugh Rodham fashion, he flew to Boston late the night before, stayed out by the airport, took the MTA to campus, attended graduation” and, after lunch with some of Hillary’s classmates, went right back to Chicago, Mrs. Clinton wrote in her 2003 memoir, “Living History.”
A Laugh in Common
But their relationship was not without warmth.
Mrs. Clinton and her father shared the same distinct laugh, a “big, rolling guffaw that can turn heads in a restaurant and send cats running from the room,” as she described it in “Living History.” They played heated games of pinochle (though Mr. Rodham was known to flip the table if he lost).
Mr. Rodham taught his only daughter that she could play sports and do anything the boys did. When she was racked with self-doubt at Wellesley and Yale, her father wrote her tough but tender letters telling her to buck up. “Even when he erupted at me, he admired my independence and accomplishments,” she later wrote.
At his daughter’s wedding in 1975, Mr. Rodham was hesitant to give the bride away to Mr. Clinton, a penniless Southern Baptist Democrat. “You can step back now, Mr. Rodham,” the minister finally said.
In 1987, after Mr. Rodham had quadruple-bypass surgery, he and Dorothy moved to Little Rock, Ark., to be closer to their daughter and granddaughter, Chelsea. Mrs. Clinton arranged for them to live in a condominium in the city’s leafy Hillcrest district. Chelsea Clinton called her grandfather Pop Pop. The Rodhams attended her softball games, cheering her on and taking her and her friends out for frozen yogurt afterward.
“Her father at that point was beginning to decline, so I think it was to be close to family, and obviously Hillary was close to her family, especially to her mom,” said Skip Rutherford, a longtime friend in Little Rock.
After President Clinton’s 1993 inauguration, when friends and family toasted the Clintons’ arrival in Washington at a party, Mr. Rodham was spotted stewing in a corner and nursing a drink. “My daughter is a real special girl,” he told a friend from Scranton, Manny Gelb, who relayed the story to The Associated Press.
When her father had a stroke in 1993, Mrs. Clinton, who was having difficulty adjusting to life in the White House, was deeply shaken.
After his life-support machines had been removed and Mr. Rodham lay in a coma at St. Vincent Infirmary in Little Rock, a scrum of news cameras and reporters waiting outside for any updates, Mrs. Clinton traveled to Austin, Tex., to deliver a speech she felt obligated to give.
It became one of the more unusual addresses ever delivered by a first lady. Ms. Caputo, who accompanied Mrs. Clinton on the trip, described the stream-of-consciousness speech — about the meaning of life, death and the need to remake civil society, delivered without a script — as “cathartic.”
“When does life start? When does life end? Who makes those decisions? How do we dare to impinge upon these areas of such delicate, difficult questions?” Mrs. Clinton asked the crowd.
Capital Journal Daybreak: Clinton to Push Revamp of Capital-Gains Tax Rates, [...]
DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG NEWS
Capital Journal Daybreak 7:42 am ET Jul 20, 2015
CLINTON TO PUSH REVAMP OF CAPITAL-GAINS TAX RATES: Hillary Clinton will propose a revamp of capital-gains taxes that would hit some short-term investors with higher rates, part of a package of measures designed to prod companies to put more emphasis on long-term growth, a campaign official said. The proposal, to be laid out in a speech later this week, is one of a number of ideas designed to tackle what Mrs. Clinton, some economists and some on Wall Street consider the overly short-term focus of corporate strategy. Other topics will include the risks and benefits of shareholder activism and the role of executive compensation.
At the center is Mrs. Clinton’s proposal to change capital-gains tax rates, the details of which are being finalized. The Democratic presidential candidate’s plan would create a sliding scale with at least three new rates that change depending on how long an investment is held, the official said. Investments held for less than a year would continue to be taxed at regular income-tax rates, which can top out at 39.6% or more for the highest earners. For those held just a little longer—likely two or three years—the current capital-gains tax rate of 23.8% for top earners would rise. The rate, which hasn’t been finalized, would be higher than the 28% President Barack Obama proposed earlier this year for the highest earners. The Clinton campaign hasn’t ruled out taxing such investments at the regular income-tax rate. Laura Meckler and John D. McKinnon report [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-to-push-revamp-of-capital-gains-tax-rates-1437365173 ].
all -- at last, the NYT YouTube of Obama's full 47-minute July 14, 2015 interview with Thomas Friedman, (non-YouTube version linked in the) 5th item in the post to which this is a reply:
--
What Obama Says the Iran Nuclear Deal Means | The New York Times
Iran debate shows GOP ‘utterly unprepared to govern’
The dome of the US Capitol is seen in Washington, D.C., September 20, 2008. Karen Bleier/AFP Photo
08/03/15 04:58 PM
By Steve Benen
The debate over the international nuclear agreement with Iran wasn’t exactly a pop quiz – everyone involved in the argument has had plenty of time to prepare. So when three congressional committees, over the course of six days, held hearings on the diplomatic deal, this was the public’s first real opportunity to see the Republicans’ A game.
After all, these congressional committees ostensibly feature some of the most knowledgeable GOP officials – including three notable presidential candidates – when it comes to international affairs. Republicans had time to study the issue; they had time to prepare their best arguments; and the party put forward their top members to lead the debate.
-- Over the past several days, congressional hearings on the deal have become a spectacle of dishonesty, incomprehension, and inability to cope with the challenges of a multilateral world. […]
In challenging Kerry and Moniz, Republican senators and representatives offered no serious alternative. They misrepresented testimony, dismissed contrary evidence, and substituted vitriol for analysis. They seemed baffled by the idea of having to work and negotiate with other countries. I came away from the hearings dismayed by what the GOP has become in the Obama era. It seems utterly unprepared to govern. --
The full report is worth your time – the Slate piece points to Republican lawmakers whose understanding of these issues can charitably be described as child-like – but note that Saletan, hardly a knee-jerk partisan, came away from the hearing fearful of what the GOP has become.
“This used to be a party that saw America’s leadership of the free world as its highest responsibility,” he concludes. “What happened? And why should any of us entrust it with the presidency again?”
This was the best GOP lawmakers had to offer. These hearings put their strongest and most substantive arguments on display. This is an issue the party claims to take very seriously, and which they’ve invested considerable time and energy into trying to understand.
But after watching the hearings, it’s hard to escape an uncomfortable question: what if GOP policymakers simply don’t have an A game? What if their best is simply inadequate for a credible policy debate over an important issue?
A month of victories has transformed the president’s second term.
By TODD S. PURDUM July 16, 2015
Barack Obama is not a modest man, but when it comes to assessing his or any president’s place in the long American story, he has been heard to say, “We just try to get our paragraph right.” Yet the way a raft of recent events have broken sharply in his favor, Obama suddenly seems well on his way to writing a whole page—or at least a big, fat passage—in the history books.
From the Supreme Court decisions upholding his signature health care plan and the right of gay Americans to marry, to contested passage of fast track trade authority, the opening of normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and an international agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Obama is on a policy and political roll that would have seem unimaginable to many in Washington only a few months ago.
“Obama may be singular as a president, not only because of his striking background,” says Kenneth Adelman, who was Ronald Reagan’s arms control negotiator with the Soviets three decades ago, and who has his doubts about the Iran deal. “It may turn out that unlike virtually any other president, his second term is actually better than his first.”
Rallying his cabinet in January in the wake of the Democratic Party’s decisive defeat in last fall’s midterm elections, Obama himself maintained, “Interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter.” This president has always been something of a clutch player, but his command of recent events—from his soaring eulogy for the victims of the Charleston church massacre, to his commutation of more sentences for non-violent criminal offenders than any president since Franklin Roosevelt—goes a good way toward proving the prescience of his words.
For much of the last five years, it had seemed Obama’s peculiar misfortune that the biggest achievement of his time in office—the adoption of his health care plan—might also prove his biggest defeat, because of the bitter and unyielding political and legal backlash unleashed by its narrow passage on a strict partisan vote.
Simultaneously, Obama’s ability to take decisive unilateral action on foreign policy—often a source of succor and satisfaction to second-term presidents—seemed highly limited, if only because he remained saddled with the ugly aftermath of the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of the ISIL threat.
Not so long ago, much of the chattering class was reading the last rites over the Obama administration, and turning to the 2016 election as a test of whether anything would be left of the president’s legacy if a Republican succeeded him. That’s still an open question, of course. But the Court’s recent rulings and Obama’s own seemingly unplugged and swing-for-the-fences attitude on questions from race to criminal justice has given his presidency a sharply re-invigorated viability and relevance.
“It’s an unfinished chapter,” says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, who is writing a new biography of Gerald Ford. “But he has already defied the second-term curse and the wisdom of just six months ago. ‘What can a president do if he doesn’t have either house of Congress?’ Well, guess what, he can reverse a 50, 60-year-old policy toward Cuba. But, more than that, he can still, even without the traditional televised Oval Office version of the bully pulpit, to a large degree set the terms of the national debate.”
The president’s very demeanor in his White House news conference on Thursday bespoke a renewed intensity and determination to make the most of the time he has left. Much of the time, he fielded questions in a relaxed posture, leaning on the lectern with one elbow, but some of his answers were emphatic bordering on brusque. As the session wound down, he canvassed the East Room for more questions about the Iran agreement with a kind of “Hit-me-with-your-best-shot” bravado, as if to show how important he believes it to be. With a blithe air that belied the seriousness of the issue, he quoted that noted diplomat Ricky Ricardo to say that if Iran mined more uranium than it was supposed to, “They got some ‘splainin’ to do.”
“It is a measure of the times in which we live that we start the legacy discussion a year and a half before the end of a presidency,” says David Axelrod, Obama’s former longtime strategist. “But he’s had the most productive period he’s enjoyed since the first two years: Cuba, the climate agreement with China, action on immigration, fast track on trade, the SCOTUS decisions on health care and marriage and now this agreement on Iran. These are big, historically significant developments, in most cases the culmination of years of commitment on his part.”
Obama himself said he hoped Congress would debate the Iran agreement on the facts and the merits, but added, “We live in Washington and politics do intrude.” The sharp and instantaneous denunciation of the president’s comments by Republicans was a sure sign of the parallel universes that constitute American politics these days. Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that Obama was a “very, very naïve man,” who “cannot put the dots together,” while Glenn Beck’s daily email newsletter subject line was, “Obama continues to destroy the country.”
The Republicans are not the only obstacle that Obama faces. He won his fast track Asian trade authority with largely Republican support, and the Iran agreement has stirred significant Democratic skepticism, among even the party’s leaders in Congress. If the Greek financial crisis engulfs Europe and spreads to Wall Street, there is no telling what the American economy might look like when Obama leaves office in 18 months.
By definition, the success or failure of the Iran agreement will not be known until long after Obama has left office, and critics like Adelman worry that even if Iran cheats on its obligations, international sanctions will never be re-imposed, because violations will be so hard to prove and the global investment in Iran will be so entrenched that it cannot be unwound.
But time and again, Obama has proven himself patient and willing to play what he likes to call the long game, or what Axelrod summed up as “the determination to resist small, incremental politics to do big, transformational things.”
The president’s former chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, notes that almost all of Obama’s recent successes had their origins in things he said and did long ago, including his insistence in a 2007 primary debate that it was worth talking even to enemies (an assertion that many commentators saw as a gaffe at the time) and his 2008 Philadelphia speech on race (which he made over the nervous objections of some of his advisers).
“This is the long game paying off,” Favreau says. “Most critically, he understood that change on all of these issues would come at a slower and more gradual pace than the perpetual hysterics in Washington would demand. When it came time to actually govern, he put the history books ahead of the news cycles, and our politics will be better off if future presidents follow his example—because the thousands of words written since the midterms about how resigned and defeated Obama is now seem as insightful as the comments section of a blog.”
For all the travails that second terms bring—and for the inevitable fatigue the public tends to have for any president after eight years—there are also achievements that come with the experienced gained in office. Ronald Reagan’s second term was nearly undone by the Iran-Contra scandal, but then burnished by his role in helping to end the Cold War. Bill Clinton was brought low by impeachment, but he also helped broker peace in Northern Ireland and led the calls for NATO bombing to stop Serbian attacks in Bosnia and Kosovo that redeemed his first-term reticence to intervene there.
Obama himself has often suggested—as he did again this week—that he aspired to do more than mark time, and instead intended to conduct a transformative presidency akin to Ronald Reagan’s, which moved the needle of public sentiment in decisive and lasting ways about the proper role of government at home and the capacity for co-existence with the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union abroad.
Historian Smith, while cautioning that no reliable assessment of Obama’s legacy could be made until decades from now, suggested that there was nevertheless “emerging evidence that Obama may be pulling off on the left what Reagan did on the right.”
“That is to say,” Smith says, “certainly, if you look at the cultural politics, there is no doubt America is to the left of where it was when Obama took office.” Smith noted that recent polling had found a sharp narrowing in the gap between the percentage of Americans who consider themselves conservative and those who identify as liberal, together with the reality that Obama has the country’s changing demographics and attitudes on issues like gay marriage on his side.
But he added: “If Obama moves the center of political gravity, as well as the center of cultural gravity—which might have moved without him, let’s face it—but if he can move the center of political gravity several degrees to the left—we’ve been waiting for a post-New Deal liberalism for a long time—Jimmy Carter saw the need for it, Bill Clinton gave us a first draft—then he will be a transformative president, because he will have transformed the political consensus.”
The very intensity with which Obama’s opponents rail against his policies—and what most mainstream commentators hail as his successes—suggests that Smith may be onto something. Republicans themselves have acknowledged, for example, that their dogged efforts to defeat his health care bill, or cripple it from birth, were based on the certainty that once the program’s most popular policies (such as no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions) were in place, it would be effectively impossible to repeal Obamacare.
The effect of outside events on Obama’s remaining time in office is impossible to predict. But there are clues in the president’s own words about the issues he might choose to emphasize, including overhauling the criminal justice system, which he said on Wednesday was “part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union.”
In the wake not only of the Charleston shootings but other instances of police violence against blacks, Obama has also shown himself notably more willing to talk out loud about the enduring complexities and unfinished business of race in American life. Three years ago, the president touched off considerable controversy—and no little praise—in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, when he declared in the White House Rose Garden, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
Today, if anything, he speaks even more freely, as he contemplates what might have been in his own life, and what he might yet do as president. “There but for the grace of God,” he said on Thursday, after becoming the first sitting president to visit a federal penitentiary, in El Reno, Oklahoma—just days after his mass commutation of sentences for non-violent offenders.
If the clock on his time in office is winding down, Obama—a reserve shooting guard on his high school’s state championship basketball team whose playground style never quite meshed with his coach’s by-the-book ethos—seems even more determined to run up the score.
“I think he feels, ‘The clock is ticking, and why don’t I go for things?’” Adelman says. “’I’m never going to really move the Republicans. I’m never going to move the Democrats on issues like free trade.’ And many times that may have moved him to the edge—or even over the edge—of his legal authority. But he’s trying.”
More than 100 former American ambassadors wrote to President Obama on Thursday praising the nuclear deal reached with Iran [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html ] this week as a “landmark agreement” that could be effective in halting Tehran’s development of a nuclear weapon, and urging Congress to support it.
They wrote that they recognized the deal “is not a perfect or risk-free settlement of this problem.”
“However,” they added, “we believe that without it, the risks to the security of the United States and our friends and allies would be far greater.”
The accord, they continued, “deserves congressional support and the opportunity to show it can work.”
As the deal continued to be both hailed and condemned in capitals around the world, the White House announced on Thursday evening that Mr. Obama would meet with the Saudi Arabian foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, on Friday, in the first high-level encounter between the president and a major Arab ally since the accord was announced in Vienna on Tuesday.
Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have, along with Israel, expressed either unease or outright opposition to the deal.
Mr. Obama’s meeting is part of an intense sales job that he and the rest of his administration plan to undertake in the coming days to try to persuade both skeptical allies and congressional lawmakers that the accord is sound and will help ease tensions in the Middle East.
Signers of the letter, spearheaded by the Iran Project [ http://iranprojectfcsny.org/ ], a New York-based organization that is dedicated to “a peaceful resolution to the nuclear standoff,” include prominent retired diplomats appointed by Mr. Obama and his Republican and Democratic predecessors.
Richard Boucher, who served as the spokesman for secretaries of state of both parties and the assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, signed the letter, as did Ryan Crocker, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon first named by President George Bush and later by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Mr. Obama.
R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state who led the Iran diplomatic effort for the younger Mr. Bush, is a signer, as is Teresita C. Schaffer, a former ambassador to Sri Lanka first named by the elder Mr. Bush who also served under Mr. Clinton.
Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former ambassador to Israel and Egypt who served under Mr. Clinton and the younger Mr. Bush, also signed the letter, as did four other onetime American ambassadors to Israel: James B. Cunningham, William C. Harrop, Thomas R. Pickering and Edward S. Walker Jr.
Letter to the President from over 100 former American Ambassadors on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s Nuclear Program.
Dear Mr. President:
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran stands as a landmark agreement in deterring the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If properly implemented, this comprehensive and rigorously negotiated agreement can be an effective instrument in arresting Iran’s nuclear program and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the volatile and vitally important region of the Middle East. Without your determination and the admirable work of Secretary of State Kerry and his team, this agreement would never have been reached.
As former American diplomats, we have devoted much of our lives to ensuring that the President had available the best possible diplomatic approaches to dealing with challenges to our nation’s security, even while recognizing that a strong military is essential to help the President and the Congress to carry out their duties to protect the nation and its people. Effective diplomacy backed by credible defense will be critically important now, during the period of inspection and verification of Iran’s compliance with the agreement.
The JCPOA touches on some of America’s most important national objectives: non-proliferation and the security of our friends in the Middle East particularly Israel. Ensuring the cooperation and implementation of this agreement by a hostile nation will require constant, dedicated U.S. leadership and unflagging attention.
We recognize that the JCPOA is not a perfect or risk-free settlement of this problem. However, we believe without it, the risks to the security of the United States and our friends and allies would be far greater. We are satified that the JCPOA will put in place a set of constraints and inspections that can assure that Iran’s nuclear program during the terms of the agreement will remain only for peaceful purposes and that no part of Iran is exempt from inspection. As with any negotiated settlement, the most durable and effective agreement is one that all sides will commit to and benefit from over the long term.
We support close Congressional involvement in the oversight, monitoring and enforcement of this agreement. Congress must be a full partner in its implementation and must evaluate carefully the value and feasibility of any alternative that would claim better to protect U.S. security and more effectively to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In particular, Congress must give careful attention to evaluating whether alternatives would be more or less likely to narrow the options for resolving this issue without the use of force.
In our judgment the JCPOA deserves Congressional support and the opportunity to show it can work. We firmly believe that the most effective way to protect U.S. national security, and that of our allies and friends is to ensure that tough-minded diplomacy has a chance to succeed before considering other more costly and risky alternatives.
With respect,
Amb. (ret.) Diego C. Asencio, Ambassador to Colombia and Brazil
Amb. (ret.) Adrian Basora, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia
J. Brian Atwood, Administrator of USAID and Under Secretary of State for Management
Amb. (ret.) William M. Bellamy, Ambassador to Kenya
Amb. (ret.) John R. Beyrle, Ambassador to Russia and Bulgaria
Amb. (ret.) James Keough Bishop, Ambassador to Niger, Liberia and Somalia
Amb. (ret.) Barbara K. Bodine, Ambassador to Yemen
Amb. (ret.) Avis Bohlen, Assistant Secretary for Arms Control
Amb. (ret.) Eric J. Boswell, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security
Amb. (ret.) Stephen Bosworth, Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
Amb. (ret.) Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia
Amb. (ret.) Kenneth C. Brill, Ambassador to the IAEA, UN and founder of the U.S. National Counterproliferation Center
Amb (ret.) Kenneth L. Brown, Ambassador to Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, and Ghana
Amb. (ret.) A. Peter Burleigh, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Amb. (ret.) Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Greece and NATO
Amb. (ret.) James F. Collins, Ambassador to the Russian Federation and Ambassador at Large for the New Independent States
Amb. (ret.) Edwin G. Corr, Ambassador to Peru, Bolivia and El Salvador
Amb. (ret.) William Courtney, Commissioner, Bilateral Consultative Commission to implement the Threshold Test Ban Treaty
Amb. (ret.) Ryan Crocker, Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon
Amb. (ret.) James B. Cunningham, Ambassador to Israel, Afghanistan and the United Nations
Amb. (ret.) Walter L. Cutler, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Tunisia
Amb. (ret.) Ruth A. Davis, Ambassador to the Republic of Benin and Director General of the Foreign Service
Amb. (ret.) John Gunther Dean, Ambassador to India
Amb. (ret.) Shaun Donnelly, Ambassador to Sri Lanka
Amb. (ret.) Harriet L. Elam-Thomas, Ambassador to Senegal
Amb. (ret.) Theodore L. Eliot Jr., Ambassador to Afghanistan
Amb. (ret.) Nancy Ely-Raphel, Ambassador to Slovenia
Amb. (ret.) Chas W. Freeman, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Defense and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Amb. (ret.) Robert Gallucci, Ambassador at Large
Amb. (ret.) Robert S. Gelbard, President’s Special Representative for the Balkans
David C. Gompert, former Acting Director of National Intelligence
Amb. (ret.) James E. Goodby, Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Security and Dismantlement, and Ambassador to Finland
Amb. (ret.) Marc Grossman, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and Ambassador to Turkey
Amb. (ret.) Brandon Grove, Director Foreign Service Institute
Amb. (ret.)William Harrop, Ambassador to Israel, Guinea, Kenya, and Seychelles
Amb. (ret.) Ulric Haynes, Jr., Ambassador to Algeria
Amb. (ret.) Donald Hays, Ambassador to the United Nations
Amb. (ret.) Heather M. Hodges, Ambassador to Ecuador and Moldova
Amb. (ret.) Karl Hofmann, Ambassador to Togo
Amb. (ret.) Thomas C. Hubbard, Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
Amb. (ret.) Vicki Huddleston, Ambassador to Mali and Madagascar
Thomas L. Hughes, former Assistant Secetary of State for Intelligence and Research
Amb. (ret.) Dennis Jett, Ambassador to Mozambique and Peru
Amb. (ret.) Beth Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia
Amb. (ret.) James R. Jones, Ambassador to Mexico and formerly Member of Congress and White House Chief of Staff
Amb. (ret.) Theodore Kattouf, Ambassador to Syria and United Arab Emirates
Amb. (ret.) Richard D. Kauzlarich, Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Amb. (ret.) Kenton W. Keith, Ambassador to Qatar
Amb. (ret.) Roger Kirk, Ambassador to Romania and Somalia
Amb. (ret.) John C. Kornblum, Ambassador to Germany and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Amb. (ret.) Eleni Kounalakis, Ambassador to Hungary
Amb. (ret.) Daniel Kurtzer, Ambassador to Israel and Egypt
Amb. (ret.) Bruce Laingen, Chargé d’Affaires in Tehran (1979)
Frank E. Loy, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
Amb. (ret.) William Luers, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia and Venezuela
Amb. (ret.) Princeton N. Lyman, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
Amb. (ret.) John F. Maisto, Ambassador to Organization of American States, Venezuela, Nicaragua
Amb. (ret.) Jack Matlock, Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Special Assistant to the President for National Security
Amb. (ret.) Donald F. McHenry, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Amb. (ret.) Thomas E. McNamara, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, Ambassador to Colombia, and at Large for Counterterrorism
Amb. (ret.) William B. Milam, Ambassador to Pakistan and Bangladesh
Amb. (ret.) Tom Miller, Ambassador to Greece and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Amb. (ret.) George E. Moose, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador to Benin, Senegal
Amb. (ret.) Cameron Munter, Ambassador to Pakistan and Serbia
Amb. (ret.) Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs and Ambassador to Saudi Arabia
Amb. (ret.) Ronald E. Neumann, Ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria, and Bahrain
Amb. (ret.) Thomas M. T. Niles, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada and Ambassador to Greece
Phyllis E. Oakley, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Amb. (ret.) W. Robert Pearson, Ambassador to Turkey
Amb. (ret.) Robert H. Pelletreau, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affair
Amb. (ret.) Pete Peterson, Ambassador to Vietnam
Amb. (ret.) Thomas Pickering, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel, Russia, India, United Nations, El Salvador, Nigeria and Jordan
Amb. (ret.) Joan M. Plaisted, Ambassador to the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Kitibati
Amb. (ret.) Nicholas Platt, Ambassador to Pakistan, Philippines, and Zambia
Amb. (ret.) Anthony Quainton, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic security or Director General of the Foreign Service
Amb. (ret.) Robin L. Raphel, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia
Amb. (ret.) Charles A. Ray, Ambassador to Zimbabwe and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/Missing Personnel Affairs
Amb (ret.) Arlene Render, Ambassador to The Gambia, Zambia and Cote d’Ivoire
Amb. (ret.) Julissa Reynoso, Ambassador to Uruguay
Amb. (ret.) Francis J. Ricciardone, Ambassador to Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, and Palau
Amb. (ret.) Rozanne L. Ridgway, Assistant Secretary for Europe and Canada and Counselor of the Department
Amb. (ret.) Peter F. Romero, Assistant Secretary of State
Amb. (ret.) Theodore Sedgwick, Ambassador to Slovakia
Amb. (ret.) J. Stapleton Roy, Ambassador to China and Indonesia
Amb. (ret.) William A. Rugh, Ambassador to Yemen and the United Arab Emirates
Amb. (ret.) Janet A Sanderson, Ambassador to Algeria and Haiti
Amb. (ret.) Teresita C. Schaffer, Ambassador to Sri Lanka
Amb. (ret.) Howard B. Schaffer, Ambassador to Bangladesh
Amb. (ret.) Raymond G. H. Seitz, Ambassador to the United Kingdom
Amb. (ret.) John Shattuck, Ambassador to the Czech Republic
Amb. (ret.) Ronald I. Spiers, Ambassador to Pakistan, Turkey and Assistant Secretary for Politico-Military Affairs
Amb. (ret.) William Lacy Swing, Ambassador to South Africa, Nigeria, Haiti, Congo-DRC, Liberia, and Republic of Congo
Amb. (ret.) Patrick Nickolas Theros, Ambassador to the State of Qatar
Arturo A. Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs and Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Amb. (ret.) William J. Vanden Heuvel, Deputy Permanent United States Representative to the United Nations
Amb. (ret.) Nicholas A. Veliotes, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Amb. (ret.) Richard N. Viets, Ambassador to Jordan
Amb. (ret.) Edward S. Walker, Jr., Ambassador to Israel, Egypt and United Arab Emirates
Amb. (ret.) Alexander F. Watson, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and Ambassador to Peru
Amb. (ret.) Philip C. Wilcox Junior, Ambassador at Large for Counter Terrorism
Molly K. Williamson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Defense, and Commerce
Amb. (ret.) Frank Wisner, Ambassador to India, Egypt, the Philippines and Zambia, and Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs
Amb. (ret.) John Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation
Amb. (ret.) Kenneth Yalowitz, Ambassador to Belarus and Georgia
All the above signers have retired from the US Government and the positions listed after their names are some of those held while in ofice.
For Press Inquiries Contact: IRIS BIERI (212) 812-4372 THE IRAN PROJECT 475 RIVERSIDE DRIVE SUITE 900, NEW YORK, NY 10115 EMAIL: IRANPROJECT @FCSNY.ORG
Could Obama Have Gotten More From Iran With Additional, Crippling Sanctions? US President Barack Obama (R) and Vice President Joe Biden walk from the Green Room to speak on the nuclear deal with Iran on July 14, 2015 at the White House in Washington, DC. Experts say: basically, no. 07/16/2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-iran-sanctions_55a8099fe4b0c5f0322cba80 [with comments]
--
Ted Cruz Is Vowing To Block A Bunch Of Obama's Nominees ... Again Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) plans to block President Barack Obama's nominees to the State Department to protest the Iran nuclear deal. He wants a congressional review of the Iran deal before the U.N. votes on it. 07/17/2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-obama-nominees_55a936a0e4b04740a3dfd82a [with comments]
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, center, Iran’s supreme leader, led prayers in Tehran on Saturday. He portrayed the nuclear agreement as a victory for Iran and attacked the United States and Israel. Credit Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“Their actions in the region are 180 degrees different from ours,” he said.
Speaking after a special prayer marking the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, Mr. Khamenei portrayed the nuclear agreement as a victory for Iran, not least because it does not require the country to completely stop enriching uranium, as some in the West had wanted. The speech appeared to remove a main obstacle to formal approval of the agreement in Iran.
“After 12 years of struggling with the Islamic republic, the result is that they have to bear the turning of thousands of centrifuges in the country,” Mr. Khamenei said, referring to the United States and its five negotiating partners.
Though analysts said his positive portrayal of the agreement would probably quiet hard-line critics in Iran, it also seemed likely to become fodder for critics in the United States, complicating President Obama’s efforts to sell the deal to Congress and the American people.
“I think we all understand the caliber of people we are dealing with, and it adds to the bipartisan skepticism regarding the agreement,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Saturday.
The agreement, which in its final form runs to 159 pages, was reached on Tuesday after 20 months of negotiations between Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States. It is intended to significantly limit Tehran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html ] for more than a decade in return for lifting international sanctions.
Mr. Obama has made the agreement a benchmark of his presidency. It is opposed by Republicans and by Israel and Saudi Arabia, two of the United States’ most significant allies in the region. They have denounced it as a diplomatic mistake that will strengthen the economic and military power of a nation that threatens its neighbors, engages in and supports hostage-taking and terrorism, and is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
Like most of his remarks, the speech attempted a delicate balance between appeasing anti-Western hard-liners and those longing for change in Iran, with rhetoric that could be interpreted favorably on either side.
The speech stopped short of a flat-out endorsement of the agreement. But Mr. Khamenei did not include any specific criticism of the deal or its terms, and analysts said that would probably speed its acceptance by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and Parliament.
At the same time, Mr. Khamenei made clear that a single agreement did not mean Iran’s overall relationship with the United States would change, and he promised to continue Iran’s support for allies in the region, including President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and the Lebanese-based Hezbollah movement. He praised Iran’s annual anti-Israel rally, known as Quds Day.
Under the nuclear agreement, Iran must give up large parts of its nuclear program, including two-thirds of its uranium-enrichment centrifuges, and it must accept intrusive inspections, even of military sites. Iran’s leaders say that what matters is Western acceptance that Iran will continue to have a nuclear program, and that when the agreement ends in 2025 Iran will be able to enrich uranium and plutonium without limits.
A draft resolution canceling sanctions against Iran and formalizing the steps that Iran is expected to take is to be presented at the United Nations Security Council on Monday. The five permanent members of the Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran along with Germany.
Several leading members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have urged President Obama not to submit the agreement to the Security Council until Congress has first voted its approval or disapproval.
Critics say that by restoring Iran’s potential access to around $100 billion in frozen funds around the world, the agreement will free the country to finance an expanded campaign of aggression in the Middle East. Iranian hard-liners have complained that it will reduce the nuclear program to just a symbol, not an industrial effort. Many hard-liners also fear that it will end Iran’s enmity toward America.
Mr. Khamenei nodded to the complaints, accusing the West of trying to “remove all of the nuts and bolts of Iran’s nuclear industry.” And he made clear that any notions that relations with the United States would now thaw and that the two countries could cooperate on other matters were “dreams” that will not become a reality.
“We do not negotiate with the U.S. about different global and regional issues,” Mr. Khamenei said. “We do not negotiate about bilateral issues. Sometimes, in some exceptional cases, like the nuclear case, and due to the expediency, we may negotiate.”
He also seized on remarks by Mr. Obama at a news conference on Thursday, when the president acknowledged that the United States had made mistakes in its Iran policies in the past, including organizing a coup in 1953 and supporting President Saddam Hussein of Iraq in his war with Iran between 1980 and 1988.
“He mentioned two or three points, but did not confess to tens of others,” Mr. Khamenei said.
“I am telling you,” the ayatollah said, referring to the United States, “you are making a mistake now — in different parts of this region, but especially about the Iranian nation.” He did not offer specifics. “Wake up,” he said. “Stop making mistakes. Understand the reality.”
Analysts said Mr. Khamenei’s remarks would probably quiet critics in Iran.
“He has stopped insisting on red lines and other restrictions; he also avoided any details of the agreement,” said Nader Karimi Joni, an Iranian journalist who favors the nuclear deal. “He supports the deal, and agrees with its contents.”
Farshad Ghorbanpour, a political analyst who is close to the government, said the speech “cooled down hard-liners, who had been preparing to openly oppose the deal.”
Mr. Khamenei stressed that Iran would go on backing its friends in the region, come what may. “We will always support the oppressed Palestinian [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html ] nation, Yemen, Syrian government and people, Iraq, and oppressed Bahraini people, and also the honest fighters of Lebanon and Palestine,” he said.
American support for Israel will remain a roadblock to relations, he signaled. Noting that Washington regards Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, as a terrorist organization, Mr. Khamenei asked how “Americans can support the child-killing Zionist government, and call Hezbollah terrorist? How can one interact, negotiate, or come to an agreement with such a policy?”
Worshipers began chanting and pumping their fists when he said the slogans “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” would continue to be heard in the streets of Iran.
Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting from Washington.
China'??s United Nations Ambassador Liu Jieyi, left, and French Ambassador Francois Delattre vote in favor of a Security Council resolution approving Iran's nuclear deal at United Nations headquarters, Monday, June 20, 2015. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
The Security Council votes in favor of a resolution approving Iran's nuclear deal at United Nations headquarters, Monday, June 20, 2015. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
By Edith M. Lederer Posted: 07/20/2015 09:22 AM EDT | Edited: 07/20/2015 09:57 AM EDT
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and authorized a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt Iran's economy.
But the measure also provides a mechanism for U.N. sanctions to "snap back" in place if Iran fails to meet its obligations.
The resolution had been agreed to by the five veto-wielding council members, who along with Germany negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. It was co-sponsored by all 15 members of the Security Council.
Under the agreement, Iran's nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.
The document specifies that seven resolutions related to U.N. sanctions will be terminated when Iran has completed a series of major steps to curb its nuclear program and the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that "all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities."
All provisions of the U.N. resolution will terminate in 10 years, including the snap back provision.
But last week the six major powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — and the European Union sent a letter, seen by The Associated Press, informing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that they have agreed to extend the snap back mechanism for an additional five years. They asked Ban to send the letter to the Security Council.
U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said the nuclear deal doesn't change the United States' "profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region."
She urged Iran to release three "unjustly imprisoned" Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in 2007.
"But denying Iran a nuclear weapon is important not in spite of these other destabilizing actions but rather because of them," Power said.
She quoted President Barack Obama saying the United States agreed to the deal because "an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more dangerous to our friends and to the world."
Iran’s President Defends Nuclear Deal in Blunt Remarks
Secretary of State John Kerry, left, with Hossein Fareydoun, center, the brother of Iran's president, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Vienna in July. Credit U.S. State Department
By THOMAS ERDBRINK and RICK GLADSTONE JULY 23, 2015
Under the agreement, economic sanctions on Iran, including restraints on its oil and financial trade, will be lifted in exchange for significant limits on the country’s nuclear activities, with verifiable guarantees that they remain peaceful.
In Iran, Mr. Rouhani spoke with uncharacteristic frankness about the sanction’s corrosive effects, which shriveled oil exports and denied the country access to the global banking system.
He expressed gratitude to his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and the head of the country’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi. Both were considered primarily responsible for reaching the nuclear agreement with the six world powers: Germany and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
With nuclear deal done, Iran sets out to reassure wary Gulf Arabs
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif attends a joint news conference with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini at the Vienna International Center in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015. Reuters/Carlos Barria
By Ahmed Hagagy Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:17pm EDT
KUWAIT - Iran's foreign minister called on Sunday for a united front among Middle Eastern nations to fight militancy, in his first regional trip since Iran reached an agreement with world powers on the country's nuclear program - an agreement that raised fears among its Gulf Arab neighbors.
"Any threat to one country is a threat to all ... No country can solve regional problems without the help of others," Mohammad Javad Zarif said at a news conference hosted by the Iranian embassy in Kuwait.
Zarif earlier met Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah and Kuwait's foreign minister, Sheikh Sabah al-Khaled al-Sabah, who was not present at the news conference.
After Kuwait, Zarif traveled to Qatar, where he was to meet the Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. He was due to go to Iraq next.
Most Gulf Arab states are worried that Iran's July 14 accord will hasten detente between Tehran and Washington, emboldening Tehran to increase backing for Middle Eastern allies at odds with Gulf Arab countries.
"Iran stands behind the people in the region to fight against the threat of extremism, terrorism and sectarianism ... Our message to the regional countries is that we should fight together against this shared challenge," Zarif added.
Most Sunni Muslim-ruled Gulf Arab states have long accused Tehran of interference in Arab affairs, alleging financial or armed support for political movements in countries including Bahrain, Yemen and Lebanon.
Predominantly Shi'ite Iran denies interference but says the nuclear agreement will not change its policies in the region.
"OPPRESSED NATIONS"
Before his Gulf visit, Zarif said in a statement posted on his ministry's website late on Friday that Tehran would continue supporting its allies in Syria and Iraq to fight against militant group Islamic State.
"The Iranian nation supports all oppressed nations," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said earlier, during a visit on Sunday to Iran's Kurdistan Province:
"If it wasn't for Iran, Erbil and Baghdad would have also fallen to the terrorists (of Islamic State) ... Just as we defended Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah (in Iraqi Kurdistan), if any country in the whole region is a victim of aggression, the Iranian nation will defend the oppressed," Rouhani added.
Bahrain said on Saturday it had foiled an arms smuggling plot by two Bahrainis with ties to Iran and announced the recall of the Gulf island kingdom's ambassador to Tehran for consultations after what it said were repeated hostile Iranian statements.
Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham, called this allegation "baseless and repetitive," saying Bahrain is only trying to "create tension in the region."
"This approach is not constructive and it will not stop Iran’s trust-building policy to cooperate with regional countries to fight against extremism and terrorism," Afkham was quoted as saying by state news agency, IRNA.
This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history. It is so naive that he would trust the Iranians. By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped.
Never mind the historical inaccuracy about how the extermination camps worked (gas first, then ovens — they had a flowchart for this), we are not inclined to believe that Huckabee actually read the agreement, which doesn’t involve just trusting Iran [ http://wonkette.com/590978/iran-nuclear-deal-will-either-usher-in-new-era-of-peace-or-end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it ] (there are inspections) or giving away much of anything. We’re still trying to figure out how making Iran give up almost all of its enriched uranium and mothballing most of its centrifuges is a bad deal.
And despite pretty much everyone pointing out to Huckabee that this is a really bad and inappropriate analogy, being Huckabee, he doubled down so hard, he turned his favorite line into a meme [ https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/625398323629797376 ]:
The main thing we took away from the Breitbart writeup on the interview is that Breitbart horcrux Robert Wilde has one big theocratic stiffy for Mike Huckabee. How’s this for a tongue-bath?
Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday, the governor demonstrated his keen ability to articulate conservative principles and values—a likely reason why he enjoys the highest favorability ratings of all GOP candidates running for president in 2016 […]
Modestly, Huckabee acknowledges that his high favorability rating is good news. “People don’t vote for someone they don’t like. So I just got a make sure I don’t start doing stuff that make people stop liking me,” he chuckled.
Elsewhere, in a paragraph that isn’t about Huckabee being open to suggestion, Wilde calls him “the amenable statesman.” We’re guessing he was going for “affable” but his computer software simply gagged. Wilde apparently thinks the official GOP symbol is a Sycophant. Among other things, we learned that Huckabee says the key to victory in 2016 is for conservatives to communicate more better about their core values, which apparently are unfamiliar to most voters, by presenting
a simple message of “conservatism, limited government, more local government, lower taxes, and less regulation to people who sweat through their clothes everyday and have to lift heavy things to make a living.”
Mike Huckabee loves you, sweaty America! Also, too, he explained for the ninety-jillionth time that America’s laws come from God, not the government, and when asked to identify core American values, it is important to be able to quote the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence verbatim, as if you’d just thought of it yourself.
The 59-year-old author and former Fox News host said that he has formally called for the immediate end to government funding of Planned Parenthood. Unfortunately that may be difficult. Huckabee pointed out that “Democrats get a lot of money from the pro-abortionists.”
The amenable statesman recounted that he has called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood for years. “The fact that they are getting between $500-540 million of taxpayer money is really a disgrace,” he asserted. “It is disgusting to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood that chops up babies and sells the parts like parts to a Buick.”
America needs to “come to grips with a 42-year nightmare of taking babies from their mother’s womb. This needs to come to an end,” insists Huckabee.
So we need to defund Planned Parenthood, which is making a profit from parting out babies and giving the money to fund Democrats, who give money to Planned Parenthood. Oh, and somehow he neglected the detail where, by law, government funding for Planned Parenthood goes only to non-abortion stuff, because why would you mention that? Still, it’s good to know someone’s going to stop all these babies being stolen from their mothers’ wombs, apparently without their consent.
Finally, Huck explained how he’d stop illegal immigration by replacing the income tax, which illegals don’t pay, with a national sales tax, which would show those lazy poors a thing or two, and would put every American back to work, because most illegal immigration is tied to tax policy.
The amenable Breitbart interviewer then got off his knees and wiped his mouth, as Huck zipped up and headed off to his next campaign event.
Obama: Huckabee's 'Oven' Comments on Iran Deal 'Ridiculous,' 'Sad' U.S. President Barack Obama comments on recent statements by Republicans as he and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn hold a news conference after their meeting at the National Palace in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2015. 7/27/15 http://www.newsweek.com/obama-huckabee-comments-iran-deal-ridiculous-sad-357416 [no comments yet]
Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn of Ethiopia in Joint Press Conference
National Palace Addis Ababa, Ethiopia July 27, 2015
1:47 P.M. EAT
PRIME MINISTER HAILEMARIAM: Members of the press, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to once again welcome His Excellency, the President of the United States of America, to Ethiopia. We are honored to receive a sitting U.S. President for the first time in the history of our century-long diplomatic relations. But again, we believe it’s fitting and appropriate in the light of the fact that Ethiopia is the Cradle of Mankind, the beacon light for African independence, and an inspiration for all the black people’s struggles, and the political capital of Africa.
Ethiopia is the birthplace of coffee -- (laughter) -- and with so many firsts to its name, and as such a first and historic visit by the first U.S. President of African origin, I believe it’s a well-deserved one. His visit comes at a time when both Africa and Ethiopia are registering impressive growth, making important strides. For Ethiopia, the economy has registered double-digit growth for the last 12 years, uninterruptedly.
His visit also comes at a time when we’re working hard in improving governance and fighting insecurity, conflicts and terrorism. His visit could not have come at a better time, as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, diplomatically, economically, and more importantly, in science and technology and education -- the very things Africa and Ethiopia need in abundance if they are to sustain their growth. President Obama’s visit represents a new height in our bilateral relations.
This morning, we have had extensive bilateral discussions with President Obama on a range of topics. We have discussed ways of further deepening our bilateral relations and our cooperation on a number of issues. Among the areas we have discussed, we talked at length about the U.S. support in helping expand trade and investment in Ethiopia.
As you know, the U.S. is Ethiopia’s strategic partner in many fields. And the steady of flow of quality investment from the United States, as much as we crave it, though the recent beginning is so encouraging, has often been in short supply. We have discussed, among other things, how to encourage U.S. investors to come to Ethiopia in large numbers, where there are numerous competitive and comparative advantages they can benefit from.
We have discussed how best we can take advantage of President Obama’s signature Power Africa initiative, which is, in our case, has already seen significant progress made with 1,000 megawatts geothermal contract to be signed this afternoon.
We have also discussed ways of scaling up the successful projects that President Obama launched four years ago in his flagship Alliance for Food Security program, and launching of similar initiatives.
We have also discussed and reached an understanding on coordinating our efforts in the global effort to fight climate change, and to work together for the success of the COP 21 negotiations in Paris. Likewise, we have exchanged ideas on ways the U.S. can champion the Addis Ababa action agenda during the negotiations of the sustainable development goals in New York next September. We have also agreed to work on global health epidemics.
We have raised a number of issues on how the U.S. can support the strengthening of Ethiopia’s democratization process. My government has expressed its commitment to deepen the democratic process already underway in the country, and work towards the respect of human rights and improving governance.
We have reiterated once again that our commitment to democracy is real, not skin-deep. We have both noted that we need to step up efforts to strengthen our institutions and build our capacity in various areas. We believe that U.S. support in this regard as age-old democracy will contribute to ensuring that our system becomes robust. We have agreed to continue our engagement despite minor differences here and there with regard mainly to the speed with which our democratization process is moving.
Finally, we have discussed a range of issues related to cooperation on security and peace-building in the region and on the pivotal role the U.S. can and does play. We have agreed to work closely on South Sudan to bring lasting peace to the conflict-ridden country. We have both agreed to work together in building peace in Somalia by helping create stable institutions and by strengthening the Somali security forces in their quest to be in charge of the peace of their own country.
We have agreed to intensify the campaign against terrorism in the region, and we both noted with satisfaction the progress AMISOM forces and Somali National Army are making, with the support of the U.S. and other partners, in their fight against al-Shabaab.
We have agreed to deepen our intelligence cooperation both bilaterally as well as regionally. We have both noted and underscored that this cooperation is essential to curb the menace posed by terrorism. The terrorist attack that was launched in Mogadishu yesterday is a stark reminder that we need to work even more in this respect.
In conclusion, we have agreed to continue working together for better results in all aspects of our cooperation.
Mr. President, I now call upon you to give your remarks.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. Good afternoon. Dehna walach-hu. Prime Minister Hailemariam, we appreciate your kind words and for the welcome that you’ve extended to our delegation.
We’ve had very productive meetings here today. And after our bilateral, I had a chance to see the famous lions that live on the grounds. I’m considering getting some for the White House. (Laughter.) Although I’ll have to make sure that my dogs are safe. (Laughter.)
To the people of Ethiopia, thank you for the warmth and enthusiasm of your welcome and the spirit of friendship that you’ve shown me since I’ve been in Addis. I am proud to be the first U.S. President to visit Ethiopia, and, tomorrow, the first U.S. President to address the African Union. So my visit reflects the importance the United States places on our relationship with Ethiopia and all the nations and peoples of Africa.
As you noted, Ethiopia and the United States share a long friendship. Our people have worked together, traded with each other, and stood alongside one another for more than 100 years. The United States is strengthened by the contributions of Ethiopian Americans every day -- and that’s particularly true in our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., which has the largest Ethiopian community outside of Ethiopia -- or at least outside of Africa.
And we welcome Ethiopian students to study in the United States. Through our Young African Leaders Initiative, we’re helping to empower dynamic young Ethiopians with the tools that they need to make a difference in their communities. Ethiopia also hosts one of the largest Peace Corps programs in the world and has welcomed thousands of young Americans over the years.
So the connections between our peoples are both deep and enduring. And today, the Prime Minister and I spoke about how we can strengthen the cooperation between our nations.
First, we’re going to continue working together to advance Ethiopia’s economic progress. Ethiopia has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and one of the largest economies in Africa. And we want to sustain that momentum, because a growing and inclusive economy in Ethiopia means more opportunities for the Ethiopian people and more trade and investment between our nations, which, in turn, helps to create American jobs.
With the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, we’ll work to further open American markets to Ethiopian products and help expand private sector investment in Ethiopia. Through our Power Africa initiative, we’re working to unlock Ethiopia’s potential for geothermal energy with the nation’s first private sector energy agreement. And this will help the government meet its ambitious goal of significantly increasing access to electricity across Ethiopia and help open the market to developing Ethiopia’s other vast renewable energy sources.
Second, we’re stepping up our cooperation on development, where Ethiopia has proven itself a global leader. To many people around the world, their image of Ethiopia remains stuck in the past -- remembering drought and famine. But in the past 15 years, Ethiopia has lifted millions of people out of poverty. We’re working closely together to improve food security, to help farmers plant drought-resistant and higher-yield crops. We’re building resilience to climate change. Fewer people are suffering needlessly from preventable diseases like malaria. More children are getting an education. Of course, there are still too many people, particularly in the rural areas, living in deprivation, so we have to keep moving on the progress that's been made.
Prime Minister Hailemariam has demonstrated his commitment to eliminating extreme poverty. Ethiopia recently hosted the International Conference on Financing for Development, which secured a global consensus about how the nations of the world will deliver on our promises, especially to those most in need. Your Prime Minister played a vital role in forging that consensus, and Ethiopia is now helping to shape a new set of sustainable development goals for the world.
Third, our security cooperation is pushing back against violent extremism. Ethiopia faces serious threats, and its contribution to the African Union mission in Somalia have reduced areas under al-Shabaab control. But, as the Prime Minister noted, yesterday’s bombing in Mogadishu reminds us that terrorist groups like al-Shabaab offer nothing but death and destruction and have to be stopped. We've got more work to do. This past week, Ethiopian troops have helped retake two major al-Shabaab strongholds. We have to now keep the pressure on.
Ethiopia is a major contributor, as well, to U.N. peacekeeping efforts; it contributes more troops than any other country in Africa. And we’re working together to improve the ability of Ethiopian peacekeepers to respond rapidly to emerging crises, before they spiral into widespread violence.
Ethiopia has also been a key partner as we seek to resolve the ongoing crisis in South Sudan. Later today, the Prime Minister and I will meet with leaders from across the region to discuss ways we can encourage the government and opposition in South Sudan to end the violence and move toward a peace agreement. I want to thank Ethiopia for the sanctuary it provides hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled South Sudan and conflicts throughout the region.
And finally, I would note that everything I’ve mentioned --sustained and inclusive growth, development, security gains --also depends on good governance. We had a frank discussion. In a global economy that’s increasingly driven by technology and the Internet, continued growth in Ethiopia depends on the free flow of information and open exchanges of ideas. I believe that when all voices are being heard, when people know that they’re included in the political process, that makes a country stronger and more successful and more innovative. So we discussed steps that Ethiopia can take to show progress on promoting good governance, protecting human rights, fundamental freedoms, and strengthening democracy. And this is an area where we intend to deepen our conversations and consultation, because we strongly believe in Ethiopia’s promise and its people.
Ethiopia is a strong partner with the United States and a leader on so many vital issues in the region. And it has the opportunity now to extend its leadership in ways that benefit all of Ethiopia’s people and that sets a positive example for the region. It's hard work, but my message today to the people of Ethiopia is that, as you take steps moving your country forward, the United States will be standing by you the entire way.
So, Prime Minister, thank you for your hospitality and for the important work that our nations do together. Ameseginalehu. (Applause.)
Q Thank you very much, Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister. Mr. President, you mentioned earlier that combatting terrorism is one of the areas in which Ethiopia and the U.S. are partnering. However, organizations based in the U.S. and Eritrea are (inaudible) in Ethiopia’s anti-terrorism efforts. How will your government assist Ethiopia in this regard?
And secondly, in regards to trade and investment cooperation, how committed is your government to transform the aid-based Ethiopia-U.S. relations to a mutually beneficial trade and investment cooperation? Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the first issue, this was part of our conversation both with respect to security, but also with respect to good governance and human rights issues. Our policy is that we oppose terrorism wherever it may occur. And we are opposed to any group that is promoting the violent overthrow of a government, including the government of Ethiopia, that has been democratically elected.
I also shared with the Prime Minister our interest in deepening intelligence cooperation. And we've had some fruitful discussions about ending the flow of foreign financing for terrorism. Our cooperation regionally is excellent. I know that there are certain groups that have been active in Ethiopia that, from the Ethiopian government’s perspective, pose a significant threat. Our intelligence indicates that while they may oppose the government, they have not tipped into terrorism. And we have some very clear standards in terms of how we evaluate that.
But what I indicated to the Prime Minister is, is that in our consultations and deepening intelligence cooperation, we will look and see what evidence we have, where there are real problems, and where we see genuine terrorist activity. That's something that we are going to want to cooperate with and stop.
So a lot of this has to do with how we define a particular group’s activities. If they are just talking about issues and are in opposition and are operating as political organizations, we tend to be protective of them even if we don't agree with them. That's true in the United States; that's true everywhere. And we think that's part of what’s necessary for a democracy. If they tip into activities that are violent and are undermining a properly constituted government, then we have a concern.
And so this will be a matter of facts -- what are the facts with respect to this issue -- in determining how we can work together.
On shifting development models, part of what I've been preaching ever since I came into office, and what we've been putting into practice as I travel across the continent of Africa, but this is also true in Latin America, it's true in Asia -- in this modern world, it is not enough just to provide aid. Sometimes aid is critical. I mean, we're very proud of the work that we've done to provide health aid that has saved millions of lives with respect to HIV/AIDS. We are very proud of our ability to mobilize humanitarian assistance when there’s a drought and the potential for starvation. Those are still necessary. But what we also believe is that we are your best partners and your best friends when we are building capacity.
So instead of just giving a fish, we teach you how to fish. And whether it's the work we're doing in agriculture, or on energy, our goal is not to simply provide something and then we go away, and then later on, we need to give you something more. Our goal is to help you advance your development agenda so that it's Ethiopian businesses and Ethiopian technical experts, and Ethiopian scientists, and Ethiopian agricultural workers who are continually building capacity and increasing development inside the country.
And on that, we can be a very effective partner. And that, then, allows us also to trade and engage the private sector in this process.
So, on Power Africa, for example, we are providing billions of dollars from the U.S. government, and we're leveraging the Swedish government and World Bank to create a fund that helps to facilitate transactions. But what we're also doing is working with the Ethiopian government to leverage that money so that the private sector says, we’d like to invest in Ethiopia, as well, and helping advise the Ethiopian Energy Ministry and technical experts on what may be the best models for reaching rural areas, for example -- which may not always involve big power plants but might involve off-grid, smaller models of development that are sustainable and are not dependent on constant financial flows from the West, but instead build up local capacity and are best suited for the particular environment where electricity is needed.
So that, I think, is going to be true in health, energy, agriculture. The more that Ethiopians are able to grow rapidly on their own, then our relationship becomes one of mutual interest, mutual respect. And Ethiopia then becomes a leader, and it can then help other countries that are not as advanced on the development scales. And then we can partner with you to help Somalia as it’s rebuilding after decades of failed governance.
MR. EARNEST: Our next question will come from Kevin Corke with Fox News.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to ask you about balance. And you often speak about the importance of rewarding good governance, and so I’m wondering how do you balance your obvious concerns about human rights here in Ethiopia with a desire for increased economic partnership and strengthening regional security cooperation? And if I could follow up -- have you ruled out, or would you consider increased military involvement by the United States in East Africa to battle al-Shabaab? And if so, what lessons could be learned from the battle against ISIS, for example, that might be relevant here?
And, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your great hospitality in your beautiful country. I’d like to ask you about perception. For all the incredible things that are happening here in Ethiopia -- a strengthening economy, great investment right now in renewable energy infrastructure -- there is still a perception, sir, that human rights abuses are tolerated here, and that could really be affecting international investment in your economy. Are you concerned about that? If so, how can concerned, and what might you be doing, sir, to change that perception? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, as I said in my opening remarks, this was a significant topic of conversation. We are very mindful of Ethiopia’s history -- the hardships that this country has gone through. It has been relatively recently in which the constitution that was formed and the elections put forward a democratically elected government. And as I indicated when I was in Kenya, there is still more work to do, and I think the Prime Minister is the first to acknowledge that there’s more work to do.
The way we think about these issues is we want to engage with governments on areas of mutual concern and interest -- the same way, by the way, that we deal with China and deal with a range of other countries where the democratic practices or issues around freedom of the press and assembly are not ones that align with how we are thinking about it, but we continually bring it up and we indicate that this is part of our core interest and concern in our foreign policy. That’s true here as well.
My observation to the Prime Minister has been that the governing party has significant breadth and popularity. And as a consequence, making sure to open additional space for journalists, for media, for opposition voices, will strengthen rather than inhibit the agenda that the Prime Minister and the ruling party has put forward.
And I think our goal here is to make sure that we are a constructive partner, recognizing that Ethiopia has its own culture and it’s not going to be identical to what we do, but there are certain principles that we think have to be upheld.
The one thing that I’ve tried to be consistent on, though, is to make sure that we don’t operate with big countries in one fashion and small countries in another. Nobody questions our need to engage with large countries where we may have differences on these issues. That’s true with Africa as well. We don’t improve cooperation and advance the very interest that you talk about by staying away. So we have to be in a conversation. And I think the Prime Minister will indicate that I don’t bite my tongue too much when it comes to these issues, but I do so from a position of respect and regard for the Ethiopian people, and recognizing their history and the challenges that they continue to face.
With respect to our military assistance, keep in mind that we have been active in the fight against al-Shabaab for a long time now. And we’ve been partnering with Ethiopia and Kenya and Uganda and the African Union and AMISOM. And that’s something that I think those other countries would agree has been a very effective partnership. Part of the reason that we’ve seen the shrinkage of al-Shabaab’s activities in East Africa is because we have our military teams in consultation with regional forces and local forces, and there are certain capacities that we have that some of these militaries may not, and I think there’s been complementarity in the work that we’ve done together.
So we don’t need to send our own Marines, for example, in to do the fighting. The Ethiopians are tough fighters. And the Kenyans and Ugandans have been serious about putting troops on the ground, at significant sacrifice, because they recognize the importance of stabilizing the region.
That’s why, in the past, I’ve said, for example, that the work that we’re doing in Somalia is a model. Some in the press have noted that al-Shabaab is still here, and they say, well, how can that be a model if you still have bombs going off? The point that I was making at that time is not that defeating any of these terrorist networks is easy, or that the problems in Somalia are completely solved. The point I was making was that a model in which we are partnering with other countries and they are providing outstanding troops on the ground -- we're working with, in this case, the Somali government, which is still very much in its infancy, to develop its national security capacity -- so that we’re doing things that we can do uniquely but does not require us putting boots on the ground -- that’s the model that we’re talking about.
And Ethiopia is an outstanding partner in that process. They have one of the most effective militaries on the continent. And as I noted in my earlier remarks, they are also one of the biggest contributors to peacekeeping. And so they’re averting a lot of bloodshed and a lot of conflict because of the effectiveness of their military, and we want to make sure that we’re supporting that.
PRIME MINISTER HAILEMARIAM: We fully understand that the perception and the reality does not, in many cases, match as far as Ethiopia is concerned. Therefore, we want to work on this issue; it’s our concern. But something has to be understood that this is a fledgling democracy, and we are coming out of centuries of undemocratic practices and culture in this country. And it’s not easy within a few decades -- in our case, only two decades of democratization -- that we can get rid of all this attitudinal problems, and some challenge we face. But we feel that we are on the right track, and there is a constitutional democracy which we all are obliged to observe for the sake of our own people and prosperity.
So I think this is a way that we have to work on. That’s why I said in my speech that we have to learn the best practices of the United States and age-old democracies, because this is a process of learning and doing, and I think we fully understand that. And, of course, we also know our limitations and we have to work on our limitations to make ultimately to the betterment of our own people. So I think that is a concern that we have to work on.
Q My question for you, Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn is, what do you expect from the United States and the rest of the international community in terms of supporting the peace and security efforts in the Horn of Africa, as well as how successful was your bilateral discussion with President Obama, specifically in regards to economic ties?
And, President Obama, my question for you is, what are your thoughts specifically on the IGAD Plus peacekeeping efforts in South Sudan?
PRIME MINISTER HAILEMARIAM: As far as the economic cooperation is concerned, I mentioned that Ethiopia is one of the vibrant economies, which is rising. And we need -- you know, we don’t want to put all our eggs in one basket. We need a comprehensive quality investment from every corner of the globe. And specifically, at this time, we agreed that the President is going to support us, his government is going to support us in bringing quality investment to Ethiopia.
We have longstanding relations, diplomatic relations, but the investment flow doesn’t match that long history of cooperation between Ethiopia and the United States. So I think there is room. Recently, we have a number of renowned companies from the United States showing up to invest in my country. But we also understand that we have to improve our investment climate and environment where there are stifling issues here and there, bureaucratic bottlenecks, that has to be addressed. And we are on stop of them and we can address them. I think by doing so, we can attract more foreign direct investment from the United States.
As far as the security cooperation in concerned, I think we believe that Africans should take our own responsibility by our own hand. We need support from the United States, but it doesn’t meant that the United States is going to replace us in picking our own agenda in Africa.
That’s why Ethiopia is contributing peacekeeping force -- a number which the President has mentioned. And we’re also working on increasing the capability of our troops in peacekeeping. But the most important thing is we have to engage the people of Africa and their respective countries to make peace and the governance system that helps the people to engage.
So I think we are on the right track. And we can make changes in Somalia and, I am hopeful, also in South Sudan. And I think in many cases, this shouldn’t mar the picture of Africa where, in large, Africa is now rising, and Africa is showing -- becoming the next growing tide for economic development and cooperation. So I think we are on the right track in this cooperation.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: IGAD has been a vital partner to the international community in leading discussions between Mr. Kiir, Mr. Machar, the government opposition figures in South Sudan. Unfortunately, the situation continues to deteriorate. That’s not because IGAD has not tried hard enough. I know that between Prime Minister Hailemariam and other partners in IGAD, there has been a lot of time and a lot of effort to push the parties together.
Nevertheless, the situation is deteriorating. The humanitarian situation is worsening. The possibilities of renewed conflict in a region that has been torn by conflict for so long and has resulted in so many deaths is something that requires urgent attention from all of us, including the international community.
That’s why, after this press conference, we’ll be consulting with leaders from the other countries who have been involved in IGAD to see how the United States, IGAD, and the international community can work to bring a peace agreement and a structure to fruition sometime in the next several weeks. We don’t have a lot of time to wait. The conditions on the ground are getting much, much worse. And part of my interest in calling together this meeting was to find out how we can help.
Up until this point, it’s been very useful to have the African countries take the lead. As Prime Minister Hailemariam stated, the more that Africans are solving African problems, the better off we’re going to be. But we also think that we can be a mechanism for additional leverage on the parties, who, up until this point, have proven very stubborn and have not yet risen to the point where they are looking out for the interests of their nation as opposed to their particular self-interests. And that transition has to take place, and it has to take place now.
MR. EARNEST: The final question will come from Darlene Superville with the Associated Press.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow up on the Sudan question. As you go into this meeting that you just mentioned, are you expecting any breakthroughs that will get both sides to agree to a peace deal by the August 17th deadline? And if there is no agreement, what further steps would you be willing to take to bring that about?
And if I could ask about Iran. Would you kindly bring us up to date on the administration’s lobbying of Congress to get approval for the deal? And would you include your reaction to Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee saying that the deal is the equivalent of marching the Israelis toward “the door of the oven”?
Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your hospitality. Would you also add your thoughts on the situation in Sudan and how to bring peace over there? The second question I have for you is, the Committee to Protect Journalists ranks your country as the second-worst jailer of journalists in Africa. Just before President Obama arrived here, some journalists were released. Many more are still being detained. Would you explain what issues or objections you have to a free press? Thank you.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: On South Sudan, the goal here is to make sure that the United States and IGAD are aligned on a strategy going into this endgame on peace talks. So my hope is that, as a result of these consultations, that we agree on how urgent it is and what each of us have to do to actually bring a deal about.
I don't want to prejudge what I'll hear from the President of Uganda, for example, until I actually hear from him. But the good news is that all of us recognize that something has got to move, because IGAD has now been involved with consultations with these individuals for a very, very long time, and our special envoys that have been involved in this for years now have concluded that now is the time for a breakthrough. And if we don't see a breakthrough by August 17th, then we're going to have to consider what other tools we have to apply greater pressure on the parties.
And that's something I think the parties will certainly hear from us. Our hope is that the message we deliver is similar to the message that they get from the IGAD countries and others who are interested in the issue.
With respect to Iran, I won't give a grade to our lobbying efforts. In fact, I'm not even sure I'd characterize it as lobbying. What we’re doing is presenting facts about an international agreement that 99 percent of the world thinks solves a vital problem in a way that will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and does so diplomatically.
And essentially what we've been seeing is Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz -- who is an expert on nuclear issues -- just providing the facts, laying out exactly what the deal is, explaining how it cuts off all the pathways for Iran to get a nuclear weapon; explaining how it puts in place unprecedented verification and inspection mechanisms; explaining how we have snapback provisions so that if they cheat, we immediately re-impose sanctions; explaining also how we will continue to address other aspects of Iranian behavior that are of deep concern to us and our allies -- like providing arms to terrorist organizations.
So the good news, I guess, is that I have not yet heard a factual argument on the other side that holds up to scrutiny. There’s a reason why 99 percent of the world thinks that this is a good deal -- it's because it's a good deal. There’s a reason why the overwhelming majority of nuclear scientists and nonproliferation experts think it's a good deal -- it's because it's a good deal. It accomplishes our goal, which is making sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. In fact, it accomplishes that goal better than any alternative that has been suggested.
And you’ve heard me, Darlene, stand up in front of the press corps and try to get a good argument on the other side that's based in fact as opposed to rhetoric. And I haven’t gotten one yet. So if you're asking me, how do you think our argument is going, it's going great. Now, if you're asking me about the politics of Washington and the rhetoric that takes place there, that doesn’t always go great.
The particular comments of Mr. Huckabee are, I think, part of just a general pattern that we've seen that is -- would be considered ridiculous if it weren’t so sad. We've had a sitting senator call John Kerry Pontius Pilate. We've had a sitting senator who also happens to be running for President suggest that I'm the leading state sponsor of terrorism. These are leaders in the Republican Party. And part of what historically has made America great is, particularly when it comes to foreign policy, there’s been a recognition that these issues are too serious, that issues of war and peace are of such grave concern and consequence that we don't play fast and loose that way. We have robust debates, we look at the facts, there are going to be disagreements. But we just don't fling out ad hominem attacks like that, because it doesn’t help inform the American people.
I mean, this is a deal that has been endorsed by people like Brent Scowcroft and Sam Nunn -- right? -- historic Democratic and Republican leaders on arms control and on keeping America safe. And so when you get rhetoric like this, maybe it gets attention and maybe this is just an effort to push Mr. Trump out of the headlines, but it's not the kind of leadership that is needed for America right now. And I don't think that's what anybody -- Democratic, Republican, or independent -- is looking for out of their political leaders.
In fact, it's been interesting when you look at what’s happened with Mr. Trump, when he’s made some of the remarks that, for example, challenged the heroism of Mr. McCain, somebody who endured torture and conducted himself with exemplary patriotism, the Republican Party is shocked. And yet, that arises out of a culture where those kinds of outrageous attacks have become far too commonplace and get circulated nonstop through the Internet and talk radio and news outlets. And I recognize when outrageous statements like that are made about me, that a lot of the same people who were outraged when they were made about Mr. McCain were pretty quiet.
The point is we're creating a culture that is not conducive to good policy or good politics. The American people deserve better. Certainly, presidential debates deserve better. In 18 months, I'm turning over the keys -- I want to make sure I'm turning over the keys to somebody who is serious about the serious problems the country faces and the world faces. And that requires on both sides, Democrat and Republican, a sense of seriousness and decorum and honesty. And I think that's what the voters expect, as well.
PRIME MINISTER HAILEMARIAM: As regards to South Sudan, I cannot agree more with the President. But we should also recognize that this process has taken a long, long negotiation period. And, on the other hand, people are suffering on the ground, and we cannot let this go unchecked. And I think the meeting which we are making this afternoon has a strong signal and message that has to be passed to the parties in South Sudan to see that that they’re (inaudible) first.
So I think this is very much essential. And I fully recognize what the President has said, and we'll see how it happens.
As far as Ethiopia is concerned, we need journalists. We need more of them and quality of them, because we have not only bad stories to be told, but we have many success stories that has to be told. And so we need you. This is very important. But we need ethical journalism to function in this country.
And there is limitation capacity in all aspects of our works, there is also capacity limitations in journalism and that way. Maybe those of you who are in developed nations, you can help our journalists -- domestic journalists -- to increase their capacity to work on ethical manner. But the only thing as a leader of this nation we do not want to see is journalism has to be respected when it doesn’t pass the line; that working with violent terrorist groups is not allowed -- even in the United States. And we need civilized journalism as a culture and as a profession.
So I think my government is committed to this issue, that we need many young journalists to come up and help this country to understand what’s going on. And for us, it's very important to be criticized because we also get feedback to correct our mistakes and limitations. So we need journalists. And I think this is our view. And rest assured that we’ll continue to do so, because the media is one of the institutions that has to be nurtured for democratic discourse. And so that's why we agree that institutional capacity-building in all aspects of democracy in this country is essential.
Jewish Americans support the Iran nuclear deal July 27, 2015 GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee says President Obama's Iran nuclear deal will "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/27/obama-huckabees-comments-on-iran-deal-typical-of-gops-inflammatory-remarks/ ]." Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu is the deal's preeminent opponent. But according to a rare national survey conducted in the wake of the agreement, a plurality of American Jews support the new Iran nuclear deal. The LA Jewish Journal survey [ http://www.jewishjournal.com/nation/article/new_poll_u.s._jews_support_iran_deal_despite_misgivings ] released Thursday found that 48 percent of Jews support the deal while 28 percent oppose it and 25 percent hadn't heard enough to form an opinion. The survey described key parts of the deal, which lifts major economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons. Jewish support for the deal was 20 percentage points higher than for Americans overall, according to a side-by-side poll of the general public. A separate question found 54 percent of Jews saying Congress should approve the deal, while 35 percent want Congress to block it. ... [...] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/jewish-americans-support-the-iran-nuclear-deal/ [with comments]
--
President Obama Speaks to the People of Africa
Published on Jul 28, 2015 by The White House
During his trip to Kenya and Ethiopia, President Obama delivers remarks at the African Union Headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 28, 2015.
*
Remarks by President Obama to the People of Africa
Mandela Hall African Union Headquarters Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
2:07 P.M. EAT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much for your kind words and your leadership. To Prime Minister Hailemariam, and the people of Ethiopia -- once again, thank you for your wonderful hospitality and for hosting this pan-African institution. (Applause.) To members of the African Union, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen -- thank you for welcoming me here today. It is a great honor to be the first President of the United States to address the African Union. (Applause.)
I’m grateful for this opportunity to speak to the representatives of more than one billion people of the great African continent. (Applause.) We’re joined today by citizens, by leaders of civil society, by faith communities, and I’m especially pleased to see so many young people who embody the energy and optimism of today’s Africa. Hello! Thank you for being here. (Applause.)
I stand before you as a proud American. I also stand before you as the son of an African. (Applause.) Africa and its people helped to shape America and allowed it to become the great nation that it is. And Africa and its people have helped shape who I am and how I see the world. In the villages in Kenya where my father was born, I learned of my ancestors, and the life of my grandfather, the dreams of my father, the bonds of family that connect us all as Africans and Americans.
As parents, Michelle and I want to make sure that our two daughters know their heritage -- European and African, in all of its strengths and all of its struggle. So we’ve taken our daughters and stood with them on the shores of West Africa, in those doors of no return, mindful that their ancestors were both slaves and slave owners. We’ve stood with them in that small cell on Robben Island where Madiba showed the world that, no matter the nature of his physical confinement, he alone was the master of his fate. (Applause.) For us, for our children, Africa and its people teach us a powerful lesson -- that we must uphold the inherent dignity of every human being.
Dignity -- that basic idea that by virtue of our common humanity, no matter where we come from, or what we look like, we are all born equal, touched by the grace of God. (Applause.) Every person has worth. Every person matters. Every person deserves to be treated with decency and respect. Throughout much of history, mankind did not see this. Dignity was seen as a virtue reserved to those of rank and privilege, kings and elders. It took a revolution of the spirit, over many centuries, to open our eyes to the dignity of every person. And around the world, generations have struggled to put this idea into practice in laws and in institutions.
So, too, here in Africa. This is the cradle of humanity, and ancient African kingdoms were home to great libraries and universities. But the evil of slavery took root not only abroad, but here on the continent. Colonialism skewed Africa’s economy and robbed people of their capacity to shape their own destiny. Eventually, liberation movements grew. And 50 years ago, in a great burst of self-determination, Africans rejoiced as foreign flags came down and your national flags went up. (Applause.) As South Africa’s Albert Luthuli said at the time, “the basis for peace and brotherhood in Africa is being restored by the resurrection of national sovereignty and independence, of equality and the dignity of man.”
A half-century into this independence era, it is long past time to put aside old stereotypes of an Africa forever mired in poverty and conflict. The world must recognize Africa’s extraordinary progress. Today, Africa is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. Africa’s middle class is projected to grow to more than one billion consumers. (Applause.) With hundreds of millions of mobile phones, surging access to the Internet, Africans are beginning to leapfrog old technologies into new prosperity. Africa is on the move, a new Africa is emerging.
Propelled by this progress, and in partnership with the world, Africa has achieved historic gains in health. The rate of new HIV/AIDS infections has plummeted. African mothers are more likely to survive childbirth and have healthy babies. Deaths from malaria have been slashed, saving the lives of millions of African children. Millions have been lifted from extreme poverty. Africa has led the world in sending more children to school. In other words, more and more African men, women and children are living with dignity and with hope. (Applause.)
And Africa’s progress can also be seen in the institutions that bring us together today. When I first came to Sub-Saharan Africa as a President, I said that Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. (Applause.) And one of those institutions can be the African Union. Here, you can come together, with a shared commitment to human dignity and development. Here, your 54 nations pursue a common vision of an “integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa.”
As Africa changes, I’ve called on the world to change its approach to Africa. (Applause.) So many Africans have told me, we don’t want just aid, we want trade that fuels progress. We don’t want patrons, we want partners who help us build our own capacity to grow. (Applause.) We don’t want the indignity of dependence, we want to make our own choices and determine our own future.
As President, I’ve worked to transform America’s relationship with Africa -- so that we’re truly listening to our African friends and working together, as equal partners. And I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made. We’ve boosted American exports to this region, part of trade that supports jobs for Africans and Americans. To sustain our momentum -- and with the bipartisan support of some of the outstanding members of Congress who are here today -- 20 of them who are here today -- I recently signed the 10-year renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. (Applause.) And I want to thank them all. Why don't they stand very briefly so you can see them, because they’ve done outstanding work. (Applause.)
We’ve launched major initiatives to promote food security, and public health and access to electricity, and to prepare the next generation of African leaders and entrepreneurs --investments that will help fuel Africa’s rise for decades to come. Last year, as the Chairwoman noted, I welcomed nearly 50 African presidents and prime ministers to Washington so we could begin a new chapter of cooperation. And by coming to the African Union today, I’m looking to build on that commitment.
I believe Africa’s rise is not just important for Africa, it's important to the entire world. We will not be able to meet the challenges of our time -- from ensuring a strong global economy to facing down violent extremism, to combating climate change, to ending hunger and extreme poverty -- without the voices and contributions of one billion Africans. (Applause.)
Now, even with Africa’s impressive progress, we must acknowledge that many of these gains rest on a fragile foundation. Alongside new wealth, hundreds of millions of Africans still endure extreme poverty. Alongside high-tech hubs of innovation, many Africans are crowded into shantytowns without power or running water -- a level of poverty that’s an assault on human dignity.
Moreover, as the youngest and fastest-growing continent, Africa’s population in the coming decades will double to some two billion people, and many of them will be young, under 18. Now, on the one hand, this could bring tremendous opportunities as these young Africans harness new technologies and ignite new growth and reforms. Economists will tell you that countries, regions, continents grow faster with younger populations. It's a demographic edge and advantage -- but only if those young people are being trained. We need only to look at the Middle East and North Africa to see that large numbers of young people with no jobs and stifled voices can fuel instability and disorder.
I suggest to you that the most urgent task facing Africa today and for decades ahead is to create opportunity for this next generation. (Applause.) And this will be an enormous undertaking. Africa will need to generate millions more jobs than it’s doing right now. And time is of the essence. The choices made today will shape the trajectory of Africa, and therefore, the world for decades to come. And as your partner and your friend, allow me to suggest several ways that we can meet this challenge together.
Africa’s progress will depend on unleashing economic growth -- not just for the few at the top, but for the many, because an essential element of dignity is being able to live a decent life. (Applause.) That begins with a job. And that requires trade and investment.
Many of your nations have made important reforms to attract investment -- it’s been a spark for growth. But in many places across Africa, it’s still too hard to start a venture, still too hard to build a business. Governments that take additional reforms to make doing business easier will have an eager partner in the United States. (Applause.)
And that includes reforms to help Africa trade more with itself -- as the Chairwoman and I discussed before we came out here today -- because the biggest markets for your goods are often right next door. You don't have to just look overseas for growth, you can look internally. And our work to help Africa modernize customs and border crossings started with the East African Community -- now we’re expanding our efforts across the continent, because it shouldn’t be harder for African countries to trade with each other than it is for you to trade with Europe and America. (Applause.)
Now, most U.S. trade with the region is with just three countries -- South Africa, Nigeria and Angola -- and much of that is in the form of energy. I want Africans and Americans doing more business together in more sectors, in more countries. So we’re increasing trade missions to places like Tanzania, Ethiopia Mozambique. We’re working to help more Africans get their goods to market. Next year, we’ll host another U.S.-Africa Business Forum to mobilize billions of dollars in new trade and investment -- so we’re buying more of each other’s products and all growing together.
Now, the United States isn’t the only country that sees your growth as an opportunity. And that is a good thing. When more countries invest responsibly in Africa, it creates more jobs and prosperity for us all. So I want to encourage everybody to do business with Africa, and African countries should want to do business with every country. But economic relationships can’t simply be about building countries’ infrastructure with foreign labor or extracting Africa’s natural resources. Real economic partnerships have to be a good deal for Africa -- they have to create jobs and capacity for Africans. (Applause.)
And that includes the point that Chairwoman Zuma made about illicit flows with multinationals -- which is one of the reasons that we've been a leading advocate, working with the G7, to assist in making sure that there’s honest accounting when businesses are investing here in Africa, and making sure that capital flows are properly accounted for. That's the kind of partnership America offers.
Nothing will unlock Africa’s economic potential more than ending the cancer of corruption. (Applause.) And you are right that it is not just a problem of Africa, it is a problem of those who do business with Africa. It is not unique to Africa -- corruption exists all over the world, including in the United States. But here in Africa, corruption drains billions of dollars from economies that can't afford to lose billions of dollars -- that's money that could be used to create jobs and build hospitals and schools. And when someone has to pay a bribe just to start a business or go to school, or get an official to do the job they’re supposed to be doing anyway -- that’s not “the African way.” (Applause.) It undermines the dignity of the people you represent.
Only Africans can end corruption in their countries. As African governments commit to taking action, the United States will work with you to combat illicit financing, and promote good governance and transparency and rule of law. And we already have strong laws in place that say to U.S. companies, you can't engage in bribery to try to get business -- which not all countries have. And we actually enforce it and police it.
And let me add that criminal networks are both fueling corruption and threatening Africa’s precious wildlife -- and with it, the tourism that many African economies count on. So America also stands with you in the fight against wildlife trafficking. That's something that has to be addressed. (Applause.)
But, ultimately, the most powerful antidote to the old ways of doing things is this new generation of African youth. History shows that the nations that do best are the ones that invest in the education of their people. (Applause.) You see, in this information age, jobs can flow anywhere, and they typically will flow to where workers are literate and highly skilled and online. And Africa’s young people are ready to compete. I've met them -- they are hungry, they are eager. They’re willing to work hard. So we've got to invest in them. As Africa invests in education, our entrepreneurship programs are helping innovators start new businesses and create jobs right here in Africa. And the men and women in our Young African Leaders Initiative today will be the leaders who can transform business and civil society and governments tomorrow.
Africa’s progress will depend on development that truly lifts countries from poverty to prosperity -- because people everywhere deserve the dignity of a life free from want. A child born in Africa today is just as equal and just as worthy as a child born in Asia or Europe or America. At the recent development conference here in Addis, African leadership helped forge a new global compact for financing that fuels development. And under the AU’s leadership, the voice of a united Africa will help shape the world’s next set of development goals, and you’re pursuing a vision of the future that you want for Africa.
And America’s approach to development -- the central focus of our engagement with Africa -- is focused on helping you build your own capacity to realize that vision. Instead of just shipping food aid to Africa, we’ve helped more than two million farmers use new techniques to boost their yields, feed more people, reduce hunger. With our new alliance of government and the private sector investing billions of dollars in African agriculture, I believe we can achieve our goal and lift 50 million Africans from poverty.
Instead of just sending aid to build power plants, our Power Africa initiative is mobilizing billions of dollars in investments from governments and businesses to reduce the number of Africans living without electricity. Now, an undertaking of this magnitude will not be quick. It will take many years. But working together, I believe we can bring electricity to more than 60 million African homes and businesses and connect more Africans to the global economy. (Applause.)
Instead of just telling Africa, you’re on your own, in dealing with climate change, we’re delivering new tools and financing to more than 40 African nations to help them prepare and adapt. By harnessing the wind and sun, your vast geothermal energy and rivers for hydropower, you can turn this climate threat into an economic opportunity. And I urge Africa to join us in rejecting old divides between North and South so we can forge a strong global climate agreement this year in Paris. Because sparing some of the world’s poorest people from rising seas, more intense droughts, shortages of water and food is a matter of survival and a matter of human dignity.
Instead of just sending medicine, we’re investing in better treatments and helping Africa prevent and treat diseases. As the United States continues to provide billions of dollars in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and as your countries take greater ownership of health programs, we’re moving toward a historic accomplishment -- the first AIDS-free generation. (Applause.) And if the world learned anything from Ebola, it’s that the best way to prevent epidemics is to build strong public health systems that stop diseases from spreading in the first place. So America is proud to partner with the AU and African countries in this mission. Today, I can announce that of the $1 billion that the United States is devoting to this work globally, half will support efforts here in Africa. (Applause.)
I believe Africa’s progress will also depend on democracy, because Africans, like people everywhere, deserve the dignity of being in control of their own lives. (Applause.) We all know what the ingredients of real democracy are. They include free and fair elections, but also freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly. These rights are universal. They’re written into African constitutions. (Applause.) The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights declares that “every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being.” From Sierra Leone, Ghana, Benin, to Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, democracy has taken root. In Nigeria, more than 28 million voters bravely cast their ballots and power transferred as it should -- peacefully. (Applause.)
Yet at this very moment, these same freedoms are denied to many Africans. And I have to proclaim, democracy is not just formal elections. (Applause.) When journalists are put behind bars for doing their jobs, or activists are threatened as governments crack down on civil society -- (applause) -- then you may have democracy in name, but not in substance. (Applause.) And I'm convinced that nations cannot realize the full promise of independence until they fully protect the rights of their people.
And this is true even for countries that have made important democratic progress. As I indicated during my visit to Kenya, the remarkable gains that country has made with a new constitution, with its election, cannot be jeopardized by restrictions on civil society. Likewise, our host, Ethiopians have much to be proud of -- I've been amazed at all the wonderful work that's being done here -- and it's true that the elections that took place here occurred without violence. But as I discussed with Prime Minister Hailemariam, that’s just the start of democracy. I believe Ethiopia will not fully unleash the potential of its people if journalists are restricted or legitimate opposition groups can't participate in the campaign process. And, to his credit, the Prime Minister acknowledged that more work will need to be done for Ethiopia to be a full-fledged, sustainable democracy. (Applause.)
So these are conversations we have to have as friends. Our American democracy is not perfect. We've worked for many years -- (applause) -- but one thing we do is we continually reexamine to figure out how can we make our democracy better. And that's a force of strength for us, being willing to look and see honestly what we need to be doing to fulfill the promise of our founding documents.
And every country has to go through that process. No country is perfect, but we have to be honest, and strive to expand freedoms, to broaden democracy. The bottom line is that when citizens cannot exercise their rights, the world has a responsibility to speak out. And America will, even if it’s sometimes uncomfortable -- (applause) -- even when it’s sometimes directed toward our friends.
And I know that there’s some countries that don't say anything -- (laughter) -- and maybe that's easier for leaders to deal with. (Laughter.) But you're kind of stuck with us -- this is how we are. (Applause.) We believe in these things and we're going to keep on talking about them.
And I want to repeat, we do this not because we think our democracy is perfect, or we think that every country has to follow precisely our path. For more than two centuries since our independence, we’re still working on perfecting our union. We're not immune from criticism. When we fall short of our ideals, we strive to do better. (Applause.) But when we speak out for our principles, at home and abroad, we stay true to our values and we help lift up the lives of people beyond our borders. And we think that's important. And it's especially important, I believe, for those of us of African descent, because we've known what it feels like to be on the receiving end of injustice. We know what it means to be discriminated against. (Applause.) We know what it means to be jailed. So how can we stand by when it's happening to somebody else?
I'll be frank with you, it can't just be America that's talking about these things. Fellow African countries have to talk about these things. (Applause.) Just as other countries championed your break from colonialism, our nations must all raise our voices when universal rights are being denied. For if we truly believe that Africans are equal in dignity, then Africans have an equal right to freedoms that are universal -- that’s a principle we all have to defend. (Applause.) And it's not just a Western idea; it's a human idea.
I have to also say that Africa’s democratic progress is also at risk when leaders refuse to step aside when their terms end. (Applause.) Now, let me be honest with you -- I do not understand this. (Laughter.) I am in my second term. It has been an extraordinary privilege for me to serve as President of the United States. I cannot imagine a greater honor or a more interesting job. I love my work. But under our Constitution, I cannot run again. (Laughter and applause.) I can't run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good President -- I think if I ran I could win. (Laughter and applause.) But I can't.
So there’s a lot that I'd like to do to keep America moving, but the law is the law. (Applause.) And no one person is above the law. Not even the President. (Applause.) And I'll be honest with you -- I’m looking forward to life after being President. (Laughter.) I won't have such a big security detail all the time. (Laughter.) It means I can go take a walk. I can spend time with my family. I can find other ways to serve. I can visit Africa more often. (Applause.) The point is, I don't understand why people want to stay so long. (Laughter.) Especially when they’ve got a lot of money. (Laughter and applause.)
When a leader tries to change the rules in the middle of the game just to stay in office, it risks instability and strife -- as we’ve seen in Burundi. (Applause.) And this is often just a first step down a perilous path. And sometimes you’ll hear leaders say, well, I'm the only person who can hold this nation together. (Laughter.) If that's true, then that leader has failed to truly build their nation. (Applause.)
You look at Nelson Mandela -- Madiba, like George Washington, forged a lasting legacy not only because of what they did in office, but because they were willing to leave office and transfer power peacefully. (Applause.) And just as the African Union has condemned coups and illegitimate transfers of power, the AU’s authority and strong voice can also help the people of Africa ensure that their leaders abide by term limits and their constitutions. (Applause.) Nobody should be president for life.
And your country is better off if you have new blood and new ideas. (Applause.) I'm still a pretty young man, but I know that somebody with new energy and new insights will be good for my country. (Applause.) It will be good for yours, too, in some cases.
Africa’s progress will also depend on security and peace -- because an essential part of human dignity is being safe and free from fear. In Angola, Mozambique, Liberia, Sierra Leone, we’ve seen conflicts end and countries work to rebuild. But from Somalia and Nigeria to Mali and Tunisia, terrorists continue to target innocent civilians. Many of these groups claim the banner of religion, but hundreds of millions of African Muslims know that Islam means peace. (Applause.) And we must call groups like al Qaeda, ISIL, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram -- we must call them what they are -- murderers. (Applause.)
In the face of threats, Africa -- and the African Union --has shown leadership. Because of the AU force in Somalia, al-Shabaab controls less territory and the Somali government is growing stronger. In central Africa, the AU-led mission continues to degrade the Lord’s Resistance Army. In the Lake Chad Basin, forces from several nations -- with the backing of the AU -- are fighting to end Boko Haram’s senseless brutality. And today, we salute all those who serve to protect the innocent, including so many brave African peacekeepers.
Now, as Africa stands against terror and conflict, I want you to know that the United States stands with you. With training and support, we’re helping African forces grow stronger. The United States is supporting the AU’s efforts to strengthen peacekeeping, and we’re working with countries in the region to deal with emerging crises with the African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership.
The world must do more to help as well. This fall at the United Nations, I will host a summit to secure new commitments to strengthen international support for peacekeeping, including here in Africa. And building on commitments that originated here in the AU, we’ll work to develop a new partnership between the U.N. and the AU that can provide reliable support for AU peace operations. If African governments and international partners step up with strong support, we can transform how we work together to promote security and peace in Africa.
Our efforts to ensure our shared security must be matched by a commitment to improve governance. Those things are connected. Good governance is one of the best weapons against terrorism and instability. Our fight against terrorist groups, for example, will never be won if we fail to address legitimate grievances that terrorists may try to exploit, if we don’t build trust with all communities, if we don’t uphold the rule of law. There’s a saying, and I believe it is true -- if we sacrifice liberty in the name of security, we risk losing both. (Applause.)
This same seriousness of purpose is needed to end conflicts. In the Central African Republic, the spirit of dialogue recently shown by ordinary citizens must be matched by leaders committed to inclusive elections and a peaceful transition. In Mali, the comprehensive peace agreement must be fulfilled. And leaders in Sudan must know their nation will never truly thrive so long as they wage war against their own people -- the world will not forget about Darfur.
In South Sudan, the joy of independence has descended into the despair of violence. I was there at the United Nations when we held up South Sudan as the promise of a new beginning. And neither Mr. Kiir, nor Mr. Machar have shown, so far, any interest in sparing their people from this suffering, or reaching a political solution.
Yesterday, I met with leaders from this region. We agree that, given the current situation, Mr. Kiir and Mr. Machar must reach an agreement by August 17th -- because if they do not, I believe the international community must raise the costs of intransigence. And the world awaits the report of the AU Commission of Inquiry, because accountability for atrocities must be part of any lasting peace in Africa’s youngest nation. (Applause.)
And finally, Africa’s progress will depend on upholding the human rights of all people -- for if each of us is to be treated with dignity, each of us must be sure to also extend that same dignity to others. As President, I make it a point to meet with many of our Young African Leaders. And one was a young man from Senegal. He said something wonderful about being together with so many of his African brothers and sisters. He said, “Here, I have met Africa, the [Africa] I’ve always believed in. She’s beautiful. She’s young. She’s full of talent and motivation and ambition.” I agree.
Africa is the beautiful, talented daughters who are just as capable as Africa’s sons. (Applause.) And as a father, I believe that my two daughters have to have the same chance to pursue their dreams as anybody’s son -- and that same thing holds true for girls here in Africa. (Applause.) Our girls have to be treated the same.
We can’t let old traditions stand in the way. The march of history shows that we have the capacity to broaden our moral imaginations. We come to see that some traditions are good for us, they keep us grounded, but that, in our modern world, other traditions set us back. When African girls are subjected to the mutilation of their bodies, or forced into marriage at the ages of 9 or 10 or 11 -- that sets us back. That's not a good tradition. It needs to end. (Applause.)
When more than 80 percent of new HIV cases in the hardest-hit countries are teenage girls, that’s a tragedy; that sets us back. So America is beginning a partnership with 10 African countries -- Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe -- to keep teenage girls safe and AIDS-free. (Applause.) And when girls cannot go to school and grow up not knowing how to read or write -- that denies the world future women engineers, future women doctors, future women business owners, future women presidents -- that sets us all back. (Applause.) That's a bad tradition -- not providing our girls the same education as our sons.
I was saying in Kenya, nobody would put out a football team and then just play half the team. You’d lose. (Applause.) the same is true when it comes to getting everybody and education. You can't leave half the team off -- our young women. So as part of America’s support for the education and the health of our daughters, my wife, Michelle, is helping to lead a global campaign, including a new effort in Tanzania and Malawi, with a simple message -- Let Girls Learn -- let girls learn so they grow up healthy and they grow up strong. (Applause.) And that will be good for families. And they will raise smart, healthy children, and that will be good for every one of your nations.
Africa is the beautiful, strong women that these girls grow up to become. The single best indicator of whether a nation will succeed is how it treats its women. (Applause.) When women have health care and women have education, families are stronger, communities are more prosperous, children do better in school, nations are more prosperous. Look at the amazing African women here in this hall. (Applause.) If you want your country to grow and succeed, you have to empower your women. And if you want to empower more women, America will be your partner. (Applause.)
Let’s work together to stop sexual assault and domestic violence. Let’s make clear that we will not tolerate rape as a weapon of war -- it’s a crime. (Applause.) And those who commit it must be punished. Let’s lift up the next generation of women leaders who can help fight injustice and forge peace and start new businesses and create jobs -- and some might hire some men, too. (Laughter.) We’ll all be better off when women have equal futures.
And Africa is the beautiful tapestry of your cultures and ethnicities and races and religions. Last night, we saw this amazing dance troupe made up of street children who had formed a dance troupe and they performed for the Prime Minister and myself. And there were 80 different languages and I don't know how many ethnic groups. And there were like 30 different dances that were being done. And the Prime Minister was trying to keep up with -- okay, I think that one is -- (laughter) -- and they were moving fast. And that diversity here in Ethiopia is representative of diversity all throughout Africa. (Applause.) And that's a strength.
Now, yesterday, I had the privilege to view Lucy -- you may know Lucy -- she’s our ancestor, more than 3 million years old. (Applause.) In this tree of humanity, with all of our branches and diversity, we all go back to the same root. We’re all one family -- we're all one tribe. And yet so much of the suffering in our world stems from our failure to remember that -- to not recognize ourselves in each other. (Applause.)
We think because somebody’s skin is slightly different, or their hair is slightly different, or their religious faith is differently expressed, or they speak a different language that it justifies somehow us treating them with less dignity. And that becomes the source of so many of our problems. And we think somehow that we make ourselves better by putting other people down. And that becomes the source of so many of our problems. When we begin to see other as somehow less than ourselves -- when we succumb to these artificial divisions of faith or sect or tribe or ethnicity -- then even the most awful abuses are justified in the minds of those who are thinking in those ways. And in the end, abusers lose their own humanity, as well. (Applause.)
Nelson Mandela taught us, “to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
Every one of us is equal. Every one of us has worth. Every one of us matters. And when we respect the freedom of others -- no matter the color of their skin, or how they pray or who they are or who they love -- we are all more free. (Applause.) Your dignity depends on my dignity, and my dignity depends on yours. Imagine if everyone had that spirit in their hearts. Imagine if governments operated that way. (Applause.) Just imagine what the world could look like -- the future that we could bequeath these young people.
Yes, in our world, old thinking can be a stubborn thing. That's one of the reasons why we need term limits -- old people think old ways. And you can see my grey hair, I'm getting old. (Laughter.) The old ways can be stubborn. But I believe the human heart is stronger. I believe hearts can change. I believe minds can open. That’s how change happens. That’s how societies move forward. It's not always a straight line -- step by halting step -- sometimes you go forward, you move back a little bit. But I believe we are marching, we are pointing towards ideals of justice and equality.
That’s how your nations won independence -- not just with rifles, but with principles and ideals. (Applause.) That's how African Americans won our civil rights. That's how South Africans -- black and white -- tore down apartheid. That's why I can stand before you today as the first African American President of the United States. (Applause.)
New thinking. Unleashing growth that creates opportunity. Promoting development that lifts all people out of poverty. Supporting democracy that gives citizens their say. Advancing the security and justice that delivers peace. Respecting the human rights of all people. These are the keys to progress -- not just in Africa, but around the world. And this is the work that we can do together.
And I am hopeful. As I prepare to return home, my thoughts are with that same young man from Senegal, who said: Here, I have met Africa, the [Africa] I’ve always believed in. She’s beautiful and young, full of talent and motivation and ambition. To which I would simply add, as you build the Africa you believe in, you will have no better partner, no better friend than the United States of America. (Applause.)
God bless Africa. God bless the United States of America. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. (Applause.)
Fmr. Amb. to Israel: Huckabee ‘incitement’ similar to incitement that led to Yitzhak Rabin’s death
By Brian Montopoli 07/28/15 12:51 AM—Updated 07/29/15 06:45 PM
Daniel Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel for four years under President George W. Bush, said Monday that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s use of holocaust imagery to attack President Obama was reminiscent of the rhetoric that led to the assassination of former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.
“There are serious issues to be debated here but for anybody to equate what the president’s doing to what Adolph Hitler did in World War II is just extraordinary,” Kurtzer said on MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes.” “And in some ways it’s a form of incitement, and we’ve seen the results of that 20 years ago in Israel.”
“There was the same kind of incitement against Yitzhak Rabin and that led to a tragic outcome,” Kurtzer continued. “I just hope that people really stand back and understand that Mr. Huckabee has crossed a very serious line here. Every Republican candidate should stand up, condemn this and ask him to retract it.”
Huckabee told Breitbart News that President Obama’s decision to “trust” the Iranians was exceedingly naïve, adding, “By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”
President Obama, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush all criticized the comment.
During an appearance on Fox News on Monday, the former Arkansas governor refused to back down.
“If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all,” Huckabee said. “Because the last time—it’s Neville Chamberlain all over again. We’re gonna just trust that everyone’s gonna do the right thing. Three times I’ve been to Auschwitz. When I talked about the oven door, I have stood at that oven door. I know exactly what it looks like.”
Why Huckabee's Holocaust rhetoric has fallen flat in Israel (+video)
Republican presidential candidate former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee speaks at the American Legislative Exchange Council 42nd annual meeting Thursday, July 23, 2015 in San Diego. Denis Poroy/AP
The Republican presidential candidate has attacked the White House's nuclear agreement with Iran. By painting a picture of an Israel on the brink of annihilation, he isn't winning new friends in Israel's government.
By Dan Murphy July 28, 2015
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's claim that the nuclear agreement reached with Iran is "marching the Israelis to the door of the oven" continues to be slammed, this time by Israeli officials.
"I don't doubt is the sincerity of the president or his team when they say they believe this deal not only makes America safe but makes Israel safe. Where we disagree is the judgment of actually what this deal is going to do," Mr. Dermer told USA Today. "We don't in any way impugn the motives of the people who are doing this deal."
The agreement reached July 14 would lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for substantial reductions in its enriched uranium stockpiles; the dismantling of nuclear centrifuges; and the redesign of the nuclear reactor at Arak so it won't produce fuel that could potentially be used for a weapon.
Huckabee's rhetoric – comparing President Obama and his policies to Nazi Germany and bringing up the specter of the Holocaust, the Nazi genocide that killed about 6 million Jews – is surprisingly common among anti-Obama partisans. But Huckabee this week claimed that ground as all his own, repeating the claim multiple times even as other Republican presidential candidates have backed away [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/mike-huckabee-2016-iran-deal-holocaust-120651.html ].
Huckabee's "oven door" comment is a reference to the vast crematoriums at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, where over 1 million Jews were gassed to death.
While Huckabee and his supporters may think they're supporting Israel, it's also the case that insisting that the country is on the brink of annihilation tends to discourage Jewish immigration to the country, an Israeli government policy. Israel has the region's most powerful military and is the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East. And the US has long sought to ensure Israel has a substantial edge over its neighbors in both the quality and quantity of its military technology.
Israel's national mythology is as a homeland to world's Jews and the only place they can be truly safe. With that in mind, it appears that Huckabee, by predicting another Holocaust, has given offense in multiple directions.
Daniel Kurtzer, President George W. Bush's ambassador to Israel between 2001-2005, told MSNBC that Huckabee's remarks remind him of the atmosphere of incitement that led to the 1995 murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a religious Zionist who objected to the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian leadership.
Following the Oslo Accords, Israel's far right began to warn that it would lead to another holocaust and Rabin was called a Judenrat - a collaborator with the Nazis - by both protesters and prominent Rabbis.
President Obama waves as he departs the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi, Kenya. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)
Video [embedded] Obama: Huckabee's comments on Iran are 'ridiculous' (1:16) President Obama criticized rhetoric from Republican 2016 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who said the Iran nuclear deal was so flawed it will “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” (WhiteHouse.gov)
By Kathleen Parker July 28, 2015
It is good to be President Barack Obama these days.
In the midst of a visit to Africa, including Kenya, where Republican front-runner Donald Trump has insisted Obama was born, the president seems to have been liberated by events and circumstances to speak his true mind.
Events include the Supreme Court’s favorable rulings on the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage. Circumstances stem from the Republican presidential race, in which some candidates appear to be vying to out-Trump Trump.
In sum, Obama doesn’t think much of Trump — or of Trump’s Republican critics. Neither does he think much of GOP leaders and wannabe presidents, whose apocalyptic rhetoric has reduced political debate to a crypto-Armageddon-ish clash of cliches.
Addressing those Republicans who complain about Trump now — or who criticized him for questioning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) war heroism — Obama said they are either insincere or stupid. My guess is that Obama would go with the second choice.
“Now” is the operative word since so few in the GOP were willing to criticize Trump when he was challenging Obama’s natural-born citizenship. Of course, in those days, potential presidential candidates were hoping for a handout from Trump. Little did they suspect he’d soon be routing and outing them, telling their little secrets (Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked him for help getting on Fox News) and ridiculing their appearance (former Texas governor Rick Perry wears glasses so he’ll look smart [ http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/07/21/donald-trump-rick-perry-glasses-sc-bts.cnn ]). Ouchie and ouch.
Put these three in a cocktail shaker and you get a rather mixed metaphor that nonetheless pours like a narrative: Pontius Kerry is leading the Jews to the Auschwitz ovens in a terrorist act orchestrated by the president of the United States.
With all due respect, you three are making Rick Perry look like Confucius, though you might edge out Graham for a spot on Fox News. Outrageous remarks get attention, and attention gets ratings, and ratings are the coins of the realm.
Contrary to Cruz’s remark, Obama is the terrorist-killer in chief. The drone-master has killed the second-highest-ranking terrorist leader, oh, at least 373 times in the past six years. In the world of terrorism, you do not want to be third in command.
Moreover, Obama’s trip to Ethiopia was partly to praise the nation for its role in weakening the al-Qaeda-linked al-Shabab group in Somalia. He also urged greater press freedom and human rights, hardly the priorities of a terrorist leader. Or does Cruz think this was a clever ruse?
If you squint your eyes and spin in circles counting backward from 100 by threes, you can begin to understand how Cotton would see Kerry, who is trying to negotiate a way to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities, as exactly like Pilate, who condemned Jesus Christ to die on the cross. Huh? Exactly.
Finally, Huckabee. What did you do with the other Huckabee [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/this-is-who-mike-huckabee-really-is/ ] — the jovial, not-mad-at-anybody, quick-with-a-quip Huckabee? “Oven”? It’s vivid and descriptive but cruel and offensive. One does not summon the horrors of the Holocaust except to discuss The Holocaust — a singularly horrific event deserving of its own place in history and in no one’s stump speech.
At most, these three conjurers have demonstrated temperaments unbecoming of leadership while insulting thoughtful Republicans who deserve better. Unwittingly (and how), they’ve made President Obama, whom they find so despicable, appear the wisest of all.
Iran Nuclear Deal Gets Support of House Israel Backer, Sander Levin
Representatives Sander M. Levin, right, and Bill Pascrell Jr., at a news conference at the Capitol in June. Mr. Levin said Tuesday he would support the Iran nuclear deal. Lauren Victoria Burke/Associated Press
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER JULY 28, 2015
WASHINGTON — Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the longest-serving Jewish member now in the House, said Tuesday that he would support the Iran nuclear accord, lending a hefty voice of approval in a chamber deeply skeptical of the deal.
“Israel’s security has and always will be of critical importance to me and our country,” Mr. Levin said in a lengthy statement [ http://levin.house.gov/press-release/levin-statement-iran-nuclear-agreement ] explaining his decision. “I believe that Israel, the region and the world are far more secure if Iran does not move toward possession of a nuclear weapon. I believe the agreement is the best way to achieve that. In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult.”
In a demonstration of that tension, Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York and the ranking Democrat on the committee, sounded notes of alarm.
Noting that “barely a week after the deal” was announced, the supreme leader of Iran had called publicly for “death to America,” Mr. Engel said, “How can we trust Iran when this type of thing happens?”
Congress has 60 days to review the deal, after which it can pass a resolution of approval or disapproval — or do nothing. Mr. Obama would veto a resolution of disapproval, and the opponents could override that only with a two-thirds vote of Congress.
The White House and some Democratic allies in Congress are working to prevent a veto override or even a resolution of disapproval at all; preventing a resolution seems highly unlikely in the House. On Monday, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the majority leader, said he expected the House would move forward on a resolution of disapproval.
While the Obama administration lobbies Congress, opponents have geared up in equal measure and are expected to bombard radio stations and other news media with an August recess campaign intended to pressure Democrats.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, met with staunchly conservative House Republicans last week to urge them to “leave everything on the field” to derail the accord. On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry once again made his case to skeptical lawmakers that the recently negotiated accord was the only chance to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and that failure to enact the agreement would isolate the United States internationally.
Treasury: No, Iran Is Not Getting $150 Billion From The Nuclear Deal
And it will cost over $100 billion just to restore the country's oil and gas sector.
By Jessica Schulberg Posted: 07/29/2015 10:23 AM EDT | Edited: 07/29/2015 11:08 AM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Iran will receive approximately $55 billion in sanctions relief once the nuclear deal is implemented, said Treasury Secretary Jack Lew -- a fraction of the $150 billion that critics of the agreement have claimed will go to the country.
“There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect,” said Lew, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been committed elsewhere.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran’s demand for domestic investment surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
“I have never argued that a penny can’t be put to a malign purpose,” Lew said. “But this is not going to change the shape of Iran’s resources for good or bad purposes.”
Lew’s remarks came just before he headed to Capitol Hill, where he, along with State Secretary John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, will brief lawmakers on the merits of the nuclear accord for the third time since it was finalized on July 14.
Members of Congress have until mid-September to review the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran, the U.S. and five world powers, and vote on the deal. If a vote against the deal has the support of two-thirds of the House and the Senate, the president will lose his ability to temporarily waive some sanctions against Iran, which would likely sink the agreement.
On Wednesday, Lew said there was growing support in Congress from the lawmakers who are listening to the administration’s arguments on the merits of the accord. He declined to share the number of lawmakers he would include in that group, but has showed growing frustration with some members’ staunch opposition to the nuclear deal.
During Lew’s last congressional testimony on Tuesday, several lawmakers used the bulk of their allotted time to state their problems with the agreement, leaving little time for Lew, Kerry and Moniz to answer. “If we got a minute or two to respond, it might actually be helpful for people who want to understand the agreement,” Lew said [ http://www.newsweek.com/kerry-defends-iran-deal-heated-hearing-gop-lawmakers-357758 ] at one point during the four-hour-long briefing.
Despite the administration’s efforts to win over Congress, there’s a sizable group of lawmakers who are immovable in their conviction that the agreement guarantees Iran nuclear weapons and funding to ramp up its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Within this group, several members have floated the idea of passing new sanctions against Iran, targeting its human rights abuses and support for terrorist groups.
This does not mean that the Obama administration has precluded itself entirely from imposing new sanctions on Iran, Lew insisted. “We reserve all of our rights to impose sanctions based on acts of terrorism, based on human rights violations, and based on regional destabilization,” he said. “What I think does present an issue is if either Congress or [the executive] take all of the sanctions that are being lifted, put a new label on them, and say they are being reimposed.”
What Lindsey Graham Fails to Understand About a War Against Iran
Brendan McDermid / Reuters
A hawkish senator doesn't apply the lessons of Iraq
Conor Friedersdorf Jul 31, 2015
Earlier this week [on 7/29/15], Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrc0vxejqas (below, as embedded)] of his disdain for the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.
The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:
Here’s a transcript of the relevant part:
Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?
Carter: No. The United States.
Graham: We. Win.
Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, “Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?” The answer would’ve been the same: “The United States.” And the U.S. did rout Hussein’s army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn’t turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That’s what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.
But one needn’t be an opponent of the Iraq war to glean its basic lessons.
Hawkish pols have a tendency to harken back to the late 1930s exclusively, but one need only look to the eve of World War I (to the Czar in Russia and the German Kaiser, say) to see that two countries can and do fight wars that both end up losing.
A war against the U.S. would likely be a disaster for Iran. And rigorous attempts to game out such a conflict suggest that it could be very bad for the U.S. as well.
Robert Gates, who led the CIA under George H.W. Bush before becoming George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s defense secretary, has said bombing Iran could prove a “catastrophe,” and that Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate.”
Meir Dagan, who led Israel’s external spy service, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has warned that an attack on Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” In the aftermath of a military strike, he added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”
In 2004, my colleague James Fallows observed an Iran war game led by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who spent more than two decades conducting war games at the National War College and other military institutions––and whose prescience about aspects of the Iraq War, derived from simulations, came far closer to what happened than anything Senator Graham predicted.
The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests.
Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint.
What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.
Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision—that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does—as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed.
Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals—and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.
Lindsey Graham’s notion that the question of war between America and Iran is coherently reducible to “we win” or “they win” is facile, dangerous, and especially galling from a man who ought to have learned better from the last war he urged. Even the most severe Iranian losses would not necessarily mean that “we win.”
When news of the nuclear deal with Iran was announced, millions of Iranians celebrated in the streets. Opponents of the deal in the United States labeled the celebration as Iran's victory parade over the U.S.
Though, images streaming in from Iran painted a different picture. These crowds were not burning American flags, but rather celebrating them. Across the country, joyful people waived both Iranian and American flags with chants of "hello world!"
In the heart of the Middle East, the Iranian people have been the main force that drove its government to nuclear negotiations. For ten years, international sanctions and threats of war had not stopped Iran's nuclear program but instead emboldened it to expand. The aging Ayatollahs were only forced to negotiate when Iran's massive populace demanded an opening with the world.
Over the past 36 years, the Iranian regime has not been afraid of sanctions and wars that have only solidified its power. But they have been terrified of a civil society that dates back 2,500 years, a civilization that has ousted or reformed countless governments whom have tried to rule over the land between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf.
Today, Iran, a country with 60 percent of the population under the age [ http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/youth ] of 30, wants to connect with the world. They want to reform their government from within. And they alone have the power to safe guard this nuclear deal and reign in their government from other conflicts across the Middle East.
The people of Iran are also the strongest -- and most undervalued -- allies in this effort to defend the nuclear deal against factions who want to kill it. This agreement is a diplomatic breakthrough, a win-win for Americans and Iranians alike.
The deal blocks Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon. It imposes strict limits on its nuclear program and an intrusive, unprecedented inspections regime that ensures Iran cannot develop the bomb.
This is a big win for U.S. national security and the security of its "allies" in the region.
The nuclear deal will also benefit Iran. In exchange for verified concessions on its nuclear program, Iran will receive sanctions relief from the West. Critics argue that the Iranian regime will use the relief to finance its armed conflicts in the region.
In reality, the Iranian regime is under tremendous pressure from its people. Iranians have been living under crippling sanctions for decades. They are ready for change. They are ready for an opportunity to open their ancient civilization to the rest of the world.
This hunger for change is rapidly reforming the regime. As was evident in the mandate for the more moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, to engage in the negotiations that led to this deal. And now to survive, the regime must reform and spend the majority of sanctions relief in the way that matters most, shoring up public support. If they do not, their fate will be doomed as countless other regimes that failed to serve the Iranian people.
Both sides can truly benefit from the deal. And unfortunately, both sides have hardliners who want to kill the deal before it begins. Opponents of diplomacy in the Iranian regime and the U.S. Congress are pointing fingers, calling the other side cheaters, and twisting the facts.
If the hardliners succeed, the deal will collapse. The constraints on Iran's nuclear program will vanish. And the U.S. will face a terrible choice: watch Iran march toward the bomb, or take military action, starting another disastrous war that will antagonize generations of Iranians while only temporarily setting back their nuclear program.
Ultimately, the citizens of Iran and the U.S. have the power to ensure the success of the deal. They alone can hold their representatives responsible to finalize a deal.
And with a deal, the American people and the U.S. Congress can welcome a new and powerful partner. By implementing the nuclear deal, the U.S. can connect both culturally and economically with a strong civil society of the region. A connection that will save American lives and tax dollars from another horrid war in the Middle East.
California Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, has decided to come out in favor of the nuclear agreement.
Jeffrey Goldberg Aug 3, 2015
Earlier this year, California Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told me he had serious doubts about Iran’s intentions as it pursued a nuclear deal with the United States and five other world powers. He also said he was somewhat worried about the scale of possible American concessions during the talks. Schiff, who I described in a post [ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/adam-schiff-iran-nuclear-deal/391844/ ] at the time as a “moderate’s moderate,” suggested to me that he wanted to see President Obama achieve an important foreign-policy success, but as a Jew, he wanted to make sure that an anti-Semitic regime—both he and Obama agree [ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/obama-interview-iran-isis-israel/393782/ ] that Iran is ruled by an anti-Semite—would not be allowed to become a nuclear-weapons state. At the time, he told me he was “uncommitted” and that he would “remain uncommitted” until he had time to review a final deal, should a final deal materialize.
Well, the final deal has materialized, and Schiff, in a telephone call over the weekend, told me that, based on an “extensive review,” he has decided to come out in favor of the deal. He said he plans to formally announce his support later on Monday, but that he has already informed the White House of his intentions. His decision should carry some weight with national security-minded Democrats, and with still-undecided members of the House Jewish caucus.
In our conversation, Schiff told me wants to see Obama and Congress work together to strengthen key aspects of the deal—most notably, he wants the administration to promise Iran that the United States will have zero tolerance for any instances of Iranian cheating. But he said he believes the deal could serve its stated purpose: to keep Iran south of the nuclear threshold.
“At the end of the day, I could not find an alternative that would turn out in a better way than the deal,” he said. “Rejection of the deal would not lead to something credible. And I think that there are enough ways to mitigate the risks associated with the deal that it makes sense to me to move forward.” He went on, “The risks associated with rejection of the deal are quite a bit higher than the risks associated with going forward.”
The most important message that the Obama administration could send the Iranians—and one, Schiff suggested, that has not yet been fully communicated by the president—is that the U.S. will not fear the consequences of immediately reimposing sanctions on Iran, should Iran be caught cheating. “In the past, the repercussions for Iranian cheating would be that they would have to stop cheating,” he said. “We have to move to a situation in which not all sanctions would be immediately reimposed, but punitive sanctions would be placed on Iran each time there was cheating.”
And what if the Iranians use the reimposition of sanctions as an excuse to void the deal? “Well, then the deal’s over.” He went on: “If we prove they’re cheating, then it’s not the U.S. that is rejecting the deal, it’s Iran that is undermining the deal. We should impose sanctions on them in that case, and also do our best to add new sanctions on top of them. If the sanctions don’t work effectively, then I’m for using force rather then letting them become a nuclear-weapons state. Before Iran crosses the threshold, we would have to stop them by force.”
One of Schiff’s worries earlier this year concerned the reaction of Iran’s neighbors to the deal. If Iran’s various rivals in the region—Saudi Arabia, most obviously—decided that they themselves needed to build nuclear programs to counter their foremost adversary, then the deal would be fatally flawed. “I’m going to be very interested in what the agreement looks like to us, but also what it looks like to people in the area,” he said at the time. “If this agreement is not good enough to keep other nations near Iran from starting nuclear programs— Egypt, Turkey, the Gulf states—if it’s not enough to stop a nuclear-arms race in the region, then we haven’t accomplished very much.”
I asked Schiff what the Obama administration has done subsequently to allay this concern. “I think that if Iran abides by the agreement, and if we take strong action with our Gulf and other allies and constrain Iran’s malicious conventional conduct”— support for Hezbollah, for example —“you won’t see a breakout by these other nations. I don’t think these countries have made a decision to move forward on their own nuclear issues, so it is important that we work with them to counter Iran’s activities. We should rededicate ourselves to making sure that Iranian actions around the region are met by a more than equal and opposite reaction.”
To my surprise, Schiff seemed pleased with the so-called snapback provisions of the Iran deal, which will allow the United States to reimpose sanctions in case of Iranian cheating. Snapback has never been a particularly impressive idea to me, for the simple reason that the reimposition of sanctions after Iran has been allowed to become a far richer country than it is today would have only a limited and delayed impact on Iranian behavior. The release of Iranian funds held in other countries, combined with an inevitable, and possibly imminent, wave of foreign investments, will create for the Iranian regime a substantial financial cushion against future sanctions. But Schiff argued that the growth of the Iranian economy will raise expectations among ordinary Iranians, who will expect their leaders to protect their newfound economic gains. “Will the regime be in a better position to withstand sanctions? Yes. But the regime’s overriding interest is in self-preservation. If they were to cheat on this deal, they would bring down a world of economic hurt again that would send businesses running for the exits.”
Schiff, in our conversation this weekend, did not seem wildly enthusiastic about many aspects of the deal. He said he was disappointed that Iran will not be making a full accounting of its past nuclear-weaponization work—the so-called PMD, or possible military dimensions, issue. “This is an area in which we didn’t achieve as much as we should have.” But Schiff argued that the administration could mitigate the uncertainty surrounding this issue by redoubling intelligence-collections efforts. He is also disappointed, he said, that the deal leaves a substantial number of centrifuges in place. “What concerns me most is the size of the enrichment program that Iran will have in 15 years.”
“We have to make it very clear that we will never tolerate Iran developing highly enriched uranium,” he said.
Perhaps Schiff’s biggest concern, apart from the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate in 15 years, has to do with the Israeli reaction to the deal. He seemed to be taken aback by the near wall-to-wall opposition of the Israeli political elite to the agreement. “One of the things that has given me the most pause throughout the process is the Israeli opposition across the spectrum. I’ve tried to step back and understand why the perspective is different, and I’ve struggled with this. I’m not sure I can give you the answer.”
But, I asked him, Israeli concerns are not enough to keep you from voting in favor of the deal?
“I don’t think I can substitute anyone else’s judgment for my own. My Israeli friends, and my pro-Israel friends here, are making their points. I have to use my best judgment, and my judgment tells me that we’re better off strengthening the deal than rejecting it. The painful heart of this deal is the trade-off, where Iran has an internationally legitimized and fast enrichment capability, and what we gain in return is at least 15 years in which we’ve cut off any practical path for Iran to a bomb.”
He went on, “The U.S. and Israel share the same imperative: to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. There is not division of interest here. I am comfortable saying that this deal is in the best interest of Israel, as well as the best interest of the United States.”
All 16 currently filed Republican presidential candidates were invited to take part in a “Voters First Republican Presidential Forum” on the campus of St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. This event was the first opportunity to hear all of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates on one stage. The candidates appeared one at a time, answering questions determined by the editors of the New Hampshire Union Leader based on the topics suggested by the public, with immigration and the economy topping the list. Senators Cruz (R-TX), Paul (R-KY), and Rubio (R-FL) appeared via video link from Washington, D.C. Jack Heath moderated.
Former heads of Shin Bet, Mossad and dozens of former generals call Iran deal a 'fait accompli' and push to 'restore trust with the American administration'.
Published: 08.03.15, 22:04
Many Israeli ex-generals and former security chiefs have signed a petition urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the nuclear deal between world powers and Iran, which he strongly opposes.
A petition signed by the former officials and made public Monday calls the July 14 accord a "fait accompli."
It urges the government to pursue a policy that would "restore trust and reinforce security and diplomatic cooperation with the American administration."
Doing so would "allow us to prepare to face the numerous challenges that will result from the agreement," the petition says.
The signatories include two former heads of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon; a former deputy director of the Mossad intelligence agency, Amiram Levin; the ex-chief of the Atomic Energy Commission Uzi Eilmann; and dozens of former generals and senior officers.
The deal, aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program in return for international sanctions relief, has been welcomed by world powers as a historic chance to set relations with Tehran on a new path.
However, Netanyahu has called it a "historic mistake" and argues that it will not block Iran's path to nuclear weapons.
He also says sanctions relief will allow Iran to increase support for proxy militants, which would lead to further destabilisation of parts of the Middle East.
His government has been lobbying the US Congress to reject the deal, with lawmakers in the United States given 60 days to review it. The review period expires in September.
Ex-security figures in Israel urge Netanyahu to accept Iran deal, work with U.S.
August 4, 2015 6:55am
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Nearly 70 former Israeli top security officials urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to treat the Iran nuclear agreement as a done deal and to repair relations with the United States.
“Recognizing that the P5+1 Agreement with Iran is an accomplished fact, we, the undersigned, urge the Israeli government to adopt certain policies,” said the ad appearing Monday in the daily newspaper Haaretz’s Hebrew edition.
P5+1 refers to the six major powers, led by the United States, that reached the sanctions relief for nuclear restrictions deal with Iran on July 14.
The letter called for the Netanyahu government to “renew the trust between and enhance the political and security cooperation with the U.S. administration in order to prepare for the challenges emanating from the agreement.”
The challenges cited in the letter included procedures for Israel and the United States to monitor Iran’s compliance with the agreement, planning actions should Iran breach the agreement and continue its disruptive activities in the region, and special military assistance to Israel so it can preserve its qualitative military edge.
Netanyahu vehemently opposes the agreement and wants the U.S. Congress to exercise a law that would allow it to kill the deal before a deadline at the end of September. The Israeli leader has said he opposes any perception that he is accepting compensation for the deal from the Obama administration until he is certain that Congress has not stopped the deal.
The letter was spearheaded by Ami Ayalon, a former chief of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service, and includes a number of other retired senior officials of Israel’s intelligence agencies and the military.
It also calls on Netanyahu to take steps toward Israeli-Palestinian peace so that Israel can coalesce with moderate Arab nations, “which will act against the extremist forces that foster instability in the region.”
Obama's Iran Deal Gets A Lift On The Hill Thanks To A Foreign Sales Pitch
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have deployed a hyper-aggressive lobbying campaign to sell their Iran deal on the Hill. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came out in support of a nuclear deal with Iran on Tuesday, saying a presentation from foreign officials helped persuade her. Alex Wong via Getty Images
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) remains a critical on-the-fence Democrat when it comes to the Iran deal. Bill Clark via Getty Images
A briefing from ambassadors proves to be a big help in selling the controversial agreement.
By Sam Stein Posted: 08/04/2015 10:21 PM EDT | Edited: 08/04/2015 10:53 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Proponents of a nuclear deal with Iran got a boost Tuesday when a trio of on-the-fence Democratic senators announced they would support the agreement when it comes up for a vote in September.
What helped tip the scales for Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) was not a persuasive speech from President Barack Obama, the meticulous testimony of Secretary of State John Kerry, or the nuclear physics insights of the Beethoven-haired Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. It was a briefing held earlier in the day by foreign officials from other countries party to the deal.
At roughly 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday in the capital, ambassadors to the United States from the P5+1 nations (England, France, Russia, China, Germany) met with roughly 30 senators to discuss the contours of the deal. According to multiple Senate sources, all of whom would only speak on condition of anonymity, the presentation proved surprisingly convincing. The ambassadors fielded a variety of questions. But the conversation lingered largely on a hypothetical: What would happen if the agreement fell through?
According to one Senate Democratic aide, the ambassadors were emphatic that this would amount to a forfeiture of a successful diplomatic endgame.
"They said international sanctions were aimed at getting Iran to the table, and if we fritter away this chance, you couldn’t keep that coalition of support," said the aide. "Frankly, there are a lot of countries out there that want to buy Iranian oil."
Said another aide, summarizing what was relayed at the meeting: "These countries will not come together again in search for the best deal. This is the best deal."
The Obama administration has made similar arguments in its lobbying campaign to support the Iran deal. But there was a different type of persuasion, as it came from other P5+1 members, according to another Democratic Senate aide. For lawmakers, it was a veritable from-the-horse's-mouth confirmation of their theories and suspicions. Boxer specifically cited the presentation in announcing that she would support the deal.
“It was very important to hear from them that they believed if we walked away, it would play right into the hands of the hard-liners in Iran, Iran would build a nuclear weapon, they’d have lots of money from everybody else but America, and it’d be a very dangerous situation,” she told the Los Angeles Times [ http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-senate-democrats-20150804-story.html ].
But while news was good for supporters of the Iran nuclear deal in the Senate, setbacks were experienced in the House. Reps. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Ted Deutch (D-Penn.) and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) all announced their opposition, arguing that the deal would prove ineffective in curbing Iran's nuclear program and would funnel money toward its terrorist-sponsoring activities. Early reports suggested Israel would proactively try to convince his fellow House Democrats to join him. But a spokesperson for the congressman told The Huffington Post, "He won’t be whipping but he will be expressing his opposition."
The flurry of activity foreshadowed what promises to be a high-drama August recess. Already, Democratic leadership in each chamber has encouraged members to come out one way or the other on the deal before leaving town to avoid having a target on their backs from proponents and critics. But 22 of those members, including the second-ranking Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), are currently in Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, an AIPAC affiliated-group. There, they will likely meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, arguably the most outspoken critic of the nuclear deal with Iran.
A senior House Democratic aide said none of the members who came out in opposition on Tuesday were surprising defections. And though roughly $11 million has already been spent [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-foes-spending-121011.html ] in an ad campaign trying to torpedo the deal (with millions more to come), backers of the deal continued to exude confidence that they would have the votes to sustain a presidential veto of a bill that effectively kills the nuclear deal.
The Obama administration, for its part, plans to continue what can only be described as a flood-the-zone lobbying campaign in hopes of bolstering the ranks. Another Senate briefing is scheduled for Wednesday with one of the deal's negotiators, Wendy Sherman. A separate briefing is scheduled for Senate Foreign Relations Committee members with Yukiya Amano, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will lead the Iran nuclear program monitoring should the deal stay intact. On Tuesday, the president, along with Vice President Joe Biden, United States National Security Advisor Susan Rice and top foreign policy aide Ben Rhodes met with American Jewish community leaders at the White House. According to a source briefed on the exchange, the president did most of the talking, and the private case he made mirrored the public one.
"He went through it in a very lawyerly and detailed fashion and made his case and then went through the alternatives and refuted them," said the source. "Obviously he didn't convert the opponents in the room, but he forced the opponents to rethink the manner of their opposition."
The big press will come in a speech from Obama at American University, the site of John F. Kennedy's “Strategy for Peace [ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/opinion/global/jfks-strategy-of-peace.html ]” speech 52 years ago calling for a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. According to a White House official, Obama will use the occasion to "frame the congressional decision about whether to block the implementation of a deal that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon as the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq."
Hill aides said they had not seen this type of arm-twisting and bully-pulpit use since the selling of Obamacare back in 2010 -- which makes it all the more peculiar that it was five foreign officials that proved so consequential on Tuesday. Asked why more Democratic lawmakers didn't buy the concept that foreign policy was a prerogative best left to the president, the top House aide replied: "Believe it or not, members of Congress believe they are omnipotent, all-powerful. They believe they should weigh in on everything. So that’s not a persuasive argument."
The President Speaks on the Iran Nuclear Deal at American University
Published on Aug 5, 2015 by The White House
President Obama delivered remarks at American University on the significance of the Iran nuclear agreement and the consequences if Congress rejects it. August 5, 2015.
*
Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal
American University Washington, D.C. August 05, 2015
11:58 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much. I apologize for the slight delay. Even Presidents have problems with toner. (Laughter.)
It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service in public life. I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today.
Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real. With all of the threats that we face today, it’s hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time.
In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued that we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young President offered a different vision. Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a “practical” and “attainable peace” -- a peace “based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions -- on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.”
Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully. Under Democratic and Republican Presidents, new agreements were forged -- a Non-Proliferation Treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy; the SALT and START Treaties which bound the United States and Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control. Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.
The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems; it certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.
Today, I want to speak to you about this deal, and the most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough, or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should -- for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.
Now, when I ran for President eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war -- we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy; a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus; a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive, while dismissing those who disagreed as weak -- even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.
More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given. But thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent. Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.
I raise this recent history because now more than ever we need clear thinking in our foreign policy. And I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program.
That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts -- with U.S. support -- in the 1960s and ‘70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s, despite unilateral U.S. sanctions. When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges -- the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb -- that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges, and showed no inclination to slow -- much less halt -- its program.
Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region, and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend.
The question, then, is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options -- including possible military options -- on the table to achieve that objective. But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue -- not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution.
And so, in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordow.
Now, some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause, and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions. Keep in mind unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new U.N. Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements from nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.
Winning this global buy-in was not easy -- I know. I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war, with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East. In other words, it was diplomacy -- hard, painstaking diplomacy -- not saber-rattling, not tough talk that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran.
With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government that promised to improve the economy through engagement with the world. A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal -- a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 -- the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union -- could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time.
Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics -- the same critics we’re hearing from now -- called it “a historic mistake.” They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations. They warned that sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism.
The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. Its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. The deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. Inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran, and the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as a historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive deal. So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today.
Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, kept our coalition united. Our nuclear experts -- including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz -- worked tirelessly on the technical details. In July, we reached a comprehensive plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.
Here’s how. Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy-water reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, and replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors for at least 15 years.
Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordow facility, which is buried deep underground, for at least 15 years. Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs, for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon.
And, in fact, this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past. There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain -- from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials, to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important: For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or a covert facility like Fordow. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.
And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpile. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council; America can trigger snapback on our own. On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow.
So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives -– this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. And because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors -- who served under Republican and Democratic Presidents -- support it. I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It’s not even close.
Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grabbing sound bites. And so before the ink was even dry on this deal -- before Congress even read it -- a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists, disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple -- and sometimes contradictory -- arguments about why Congress should reject this deal. But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.
First, there are those who say the inspections are not strong enough because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.
Well, here’s the truth: Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites. If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access, even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours’ notice. And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. And by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet. It can leave a trace for years. The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them -- and we will.
Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years. Let me repeat: The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent. It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT Treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START Treaty lasted 15 years. And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond, and the same options available to stop a weapons program as we have today, including -- if necessary -- military options.
On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.
Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Now, let’s be clear: The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That's the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief. So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue.
It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money -- revenue frozen overseas by other countries. But the notion that this will be a game-changer, with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities, misses the reality of Iran’s current situation. Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements -- from funding pensions and salaries, to paying for crumbling infrastructure. Iran’s leaders have raised the expectations of their people that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations. And that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.
Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to. We have no illusions about the Iranian government, or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies -- including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq. They try to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these activities in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War -- a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.
Moreover, there’s no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare with Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that. Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab World -- Bashar al-Assad -- even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah has suffered significant blows on the same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.
So contrary to the alarmists who claim that Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.
But if we’re serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we're concerned about directly: By helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber-attack or a ballistic missile; by improving the interdiction of weapons shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah; by training our allies’ special forces so that they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen. All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. And, by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.
Now, the final criticism -- this sort of a catch-all that you may hear -- is the notion that there’s a better deal to be had. “We should get a better deal” -- that’s repeated over and over again. “It's a bad deal, need a better deal” -- (laughter) -- one that relies on vague promises of toughness, and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder.
Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they’re just not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure -- even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That oftentimes is what the critics are calling “a better deal.” Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.
Moreover, our closest allies in Europe, or in Asia -- much less China or Russia -- certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress. Because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power. And it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.
As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress’s rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling. If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world.
In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of or our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.
That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived. What’s more likely to happen, should Congress reject this deal, is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right: Walk away from this agreement and you will get a better deal -- for Iran. (Applause.)
Now, because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option -- another war in the Middle East.
I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position -- however tough our rhetoric may be –- to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is President bomb those nuclear facilities?
And as someone who does firmly believes that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military action will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.
So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war -- maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon. And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we’ve spent so many years building.
Now, there are some opponents -- I have to give them credit; there are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless. But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. (Applause.) The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have not shied from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home. I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative.
But how can we in good conscience justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives; that has been agreed to by Iran; that is supported by the rest of the world; and that preserves our options if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations?
In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions. Subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis. Resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war. Worry less about being labeled weak; worry more about getting it right.
I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously. But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. (Applause.)
In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus. (Laughter and applause.)
The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction -- incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them that opportunity. It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran, it would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.
And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. The agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union, those agreements, those treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier. This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. I have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any President who follows me will take the same position.
So let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none of them stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar; rhetoric that renders every decision that’s made a disaster, a surrender -- “you're aiding terrorists; you're endangering freedom.”
On the other hand, I do think it’s important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal, and that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel -- an affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.
When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice. And they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like Iran’s -- which includes leaders who have denied the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders, are pointed at Tel Aviv. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists that it cannot depend on any other country -- even its great friend the United States -- for its own security. So we have to take seriously concerns in Israel.
But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger -- whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.
And that’s why this deal ultimately must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who has done more than any other President to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already we’ve held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for U.S. security assistance to Israel. We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction -- all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs, and to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.
But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal.
So to friends of Israel, and to the Israeli people, I say this: A nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.
I recognize that Prime Minister Netanyahu disagrees -- disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity. But I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interest and Israel’s interest. And as President of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally. I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States. I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel. (Applause.)
Over the last couple weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run-up to the Iraq War: Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically; we can take military strikes without significant consequences; we shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line; tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission; we can get a better deal.
I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich. But none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002 and 2003; they shouldn’t now. (Applause.) The same mindset, in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mindset out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war, and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth.
“Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is “the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means.” President Kennedy warned Americans, “not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats.” It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust; it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon, just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities -- a genuine existential threat.
We live in a complicated world -- a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating opportunities for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history. It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common, and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear. In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come. But we are one nation among many.
And what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might. Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about -- to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security, and promote human progress.
We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held it together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, without resorting to war. As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.
If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear program, or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy; America’s credibility as the anchor of the international system.
John F. Kennedy cautioned here, more than 50 years ago, at this university, that “the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war.” But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.
My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress. Remind them of who we are. Remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for, so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.
Israeli President Rivlin: Netanyahu's Anti-Iran Drive Isolates Israel
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and Israeli President Reuven Rivlin (R) speak during an event following the first session of the newly-elected Knesset in Jerusalem, March 31, 2015. Credit: Gali Tibbon/Associated Press, Pool
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and President Reuven Rivlin attend a ceremony on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, Israel, on May 17, 2015. Credit: Baz Ratner/Associated Press, Pool
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures during a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Israel, on Aug. 5, 2015. Credit: Dan Balilty/Associated Press, Pool
"I have told him, and I'm telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's expense."
JERUSALEM, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Israel's president suggested on Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been overzealous in opposing the Iran nuclear deal, opening a "battlefront" with Washington and isolating his country.
Reuven Rivlin, who holds the largely ceremonial head of state post, argued in three separate newspaper interviews that Netanyahu's vigorous campaign against last month's nuclear deal between world powers and Iran could ultimately hurt Israel.
A former right-wing politician with a history of strained ties to the prime minister, Rivlin has voiced his own reservations about the deal but put it in a wider diplomatic context in the interviews.
"I am very worried about the battlefront that has opened up between (U.S. President Barack) Obama and Netanyahu and the (state of) relations between the United States and Israel," he told the Maariv newspaper.
"The prime minister has waged a campaign against the United States as if the two sides were equal and this is liable to hurt Israel.
"I must say that he understands the United States better than I do, but, nonetheless, we are largely isolated in the world," Rivlin said in some of his most critical comments about Netanyahu's strategy on the Iranian issue since becoming president a year ago.
"I have told him (Netanyahu), and I'm telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's expense," the president told the Haaretz daily.
In a speech on Wednesday, Obama defended the agreement as a "hard-won diplomatic solution" that has gained almost unanimous international support.
Obama acknowledged his administration's split with Netanyahu, who has called the deal a threat to Israel's survival and urged Congress to oppose the accord. But he said that the Israeli leader, though sincere, was wrong.
Netanyahu, in a webcast to U.S. Jewish groups on Tuesday, said it was his duty to make Israel's position heard.
"The days when the Jewish people could not, or would not, speak up for themselves - those days are over," Netanyahu said, cautioning the nuclear deal would not do enough to curb Iranian atomic projects with bomb-making potential.
In a third interview, this one with the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Rivlin urged the prime minister to patch up his relationship with Obama.
"I think they have very similar personalities ... and it's not good for them to annoy each other at the expense of the United States and Israel," he said.
(Additional reporting by Ori Lewis; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
Debate between the Republican Presidential candidates who did not rank in the top ten based on the latest polls as of August 4th, 2016 which includes Perry, Santorum, Fiorina, Jindal, Graham, Pataki and Gilmore.
Republican presidential debate hosted by Fox News, Facebook, and the Ohio Republican Party at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio on Thursday, August 6, 2015.
Last night’s GOP debates are making the fact checkers put in overtime. John Iadarola (Think Tank), Ben Mankiewicz (Turner Classic Movies), and Jimmy Dore (The Jimmy Dore Show Podcast), hosts of the The Young Turks, break it down on tonight’s TYT Power Panel. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"The Republican presidential candidates who failed to make the cut for the Aug. 6 prime-time debate repeated a number of past false and misleading claims, while adding some new ones that we hadn’t heard before:
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the U.S. sends “$300 billion overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts.” But that’s spending on all oil imports, including from Canada and Mexico.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal claimed a study proved “expanding Medicaid does not improve health care outcomes.” The study he cited measured only three health indicators over a two-year period, and even then found some positive benefits.”*
CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS EXCLUSIVE: President Barack Obama on the P+5 Iran deal
Interview with President Barack Obama, conducted August 6, 2015. Aired August 9, 2015 10-11:00a ET
Fareed Zakaria, host, Fareed Zakaria GPS: Mr. President, thank you for joining us.
Barack Obama, President of the United States: Good to be with you.
ZAKARIA: Since you announced the agreement with Iran, it appears, if you look at several recent polls, that a majority of the American public oppose it and a majority of the United States Congress oppose it. Why do you think that is?
OBAMA: Because people haven't been getting all the information. It's a complicated piece of business and we are negotiating with a regime that chants "Death to America!" and doesn't have a high approval rating here in the United States.
But the people who know most about the central challenge that we're trying to deal with, which is making sure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it - experts in nuclear proliferation, nuclear scientists, former ambassadors, Democrat and Republican.
And as a consequence, one of my main tasks over the last several weeks - and this will continue into September - is to make sure that people know and understand that this is a diplomatic breakthrough that ensures we are cutting off all the pathways by which Iran might get a nuclear weapon.
ZAKARIA: In your speech at American University, you made a comparison. You said that Iran's hardliners were making common cause with Republicans. It's come under a lot of criticism. Mitch McConnell says even Democrats who oppose the deal should be insulted.
The Wall Street Journal says that this rhetoric shows that you've abandoned the hope of getting any Republicans, or even moderate Democrats, and you are targeting this message to the hard core of House Democrats who are going to sustain your veto.
OBAMA: Fareed, your question is about politics. Let me talk about substance.
What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community. And there's a reason for that, because they recognize that if, in fact, this deal gets done, that rather than them being in the driver's seat with respect to the Iranian economy, they are in a weaker position.
And the point I was simply making is that if you look at the facts, the merits of this deal, then you will conclude that not only does it cut off a pathway for Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but it also establishes the most effective verification and inspection regime that's ever been put in place.
It also ensures that we are able to monitor what they do with respect to stockpiles, plutonium, their underground facility. And that it does not ask us to relinquish any of the options that we might need to exercise if, in fact, Iran cheated or if at some point they decided to try to break out.
And so the reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done.
ZAKARIA: You don't think you're...
OBAMA: And in that sense, they do have a lot in common with hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo.
ZAKARIA: You don't think you're going to get any Republican...
OBAMA: Well, I didn't say that. What I said was that there are those who, if they did not read the bill before they announced their opposition, if they are not able to offer plausible reasons why they wouldn't support the bill or plausible alternatives in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, other than potential military strikes, then that would indicate that they're not interested in the substance of the issue, they're interested in the politics of the issue.
ZAKARIA: You talked about Iran's hardliners, the old guard. But one member of Iran's old guard certainly seems to be Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader.
OBAMA: I think he would qualify.
ZAKARIA: He would qualify, right. And he seems relentlessly anti-American.
OBAMA: Yes.
ZAKARIA: His Twitter feed has posted a likeness of you with a gun pointed to your head.
OBAMA: Yes.
ZAKARIA: Is this a guy you can really make a deal with?
OBAMA: Well, as I said, Fareed, you don't negotiate deals with your friends. You negotiate them with your enemies. And superpowers don't respond to taunts. Superpowers focus on what is it that we need to do in order to preserve our national security and the national security of our allies and our friends.
And I think that he tweeted that in response to me stating a fact, which is, is that if we were confronted with a situation in which we could not resolve this issue diplomatically, that we could militarily take out much of Iran's military infrastructure. I don't think that's disputable. I don't think there's a military expert out there that would contest that. The Supreme Leader, obviously, doesn't want to hear that, and I understand.
But I'm not interested in a Twitter back and forth with the Supreme Leader. What I'm interested in is the deal itself and can we enforce it. Keep in mind, Fareed, when we got the interim deal - as you're aware, the way this thing evolved was, first, we essentially froze their program - they had to roll back their very highly enriched uranium stockpiles. And for that, we turned on the spigot a little bit so that they could access more of their money.
All the same critics of this deal suggested that this is terrible, this is a historic mistake.
And for the last two years, as we've been negotiating the more comprehensive deal, not only have they continued to suggest that it was a mistake, until very recently, but the Supreme Leader was saying all kinds of anti-American stuff. But the deal held.
They did exactly what they were supposed to do. The few times that they didn't, we identified it and told them they had to correct it and they did.
So there's always a gap between rhetoric and action. And, you know, the Supreme Leader is a politician, apparently, just like everybody else. What I'm focused on is can we make sure that they are doing what they have to do and that we have sufficient safeguards and verification mechanisms to ensure that they don't have a nuclear weapon.
And, again, Fareed, it is very important, I think, over the next several weeks, to not get distracted by tone, vote counts, is Mitch McConnell's feelings hurt. But let's address the argument. And it - the central point I was making yesterday - fairly exhaustively, it was a long speech - was that nobody has presented a plausible alternative, other than military strikes, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Nobody has presented a more effective way to ensure they don't have a nuclear weapon, including military strikes, because we know, actually, if this deal is executed, it will provide more limitations on the Iranian nuclear program for a longer period of time in a more verifiable way. And that central argument hasn't really been effectively contested. Nobody has had a good answer for that.
ZAKARIA: So I think the answer that some might provide is that the alternative is not war, but more pressure and a better deal and, specifically, that Iran should not have the right to enrich. There are a lot of nuclear countries with nu - peaceful nuclear programs that don't have the right to enrich. Was it impossible to stick hard on that? Was that a concession you had to make?
OBAMA: First of all, there is no support for that position in Iran, including opposition members who were subsequently jailed back in 2009. So you have a consensus inside of Iran that they should have a right to enrich.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is very clear about guarding against the weaponization of nuclear power, but it does not speak to prohibitions on peaceful nuclear power. And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table.
And so in the real world, the alternatives you just described were not available. And, you know, I think that the notion that the United States Congress rejecting a deal that has been negotiated by the U.S. secretary of State, our top nuclear experts, with unanimous support around the world, other than the state of Israel and perhaps behind the scenes some of our allies who are also suspicious of Iran, that somehow in the face of that, countries like Russia or China would continue to voluntarily abide by sanctions in a way that would continue to put pressure on Iran is a fantasy. And I think that's demonstrable.
///
ZAKARIA: When we come back, much more of my exclusive interview with President Obama from the White House. I will ask him about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Is it appropriate for a foreign head of government to inject himself into a debate this is taking place in Washington?
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
ZAKARIA: More than four months before the Iran deal was even inked, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared before a joint meeting of the United States Congress to argue against it. Now that there is a deal between the world and Iran, Netanyahu has publicly and vocally condemned it. The Prime Minister has found many sympathetic ears for certain, but there are others - including some in Israel - who have called his rhetoric and actions into question.
I wanted to know how the President of the United States felt.
///
ZAKARIA: Prime Minister Netanyahu has injected himself forcefully into this debate on American foreign policy...
OBAMA: Right.
ZAKARIA: - in Washington.
OBAMA: Right.
ZAKARIA: Can you recall a time when a foreign head of government has done that? Is it appropriate for a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American debate?
OBAMA: You know, I'll let you ask Prime Minister Netanyahu that question if he gives you an interview. I don't recall a similar example.
Obviously, the relationship between the United States and Israel is deep. It is profound. It's reflected in my policies, because I've said repeatedly and, more importantly, acted on the basic notion that our commitment to Israel's security is sacrosanct. It's something that I take very seriously, which is why we provided more assistance, more military cooperation, more intelligence cooperation to Israel than any previous administration.
But as I said in the speech yesterday, on the substance, the Prime Minister is wrong on this. And I think that I can show that the basic assumptions that he's made are incorrect.
If, in fact, my argument is right - that this is the best way for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon - then that's not just good for the United States, that is very good for Israel.
In fact, historically, this has been the argument that has driven Prime Minister Netanyahu and achieved consensus throughout Israel.
So the question has to be is there, in fact, a better path to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon than this one?
And I've repeatedly asked both Prime Minister Netanyahu and others to present me a reasonable, realistic plan that would achieve exactly what this deal achieves, and I have yet to get a response.
So, as I said yesterday, I completely understand why both he and the broad Israeli public would be suspicious, cautious about entering into any deal with Iran. But what I also try to remind everyone yesterday is, is that when we entered into arms treaties with the Soviet Union, they had missiles pointed at every single major American city. We actually had to constrain ourselves and reduce our firepower. The risks were much more severe there.
Here, we're preserving all our options so that if Iran does cheat, we can still exercise the same set of options that we have in place today. And I've been very clear about the fact that if Israel were attacked by Iran, for example, there's no doubt that not just me, but any U.S. administration would do everything that we needed to do to make sure that Israel was protected.
So there are all kinds of hedges if, in fact, Iran weren't to abide by the deal.
But if, in fact, Iran does abide by the deal, as it has the interim deal over the last two years, then we have purchased, at a very small price, one of the single most important national security objectives that both the United States and Israel has.
ZAKARIA: There's been some debate about the amount of money that Iran will get as a result of sanctions relief. Whatever the amount is, it's clear, they're going to get some resources...
OBAMA: Yes.
ZAKARIA: - and some part of it, and they being out of the sanctions regime, will be...
OBAMA: - improves their economy.
ZAKARIA: - will be - will be applied to their economy, but some of it...
OBAMA: Yes.
ZAKARIA: - to regional activity.
OBAMA: Right.
ZAKARIA: So I want to be clear, are you saying to the region, to the Gulf States, to other Arab - to Arab countries, look, this is inevitable, Iran is going to play an increased role in the region, get used to it?
OBAMA: I think the message is that the nefarious activities that Iran engages in, whether it's providing arms to Hezbollah or stirring up destabilizing activities among some of their Gulf neighbors, is something that they've been able to do consistently at very low cost - that I have no doubt that as Iran's economy improved or they got some financial inflows that relieves some fiscal pressure on their military, they may be able to fund some additional activities.
But it's not a game-changer. And the reason that Iran has been effective has less to do with the amount of money they've spent. It has more to do with the fact that although Gulf countries, for example, spend eight times more, at least combined, on defense than Iran's entire defense budget, they haven't deployed it in ways that have been as strategically effective.
And part of the function of our meeting up at Camp David with Gulf leaders was to describe how we can work with them to create a more effective counter to these kinds of activities.
And, you know, whether it's countering cyber-attacks or a possible ballistic missile threat, but more typically, the kinds of asymmetric proxy activities that Iran has developed over the last several decades, you know, those are things that we know how to do if all those countries are cooperating and we're doing it systematically. That will have a greater impact than simply preventing this deal from taking place.
The flip side of it is if Iran is able to get a nuclear weapon, if its breakout time remains as short it is - as it is right now and they are installing advanced centrifuges and so on, then they will be emboldened to engage in more of the activities that have been discussed, which are not constrained or bound by the amount of money Iran has, but rather have to do with the very strategic decisions that Iran is making at any given time.
///
ZAKARIA: We’ll be back with the President in just a moment. We are in the Map Room of the White House. The Map House was essentially an early version of the Situation Room during World War II. It was where Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to ponder next moves in the war.
I will ask President Obama if he will need to seriously think about a war with Iran if this deal falls through.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
ZAKARIA: Back now with President Obama on Iran, ISIS, the Taliban, and what happens if the nuclear deal falls through. Listen in.
///
ZAKARIA: Right now, Iran is probably one of the strongest fighting forces against ISIS. In Afghanistan, it has historically been opposed to the Taliban, just as the United States has.
OBAMA: Right.
ZAKARIA: Do you think that this - these overlapping interests might allow for a more productive and constructive relation between the United States and Iran?
OBAMA: I think it is conceivable but the premise of this deal is not that Iran warms toward the United States or that we are engaging in any kind of strategic reassessment of the relationship.
Within the four corners of the agreement, we deal with the nuclear problem. And I believe that is incontestable. I think we are doing that better than any other alternative.
Is there the possibility that having begun conversations around this narrow issue that you start getting some broader discussions about Syria, for example, and the ability of all the parties involved to try to arrive at a political transition that keeps the country intact and does not further fuel the growth of ISIL and other terrorist organizations - I think that's possible.
But I don't think it happens immediately.
ZAKARIA: So far no signs?
OBAMA: Well, I... you know, what I have been encouraged by is that the Russians are now more interested in discussions around what a political transition - or at least framework for talks - would look like inside of Syria. And presumably, Iran is seeing some of the same trends that are not good for them. And I do think that it is even conceivable that Saudi Arabia and Iran, at some point, would begin to recognize that their enemy is chaos as much as anything else. And what ISIL represents and what the collapse of Syria or Yemen or others represent is far more dangerous than whatever rivalries that may exist between those two nation states.
ZAKARIA: Final question: If this deal falls through somehow and what you predict does happen - Iran does go back to trying to produce centrifuges on an industrial scale; it perhaps restarts some of the weaponization programs - are you worried that you would confront, within your remaining term, the strong possibility that you might have to use nuclear - that you might have to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
OBAMA: I have a general policy on big issues like this not to anticipate failure. And I'm not going to anticipate failure now because I think we have the better argument.
And I just go back again and again, Fareed, to those who are opposed to the deal can't just say we want a better deal. They can't just say we're going to be tougher.
This is serious. And it requires us asking tough questions and engaging in a substantive conversation about how are we to achieve what even my fiercest critics would acknowledge should be a shared goal, which is preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
If Congress were to reject this deal, then that central goal would be harder to achieve. And the international unity that we've brought about over the last several years would fray, not just with respect to sanctions, but with respect to the world's attitude about U.S. leadership and how they gauge who's at fault in this dispute between the United States and Iran.
And, you know, as I said yesterday, the issue here - and I've said this to members of Congress - is not simply the deal itself. It's certainly not just an issue for my presidency. The issue, as you well know, Fareed, because you travel around the world a lot, is does the rest of the world take seriously the United States' ability to craft international agendas, to reach international agreements, to deliver on them in ways that garner the respect and the adherence from other countries?
And that's continually tested. And what Congress needs to understand is, is that we are the most powerful country on Earth. But our power does not simply come from the fact that we've got the biggest military. Our power derives from the fact that since World War II, we have put together international institutions that have served our interests but have also served the interests of the world.
And as much as people may complain about the United States, they still recognize that we have been able to operate on the basis of principles and values and build human institutions that function effectively and fairly around the world. And if we stop doing that, then our power will be diminished, no matter how big our military budget is. And it will become a much more dangerous world. That's why I don't intend to lose on this.
ZAKARIA: Mr. President, pleasure to have you. Thank you so much.
Obama Won't Back Down From Linking GOP And Iranian Hard-Liners
During a speech on the Iran deal, President Barack Obama said that Republicans in Congress and Iranian hard-liners were "making common cause." Bloomberg via Getty Images
"What I said is absolutely true factually."
By Sam Levine Posted: 08/07/2015 02:43 PM EDT | Edited: 08/09/2015 09:46 AM EDT
President Barack Obama isn't backing down from comments linking Republicans and Iranian hard-liners, telling CNN in a recent interview [the item just above] that the comparison was accurate.
“Rather than this kind of crass political rhetoric, we ought to treat this issue with the dignity it deserves,” McConnell said at a news conference on Thursday. “I wish he would tone down the rhetoric, and let’s talk about the facts."
Asked about the reaction to his comments, Obama said that the comparison was accurate.
"What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds force, hard-liners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community," Obama said in an interview that will air on "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday. "The reason that Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the folks in his caucus who opposed this, jumped out and opposed this before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of an ideological commitment not to get a deal done. In that sense they do have much more in common with the hardliners who are much more satisfied with the status quo."
The Obama administration has been aggressively selling the deal to Congress, which is reviewing the agreement. The deal, negotiated with five other countries and Iran, would require Iran to drastically downsize its nuclear capability in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. Critics say [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tom-cotton-john-kerry_55b0df4ee4b0a9b94853ba9b ] the deal does not go far enough to prevent Iran from developing a weapon and that Iran will use money from lifted sanctions to fund terrorist organizations. They have called for reimposing harsher sanctions in favor of getting a better deal -- something that the Obama administration has called a "fantasy [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kerry-iran-israel_55b22b45e4b0224d8831d360 ]."
Obama reaffirmed the close relationship between the U.S. and Israel, but told Zakaria that he didn't recall a "similar example" of when the foreign head of state interjected in American politics.
“What I said is absolutely true factually,” Obama said. “The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community. And there’s a reason for that, because they recognize that if, in fact, this deal gets done, that rather than them being in the driver’s seat with respect to the Iranian economy, they are in a weaker position.”
Obama implied that Republican opposition to the deal derived from similar political motives, saying, “And so the reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done.”
He reiterated many of these rebuttals in his interview with Zakaria, saying, “If you look at the facts, the merits of this deal, then you will conclude that not only does it cut off a pathway for Iran getting a nuclear weapon, but it also establishes the most effective verification and inspection regime that’s ever been put in place.”
Politically, Obama’s case was made both stronger and weaker in the intervening days.
After detailing the virtues of the deal, Obama warned Zakaria of the long-term costs of rejecting it.
The president argued that, were Congress to reject the deal, it would not only enhance Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon but hurt America’s ability to play a leading role on any matter of international diplomacy in the future.
“The issue here – and I’ve said this to members of Congress – is not simply the deal itself,” Obama said. “The issue … is does the rest of the world take seriously the United States’ ability to craft international agendas, to reach international agreements, to deliver on them in ways that garner the respect and the adherence from other countries?”
Obama argued that if the international community lost its confidence in the U.S. as a diplomatic power, “it will become a much more dangerous world. That’s why I don’t intend to lose on this.”
German ally calls rejection of Iran deal a 'catastrophe'
Philipp Akcermann, left, hands German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer his speech at Princeton University. AP Photo
“We are convinced that this deal makes Israel safer,” German official says.
By Michael Crowley 8/6/15 3:27 PM EDT
A top German official warned Thursday of a “nightmare” and a “catastrophe” if Congress derails the Iran nuclear deal, and cited Germany’s unique relationship with Israel as a reason why it would not accept an agreement that endangers that country.
“The option of getting back to the negotiating table is close to zero” if Congress votes down the nuclear deal, said Philipp Ackermann, Berlin’s second-ranking diplomat in Washington. Ackermann argued that rejection of the deal struck by seven countries would empower hard-liners in Tehran who insist the U.S. cannot be trusted. “These people will say it’s useless to negotiate” with the outside world, he said.
That would undermine international negotiations in general, he added, and damage the credibility of future agreements struck by diplomats. “It would be a nightmare … a catastrophe.”
Congress is expected to vote in September on the nuclear deal. A vote of disapproval would prevent President Barack Obama from lifting harsh U.S. sanctions on Iran, a step Tehran is expecting in return for limiting its nuclear program for more than a decade.
Congress can override a White House veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. Virtually no Republicans are expected to back the deal, and while some political handicappers say the Obama administration can secure enough Democratic votes to defeat an override vote, that is not a given.
The nuclear deal was struck on July 14 in Vienna between Iran and the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, Russia and China.
Israel strongly opposes the deal, which gives many U.S. lawmakers pause. Ackermann said German officials have tried to assuage those concerns by citing Germany’s close relationship with Israel. German atonement for the Holocaust has produced what is often called a “special relationship” between the two countries. “We are Israel’s biggest friends in Europe,” Ackermann said, a view often echoed in Israeli media.
“We are convinced that this deal makes Israel safer,” Ackermann said. “It is really our conviction that Israel comes out safer as a result of this deal.” He added that Germany’s top negotiator in the Iran talks, Hans Dieter Lucas, has traveled to Israel to make that case to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — so far to no avail.
He added that Germany has a keen understanding of Iran based on decades of close contact, even after Tehran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power reactor — not at issue in the nuclear talks — was constructed by a German contractor. That understanding has informed a German conviction that a better deal with Iran is not possible. “In Germany there is no debate on this deal. Not in parliament and not in civil society,” he said.
Foreign diplomats have been stepping up their pitches on behalf of the deal in recent days. Earlier this week, officials from all five of America’s negotiating partners met with 25 Democratic senators to sell the deal. Both China’s and Russia’s ambassadors spoke on behalf of the agreement, notable given tense U.S. relations with those countries. One source who was present said neither the Chinese nor the Russian official addressed other diplomatic conflicts.
Opponents of the deal reject as alarmist the assertion that overturning the deal would backfire. Some propose that the U.S. can maintain its severe unilateral sanctions on Iran’s financial system even if United Nations and European Union sanctions are lifted. Obama warned Wednesday that doing so “could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy” because of conflicts with China’s financial system.
“What’s more likely to happen, should Congress reject this deal, is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal,” Obama said.
Advancing the administration’s argument that virtually the entire world supports the deal, 15 Asian countries — including Japan, India, Indonesia, Australia and South Korea — issued a statement this week calling the deal an “important resolution” of the Iran nuclear issue that will “ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
Bernie Sanders announces support for Iran nuclear deal
Video [embedded] Sanders: 'We have to negotiate with Iran' (0:41) On CBS's "Face the Nation," Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders advocated trying out the agreement with Iran on the country's nuclear program in order to "give peace a chance." (Reuters)
By John Wagner August 7, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is vying for the Democratic presidential nomination, announced his support Friday for the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama, saying the pact needs “a chance to succeed.”
“The test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, but how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner,” Sanders said in a statement [ http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-supports-iran-nuclear-deal ]. “This agreement is obviously not all that many of us would have liked, but it beats the alternative – a war with Iran that could go on for years.”
Sanders said he made his decision following a telephone call Friday with Obama, whom the senator said addressed some of his concerns with the deal, which Republicans and some wary Democrats on Capitol Hill are attempting to scuttle.
In his statement, Sanders credited Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry for having “worked through a very difficult process with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia and Iran.”
“If Iran does not live up to the agreement, sanctions may be reapplied,” Sanders said. “If Iran moves toward a nuclear weapon, all available options remain on the table. I think it is incumbent upon us, however, to give the negotiated agreement a chance to succeed.”
The Kansas Experiment "People are leaving Kansas," Gene Suellentrop told the writer in January. My uncle Gene is a state legislator in Topeka. This year, he and his fellow Republicans tried to do something pretty drastic with the state budget. And I got to watch the whole thing. AUG. 5, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/magazine/the-kansas-experiment.html [with comments]
*
Sam Brownback's brother accused of terrorizing rural neighbors Jim Brownback, a Parker farmer and brother of Gov. Sam Brownback, was arrested in 2006 for nonpayment of child support.
Parker farmer plays with fire, leans on family ties to suffocate criticism August 8, 2015 PARKER — Undulating fields of crops and livestock-dotted pastures are the domain of a trigger-happy bully who brags about a political cloak of invincibility keeping him beyond reach of the law in faithfully conservative Linn County. Adversaries say he has woven a liquor-infused tapestry of fear colored by intimidation, abuse and lies. The saga features stalking, death threats, trespassing, drive-by gunfire, massive explosions, cattle theft, loan defaults, hit-and-run driving and marital strife. Linn County Sheriff’s Department files bulge with complaints about him. There is trepidation among acquaintances to speak freely, a point accentuated by the number expressing nervousness about reprisal if they were candid. There is genuine fear. Descriptions of events offered by those willing to speak out converge to reveal a potentially lethal menace. Neighbors allege some in law enforcement responded to cries for help with degrees of indifference or favoritism. Locals aware of the dynamics shake their head in dismay. In a place where people honor the Second Amendment and revere the self-defense castle doctrine, there is astonishment no one has been gunned down. Folks in direct path of this prairie hellion pray for an end to what some coined “neighborhood terrorism.” So far, their nemesis has found no reason to relent. Not when your name is Jim Brownback and you are a brother to Sam, the most powerful politician in Kansas. [...] http://cjonline.com/news/2015-08-08/sam-brownbacks-brother-accused-terrorizing-rural-neighbors [big piece with a lot of detail; with supporting documentation ( http://issuu.com/tcj5/docs/applicationforrestitution ), and comments], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S81SmwhPPmI [with comments]
By David Bromwich Posted: 08/07/2015 6:34 pm EDT Updated: 08/12/2015 8:59 pm EDT
Benjamin Netanyahu is laying siege to the Congress of the United States, not for the first time. He has thrown his voice and channeled his influence into the arena of American legislative politics, to abort the P5+1 nuclear settlement with Iran, which was signed on July 14 by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia. The Israeli strong man's latest intervention is in keeping with the rest of his political career. Netanyahu owes all his importance and his success to actions that have been purely destructive.
He was first elected in 1996 on the wave of Israeli settler chauvinism that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords ]. His rise occurred in the wake of the assassination of his opponent, a courageous defender of the accords, Yitzhak Rabin. A public memorandum detailing the strategy for Netanyahu as leader of Israel was written by the neoconservative war propagandist Richard Perle, along with a small committee of others. The strategy document, "A Clean Break [ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm ]," called for Israel to free itself from the tedious demands of diplomacy once and for all, curtail its efforts to negotiate with Palestinians toward the creation of a state, and give up the idea of joining a neighborhood of nations in the Middle East. With American help, instead, Israel could stand alone as the dominant power, a position it should never compromise by bargaining for peace. To achieve this end, three countries had to be undermined, subdivided, or destroyed: Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
So far, things have gone roughly according to plan. Iraq and Syria are out of the picture -- the latter with considerable satisfaction to the people around Netanyahu. But Iran has continued to pose a stumbling block; and as early as 2008, Barack Obama's interest in lowering the terrorist threat to the US by calming the violence of the region was perceived by Netanyahu as an impediment.
From their first meeting in 2009, Netanyahu made it plain that Obama was an obstacle to be overcome by any means necessary -- political assaults from the rear and flanks; concocted international incidents; speeches to Congress and the United Nations and AIPAC and Congress again. Obama was to be treated as an enemy in all but name. The story was to be circulated that Obama, possibly from motives of racial resentment, was profoundly unfriendly to the state of Israel. In the six years that followed their first meeting [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew-york-timesi-falsifie_b_205201.html ] in May 2009, a continuous strand of Netanyahu's foreign policy has been devoted to weakening the Obama presidency.
Over the same period, the Republican party set itself as a primary goal the nullification of everything Obama proposed. It was natural therefore that its alliance with Netanyahu would grow increasingly public. Only self-respect in the Republicans and a sense of decency in Netanyahu could have prevented it. But one should not underrate the element of racism in Netanyahu's resolve. On the day of the last Israeli election, in March 2015, which ended by returning him to office with a far-right, settler-based coalition, Netanyahu sent a panic Facebook message [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/03/17/on-israeli-election-day-netanyahu-warns-of-arabs-voting-in-droves/ ] to his followers. "The right-wing government is in danger," he wrote. "Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out." His followers had a particular duty to vote in order to offset the droves of Arabs.
Now, "droves" is a word normally applied to cattle, just as "swarm" is applied to insects and "hordes" to murderous barbarians. The chairmen of White Citizens' Councils in the American South in the 1950s used to warn their faithful against the "hordes of n-----s" that would vote them out of office unless white people came out and voted. For Netanyahu, President Obama has always been one of the "droves." He has treated Obama with a degree of disrespect approaching and often crossing into contempt, without parallel in the previous relations of American leaders and our professed allies. The black caucus noticed this when they boycotted [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/benjamin-netanyahu-congressional-black-caucus-115103.html ] Netanyahu's speech to Congress in March; and among Jewish lawmakers, Dianne Feinstein has spoken [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/01/politics/dianne-feinstein-netanyahu-arrogant/ ] with well-earned disgust of Netanyahu's "arrogant" presumption that he speaks for all Jews.
Reactions of this sort are likely to intensify among those (including the present writer) who feel the disgrace of a foreign leader singling us out in a speech [ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/05/netanyahu_addresses_american_jews_three_reasons_to_oppose_iran_deal.html ] carried in US media, which was addressed peculiarly to Jewish Americans and implicitly separated our interests from those of other Americans. The gesture embodied by such a speech bears a family resemblance to incitement to treason. Imagine a leader of India puffing himself up to deliver a special address to Americans of Indian descent, asking them to subvert the authority of the president who signed a trade deal the Indian prime minister judges to be disadvantageous. And yet, the relations today of Netanyahu to many of the biggest American Jewish donors, and of the same donors to the Republican Party -- these linkages are so extended and tangled that lesser actors can barely account for their actions. But they feel no responsibility to render an account. They only know that their arms and legs move obediently to execute a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Las Vegas. And then they vote and then comes the money.
The defection to the Republican side by Chuck Schumer was predictable, but the terms in which he cast his decision tell us much about the man and the situation. It has been said that one can judge a politician's intent not only by the things he says but by the things he crucially omits. In Schumer's written defense of his vote with the war party, in a text [ https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478 ] of some 1,700 words apparently drafted by the senator himself, a word that never appears is "Israel." (The exception is the almost anonymous appearance of the country in a catalogue with five other countries said to have been direct or indirect victims of Iran). But depend on it, Israel was on Schumer's mind.
He has often said [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chuck-schumer-planning-to-break-with-obama-oppose-iran-deal_55c3f7e9e4b0d9b743dba71d ], with an artless self-love, that his name in Hebrew, "shomer," means "guardian"; and he takes pride in the fact because he thinks of himself as the appointed guardian of Israel's interests in the US. How bizarre and again how unprecedented this is! Think of any other nation in the world. Imagine an Italian-American named Frank Consiglieri assuring his listeners that his name means "advocate" in Italian and he is supremely vigilant for the interests of Italy as a lawmaker in the US.
Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a rationale similar to the one he now urges as the path of reason and good sense with Iran. He may or may not recognize that he is only assisting the Likud and the neoconservatives with part three of the Middle East "clean break" strategy: Iraq, Syria, Iran. Their calculation is simple. When the work of destruction is complete, one country in the region will stand upright and intact amid the surrounding rubble.
How many Americans know that the Iran deal is supported [ http://forward.com/opinion/312461/cracks-widen-as-israel-security-insiders-break-with-politicians-on-iran-dea/ ] by the vast majority of Israel's defense and security establishment? The opinions of the security officials within Netanyahu's government are impossible to discern because they have been placed under gag order; but the suffrage of qualified judges in Israel, as also in Europe, Russia, China, and the IAEA, forms a strange contrast with the current alignments in America. "As unanimous as the politicians are in backing the prime minister," J.J. Goldberg recently wrote in Forward, "the generals and spymasters are nearly as unanimous in questioning him. Generals publicly backing Netanyahu can be counted on -- well -- one finger." Equally strange is the fact that security support for the deal is an open secret in the Israeli press, and in an American Jewish paper like Forward, but the evidence is subordinated to a point of near invisibility in the New York Times and other mainstream outlets.
If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future. And I have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the Iranian program.
Politicians and propagandists who oppose the deal have spoken of fifteen years as if it were the blink of an eye; but fifteen years is a long time in the history of a nation; and Americans should know it. Fifteen years ago George W. Bush had not yet won the presidency and delivered to the world his vision of a new Middle East. Destruction makes faster work than rebuilding or reform, but much that is good can happen in fifteen years.
Obama delivered this speech at American University -- recalling President Kennedy's speech in support of the Test Ban Treaty at the same institution 52 years ago -- and with full awareness of the parallel he said: "Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is President bomb those nuclear facilities?" Kennedy at a press conference [ http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9374 ] on August 20, 1963 faced a similar pretense of scientific skepticism founded on destructive intent, and had to answer questions about the opposition of Dr. Edward Teller, a fierce advocate of atmospheric nuclear testing. Asked whether he had curtailed a recent series of tests for political reasons, Kennedy replied:
Obviously, we don't like to test in the atmosphere unless the test is essential. Every test in the atmosphere produces fallout and we would, it seems to me, be remiss in not attempting to keep the number of tests to the minimum, consistent with our national security. ... So we kept a careful eye, and we in fact did more tests, several more tests than we had originally planned six months before. ... I think that they were an impressive series. But it would be very difficult, I think, to satisfy Dr. Teller in this field.
Schumer is following the Dr. Tellers of our age, but they have invented nothing, improved nothing, are good at nothing except starting wars. They are, however, trained and seasoned by experience in the art of spreading fear. By joining their ranks again in 2015, as he did in 2003, Chuck Schumer has made much harder the fight against the chief hope today for lowering the risk of nuclear proliferation. He has done it for reasons no more compelling than those that drove the feverish opposition to Kennedy in 1963.
Meanwhile, 58 members of the US Congress have landed [ http://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-washington-post1047/20150807/285104227532959/TextView ] in Jerusalem, on a visit set to last from August 4 to August 10. Their trip was bought and paid for by the charitable arm of AIPAC. The lawmakers obeyed the command of Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit him instead of their own constituents in early August if they want support in the future by prominent Jewish donors. A gesture of more abject servility cannot be imagined. By agreeing to take the trip at this time -- so easy to decline if only for the perception of the thing -- these captive representatives have in effect declared their confidence in Netanyahu and their dependence on his favor. He will come back for more.
Very likely we can expect to hear something from the same representatives concerning the "flaws" in the Iran deal which Schumer says prompted his early declaration of a negative vote. "Even more troubling [than the 24-day delay on inspections]," said Schumer," is the fact that the US cannot demand inspections unilaterally." The demand for immediate inspections, any time, any place, is not an initiative of Schumer's at all but a late-found and richly publicized Netanyahu obstruction, like his demand that Iran recognize Israel as "the Jewish state." It is tantamount to setting a precondition of total and round-the-clock American surveillance of Iranian sites. The only government that would submit to such a regimen is a client government; and the objection could only be satisfied in the aftermath of regime change.
The most puzzling detail in Schumer's defense of his negative vote is the reversal on which it closes. He admits that the heart of the nuclear deal works against the development of nuclear weapons quite effectively. "When it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it." There, for all his elaborate show of scruple, he gives the game away. The "nuclear aspects" are the substance of the agreement. That is why they call it the nuclear deal. But no, for Netanyahu and Schumer what offends is the prospect of Iran's re-entry into the global community as a trading partner and a non-nuclear regional power of some resourcefulness. This emergence can only curb Israel's wish to dominate for another half century as it has done for the past half century. That, and not anything resembling an "existential threat," is the real transition at issue.
In conclusion, Schumer tells his Democratic listeners that he does not want a war with Iran; but this is a hollow pretense. The preponderance of influential persons who side with him, as they did on Iraq in 2003, do indeed want a war, and they say they do. They say that war is inevitable, and that the sooner we get over delusions of compromise, the better for Israel and America. Even if he were in earnest, what could the peaceable Senator Chuck Schumer do? A shomer, after all, a guardian and not a buccaneer -- how could he prevail against the many who are made of sterner stuff? The Republican candidate now ranked third in the polls, Scott Walker, has said he would bomb Iran on his first day as president.
The first signature on the letter is from Richard L. Garwin, a physicist who helped design the world’s first hydrogen bomb and has long advised Washington on nuclear weapons and arms control. He is among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age.
Also signing is Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who, from 1986 to 1997, directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. The facility produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Other prominent signatories include Freeman Dyson of Princeton, Sidney Drell of Stanford and Rush D. Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society.
Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances — granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military’s top secret security clearance.
Many of them have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies over the decades. For instance, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton physicist, served as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration.
The six Nobel laureates who signed are Philip W. Anderson of Princeton University; Leon N. Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon L. Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford University; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The letter uses the words “innovative” and “stringent” more than a half-dozen times, saying, for instance, that the Iran accord has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.”
“We congratulate you and your team,” the letter says in its opening to Mr. Obama, adding that the Iran deal “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.”
In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of Tehran’s nuclear capability, the letter says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was “only a few weeks” away from having fuel for nuclear weapons.
Dr. Garwin and Dr. Holt were the main organizers behind the group that wrote and signed the letter, according to two of the letter’s signatories. The letter comes amid a flurry of organized efforts by supporters and opponents of the agreement to shape the public debate ahead of congressional action on the deal.
The body of the letter praises the technical features of the Iran accord and offers tacit rebuttals to recent criticisms on such issues as verification and provisions for investigating what specialists see as evidence of Iran’s past research on nuclear arms.
It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.
The deal’s plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates “concerns about clandestine activities.” It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as “unprecedented,” adding that the agreement “will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.”
It also welcomes as without precedent the deal’s explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons “rather than only their manufacture,” as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age.
The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint. “In contrast,” it says, “we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely.”
Iran's Military Chief Comes Out In Support Of Nuclear Deal
In this picture released by an official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader on Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, second left, attends a graduation ceremony of Revolutionary Guard officers in Tehran, Iran, as he is accompanied by Chief of the General Staff of Iran's Armed Forces, Hasan Firouzabadi, left, and Revolutionary Guard commander Mohammad Ali Jafar, center. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted: 08/08/2015 11:57 am EDT Updated: 08/08/2015 11:59 am EDT
DUBAI, Aug 8 (Reuters) - Iran's military chief and a close ally to the Supreme Leader expressed his support on Saturday for the country's nuclear deal with world powers, a key endorsement for the accord that faces strong opposition from hardliners.
Conservative members of the Iranian parliament and chief commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, have sharply criticized the deal, saying it undermined the Islamic Republic's military capabilities.
While Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved of the deal, he has told officials and experts to take legal procedures to ensure the other side does not breach it, saying some of the world powers involved were untrustworthy.
Major General Hassan Firouzabadi listed 16 "advantages" to the deal ["Advantage #1: We, the Iranian military, won't get blown to bits. Advantage #2: We, the Iranian military, won't get blown to bits. ... And finally, Advantage #16: We, the Iranian military, won't get blown to bits."], which Iran signed in Vienna in July, without detailing any drawbacks.
"The armed forces have the most concerns about the effect of the deal on Iran's defense capabilities ... but this agreement and the U.N. Security Council resolution have many advantages that the critics ignore," Firouzabadi was quoted as saying by Fars News Agency.
The agreement, a major initiative for both U.S. President Barack Obama and Iran's pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani, has been met with resistance from hardliners in both countries.
"The tone of the U.N. Security Council resolution has changed compared to the previous ones. Regarding Iran's missile activities, it doesn't order but only asks for Iran's compliance," Firouzabadi said, referring to an international resolution passed in the wake of the deal.
Iran's procedures for ratifying the accord are not known in any detail. Whatever the eventual role of parliament or the National Security Council, the deal will have to be approved by Khamenei, the country's highest authority.
The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.
By Jeffrey Lewis August 9, 2015
What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt [ http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2427505-arizona-wildcats-coach-rich-rodriguez-let-fans-call-plays-at-spring-game ]. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.
Could the debate in Congress be less dignified if the members removed their shirts, painted themselves red or blue, and started screaming like the Cameron Crazies [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Crazies ]?
Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/04/01/chuck-schumer-and-that-most-dangerous-place-joke/ ] that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:
On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium [ https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478 ] that some anonymous hack described [ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/schumer-white-house-bare-their-wounds-121156.html ] as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen. Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving.
(I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)
Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel ].” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”
Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.
That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.
Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.
But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”
This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.
What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)
Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.
This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.
The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.
Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.
But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience. Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.
That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.
Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal
U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event Tuesday in New York on the nuclear agreement with Iran. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)
Video [embedded] Kerry: Dollar could suffer if U.S. abandons Iran deal (1:11) If the United States walks away from the deal with Iran and demands that its allies comply with sanctions, the dollar could cease to be the world's reserve currency, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said. (Reuters)
Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”
The release came as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. allies were “going to look at us and laugh” if the United States were to abandon the deal and then ask them to back a more aggressive posture against Iran.
Not only would U.S. global credibility be undermined, Kerry said, but also the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency would be threatened.
“It’s not going to happen overnight,” Kerry said in a public question-and-answer session at Reuters news service headquarters in New York [ http://www.reuters.com/video/2015/08/11/kerry-there-isnt-a-better-deal?videoId=365256096 ]. “But I’m telling you, there’s a huge antipathy out there” to U.S. leadership. Pointing to efforts by Russia and China to join forces with rising, nonaligned powers, he said that “there’s a big bloc out there, folks, that isn’t just sitting around waiting for the United States to tell them what to do.”
Kerry and President Obama, who is vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, are using the August congressional recess to counter claims made by opponents of the deal during recent hearings.
People who think negotiators can go back to the drawing board and improve on what has been agreed are unrealistic, Kerry said.
“When I hear a senator, a congressman stand up and say ‘We should get a better deal’ — That is not going to happen,” he said. “If everybody thinks ‘Oh, no, we’re just tough.?.?.?. we can force people.?.?.?. America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough, we can just bring the hammer down and force people to do what we want to do.’
“Are you kidding me?” Kerry said.
Instead, he painted a harsh picture of the results of U.S. rejection. Allies would refuse to retain sanctions or impose new ones, or join in possible military action, he said.
The letter from the retired military officers followed the release this past weekend of a letter to Obama by 29 of the nation’s leading scientists, who called the Iran deal “technically sound, stringent and innovative” and said it would “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.”
The letters provide the White House with additional backing as it wages an increasingly uphill fight to protect the agreement from congressional destruction. Lawmakers will decide next month whether to “disapprove” the deal, a vote that currently appears sure to win near universal Republican support and a significant number of Democratic defections.
Under a deal negotiated between the White House and Congress, if a disapproval resolution stands, Obama will be barred from waiving U.S. sanctions as part of U.S. responsibility under the agreement.
Signers of the military letter include retired general and flag officers from every branch of service. They include four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.
“There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” the letter said. “Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table.”
“And if the deal is rejected by America,” it said, “the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.”
Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed.
“As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a retired general officer and a rabbi for over 40 years, and operating without institutional encumbrances, I have a unique perspective,” Robinson said in an interview.
He said he spoke out to demonstrate that “those of us who love Israel in the United States are not of one mind and one voice on this matter. I thought it was important to represent some of the diversity within the American Jewish community.”
The Israeli government is adamantly opposed to the agreement, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been in the forefront of a campaign to build public opposition in this country.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani casts his vote as a candidate during the 2013 election. Yalda Moayen / Reuters
Celebrations in Tehran after the nuclear deal was announced. (Ebrahim Noroozi / AP)
The agreement has divided Iranians into camps that could shape the future of the country.
Abbas Milani and Michael McFaul Aug 11, 2015
The nuclear deal with Iran has sparked a vigorous debate not only in the United States, but in Iran as well. The discussion of the agreement among Iranians at times echoes the American discussion, but is also much deeper and wider. Reports in Iranian media, as well as our own correspondence and conversations with dozens of Iranians, both in the country and in exile, reveal a public dialogue that stretches beyond the details of the agreement to include the very future of Iran. And it seems that everyone from the supreme leader [ http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/middleeast/iran-us-relations-khamenei/ ] to the Iranian American executive in Silicon Valley, from the taxi driver in Isfahan to the dissident from Evin Prison, is engaged. The coalitions for and against the deal tend to correlate closely with those for and against internal political reform and normalized relations with the West.
The mere fact that there is such a debate says something about the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran today. Iran is a dictatorship. One man, the supreme leader, has most of the power. He is the commander in chief and thus formally controls the military, the very powerful internal militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and its external wing, the Quds Force. The supreme leader appoints the head of the judiciary, the head of the Iranian national radio and television organization, and most of the National Security Council—an advisory body similar to the U.S. National Security Council. He also controls tens of billions of dollars in revenues from religious endowments and foundations. And, as stated in the constitution, he is the spiritual leader of the country, combining religious and political power in one office.
And yet nowadays the supreme leader does not decide everything on his own. Some formal institutions of the Iranian regime, and a myriad of informal interest-group networks, also play a role in shaping policy, including on the nuclear deal. Most importantly, the Iranian president has some political autonomy. Through his control of the Guardian Council—a committee of 12 men that among other things must approve every candidate wishing to run for elective office—the supreme leader decides who is allowed to run for president. But once the list of candidates is determined, the vote is usually competitive, giving the chief executive an electoral mandate directly from the people. In the last presidential election, candidates ideologically closest to the supreme leader garnered only a few million votes, while the one candidate running as a reformer, Hassan Rouhani, received more than 18 million votes. Rouhani’s wide margin of victory strengthened his position as a partially independent actor within the Iranian regime.
In addition to the president, other groups have obtained some political autonomy within Iran’s fractured authoritarianism. Civil society is constrained but still fighting. A vibrant underground of publishing, theater, music, and poetry continues to spread [ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/irans-incremental-revolution/390183/ ]. Divides exist even among the clerics. Conservatives still dominate, but several top clerics have voiced their support for Iran’s reformist forces and criticized—sometimes openly, sometimes more discreetly—conservative policies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s own brother, Hadi Khamenei, recently described [ http://kaleme.com/1394/05/16/klm-221245/ ] the eight-year presidency of Rouhani’s predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as some of the “darkest [years] in the history of the country,” adding that the conservatives are trying to “give a bad image to the reformists.” This political system—authoritarian but with pockets of pluralism—has created the relatively permissive conditions for a serious, public debate about the nuclear deal.
Moreover, in refraining from taking a firm public position for or against the agreement, Khamenei himself has encouraged this debate. Given the extent of Khamenei’s control, the Iranian negotiators could not have signed the accord without his approval. In public, however, the supreme leader has refrained from praising the work of his negotiating team, saying only [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-us-khamenei_55aa4ec2e4b065dfe89e8470 ] that the deal must be ratified through the proper “legal channels” and will not change Iranian policy toward the “arrogant U.S. government.” Khamenei’s mixed signals have allowed others to speak out more forcefully on the nuclear pact.
Those supporting the deal include moderates inside the government, many opposition leaders, a majority [ http://www.entekhab.ir/fa/news/219000 ] of Iranian citizens, and many in the Iranian American diaspora—a disparate group that has rarely agreed on anything until now.
First and most obviously, the moderates within the regime, including Rouhani and his close friend and political ally, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, negotiated the agreement, and are now the most vocal in defending it against Iranian hawks. Rouhani crushed his conservative opponents in the last presidential election in 2013 in part because he advocated for a nuclear deal. This agreement is his Obamacare—his major campaign promise now delivered. Former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, as well as moderates in the parliament and elsewhere in government, have also vigorously endorsed the accord. During the negotiations, Rafsanjani, for example, celebrated [ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/iran-ex-president-rafsanjani-lifting-sanctions-giant-step-after-us-hostility ] the fact that Iran’s leaders had “broken a taboo” in talking directly to the United States. Since the agreement was signed, he has said [ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/rafsanjani-exclusive-interview.html ] that those within Iran who oppose it are “making a mistake.”
Second and somewhat surprisingly, many prominent opposition leaders also support the deal. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a popular presidential candidate in 2009 who is now under house arrest for his leadership of the Green Movement protests against Ahmadinejad’s reelection, backed [ http://kaleme.com/1394/01/23/klm-213423/ ] the pursuit of the agreement, albeit with some qualifications. He’s joined by other government critics [ http://www.iranhumanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/Briefing-ICHRI-NuclearNegotiations-June2015.pdf ], some only recently released from Iran’s prisons. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human-rights activist and Nobel laureate now living in exile, expressed the hope [ http://www.democracynow.org/2015/4/28/iranian_nobel_peace_prize_laureate_shirin ] after an interim agreement was reached in April that “negotiations come to a conclusion, because the sanctions have made the people poorer”; she labeled as “extremists” those who opposed the agreement in Iran and America. Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist who spent more than six years in prison in Iran, also praised [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-iran-nuclear-accord-i_b_4612588.html ] the agreement, writing that “step-by-step nuclear accords, the lifting of economic sanctions and the improvement of the relations between Iran and Western powers will gradually remove the warlike and securitized environment from Iran.”
A new poll also indicates [ http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249824-opening-iran ] that two-thirds of Iranian Americans favor the agreement, and our own conversations with members of the Iranian diaspora bear this out. The Islamic Republic has long enjoyed some defense from a handful of non-governmental organizations in the West, but support for the nuclear deal stretches much deeper into the diaspora and includes those who despise Tehran’s theocracy. For instance, many prominent Iranian American business leaders have told us they approve of the accord. Iranian American foundations and community-service organizations have issued statements [ http://www.paaia.org/CMS/paaia-launches-ad-campaign-in-support-of-iran-nuclear-deal.aspx ] backing the deal, while also calling for renewed focus on political reforms inside Iran. Even many of those who had to flee the country after the 1979 revolution, and have since helped fund projects to encourage democracy inside Iran (including, in the past, our own Iran Democracy Project at Stanford’s Hoover Institution), support it. There are exceptions. Some in the diaspora still believe [ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/17/major-us-figures-join-call-for-regime-change-in-te/ ] that only more pressure, and if need be a military attack, will bring down the Islamic Republic. But the number of Iranian Americans who are at once critical of the regime and supportive of the nuclear deal is striking.
This coalition has multiple motivations for favoring the deal. A number of Iranians simply want sanctions lifted. Some moderates within the regime may want to reduce international pressure on Iran as a means to preserve the power structure. And it’s safe to assume that a few Iranian American business leaders see new trade opportunities in the diplomatic achievement. But the agreement could also serve as a first step in alleviating the problems of ordinary Iranian citizens. If the deal represents the beginning of Iran’s reengagement with the outside world—more trade, more investment, more space inside Iran for the private sector, more travel, more normalcy—all of these trends would undermine the ideological, emotional, and irrational impulses of the theocracy. Especially in the context of an aging supreme leader, a newly elected reformist president, and a young, post-revolutionary population, the nuclear deal offers an opportunity for Iran to modernize politically and economically. Even dissidents sitting in jail or exile have expressed these views. Ganji, for instance, argued [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-iran-nuclear-accord-i_b_4612588.html ] that “if there are friendly relations between Iran and Western powers, led by the United States, the West will be able to exert more positive influence on Iran to improve its state of human rights.” Conversely, members of this coalition have voiced fears that a collapse of the deal would only reaffirm the United States as the enemy of Iran—the Great Satan—and thereby strengthen the hardliners internally. Issa Saharkhiz, a journalist who spent four years [ http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2013/10/issa-saharkhiz/ ] in prison, recently warned [ http://sahamnews.org/2015/07/287059/ ] that such a collapse could bring “Iranian versions of ISIS”—a reference to Shiite conservatives and their militant allies—to power in the country.
And that’s exactly why the most militantly authoritarian, conservative, and anti-Western leaders and groups within Iran oppose the deal. This coalition is formidable and includes former President Ahmadinejad, the Iranian leader who denied the Holocaust and called for the elimination of Israel. Fereydoon Abbasi, who directed Iran’s nuclear program under Ahmadinejad, and Saeed Jalili, the former nuclear negotiator, have repeatedly sniped at the deal. In a biting interview, Abbasi ripped into every facet of the talks, saying [ http://www.rajanews.com/news/208478 ] that the negotiators, “especially Mr. Rouhani ... have accepted the premise that [Iran] is guilty.” Several conservative clerics and IRGC commanders have expressed similar sentiments. One prominent critic of the deal claimed that of the 19 redlines stipulated by the supreme leader, 18 and a half [ http://www.nasimonline.ir/detail/news/1014066136 ] had been compromised in the current agreement. Many publications considered close to Khamenei—including most noticeably the daily paper Kayhan—have been unsparing in their criticism.
Conservative opponents of the deal tend to emphasize its near-term negative security consequences. They point out that the agreement will roll back Iran’s nuclear program, which was intended to deter an American or Israeli attack, and thereby increase Iran’s vulnerability. They have denounced the system for inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities as an intelligence bonanza for the CIA. And they have issued blistering attacks on the incompetence of Iran’s negotiating team, claiming that negotiators caved on many key issues and were outmaneuvered by more clever and sinister American diplomats.
And yet such antagonism appears to be about more than the agreement’s clauses and annexes. The deal’s hardline adversaries also seem concerned about the same longer-term consequences that the moderates embrace. For instance, IRGC leaders must worry that a lifting of sanctions will undermine their business arrangements for contraband trade. In a not-too-discreet reference [ http://fararu.com/fa/news/242178 ] to these concerns, Rouhani declared them to be “peddlers of sanctions,” adding that “they are angry at the agreement” while the people of Iran pay the price for their profiteering. Over time, more exposure to the wider world of commerce is likely to diminish if not destroy the IRGC’s lucrative no-bid government contracts for infrastructure and construction projects.
Perhaps more threatening for this coalition is the loss of America as a scapegoat for all domestic problems. The conservatives need an external enemy to excuse their corrupt, inefficient, and repressive rule. Some have even suggested that the United States is trying to do to Iran what it did to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, when Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev foolishly trusted U.S. President Ronald Reagan and sought closer ties with the West. The result was the collapse of the Soviet regime. In a remarkable letter [ http://norooznews.org/note/2015/08/1/4286 ] from Evin Prison written after the nuclear deal was announced, Mustafa Tajzadeh, once an influential deputy minister of interior during the Khatami administration and now a defiant dissident behind bars, criticized the leader of the conservative faction in Iran’s parliament, who had openly warned against the danger of a ratified nuclear deal as a prologue to a more dangerous domestic challenge from democratic forces. Foreign crises, the conservative parliamentarian had opined in a statement, are “easier to manage.”
Conservatives in Iran may be right. Iran’s opening to the outside world may weaken the ruling regime, as eventually Mao Zedong’s opening to the West did in the 1970s in China, and Gorbachev’s opening to the West did in the 1980s in the U.S.S.R. But these historical analogies also suggest that Iranian hardliners may be wrong. China’s overtures to the West undermined communist ideology and practices, but have proved essential in keeping the Chinese Communist Party in power so far. Gorbachev’s bold steps toward international integration eventually allowed both market and democratic institutions to take hold in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. Yet the current counterrevolutionary backlash inside Russia suggests that the struggle for democracy, markets, and integration there will be long and tumultuous. There is no guarantee that Iran’s will be any less so.
No one knows what scenario will unfold in Iran. But the debate inside the country should inform America’s own debate. If the deal, as some American critics claim, sells out Iranian democrats and strengthens theocrats, why do so many Iranian reformists, democracy activists, and even dissidents support it? If it represents a financial windfall for Iranian conservatives and their terrorist allies abroad, why are Iran’s most conservative politicians so passionately against it?
Maybe Iran’s democrats are naive. And maybe the conservatives are playing a clever game of deception. Yet given America’s less-than-sterling track record of supporting Iran’s reformers, perhaps this time it’s worth listening to and betting on those in the country whom the United States claims to champion.
As Peter Beinart writes [ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-surge-fallacy/399344/ ] in the new issue of the Atlantic, Republicans have embraced “the legend of the surge,” which starts off as a specific belief about what happened in Iraq and why, and then expands outward to justify a return to George W. Bush’s simplistic hawkish approach to any foreign policy challenge. To put it briefly, the change in strategy around the surge, and the “Sunni awakening” that occurred at the same time, were supposed to create the conditions in which a political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites could take place. But that never happened, and the corruption and sectarianism of Nouri al-Maliki’s government laid the groundwork for the country’s continued civil war and eventually the rise of the Islamic State.
But Republicans tell a different story, one that not only wipes away all the calamitous and naive decisions of the Bush administration but also can be used to justify a renewal of the Bush Doctrine anywhere. Here’s how Jeb will put it today:
So why was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq, leaving not even the residual force that commanders and the joint chiefs knew was necessary?
That premature withdrawal was the fatal error, creating the void that ISIS moved in to fill – and that Iran has exploited to the full as well.
ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat.
And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge . . . then joined in claiming credit for its success . . . then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away.
So: Everything was going great in Iraq and victory had been achieved, until Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton threw it all away. Nothing is the fault of Republicans, or of the people who supported and launched the Iraq war, the single worst foreign policy decision in American history. George W. Bush made no mistakes that might have any lessons for us, and the answer to every foreign policy challenge is to be more bellicose and more eager to use military force.
And what should we do now? If you said that the key is “strength” and “leadership,” then give yourself a gold star:
The threat of global jihad, and of the Islamic State in particular, requires all the strength, unity, and confidence that only American leadership can provide.
Radical Islam is a threat we are entirely capable of overcoming, and I will be unyielding in that cause should I be elected President of the United States.
We should pursue the clear and unequivocal objective of throwing back the barbarians of ISIS, and helping the millions in the region who want to live in peace.
Instead of simply reacting to each new move the terrorists choose to make, we will use every advantage we have – to take the offensive, to keep it, and to prevail.
In all of this, the United States must engage with friends and allies, and lead again in that vital region.
I challenge you to read that passage and tell me a single specific thing Bush plans to do.
And then there’s Bush’s embrace of what has to be the single most inane objection Republicans have to Obama’s conduct in foreign affairs: “Despite elaborate efforts by the administration to avoid even calling it by name,” he’ll say, “one of the very gravest threats we face today comes from radical Islamic terrorists.” I’m not sure what “elaborate efforts” Bush is talking about, but it’s true that President Obama prefers not to use the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” because he thinks that could serve to alienate Muslims around the world by reinforcing the radicals’ argument that Islam itself is at war with the West. Obama might be right or wrong about that, but it’s a relatively minor point. Yet to hear Republicans tell it, it is literally impossible to contain terrorism if the president doesn’t repeat this phrase on a regular basis. They say this so often and with such fervor that one has to assume they actually believe that the words “radical Islamic terrorism” constitute some sort of magical incantation, one that would turn our enemies’ guns to dust and cause the terrorists themselves to disappear in a puff of smoke if only it were spoken by the commander in chief.
You may remember a few weeks ago when Donald Trump said he had a spectacular, super-classy, guaranteed-to-work plan to destroy the Islamic State, but he wasn’t going to reveal it, lest the terrorists get wind of their impending demise. Then when he finally did, the plan was this [ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-i-would-bomb-the-hell-out-of-the-oil-fields-in-iraq-to-fight-isis/ ]: “I would bomb the hell out of those oil fields. I wouldn’t send many troops because you won’t need them by the time I’m finished.” Everyone laughed and shook their heads at the fact that a guy whose policy thinking operates at a fifth-grade level was leading the Republican field.
But how much more sophisticated than that is what Bush and the other candidates are offering on foreign policy? For instance, if you read this recent manifesto [ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-08-04/restoring-america-s-strength ] from Marco Rubio, you’ll learn that he plans to lead with strength, so America can be strong and full of leadership. And also strength, because that’s what America needs to lead.
Make no mistake: What Jeb Bush and the other GOP candidates (with the exception of Rand Paul) are offering on foreign policy is nothing more or less than a return to the Bush Doctrine. They won’t call it that, because they know that would be politically foolish; Americans may have short memories, but not that short. Maybe in their next debate, someone can ask them how their foreign policy would differ in any way from George W. Bush’s. I doubt they’d have an answer.
The text of Jeb Bush's foreign policy speech given Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at the Reagan Library in California:
Thank you very much. It’s good to be with all of you, and I appreciate the kind hospitality of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
I bring greetings from the wonderful guy who is still very proud to have been Ronald Reagan’s vice president. A competition turned into friendship, and the better my Dad got to know Ronald Reagan, the more he admired and loved him. On my way here this afternoon, I made a call to Nancy Reagan, to thank her for this honor and let her know how much we all love her.
Seven elections have come and gone since the Reagan name was last on the ballot. Yet in many ways, that name, and the qualities it brings to mind, is still the standard. A leader of clarity and resolve, not given to idle words, it was President Reagan who took command of events, rebuilt America’s strength, and moved the world toward peace. Strategically and morally, he conceded nothing to America’s enemies. He believed that the Cold War could be won, not just endlessly managed, and in the end he put an age of conflict behind us. They don’t always give out peace prizes for that, but peace is what Ronald Reagan left behind, and that is the legacy of a good and great man.
In our time as well, it is strength, and will, and clarity of purpose that make all the difference. Good things happen when America is engaged with friends and allies, alert to danger, and resolved to deal with threats, before they become catastrophes. We’ve seen in recent years how critical each one of these principles is to our security, because when it counted most, they were missing.
To really grasp what the next president will face, we have to look candidly at a few policies that have gone very wrong in these years –above all, in what we used to call the global war on terror. Despite elaborate efforts by the administration to avoid even calling it by name, one of the very gravest threats we face today comes from radical Islamic terrorists. The terrorists are possessed by the same violent ideology that gave us 9/11, and they are on the offensive and gaining ground. It is not true, and was wishful thinking by the Administration to claim, that “the tide of war is receding.”
The reality is that radical Islam has been spreading like a pandemic – across the Middle East, throughout Africa and to parts of Asia, even in the nations of the West, finding recruits in Europe and the United States.
Here’s another stark reality: Seven years ago, the long-awaited jihadist caliphate existed only in the fevered imagination of the terrorists. Today, the radicals’ caliphate exists as an actual place, occupying a stretch of land larger than Indiana.
ISIS, a genocidal terrorist army, controls large parts of two countries, and is gaining influence in others. And yet well into this nightmare, President Obama’s administration, by its own admission, has no strategy to stop it. In place of one, they are pursuing a minimalist approach of incremental escalation. The results have been a creeping U.S. involvement, without any strategic results – the worst of both worlds.
A year of limited strikes and other half-measures has made little discernible difference in the sum total of the ISIS danger. A halting, ineffective effort against them has only emboldened these terrorists, leaving the pandemic unchecked.
Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, and other cities that American and allied troops died to liberate, are now under the black flag of ISIS. Inside the caliphate, non-believers are forced to convert, and those who do not, can expect a horrible fate. A special hatred is reserved for Christians and other religious minorities. In the Middle East today, we are witnessing a mass persecution and exodus of the followers of Jesus Christ. Nor is any allowance made for adherents of Islam found lacking in zeal by ISIS, which has filled mass graves with innocent Muslims.
Potential recruits of ISIS, ready for their own taste of violence, can even follow it all on social media. It’s a time when mass murderers have Twitter handles, Facebook and Instagram pages, using these to add a veneer of glamor to their exploits. We need to work with the owners of the relevant companies, and give careful thought to how we address this problem.
Among followers worldwide, ISIS is hailed as the strong horse, the glorious cleanser and restorer of Islam, and that word is getting out on Western-based social media. This helps explain the spread of ISIS and the terrorist pandemic in the Middle East and beyond, including thousands recruited from Europe, and more than a hundred from America, giving us ISIS terrorists with Western passports.
The Islamic State and its followers are an asymmetric threat –needing just one big strike to inflict devastation. What we are facing in ISIS and its ideology is, to borrow a phrase, the focus of evil in the modern world. And civilized nations everywhere, especially those with power, have a duty to oppose and defeat this enemy.
No leader or policymaker involved will claim to have gotten everything right in the region, Iraq especially. Yet in a long experience that includes failures of intelligence and military setbacks, one moment stands out in memory as the turning point we had all been waiting for. And that was the surge of military and diplomatic operations that turned events toward victory. It was a success, brilliant, heroic, and costly. And this nation will never forget the courage and sacrifice that made it all possible.
So why was the success of the surge followed by a withdrawal from Iraq, leaving not even the residual force that commanders and the joint chiefs knew was necessary? That premature withdrawal was the fatal error, creating the void that ISIS moved in to fill – and that Iran has exploited to the full as well. ISIS grew while the United States disengaged from the Middle East and ignored the threat. And where was Secretary of State Clinton in all of this? Like the president himself, she had opposed the surge, then joined in claiming credit for its success, then stood by as that hard-won victory by American and allied forces was thrown away. In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly one time.
Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the President and Secretary Clinton – the storied “team of rivals” – took office? So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. It was a case of blind haste to get out, and to call the tragic consequences somebody else’s problem. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.
All of that is in the past; it cannot be undone. Another terrible miscalculation, unfolding right now, is a different story. That would be the Obama-Clinton-Kerry policy of treating the mullahs in Iran as a stabilizing force in the region when in fact they are deceitful dictators causing nothing but instability.
Whenever bad things happen in the Middle East, from Israel’s borders to the shores of Yemen, the influence of the mullahs is rarely far from the scene. Here is a regime that supports terrorism, threatens to destroy Israel, has for years been trying to develop nuclear weapons, routinely commits human rights violations, was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops in Iraq, and even now is unlawfully detaining American citizens.
Iran, its ally Assad, its terrorist proxy Hizballah, and the sectarian militias it sponsors have fueled the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, that have helped give rise to ISIS. Yet the president’s deal with Iran confronts none of these problems. And least of all does it prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. In fact the deal prepares the way for that capability. With the lifting of sanctions, the deal also frees up more than 100 billion dollars for Iran’s security services to use as they wish. In effect, the primary investors in a violent, radical Middle East have just received a new round of funding, courtesy of the United States and the United Nations.
And, this is President Obama’s idea of a diplomatic triumph. It is a deal unwise in the extreme, with a regime that is untrustworthy in the extreme. It should be rejected by the Congress of the United States of America.
If the Congress does not reject this deal, then the damage must be undone by the next president – and it will be my intention to begin that process immediately. Knowing what has gone wrong, however, is not the same as knowing how to set it right.
The threat of global jihad, and of the Islamic State in particular, requires all the strength, unity, and confidence that only American leadership can provide. Radical Islam is a threat we are entirely capable of overcoming, and I will be unyielding in that cause should I be elected President of the United States. We should pursue the clear and unequivocal objective of throwing back the barbarians of ISIS, and helping the millions in the region who want to live in peace. Instead of simply reacting to each new move the terrorists choose to make, we will use every advantage we have to take the offensive, to keep it, and to prevail.
In all of this, the United States must engage with friends and allies, and lead again in that vital region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the most populous Arab country and the wealthiest, are important partners of the United States. Those relationships have been badly mishandled by this administration. Both countries are key to a better-coordinated regional effort against terrorism. We need to restore trust, and work more closely with them against common threats. We have very capable partners, likewise, in the United Arab Emirates, who are willing and able to take the fight to the extremists. We have a moderate and quite formidable leader in King Abdullah of Jordan. We have an ally in the new democratic government in Tunisia, and a fragile democracy in Lebanon – nations that are both under assault by radicals and terrorists. Across the region, responsible governments need no persuading of what the moment requires.
It requires action, coordination, and American leadership to bring it all together. My strategy meets the unique circumstances in each of the two countries, Iraq and Syria, in which ISIS now has territory. And let’s start with Iraq, and the five broad actions I would take as president to help remove the threat from that country.
First, we must support the Iraqi forces, which right now have the will to win, but not the means. As matters stand, the United States has been helping to reconstitute Iraqi security services and to aid the Kurdish peshmerga. We need to broaden and expedite our efforts to help ensure Iraqis rebuild their security sector – not only to win against ISIS, but to break free of Iranian influence. And that effort should also involve even greater engagement with the Sunni tribes, whose fighting units served side-by-side with Americans to defeat al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and were then disbanded by the Maliki government.
Second, we must give these forces the consistent advantage of American air power, to cover their operations and to strike with fierce precision. The strategy has to include forward air controllers, whose skill and accuracy would severely hinder the enemy’s freedom of movement. This would greatly improve the ability of fighter aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to provide necessary close air support to local ground forces. ISIS fighters try blending into the civilian landscape. Our spotters on the ground will enable us to hit them hard, and rarely miss.
Third, we must make better use of the limited forces we have by giving them a greater range of action. Right now, we have around 3,500 soldiers and marines in Iraq, and more may well be needed. We do not need, and our friends do not ask for, a major commitment of American combat forces. But we do need to convey that we are serious, that we are determined to help local forces take back their country. Our unrivaled warfighters know that it is simply not enough to dispense advice and training to local forces, then send them on their way and hope for the best. Canadian troops are already embedded in Iraqi units to very good effect. Our soldiers and marines need the go-ahead to do that as well, to help our partners outthink and outmaneuver the enemy.
Fourth, we should provide more support to the Kurds, giving them decisive military power against ISIS. In Iraq’s Kurdish region, we have loyal friends and brave and skilled fighters. If I am commander in chief, the United States will make certain that the Kurds have everything they need to win.
And finally, our strategy in Iraq has to restart the serious diplomatic efforts that can help that country move in the right direction. Only Iraq’s Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds can decide if they will live together and share power and resources in a way that will serve their interests, assuring the survival of their country. But these partners have to know that while the United States is there in measure, we are also there in earnest and for the long haul. They will come through for their country, but they’ve got to be certain that we have their back.
Now, the situation in Syria is quite different from the one in Iraq. In some ways, it is even more complex because we have no large, cohesive force to work with. And here, too, we have seen what ruin and suffering can follow when America doesn’t lead.
Of 23 million Syrians, about 11 million have been displaced or fled the country altogether. More than two hundred thousand people have so far been killed in the mayhem. The regime of Bashar al-Assad is deploying every ruthless means to stay in power. Long brutalized by that regime, now under assault from ISIS, Syrian moderates want to fight against both enemies, and they view the regime as the greater evil. It’s a sorrowful picture when you think back on how it could have been avoided.
Exactly four years ago, we heard words that still hang in the air of the Middle East – when President Obama declared that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Then, three years ago, came another pronouncement – that any use of chemical weapons by Assad would be a “red line,” inviting tough consequences for the regime.
If the choice was between silence and these idle, grandiose words, it would have been better to say nothing at all. What followed is that Assad used those weapons, again and again, and there were no serious consequences whatsoever. Having lost our credibility on such an epic scale, it is hard to get it back. But we had better try, because the longer we do nothing, the more dangerous the situation becomes, and the more directly our friends and our interests are threatened.
Our ultimate goal in Syria is to defeat ISIS and to achieve long-term political stability in that country. Defeating ISIS requires defeating Assad, but we have to make sure that his regime is not replaced by something as bad or worse. The last thing we need in Syria is a repeat of Libya, with its plan-less aftermath, where the end of a dictatorship was only the beginning of more terrorist violence, including the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi. Syria will need a stable government, and a transition free of more sectarian blood-letting will depend on the credible moderate forces we help unite and build up today. To that end, my strategy would bring American influence to bear in four all-important areas of action.
First, a coordinated, international effort is essential to give Syria’s moderate forces the upper hand. As it is, the Qataris, the Turks, the Saudis, and others have been supporting fighting groups in Syria. But these groups are not always working to common purpose. And if there’s anything that moderate forces in Syria cannot afford right now, it’s confusion and disunity.
Under my strategy, the aim would be to draw the moderates together and back them up, as one force. And we should back that force up all the way through – not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them to form a stable, moderate government once ISIS is defeated and Assad is gone. It’s a tough, complicated diplomatic and military proposition, even more so than the current situation in Iraq. But it can be done. We saw in the Iraq surge how Islamic moderates can be pulled away from extremist forces. And the strategic elements in both cases are the same – we have to support local forces, and we must stay true to our word.
Second, we have to expand and vastly improve the recruitment and training of Syrian forces fighting ISIS. At the moment, too many in Syria doubt that they can count on us, which explains why our recruiting and training have basically come to nothing. When a five hundred million dollar program gets you 54 recruits, you know the plan’s not working out. The reality is, our recruitment efforts have been failing in Syria because we are not respected anymore as a reliable actor in the region. And we have to change that impression with the kind of clear, consistent, and credible action that every nation should expect from the United States of America.
Third, we must over time establish multiple safe zones in Syria. It’s a measure of progress that we have joined with the Turks to create a small, “ISIS-free zone” in the northern part of the country. But we need to go beyond well this, by establishing safe zones to protect Syrians not only from ISIS, but also from Assad.
Fourth, we and our partners should declare a no-fly zone in Syria, and then work to expand that zone to prevent more crimes by the regime. Enforce that no-fly zone, and we’ll stop the regime’s bombing raids that kill helpless civilians. It could also keep Iranian flights from resupplying the regime, Hizballah, and other bad actors. A no-fly zone is a critical strategic step to cut off Assad, counter Iranian influence, keep the pressure on for a settlement, and prevent more needless death in a country that has seen so much of it.
When we talk about no-fly zones in Syria, precision airstrikes in Iraq, or any projection of military power to meet or deter threats, all of this assumes that such power is there when we need it. Yet here as well, the shortsightedness of the present administration will leave a cost. We are in the seventh year of a significant dismantling of our own military, in almost inverse proportion to the threats that are multiplying. And I assure you: the day that I become president will be the day that we turn this around and begin rebuilding the armed forces of the United States of America.
A winning strategy against the Islamic State, or against any threat to ourselves and our friends, depends ultimately on the military strength that underwrites American influence. Let that slip away, and what would America be in world affairs, except one more well-intentioned voice at the United Nations? In any effort of ours to overcome violence and secure peace, a winning strategy depends on maintaining unequaled strength, and we can never take it for granted.
I might add that this includes strength among our intelligence services, military and civilian. No men and women receive so little credit for doing so much to track dangers and keep us safe. These skilled and brave Americans can be sure of this: If I become commander in chief, they will receive the tools they need and the gratitude, respect, and support they deserve.
A good many people who serve in our military and intelligence agencies are at mid-career. And I venture to guess that for quite a few of them, their calling has something to do with their coming of age in the Reagan years. Yet any nostalgia for that time has to recall, not only a falling wall and collapsing evil empire, but also the fear, and tension, and dead-serious challenges that could all have played out so very differently. From the distance of decades, even the greatest successes in security and foreign policy can look almost inevitable. Of course, nothing had to happen as it did. Weariness with conflict ran pretty deep back then, along with despair of ever getting past it. But then along came, one formidable figure, who would not accept that way of thinking, and he was the one who mattered the most.
It’s that way for us too, in having to deal with long conflicts and serious threats that are again on the offensive. And in living up to our responsibilities, we can always use a little more of the Reagan spirit – rejecting with contempt the idea that conflict must be endless, or that the spread of danger and violence is inevitable. It is not.
For generations, American-led alliances, American diplomacy, and American credibility deterred aggression and defended the peace. This is the way forward in our time as well, led by a president who is resolute – as I will be – in the defeat of radical Islamic terrorism wherever it appears.
We can protect our people, put adversaries back in retreat, get things moving our way again, and win back the momentum for freedom’s cause. In all of this, let us never forget that in fighting evil, we are doing good, in stopping the merciless, we are delivering justice, and in destroying the violent, we are defending the innocent.
This is the work that America is in this world to do. Let us meet that duty with confidence, faith, and resolve.
The journalist, Larry Cohler-Esses, assistant managing editor for news at The Forward, an influential New York-based newspaper catering to American Jews, also wrote that people in Iran were eager for outside interaction and willing to speak critically about their government.
“Though I had to work with a government fixer and translator, I decided which people I wanted to interview and what I would ask them,” Mr. Cohler-Esses wrote in the first of two articles from his July reporting trip. “Far from the stereotype of a fascist Islamic state, I found a dynamic push-and-pull between a theocratic government and its often reluctant and resisting people.”
Mr. Cohler-Esses’ reporting, coming as Congress prepares to vote on the nuclear agreement next month, presents a more nuanced view of Iran compared with the descriptions by a number of Jewish-American advocacy groups that consider Iran an enemy state.
Many of those groups have exhorted lawmakers to reject the nuclear agreement, which will end sanctions in return for verified guarantees that Iran’s nuclear work remains peaceful.
“Ordinary Iranians with whom I spoke have no interest at all in attacking Israel,” Mr. Cohler-Esses wrote. “Their concern is with their own sense of isolation and economic struggle.”
Among some senior ayatollahs and prominent officials, he wrote, there is also dissent from the official line against Israel.
“No one had anything warm to say about the Jewish state,” he wrote. “But pressed as to whether it was Israel’s policies or its very existence to which they objected, several were adamant: It’s Israel’s policies.”
While he emphasized that there was no freedom of the press in Iran, “freedom of the tongue has been set loose.”
“I was repeatedly struck by the willingness of Iranians to offer sharp, even withering criticisms of their government on the record, sometimes even to be videotaped doing so,” Mr. Cohler-Esses wrote.
He added that members of Iran’s Jewish population of 9,000 to 20,000 people, “depending on whom you talk to,” were unafraid to complain about discriminatory laws.
He called them “basically well-protected second-class citizens — a broadly prosperous, largely middle-class community whose members have no hesitation about walking down the streets of Tehran wearing yarmulkes.”
Mr. Cohler-Esses, who taught English in Iran for a few years before the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the shah, spent nearly two years trying to secure a journalist visa, after the election of President Hassan Rouhani in June 2013. Mr. Rouhani vowed to resolve Iran’s nuclear dispute with foreign powers, end international sanctions and reintegrate the country into the world.
Jane Eisner, The Forward’s editor in chief, said in a telephone interview that the visa was finally granted after Morris Motamed, a Jewish former member of Iran’s Parliament, wrote a letter supporting the application.
Mr. Cohler-Esses was given a seven-day visa late last month, which he had to use within 30 days, she said. His request to extend the visa was denied.
It is unclear whether the government’s decision to grant the visa was related to hopes of positive American portrayals of the nuclear agreement, which was completed in Vienna on July 14.
Ms. Eisner said she had worried about sending Mr. Cohler-Esses to Iran, given its harsh treatment of Iranian journalists and its prosecution of Jason Rezaian, a correspondent for The Washington Post, on charges including espionage, a pending case that has been sharply criticized internationally.
When Mr. Cohler-Esses finally departed Iran, Ms. Eisner said, “we were all breathing a great sigh of relief.”
The Forward has yet to take a definitive editorial stand on the nuclear agreement, but Ms. Eisner said one was planned before the congressional vote.
Beck Says Divine Intervention Is the ‘Only Thing That Is Going to Save Our Country Right Now’
Erica Ritz Aug. 12, 2015 8:52pm
Glenn Beck on Wednesday said that divine intervention is the “only thing that is going to save our country right now.”
“We have to pray to almighty God,” Beck said on his television program. “We have to thank him for the things he has given us. We have to ask him for our role in it. And we have to beg him for his mercy, that he will open up the way.”
Beck said Americans must stand for life and remember that “all life matters.” Beck has recently expressed concern that America is choosing death over life [ http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/08/11/which-will-you-choose-life-or-death/ ] — whether it is with Planned Parenthood, the Islamic State or Iran — and God will not hold us blameless.
“The week of 8/28 my wife and I have talked about doing a 7-day fast,” Beck said. “And for all those people who might be watching who still believe in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party as being the power that’s going to change this world, I urge you to reconsider.”
“Divine intervention is the only thing that is going to save our country right now,” he continued. “That divine intervention, and all of us recognizing the source and the power that put us as a country in the first place, truly is the only option on the table. … Watch the miracles come as we turn our faces back to him.”
Beck urged his audience to join him in Birmingham, Alabama on August 28th for “Restoring Unity [ http://now.mercuryone.org/ ],” referring to those who come as “Gideon’s Army” and “the beginning of the third great awakening.”
“There are so many signs of people just starting to wake up,” he said.
A family affair: Why Jeb Bush's foreign policy is just as bad as his brother's
AP Photo/Charles Krupa
Ryan Cooper August 13, 2015
Jeb Bush this week delivered a major address on foreign policy [ http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/full-text-of-jeb-bushs-foreign-policy-speech/2240942 (included with the speech and following Q&A in the item third above)], focusing mostly on the Middle East. If he wanted to distance himself from his brother's disastrous failure as commander-in-chief, he could not have failed harder, short of maybe biting the head off a fruit bat and vowing a blood oath to personally execute every Muslim on the planet.
Where he speaks of historical fact, he is grossly mistaken. Where his policy is not insanely belligerent, it is misguided, hopeless, or simply confused. Under no circumstances should he be allowed anywhere near the controls of the most powerful military on the planet.
Bush blames President Obama for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East, from the rise of ISIS to the civil war in Syria. He argues that Obama lacks sufficient strength, by which he means approaching every situation like a chest-thumping silverback gorilla in the grips of amphetamine psychosis. It's the classic neoconservative approach [ http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html ]: There is no situation that cannot be solved by sufficient aggressiveness and will.
His stance relies heavily on an utterly ridiculous account of the 2007 "surge" in Iraq. Bush claims that his brother had the war on the right track, but then Obama's weak-kneed withdrawal of the troops in 2011 led to chaos and eventually ISIS.
As Peter Beinart carefully explains [ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-surge-fallacy/399344/ ], this is garbage history. The surge did succeed in tamping down violence for a time, helped along by the Sunni Awakening. But the entire point of that effort was to make space for political reconciliation between the Shiite-controlled government and the largely Sunni insurgency. In that, it was a total failure. Nuri al-Maliki, then the Iraqi prime minister, was persecuting the Sunnis before the surge was even over, leaving them unwilling to fight ISIS when the time came.
Both George W. Bush and Obama perhaps deserve some blame for not pushing harder for political reconciliation, but in general it is very difficult to micromanage the politics of a post-dictatorship foreign nation that has just been stomped into fragments.
Unsurprisingly, Jeb Bush also loathes the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. He even implies that Iran is behind the rise of ISIS: "Iran, its ally [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad, its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, and the sectarian militias it sponsors have fueled the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, that have helped give rise to ISIS." This is a piece of gross dishonesty right out of the Bush family handbook — don't state outright that there's a connection, but repeat the implication of one over and over until the association takes hold by osmosis. In 2002, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney used similar tactics to trick 72 percent [ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ ] of Americans into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
This strategic incoherence is characteristic of the Bush approach. Could we make nice with Iran or Assad to fight ISIS, even temporarily? Nope, we must confront all three simultaneously! He mentions Egypt and Saudi Arabia as key allies, but does not mention the disastrous Saudi intervention going on in Yemen right now, despite the fact that the chaos there has created a major opening for al Qaeda [ http://theweek.com/articles/569783/enabling-terrible-mistake-yemen ]. There is no sense of prioritization, just a random list of bad guys.
Worst of all is his Syria policy. When it comes to Iraq, Bush does not really propose to do anything that Obama is not already doing — support the Kurds, conduct some airstrikes, and so forth. But he wants to get hip-deep in the Syrian conflict — identifying the moderate Syrian forces, uniting them against both ISIS and Assad, then making sure Assad isn't replaced by somebody worse. But there basically are no moderate Syrians [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/who-are-these-moderate-syrians-obama-wants-to-pit-against-isis.html ], much less any that Bush could "unite." Instead, this would very likely commit America to another state-building project [ http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bushs-horrible-foreign-policy-speech/ ] in a shattered post-dictatorship nation whose ethnic groups are at each other's throats!
George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq was one of the worst mistakes in the history of American foreign policy for many reasons, but foremost among them was sheer arrogance. He thought knocking over a repressive dictatorship halfway around the world and replacing it with a parliamentary democracy would be easy, requiring little expertise. Instead it was a jaw-dropping maelstrom of bloody horror that exceeded the worst predictions of his critics. Jeb Bush lived through all that, but appears to think this time we'll get it right. We just have to try extra-hard.
Pro-Iran Deal Lawmakers To Colleagues: Read The Intel, Dummies
Credit: Bloomberg via Getty Images
Ten members of Congress note that the U.S. intelligence community is confident that the deal is a good one.
By Akbar Shahid Ahmed Posted: 08/13/2015 06:27 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Ten members of Congress who have accessed the most sensitive information about Iran's nuclear program believe the recent deal to cap that program will work -- and want their colleagues who are still on the fence [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senators-obama-iran-deal_55cb6670e4b0923c12beceb7?58rxjemi ] to look at classified information to understand why.
"Our work on the Intelligence Committee and the insights it has given us into Iran's nuclear program -- past and present -- as well as the confidence it gives us that this agreement cuts off Iran's access to the bomb, have been significant drivers behind our decision to support the deal," the letter notes. "We hope you will take advantage of the Intelligence Community's assessment as you make your decision."
The letter also addresses a major target of deal opponents: a separate deal struck between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency to probe whether Iran previously attempted to build nuclear weapons. Many lawmakers have criticized that agreement, to which the U.S. is not privy. But Thursday's letter says skeptics should remember that the U.S. has significant intelligence of its own about Iran's past activities, which should assuage worries that the U.S. will have to rely on IAEA inspectors for this information.
Intelligence officials both in the U.S. and in Israel [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/21/ex-intel-chief-iran-deal-good-for-israel.html ] -- whose government is a major critic of the agreement -- appear to agree that the deal moves the international community closer to the goal of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon. The classified assessment by U.S. intelligence says this is because officials will have access to more information about Iran's nuclear activities than ever before, according to officials familiar with the assessment who spoke with the Associated Press [ http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c13ea9ddaa3e43b2b399c8341ed1a092/despite-skepticism-us-confident-it-can-monitor-iran-deal ]. The assessment presents that sanguine view while assuming that Iran will attempt to cheat on the agreement, which officially binds Tehran to serious inspections for 15 years.
That's a key theme for proponents of the deal: They say it is designed to be especially intrusive because it is based not on blind faith in Iran, but, to the contrary, on an awareness that Iran has been deceitful in the past and could mislead the international community again.
"In the future, as in the past," the ten lawmakers write, "we will all need to work together to make sure Iran is never permitted access to the world’s most devastating weapon."
The letter comes close to the halfway point of a 60-day congressional review period for the nuclear agreement. The Republican-dominated Congress is likely to pass a resolution of disapproval against the deal in mid-September. President Barack Obama plans to veto the disapproval in order to preserve the agreement, which the the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Russia and China [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamas-iran-deal-gets-a-lift-on-the-hill-thanks-to-a-foreign-sales-pitch_55c16152e4b0d9b28f04c919 ] cobbled together with Iran over the course of more than a year.
Obama needs one-third of either the House or the Senate to stand with him to prevent the veto from being overturned. For now, the House seems like a relatively sure bet. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who signed Thursday's letter, supports the agreement and holds significant influence on her party. Other key members have also publicly announced that they favor the deal, including House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish voice in Congress and a signatory of the letter, and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), the chief advocate for four Americans [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-advocate-for-americans-trapped-in-iran-supports-nuclear-deal_55ba308be4b095423d0df454 ] who are presently trapped in Iran.
At least 20 Democratic Senators have publicly come out in favor of the deal, bringing the Obama administration closer to the 34 votes needed to defeat a veto override. Duration: 7:45
While you might think the Iraq war would be the last thing Jeb Bush would want to talk about, given the fact that his brother’s war was probably the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe in U.S. history, and that Jeb Bush himself spent weeks trying to figure out whether he should say it was a mistake, he has not shied away from the topic. Just the opposite, in fact. He keeps bringing it up, and his latest remarks make clear just how little he understands about what happened there and what lessons it holds for the future. Here’s what Bush said yesterday [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/jeb-bush-kicks-off-iowa-trip-with-heavy-praise-of-george-w-bush-on-iraq/ , ], as he continued to push the line that the war was won until President Obama messed everything up by leaving prematurely:
“I’ve been critical and I think people have every right to be critical of decisions that were made,” Bush said Thursday. “In 2009, Iraq was fragile but secure. It was mission was accomplished in the way that there was security there and it was because of the heroic efforts of the men and women in the United States military that it was so.”
In a question and answer session hosted by Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security held on a college campus here, the Republican presidential hopeful said the removal of Saddam Hussein from power “turned out to be a pretty good deal,” and he praised the 2007 troop surge his brother pushed as “an extraordinarily effective” strategy.
The idea that removing Hussein “turned out to be a pretty good deal” is so deranged that it boggles the mind. Imagine if his brother had said to the country in 2003, “Let me offer you this deal: We’ll take out Saddam, and it’ll only cost us 4,000 American lives, tens of thousands more Americans gravely wounded in body and spirit, around $2 trillion, a worldwide surge in anti-Americanism, and years of chaos in the Middle East. Whaddya say? Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?”
But let’s set that aside. What about the idea that everything in Iraq was going great — “fragile but secure” — until Obama prematurely pulled the United States out? Bush is wrong on both counts. First, there’s one absolutely vital fact one needs to understand on this topic, a fact that Bush doesn’t mention: The timing of the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq was not decided by Obama; it was decided by George W. Bush. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between the American and Iraqi governments declares in Article 24, “All the United States forces shall withdraw from all the Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.” You can read it for yourself [ http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/122074.pdf ]. It was signed on Nov. 17, 2008, when Jeb Bush’s brother — not Obama — was president of the United States.
Conservatives argue that, well, Obama could have negotiated a new SOFA, one that allowed plenty of U.S. troops to stay. And there was such a negotiation, but it foundered [ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/no-obama-didnt-lose-iraq-107874.html ] over the issue of immunity for U.S. troops. The administration refused to leave a residual force there without a guarantee that our troops would not be arrested and tried by Iraqi authorities — something no U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, would tolerate. When it became clear that the Iraqi parliament wasn’t going to approve such a guarantee, the negotiations broke down.
It’s certainly true that Obama was eager to abide by George W. Bush’s schedule and have the United States out of Iraq by the end of 2011. And it may be true that if we had left thousands of troops there, they might have been able to keep some of the ensuing violence from happening. But they couldn’t have altered Iraq politics, and that’s the second thing Bush gets wrong. What Iraq needed to secure its future was the one thing Americans couldn’t give it: a political reconciliation. Without that, there would continue to be endless conflict, just as there has been. It was the Maliki government’s relentless sectarianism that created the opening for the Islamic State to emerge.
And this is perhaps the most dangerous thing about Bush’s perspective on Iraq, which can also be said of his primary opponents. They display absolutely no grasp of the internal politics of Iraq, now or in the past, not to mention the internal politics of other countries in the region, including Iran. Indeed, most Republicans don’t seem to even believe that these countries have internal politics that can shape what the countries choose to do and how they might react to our actions.
This was one of the key failures of imagination that led to the Iraq disaster in the first place. The Bush administration barely bothered to consider that removing Hussein could trigger internal strife within the country as different factions emerged to struggle for power. It just assumed that we’d bomb the hell out of the place, and then all Iraqis would crawl from the rubble and join hands to create a flourishing, peaceful liberal democracy.
And incredibly, after all that has happened, so many Republicans still don’t get it. They continue to believe that the only factor that matters when we approach any new challenge in the Middle East is whether we’re sufficiently “strong.” Any victory can be achieved, any intricately complex knot can be unraveled, any unintended consequence can be avoided, if only we remain strong and project our strength. They’ve learned absolutely nothing.
If there’s any good news here, it’s that we’ll have an ongoing opportunity to debate the Iraq war disaster. Bush seems perfectly willing to talk about it, and the fact that it’s his brother’s war means that he’ll continue to get questions — particularly when each new statement he makes is so shockingly obtuse.
The Republican frontrunner says he would’ve authorized the Iraq War, and so would Hillary. Let us list the ways this is totally nonsensical.
Michael Tomasky 05.12.15 5:15 AM ET
The important thing about Jeb Bush’s comments about Iraq in the Megyn Kelly interview [ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/10/exclusive-jeb-bush-says-hillary-clinton-would-have-backed-iraq-invasion/ ] is not this dreary question of whether he is “his own man.” That’s a psychobabble question that can only produce a lot of bad punditry. The important thing—well actually, there are two: what kind of foreign policy he’d give us as president, and whether he can meet some minimal standard of truth-telling. From the looks of things we should be concerned on both fronts.
Let’s start with the truth. He made two statements in the interview that we should parse, the first of which was probably a lie and second of which provably was. The first: “I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody.” Really, particularly given what we know now?
Yes, she voted for the war. I’m not defending her vote. It was a craven vote, just like John Kerry’s was, and they never should have cast them. But does it follow that casting a vote as a senator means that, if the senator had been commander-in-chief, the senator would have chosen to pursue that kind of presidency-defining course of action? Would have put the machinery of the state to work—and massive, difficult work it was, involving thousands—trying to advance the lie of tying Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and justifying a war that had nothing to do with September 11?
Clinton is thought of by many these days, it seems, as a gung-ho hawk, but she really wasn’t that. When she voted for the war, she tried to argue that she was not voting to give the president authority to launch preemptive war. Of course she was doing exactly that, but the point for present purposes is that she wasn’t saying rah, rah, let’s go kill the guy. By the time she ran for president, she hadn’t yet admitted her vote was a mistake, but she had voted against funding the war and pledged to start bringing troops home in 60 days of becoming president. John McCain-Lindsey Graham she was not.
In addition, Hussein was a preoccupation, not to say obsession, of the neocon right in the 1990s, not of Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton adopted a pretty hard line toward Hussein, between the sanctions and the flyovers and the bombings, but you’ll note he never sent young American infantrymen to go have their faces and limbs blown off in his country. The famous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) “Statement of Principles,” (PDF [ http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement%20of%20principles.pdf ]) released in 1997 to rebuke Clintonian drift and demand a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity,” was signed by 25 people, and as far as I can see not a single one of them was a Democrat (that is, all the signatories are either publicly well-known Republicans or lesser-known foreign-policy types who worked for Republican, not Democratic, administrations).
This is important because it means that Iraq regime change simply was not a Democratic project, which to my mind makes it quite unlikely that any Democratic president, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or anyone possibly save Joe Lieberman, would have decided that invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 would have constituted a reasonable response to 9-11. Twenty-nine Democratic senators, Clinton among them, cast a cowardly vote. But that hardly means that those 29 senators, if ensconced up the way on Pennsylvania Avenue, would have staked their presidencies and legacies on that war.
But that’s just the appetizer, because here’s the provable lie: “The intelligence that everybody saw, that the world saw, not just the United States, was, um, was faulty.” This is just a monstrous falsehood that has been repeated many times by a range of neoconservatives, some with blood on their hands and others not, but it has to be slapped down.
It’s important that history not be rewritten and revised: Not all the intelligence was “faulty.” Think Progress did a good job on this point [ http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/11/3657206/big-lie-jeb-bush-tells-justify-brothers-war-iraq/ ] yesterday, citing Paul Pillar, the ex-CIA man who oversaw Middle East intelligence at the time. As Pillar has said and written on many occasions, a lot of intelligence was correct—Saddam Hussein had no stockpile of WMD and posed no imminent threat to the United States. And there were journalists, like Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, who did great work exposing intelligence community misgivings about the administration’s case for war.
But that wasn’t what the, ah, Cheney administration wanted to hear, so they cherry-picked bits of intelligence that would help their casus belli, and even set up a whole new intel operation, the Office of Special Plans [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans ], which was created precisely because the official intel wasn’t saying what the administration wanted it to say, so they created an intel shop that would put out the phony product they wanted to see put out. In other words, they rejected the good intelligence and cooked up their own false intelligence, and then, when their false intelligence was revealed to be (shocker!) false, they blamed the intelligence agencies for giving them the self-same false intelligence that they cooked up.
All this tells us something, perhaps a lot, about what kind of foreign policy Bush would direct if elected. Some say he’s more like his father, and Poppy’s realist buddies Baker and Scowcroft, and he’s not a neocon. Hard to know. But one of those 25 signers of that PNAC statement of principles was none other than Jeb Bush, then the governor of Florida. George W. was a governor then, too, but he didn’t even sign it! So it seems fair to presume that Jeb believed what it said. The principles are fairly boilerplate, but even so, Bush knew what he was doing putting him name next to Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s and Elliott Abrams’s and Frank Gaffney’s and so on.
None of this necessarily means that Bush would, say, drag the United States into a war with Iran. At the same time, let’s be clear on a crucial point: Jeb didn’t say he’d have authorized the war in Iraq solely for the sake of his brother and peace at the Thanksgiving table. He said it also because it’s where the Republican Party still is today. Most of the rest of the civilized world thinks the Iraq invasion was one of the great calamities of U.S. foreign policy history, if not the greatest. But to the neoconservative foreign policy establishment, and evidently still to the moneyed donor base too, it was still somehow the right thing to do.
That is, the people who’ll be bankrolling his campaign and then filling his administration if he’s elected are almost all going to be pro-preemptive war people. So it’s not in comparison to his brother that we should worry whether he’s his own man. It’s in comparison to them.
By Jon Soltz Co-Founder of VoteVets.org, Iraq War Veteran Posted: 08/14/2015 2:33 pm EDT Updated: 08/14/2015 6:59 pm EDT
By his collapsing poll numbers, despite his intense campaigning, we know that Jeb Bush might be one of the worst candidates of all time. But, sometimes, bad politicians make good elected officials. So, the question remains, would Jeb Bush make a good Commander in Chief?
No.
I had planned to write an op-ed critiquing his major foreign policy speech from this week, in which Bush falsely pinned blame for ISIS on President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and gave a terrible vision of what he would do different. These plans would include arming "Syrian moderates" who our intelligence says don't exist. I had planned to explain why the surge was a failure in Iraq, and was merely an attempt to hand the situation off to the next administration.
First, it's entirely obvious now that the Iraq War was a horrible deal for the United States, the thousands of lives we lost, and the thousands more who came home wounded and maimed, inside and out. Jeb dishonored all of them with his comments.
Further, this all calls into question -- again -- where he actually stands on the war in Iraq. If he truly thinks that it was a "good deal" for us, then he also must believe that he's lying when he says that he wouldn't have launched the war in Iraq, knowing then what we do now.
After all, if what we know now is that we ended up with a "good deal," then of course he'd do it all over again. With his brother's neoconservative advisors by his side, we can't be shocked that this is his real position. Yet, in the debate and his speech this week, he went through great pains to say he'd avoid the war in Iraq. They say a gaffe is when a politician tells you what they really think. I've never seen a clearer example of that, than in Jeb's latest comment.
The truth of the matter is that Jeb Bush has no idea what he's talking about. None.
The war in Iraq was a horrible deal for the people in the region, who now have to face the threat of ISIS -- a force more brutal than Saddam Hussein could even dream up. ISIS was born the day we overthrew Saddam. This is something that Jeb clearly doesn't grasp. The second he was gone, was the second when the lid was off on a sectarian war to fill the power vacuum, leading to formation of Sunni terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda in Iraq and the Nusra Front, which crossed over into Syria, and elements of which went on to help form ISIS.
For all those who fear ISIS, overthrowing Saddam was not a "pretty good deal."
The moment we overthrew Saddam, and moved to quick elections, was the moment that the Iranians were handed a government in Baghdad. It wasn't dissimilar to forced, quick Palestinian elections that put Hamas in power. Short of any peace between Shia and Sunni, it was a foregone conclusion that the government would be controlled by the Shia, friendly to the Iranians next door, because the Sunnis wouldn't turn out to vote. Iranians were free to send weapons across the border, to kill our troops, while the government of Nouri al-Maliki essentially looked the other way.
For our troops, and those worried about increased Iranian influence in the region, overthrowing Saddam was not a "pretty good deal."
Further, the Shia government soon began exacting revenge on the Sunni minority, which had oppressed them for decades, in Iraq. Sunnis were driven out of positions of power, and driven from the military, leading to the weakened and ill-prepared Iraqi Army that we see today. I spent my second tour in Iraq training the Iraqi Army, only to see it decimated because of sectarianism. Now, when I see the Iraqi Army flee from ISIS, it pains me, greatly, because it was always a near guarantee that as soon as we left, Maliki would wipe Sunni commanders out of the Army.
For the security of the region, overthrowing Saddam was not a "pretty good deal."
So, exactly for whom was overthrowing Saddam a good deal? The Iranians, who no longer had Saddam containing them, and who now have an ally in Baghdad. Sunni terror groups, who feed off Sunni fears of the Iranian-friendly Shia government, and power vacuums. And those Shia who see power as an opportunity to exact revenge against the Sunni who dominated them for centuries, in the region.
That Jeb considers this -- in any way -- to be a good deal for the United States is the core of why Jeb Bush is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief. Anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was a "pretty good deal" should be nowhere near the command structure of the United States military, ordering our men and women in uniform into harm's way, lest they send our men and women to sacrifice their lives for another neoconservative failure.
No chance for the two-state solution, says Jimmy Carter
Presidents Anwar Sadat (R) and Jimmy Carter and Israeli PM Menachem Begin at signing of Israel-Egypt peace agreement.
Former president says the US has stopped trying to tackle the Middle East's most intractable problem
Published August 14th 2015 04:28pm
In a discussion with Prospect Magazine about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former US President Jimmy Carter gave a bleak assessment and said that he believed that “at this moment, there is zero chance of the two-state solution.” Carter spent a lot of energy on the conflict while in office, and has continued his efforts since then.
Shortly before undergoing an operation that revealed he has cancer, and that it is spreading, former Carter spoke to Prospect Magazine on the occasion of the launch of his new book, Full Life: Reflections at Ninety [ http://www.amazon.com/Full-Life-Reflections-Ninety/dp/1501115634 ] (his 29th book). When the conversation turned to Israel and the Palestinians, Carter said that he did not think that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has any intention" of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
He said that “these are the worst prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians in years,” and that since the peace talks that had been led by Secretary of State John Kerry collapsed, the "US has withdrawn" from the problem.
Criticizing the Israeli administration, Carter said that “the Netanyahu government decided early on to adopt a one-state solution," keeping control of the West Bank,"but without giving them [the Palestinians] equal rights.”
Carter stressed that “they [the Palestinians] will never get equal rights [to Israeli Jews, within that single state],” but added that he is working to promote for them to have “more equal rights.”
When asked if Israel is becoming an apartheid state, he said he was "reluctant to use that word in a news article” but that there is a strong argument for it because of the growing Arab population in Israeli-controlled land. Either the “Palestinians will have a majority in government”—something he suggested the Jewish population of Israel would not accept, “or you deprive them of equal rights.”
Regarding the agreement that was recently reached between Iran and the world powers over its nuclear program, Carter expressed hope that US “relations with Iran can improve" and said that the deal was “the best we can do and the only alternative to a conflict with Iran.”
“While I have supported the negotiations that led to the JCPOA from the beginning, I cannot vote in support of this deal," Flake said in the statement. "The JCPOA does contain benefits in terms of limiting Iran’s ability to produce sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon for a period of time, particularly at its known nuclear facilities. But these benefits are outweighed by severe limitations the JCPOA places on Congress and future administrations in responding to Iran’s non-nuclear behavior in the region."
Iraq's Abadi orders commanders to face trial over Ramadi withdrawal
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi walks to a meeting with the Senate leadership at the U.S. Capitol in Washington April 15, 2015. Reuters/James Lawler Duggan
By Ahmed Rasheed Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:54am EDT
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi directed military commanders on Sunday to face a court martial for abandoning their positions in Ramadi, as he pushed ahead with a campaign aimed at combating corruption and mismanagement.
Underlining the risks of the ambitious reform agenda, however, the head of parliament's integrity panel, which refers corruption cases to the courts, said his convoy had been targeted west of Baghdad on Saturday evening.
Abadi is seeking to transform a system he says has encouraged graft and incompetence, depriving Iraqis of basic services while undermining government forces in the battle against Islamic State militants.
Critics say sectarian splits and corruption have also weakened the military, allowing the insurgents to control large swathes of territory in the country's north and west over the past year.
Ramadi, the capital of western Anbar province, fell to the group in May, dampening Baghdad's hopes of quickly routing them following earlier victories in eastern provinces.
The army's collapse a year earlier in the face of Islamic State's takeover of the northern city of Mosul left the Baghdad government dependent on Shi'ite Muslim militias, many funded and assisted by neighboring Iran, to defend the capital and recapture lost ground.
Baghdad-based analyst Jasim al-Bahadli said Abadi was wise to focus his reforms on the security forces.
"Abadi's decision to refer military commanders to trial is a clear attempt to send a strong message to all other army officers that he will show zero tolerance with any future retreat in the fight against Daesh (Islamic State)," said Bahadli, a former army general and an expert on Shi'ite armed groups.
In a sign of the opposition to Abadi's plans, parliament integrity chief Talal al-Zobaie said his motorcade was attacked on Saturday evening near Abu Ghraib, 24 km (15 miles) west of Baghdad.
Zobaie said a bomb hit a vehicle carrying his bodyguards. Gunmen then fired on the convoy, killing a bodyguard and wounding three others.
"It's understood I was targeted because I'm going after corrupt people," he told Reuters. "This vicious attack will never make me relent in pursuing my job in going after corruption cases."
A separate bomb attack on Sunday killed at least four people and wounded 14 others near a crowded market in the mainly Shi'ite district of Jisr Diyala, southeast of Baghdad.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility, but Islamic State regularly targets areas of the capital populated by Shi'ites, whom it considers heretics.
In a statement circulated online by supporters, the group claimed an attack on Saturday evening in the Shi'ite district of Habibiya that killed at least 15 people.
(Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Greg Mahlich and Dale Hudson)
Iraq’s ex-PM Maliki probed as Abadi presses reforms
Commanders referred to a court martial for abandoning their positions in the battle against ISIS in Ramadi. (Reuters)
By Staff writer, Al Arabiya News Sunday, 16 August 2015 - Last Update: Sunday, 16 August 2015 KSA 18:28 - GMT 15:28
An Iraqi parliamentary investigation holds former premier Nouri al-Maliki and 35 others responsible for the fall of second city Mosul to Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants last year, lawmakers said Sunday as Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi continued to press reforms.
The report detailing findings of the investigation has been presented to parliament speaker Salim al-Juburi, who said it will be sent to the prosecutor general for legal action.
“No one is above the law and the questioning of the people, and the judiciary will punish those” responsible, Juburi said in a statement.
ISIS launched a devastating offensive on June 9 last year, overrunning Mosul the next day and then sweeping through large areas north and west of Baghdad.
Multiple Iraqi divisions collapsed during the initial assault in the north, in some cases abandoning weapons and other equipment that then fell into jihadist hands.
Maliki is widely viewed as having exacerbated sectarian tensions between the country’s Shiite majority and the Sunni Arab minority.
The news comes after Abadi approved on Sunday an investigative council's decision to refer military commanders to a court martial for abandoning their positions in the battle against ISIS militants in Ramadi.
The announcement came as Abadi pushes ahead with a sweeping reform campaign aimed at combating corruption and mismanagement in the biggest shake-up in the governing system since the U.S. military occupation.
Ramadi, the capital of western Anbar province, fell to ISIS militants in May, dampening Baghdad's hopes of quickly routing them from the country's north and west following earlier victories in eastern provinces.
The army's collapse in June 2014 in the face of ISIS's takeover of the northern city of Mosul left the Baghdad government dependent on Shi'ite Muslim militias, many funded and assisted by neighboring Iran, to defend the capital and recapture lost ground.
Critics blamed the military's weakness on sectarian splits, corruption and politics.
The fall of Ramadi nearly a year later undermined Abadi's policy of keeping the militias on the sidelines in Anbar, the Sunni heartland, for fear of inflaming sectarian tensions. The militias are now fighting alongside the security forces in many places.
Death of former Iranian leader Rafsanjani could be blow to moderates
Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, shown in December 2015, was a powerful ally of moderate and reformist forces. (Ebrahim Noroozi / Associated Press)
Shashank Bengali and Ramin MostaghimContact Reporter
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
