Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

John Kerry Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on December 11, 2015 22 Comments
If you ask me what the most important article in The New York Times of the past week, it would not be the front page editorial advocating stricter gun control. That editorial was important in terms of the mindset of the Times, but had little real new value. The most significant new article in The New York Times during this past week was Friday's analysis of the nuclear deal with Iran. The article is a devastating indictment of the administration and its zeal to reach a nuclear deal with Iran at all costs. To be sure the reporter, David Sanger, an excellent journalist, presented the administration's positions respectfully. But there's no getting around that however President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry justify their capitulations, they are willing to lift sanctions on Iran without requiring Iran to come clean about its past illicit nuclear research. In the wake of last week's IAEA report about Iran's past nuclear research, the administration is reportedly satisfied that Iran has provided the IAEA with enough information to close the investigation into Iran's past nuclear work and move ahead to the implementation of this summer's nuclear deal. The administration's rationale is that "preventing a nuclear-armed Iran in the future is far more important than trying to force it to admit" its past illicit nuclear research.

Posted by David Gerstman on December 02, 2015 6 Comments
Armin Rosen of Business Insider had a bombshell report on Monday about the Obama administration's diplomatic malpractice with Iran in the context of the nuclear deal announced earlier this summer. Citing a recently obtained State Department document, Rosen reported that the administration has no intention of ensuring that Iran provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with all the details of its past nuclear research. Though "extensive evidence" exists that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until at least 2003, the United States has so watered down Iran's requirements for answering questions about its past nuclear work, that the IAEA  will not have a complete picture of the extent of Iran's military nuclear program. As IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano made clear earlier this week, Iran is still stonewalling. The problem is that the United States is okay with that. Rosen reported:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 11, 2015 22 Comments
John Kerry, in a recent speech at Old Dominion University, insisted that climate change is a threat to national security. Carol Morello of the Washington Post reports:
Kerry says climate change impacts armies as much as polar bears Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Tuesday he will integrate climate change analysis and its national security implications into all future foreign policy planning. In a speech delivered at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, home to the world’s largest naval base and already experiencing flooding linked to climate change, Kerry called climate change a threat to national security.

Posted by Amy Miller on October 10, 2015 6 Comments
John Kerry lost big this week as the Nobel Committee announced it was awarding the Nobel Peace Prize not to John Kerry, Secretary of State and erstwhile hero of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations, but to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet. The Quartet formed in 2013 in the wake of the Jasmine Revolution. Tunisians were attempting a democracy, but the process was being stifled by political assassinations and social unrest. The Quartet turned the focus back onto individual rights, redirected the political process, and facilitated the creation of a constitutional system. Sounds a lot better than "facilitated a deadly deal with a belligerent nation," doesn't it?

Posted by David Gerstman on August 19, 2015 25 Comments
By now, Sen. Jeff Flake's (R - Ariz.) announcement that he will oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been overshadowed by Sen. Robert Menendez' (D - N.J.) Tuesday announcement of his opposition. Still, I'd like to revisit Flake's announcement because he was viewed by the administration, in the words of one report, as a "gettable" Republican. With Flake's announcement it now appears that President Barack Obama will not be able to claim bipartisan support for the JCPOA. I don't know how "gettable," Flake was. To be sure, at the July 23 Senate Foreign Relations hearing Flake was much less adversarial than most other Republicans on the committee, and that played a role in maintaining the impression that he perhaps looked favorably upon the deal. He also was less adversarial than Menendez. However, he asked Kerry some very solid questions and Kerry's responses were awful. How awful? Early in his question and answer session Flake asked Kerry about language in the JCPOA that allowed Iran to opt out if sanctions were re-imposed.

Posted by David Gerstman on August 12, 2015 12 Comments
Following the nuclear negotiations with Iran, I am constantly amazed at the revelations that get reported (though often not widely enough) that document the administration's systematic capitulation to every single Iranian demand. Though it's probably not the most shocking news I've heard, the news broken by MEMRI, that already in 2011 President Barack Obama had conceded that Iran had the right to enrich uranium, is probably near the top. Before any serious negotiations were underway the administration gave away its most significant bargaining chip. The Free Beacon summarized MEMRI's report:
President Barack Obama approved of Iran’s right to operate a nuclear program in 2011 during secret meetings with Iranian officials, according to new disclosures by Iran’s Supreme Leader. ... Secretary of State John Kerry sent a letter to Iran stating that the United States “recognizes Iran’s rights regarding” nuclear enrichment, according to another senior Iranian official, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam. “We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the United States] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via [mediator Omani Sultan Qaboos], stating that America officially recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle,” Al-Islam said in a recent interview with Iran’s Tasnim news agency, according to MEMRI.
Keep in mind that Kerry, at this point was a senator, not the Secretary of State and that it was the vitriolic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was president of Iran, before the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani was anything more than a gleam in the eyes of our top Iran experts.

Posted by Jared Samilow on August 09, 2015 21 Comments
With each passing day, it looks more certain that Obama will get his way on Iran. The Republicans in Congress will not persuade enough of their blue colleagues to defy Obama. Not that this comes as a surprise. The President has run circles around Republicans for as long as anyone can remember. Why should now be any different? But even Obama’s luck can run out eventually. A report suggests that a senior French diplomat is having second thoughts; there are whispers that other European leaders may be seeing the light. We can wistfully ponder the possibilities Congress might open up if, by some miracle, that light reaches its Democratic precincts. As it were, the sensible alternative to no deal is actually not war, but no deal. Full stop. John Kerry may hold forth that no deal spells war. But what he really means is that only those who want war could possibly oppose him. It’s a primitive scare-tactic.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 05, 2015 30 Comments
There John Kerry goes again. Jeffrey Goldberg, the go-to person when the Obama administration wants to get its position out because Goldberg is pro-Israel, landed an interview with John Kerry. The topline storyline is that Kerry is warning the U.S. Congress not to screw (with?) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. “This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
Seriously, we are afraid of ruining the expectations of an Ayatollah who defends calling for the death of America and Israel;

Posted by Amy Miller on July 28, 2015 56 Comments
Today US Secretary of State John Kerry sat alongside Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz for a brutal afternoon of questioning before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the nuclear agreement arranged between the P5+1 and Iran in Vienna earlier this month. Throughout the hearing, Kerry attempted to stand firm on his previous assertions that the deal Congress will be voting on in September is "all or nothing;" republican committee members, however, voiced skepticism about whether or not a "deal" with Iran was even possible. From the Houston Chronicle, via the AP:
"If Congress does not support the deal, we would see this deal die — with no other options," Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday as he testified for the second time in a week, part of the Obama administration's all-out campaign to sell the accord. ... "Iran has cheated on every agreement they've signed," said Rep. Ed Royce, the panel's chairman. With Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew waiting to testify, he asked if Tehran "has earned the right to be trusted" given its history.

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on July 25, 2015 12 Comments
The day after Secretary of State Kerry finished negotiating his disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama asserted that, “ninety-nine percent of the world community” supports it. Like so many of the President’s statements on this topic, this one is both false and irrelevant. Our culturally closest friend, Canada, has already stated that it intends to keep its own sanctions on Iran in place. India’s defense establishment, meanwhile, is concerned and preparing for a Middle East arms race. Saudi Arabia may be the only Arab state that has openly opposed it, however, the other Persian Gulf nations have also indicated their disapproval. In Israel, opposition comes not only from Prime Minister Netanyahu, as Obama would have us believe, but from across the political spectrum.

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 24, 2015 10 Comments
John Kerry testified before a senate panel about the awful Iran deal Thursday and was met by skepticism and derision from lawmakers in both parties. In a classic Democrat defense move, Kerry again tried to spin the issue and suggest it's his critics who are being unrealistic. CNN reported:
Kerry to senators: No 'fantasy' alternative to Iran deal Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is no "unicorn" or "fantasy" alternative if the U.S. rejects the deal, which the administration maintains will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon but which many Republicans see as providing Iran a path to a bomb. But Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennesse Republican, said that the U.S. had been "fleeced" and that Kerry had "turned Iran from being a pariah, to now Congress being a pariah" in the course of making the agreement. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, repeatedly warned that the next president could overturn the deal, which isn't a binding treaty.
Here's a short highlight reel:

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 21, 2015 14 Comments
John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz appeared on FOX News Sunday this past weekend and answered questions from Chris Wallace on the terms of the Iran Deal. Wallace focused on the 24 day lead Iran will be given for inspections, which Kerry suggested is perfectly acceptable. Moniz also clarified his earlier remarks on the subject. David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Kerry: I Never Sought ‘Anytime, Anywhere’ Inspections in Iran Nuclear Negotiations Secretary of State John Kerry, in a talking point similar to White House official Ben Rhodes earlier this week, claimed on Fox News Sunday he never seen discussed the idea of “anywhere, anytime” inspections in the Iran nuclear deal. Host Chris Wallace mentioned the 24-day period Iran can stave off inspections as part of the agreement and how that hardly constituted meeting those standards before Kerry rebuked him. “Well, that’s not accurate,” Kerry said. “I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime.” Like Rhodes’ statement, this contradicts earlier statements made by the Obama administration, and it also makes it painfully clear the White House never thought this extremely important verification measure was ever realistic. President Obama, in April, said that the world would know if Iran cheated on the deal, and Wallace pointed out he said nothing about 24 days.
Watch the video:

Posted by New Neo on July 09, 2015 20 Comments
As time goes on, and the Iran nuclear negotiations continue, it's hard to escape the thought that the Obama administration is becoming more and more desperate for a deal. Any deal. Here are recent developments: John Kerry, in his usual clear-as-mud manner, says that "We will not rush and we will not be rushed." On the other hand, negotiations “will not be open-ended.” What does that tell us about how close the parties are to an agreement? Nothing. He also said the agreement needs to “withstand the test of time,” and that “It’s a test for decades.”
ABC US News | World News

Posted by Amy Miller on May 11, 2015 12 Comments
Brace yourselves for an international incident: John Kerry is going to Russia...and he wants to talk about Ukraine. And Iran. And Syria. I don't think I'm out of line for assuming that some sort of disaster will come of this, even if he does manage to make progress with the increasingly belligerent and wholly unaccountable Russian leadership. This will be Kerry's first visit to Russia since 2013, and only his second as Secretary of State. The 2013 visit fell just before Russian relations with Ukraine bottomed out amid the conflict that eventually led to the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Based on statements released by both Moscow and Washington, this trip is less of a diplomatic jaunt, and more of a salvage operation. From the AP:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 05, 2015 46 Comments
I have fallen into the trap almost everyone has, in referring to an Iran "nuke deal" and "Framework deal." Based on what the White House has revealed, the "deal" is a very bad deal, as we have explored here repeatedly: It purports to give Iran its dual goals of maintaining and improving its nuclear infrastructure while removing sanctions and ensuring the economic viability of the oppressive Mullah regime. But it's even worse. Based upon statements made after the initial announcements, it's clear that there is no deal, just enough vague verbiage to allow each side to portray the "deal" however it wants. There is no meeting of minds, not binding contract, nothing. This was revealed initially in tweets by the Iranian Foreign Minister disputed White House "spin" on the "deal," insisting that sanctions would be lifted immediately, and crowing that Iran's enrichment would continue. https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/583994063512276992 https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/583723860522115072 Since then, the divergence has grown, The Times of Israel reports:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 04, 2015 23 Comments
The Iran nuke Framework deal is bad for anyone other than Iran. Iran achieved its two key negotiating objectives: Keep its nuclear infrastructure in place and get sanctions relief. https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/583994063512276992 As The Washington Post editorial board points out, these parameters are contrary to the bottom line Obama spelled out at the start of the negotiations: THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state. That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. How did Iran do it? By setting its own negotiating red line and refusing to budge. I've seen that negotiating tactic hundreds of time -- it's effective only when the opposing party is not willing to walk away from the negotiation. That's us. Obama so desperately wanted a deal that he was not willing to walk away. The Iranians didn't need to walk away, they just needed to dig in behind their red line and wait. So Obama capitulated on the key insistance of Iran keeping it's nuclear program intact, and then negotiated over the rest. Obama admitted as much in his speech after the Framework was announced:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 02, 2015 31 Comments
A vague agreement to agree was just announced. The precise details are somewhat vague, as it's just a statement of point, but one thing is clear: Iran is thrilled.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 31, 2015 20 Comments
The arbitrary deadline to come to an agreement with Iran is today. But according to the Associated Press, that deadline might be extended to tomorrow, making this the third deadline extension.
They had set a deadline of Tuesday for a framework agreement, and later softened that wording to a framework understanding, between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. After intense negotiations, obstacles remained on uranium enrichment, where stockpiles of enriched uranium should be stored, limits on Iran's nuclear research and development and the timing and scope of sanctions relief among other issues. The aim has been a joint statement is to be accompanied by additional documents that outline more detailed understandings, allowing the sides to claim enough progress has been made to merit a new round, officials said. Iran has not yet signed off on the documents, one official said, meaning any understanding remains unclear. ...The softening of the language from a framework "agreement" to a framework "understanding" appeared due in part to opposition to a two-stage agreement from Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Earlier this year, he demanded only one deal that nails down specifics and does not permit the other side to "make things difficult" by giving it wiggle room on interpretations.
Any deal reached would only amount to a soft framework, and likely not be particularized in writing as we reported Friday.
Accessibility by WAH