Yesterday, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech at the American Jewish Congress gala. Although supportive of the diplomatic negotiations with Iran, she cast doubt on their success and reasserted that "all options"--and that includes military options--must be on the table if talks fail.
Hillary Rodham Clinton cast doubt on the interim nuclear agreement with Iran, saying in a muscular policy speech here Wednesday night that she is “personally skeptical” that Iran’s leaders will follow through on a comprehensive agreement to end their march toward nuclear weapons.
Clinton said the United States should “give space for diplomacy to work” and avoid imposing new unilateral sanctions or any other actions that might lead any allies to back out of existing international sanctions against Iran.
“The odds of reaching that comprehensive agreement are not good,” Clinton said. “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver. I have seen their behavior over the years. But this is a development that is worth testing.”
If the negotiations with Iran fail, however, Clinton said the United States should explore “every other option.”
“Let’s be clear,” she said, “every other option does remain on the table.”
Given the fact that the US sponsored a
coup against the secular, progressive, and democratic leader of Iran in 1953 and aided Saddam Hussein in launching a
chemical attacks on Iran in the 1980s, there's a certain chutzpah in the US position that the Iranians are bad faith actors next to the noble US. Given that the US is spending
more on nukes than it did during the Cold War and is showing no real interest in reaching a future stage of disarmament, the attitude toward the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon is rather hypocritical as well. (I think no country should have nuclear weapons, but I frankly see no moral authority in the US to make the calls on such matter. The US is like a man with a stockpile of guns who wants background checks so that the "crazies" don't get guns.) And that even sets aside the fact that Iran
has not expressed intention to get a nuclear weapon and
does not have a nuclear program (unlike, say,
Israel).
The prospect of military action against Iran always strikes me as delusional for its willful regard for human life, unclear objectives, and possibility of spiraling out into regional conflict. But most of US foreign policy strikes me as delusional (to use what might be too kind of a word).
In related news, on Tuesday, a group of 83 senators sent a letter to Obama staking out a hardline position on the upcoming round of talks with Iran. The senators claim that Iran has no right to enrichment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a claim disputed by many legal scholars and even past US policy.
Dear Mr. President:
We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventing Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapons capability. For diplomacy to succeed, however, we must couple our willingness to negotiate with a united and unmistakable message to the Iranian regime.
We believe, as you do, that the pressure from economic sanctions brought Iran to the table, and that it must continue until Iran abandons its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. We also agree pressure will intensify if Iran violates the interim agreement, uses the talks simply as a delaying tactic, or walks away from the table.
For twenty years, Congress has consistently focused attention on the threat of the Iranian program and taken the lead in initiating sanctions. Congress has repeatedly stated that preventing an Iranian nuclear capability is a key goal of U.S. foreign policy. Nine separate pieces of sanctions legislation have passed Congress since 1996. We appreciate your continued commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and your efforts to implement the sanctions, which isolated and pressured the regime into negotiations.
We believe that Congress has a continuing role to play to improve the prospects for success in the talks with Iran. As these negotiations proceed, we will outline our views about the essential goals of a final agreement with Iran, continue oversight of the interim agreement and the existing sanctions regime, and signal the consequences that will follow if Iran rejects an agreement that brings to an end its nuclear weapons ambitions.
We write now to express our support for the following core principles we believe are consistent with your administration's positions, and urge you to insist on their realization in a final agreement with Iran:
We believe that Iran has no inherent right to enrichment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
We believe any agreement must dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to a nuclear bomb.
We believe Iran has no reason to have an enrichment facility like Fordow, that the regime must give up its heavy water reactor at Arak, and that it must fully explain the questionable activities in which it engaged at Parchin and other facilities.
We believe Iran must fully resolve concerns addressed in United Nations Security Council resolutions, including any military dimensions of its nuclear program.
We believe Iran must also submit to a long-term and intrusive inspection and verification regime to achieve the goal described in the Joint Plan of Action of "reaffirm[ing] that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons."
Finally, we believe Iran must not be allowed during these negotiations to circumvent sanctions. We view this period as one fraught with the danger of companies and countries looking to improve their commercial position in Tehran, especially given recent reports of rising purchases of Iranian oil. Iran cannot be allowed to be open for business. As you have stated, we must come down on those who are undermining sanctions "like a ton of bricks."
We also believe that any agreement with Iran that could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or nuclear enrichment programs in the region should be rejected.
As you have said, Congress has always been a partner in presidential efforts to impose economic sanctions on Iran. Should an acceptable final agreement be reached, your administration will need to work together with Congress to enact implementing legislation to provide longer term sanctions relief beyond existing waiver authorities - either through suspension, repeal or amendment of statutory sanctions. Should negotiations fail or Iran violate the Joint Plan of Action, Congress will need to ensure that the legislative authority exists to rapidly and dramatically expand sanctions. We need to work together now to prepare for either eventuality.
Most importantly, Iran must clearly understand the consequences of failing to reach an acceptable final agreement. We must signal unequivocally to Iran that rejecting negotiations and continuing its nuclear weapon program will lead to much more dramatic sanctions, including further limitations on Iran's exports of crude oil and petroleum products.
Mr. President, the negotiations with Iran are likely to be arduous.We look forward to working with you on a bipartisan basis to protect America and our allies by preventing Iran from ever developing or building nuclear weapons.
Given how the Kirk-Menendez
sanctions bill has been stalled (owing in large part to White House opposition), this letter seems to be the hardliners' fallback. Of the 59 co-sponsors of the Kirk-Menendez bill, only two--Bob Corker (R-TN) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK)--did not sign the letter. I have no idea why they did not sign, but I assume they are with it in spirit. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) did not sign, but that is par for the course. He does not sign letters.
The other 14 non-signers were the following:
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Thomas Carper (D-DE)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)