Image: Times
Image: Times

by Harry C. Blaney III

As we move into the final days of consideration by Congress of the Iran Nuclear Deal, there is growing acknowledgment by the GOP Hill leaders that they will not prevail via the measures of the disapproval bill to stop the Iran deal from going ahead. Such measures will be met with either getting the last 7 Democrats in the Senate to sign on to the vote to consider the legislation by using their filibuster option on  this disapproval motion, or if that does not work, to affirm the President’s veto.

Yet, sadly, the effort to scuttle the deal may not end, as there are press reports that the GOP leaders and tea party extremists will insist on adding provisions to on-going and most passed legislation in efforts to indirectly destroy the deal.  As they have tried to kill Obamacare by many dozens of votes, part of a larger strategy of denying President Obama any victories, they are completely disregarding America’s true interests and security. In response, American citizens will need to be alert to this strategy. Already Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland  who is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has deserted his President on the Iran nuclear agreement to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons and followed the dictates of the right wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who seems, via dogged confrontations including into U.S. politics and his turning away from peace negotiations and building settlements outside of Israel’s borders on  Palistiinian land, in this writer’s view, endangering long-term Israel’s security not protecting it.

See below the citation to the new key argument that Secretary Kerry and Vice president Biden have just recently made in major talks on this issue. Worth a read!

The most important element at the end of the day, however, is that the restrains on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, detailed in the deal, will go forward and be enforced with the conditions the President and Secretary along with the P5 plus one and the EU have put into place to block any likely pathway to nuclear weapons for Iran.

The next stage is to develop policies and approaches to bring a better measure of security and peace in the region.

To this end on Friday September 3rd President Obama met with Saudi Arabia King Salman and other Saudi leaders to address Iran issues and discuss Middle East security and ways forward on how to send the many conflicts in the region. But there are many questions and complex and difficulty issues to address and much hard negotiations as we now rightly look beyond Iran alone and look at the larger Middle East landscape.

We welcome your comments.

Nominations for the Most Outrageous and Wrongheaded Quotes by Presidential Candidates on the Iran Nuclear Deal

Image: Politico

By: Harry C. Blaney III

To prove that this summer has become the “silly season” we have selected a few of the most wrongheaded and crazy quotes by the presidential hopefuls. This is not just for summer fun and amusement but also for reflection on the quality of the debate regarding the agreement that can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon all together, rather than in just three months without a deal as most experts predict.

We have for the more attentive, world-weary reader, and super curious a full set of  pro and con quotes on an earlier blog here.

We welcome from our readers their own nominations for this proud honor!


Sen. Ted Cruz

“If this deal goes through, the Obama administration, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, will become the leading global financiers of radical Islamic terrorism.”

“You know one entity, one person with whom there is no ambiguity in terms of whether Iran wants a nuclear weapon is the Ayatollah Khamenei. Is President Rouhani. Both of whom explicitly said they are developing nuclear weapons. There is no doubt about it.”  (Comment: not true.)

“The Iranian nuclear deal is catastrophic — the single greatest national security threat facing America. To allow a country led by a theocratic zealot ….. to have a weapon that could in the flash of an eye murder millions of Americans. We have to stop this deal.” (Comment: read assessment of our Ambassadors, national security advisors, scientists in the context of this quote…all say the deal prevents just what Cruz says will happen.)


Jeb Bush

“The Obama Administration’s negotiating strategy with Iran is called appeasement. We should walk away.” “The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama Administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal. The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist.”

“The Obama-Clinton-Kerry Iran policy has failed not only because its weak negotiating strategy will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.”

(Comment: “appeasement” when supported and signed off by our Generals, former Ambassadors, expert scientists, the EU, Russia, China, NATO, and most real nuclear experts, etc? This one is a special prize!]


Sen. Bob Corker

“It’s very easy to cover up nuclear weapons. I believe you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy where it is now our policy to enable a sponsor of terror to gain a sophisticated nuclear program.”

“And then, after 10 years, there’s something called the Iranian nuclear development program…. I actually think the deadline was working in Iran’s favor.  Iran will cheat by inches.” 

“I want to read the agreement in detail ….  but I begin from a place of deep skepticism that the deal actually meets the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

“It’s very easy to cover up nuclear weapons. I believe you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy where it is now our policy to enable a sponsor of terror to gain a sophisticated nuclear program.”

“Throughout the negotiations, the Administration routinely asserted that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ and threatened to walk away if necessary, so clearly there was always another option for the White House — and it wasn’t war.”


Sen. Lindsey Graham

“This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in the history of watching the Mideast. Barack Obama, John Kerry, have been dangerously naive.”

“This is North Korea in the making.”

“My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be.”

“You have created a possible death sentence for Israel.”

“This is a virtual declaration of war against Sunni Arabs.” (FYI Saudi Arabia support the deal)

“I don’t believe it’s a deal that until I get to look at it, so that’s the problem here. I betch a dollar if you looked at it, it would be a joke.”

“It’s incredibly dangerous for our national security, and it’s akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by the P5+1 because it ensures their primary antagonist Iran will become a nuclear power and allows them to rearm conventionally.”

“This is a bad deal, the worst possible outcome. You’ve created a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. You put Israel at risk and you put us at risk” 

“I would keep the interim deal in place. The interim deal has worked better than I thought it would, so hats off to John Kerry.” 

“This interim deal gives the Iranians $7 billion in cash and leaves in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs around.” (Comment: Not true.)


Sen. Marco Rubio

“We already know that this deal is not in the interests of the United States. It will not keep Americans safer. It will only embolden the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism as it expands its influence and sows instability across the Middle East.”

“If he [Obama] instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it, which will lay the foundation for our next President to undo this disaster.”

(Comment: How does a nation that could build the bomb without this agreement and now won’t be able to under the agreement be more of a threat to the region or us?)

Mike Huckabee

“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.”

“You don’t negotiate with people, especially a pyromaniac who’s standing there with a can of gasoline and a book of matches in his hand, and expect him not to start a fire.”

“This president thinks he was anointed king. I don’t know where his crown is, but this is frustrating”


Donald Trump

“I think it’s an outrage, I think it’s done by people of gross incompetence, I think it’s a tremendous win for Iran and many of our enemies and I think it’s something that shouldn’t be allowed.”

“Iran is taking over Iraq 100%, just like I predicted years ago. I say this, I didn’t want to go there in the first place. Now we take the oil.”

“We should have kept the oil. Now we go in, we knock the hell out of them, take the oil, we thereby take their wealth. They have so much money.”

“They have better internet connections than we do in the United States. They’re training our kids through the internet. We have to knock out their wealth.”

(Comment: ”incompetence” by the man who said Obama was not born in the United States? Take the oil how?)


“And I learned in war the price that is paid when diplomacy fails.” – Secretary of State John Kerry

Photo: CNN

by: Harry C. Blaney III

Below are a wide selection of quotes both pro and con to the Iran nuclear agreement. In my opinion, they show the disparity of intellectual, factual, and realist thought between those who oppose the deal and their generally vitriolic and highly partisan positions, and the other side’s views that have conviction and also deep analysis of the realities of this issue and the Middle East. The latter is also based on a long-term analysis of U.S. security issues and that of our allies including Israel.

What the largely Republican responses to these serious issues of the Iran nuclear deal have shown is that the entire batch of the now 17 major candidates do not understand the provisions of the agreement.  They can’t see the obvious advantages to our security or of our allies, and they have likely not read personally the text or even the White House summary fact sheet. Many of the opposition quoted are the same that led us into the Iraq war and now want to do the same again with Iran.

What is also depressing is none, and I do mean none, of the Republican candidates have even a small inkling of any of the issues, the risks, the strategic context, or what this deal means for Middle East nuclear non-proliferation and its changing in our favor the strategic landscape of this region.

On the pro side we do see analysis by the most respected experts and professionals, including over 100 U.S. Ambassadors and former Republican officials in favor of this deal and giving substantive reasons for their positions. We will continue to watch this debate and provide updates on its trajectory with new quotes and alerts while following the Congressional process. For global security and the future of non-proliferation this agreement is key to a strategy of building a more peaceful and less dangerous world.


Retired Generals and Admirals

“On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain Iran’s nuclear program. We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply.

There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. 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, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.

We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, “[r]elieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily.” If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones. For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to support this agreement.”

29 Leading Scientists

“As scientists and engineers with understanding of the physics and technology of nuclear power and of nuclear weapons, we congratulate you and your team on the successful completion of the negotiations in Vienna. We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-­‐proliferation agreements.

This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-­‐proliferation framework. It limits the level of enrichment of the uranium that Iran can produce, the amount of enriched uranium it can stockpile, and the number and kinds of centrifuges it can develop and operate. The agreement bans reconversion and reprocessing of reactor fuel, it requires Iran to redesign its Arak research reactor to produce far less plutonium than the original design, and specifies that spent fuel must be shipped out of the country without the plutonium being separated and before any significant quantity can be accumulated.

A key result of these restrictions is that it would take Iran many months to enrich uranium for a weapon. We contrast this with the situation before the interim agreement was negotiated in Lausanne: at that time Iran had accumulated enough 20 percent enriched uranium that the required additional enrichment time for weapons use was only a few weeks.

The JCPOA also provides for innovative approaches to verification, including monitoring of uranium mining, milling, and conversion to hexafluoride. Centrifuge manufacturing and R&D will be monitored as well. For 15 years the Natanz facility will be the only location where uranium enrichment is allowed to take place and it will be outfitted with real-­‐time monitoring to assure rapid notice of any violation. The authority is provided for real-­‐time monitoring of spent fuel as well.

Concerns about clandestine activities in Iran are greatly mitigated by the dispute resolution mechanism built into the agreement. The 24-­‐day cap on any delay to access is unprecedented, and will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern: clandestine enrichment, construction of reprocessing or reconversion facilities, and implosion tests using uranium. The approach to resolving “Possible Military Dimensions” is innovative as well: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) must be satisfied that it is fully

informed about any previous activities, in order to guide its future verification plans, but Iran need not be publicly shamed. This agreement, also for the first time, explicitly bans nuclear weapons R&D, rather than only their manufacture as specified in the text of the Non-­‐Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Some have expressed concern that the deal will free Iran to develop nuclear weapons without constraint after ten years. In contrast we find that the deal includes important long-­‐term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely under the NPT and its Additional Protocol. On the other hand, we do believe that it would be valuable to strengthen these durable international institutions. We recommend that your team work with the IAEA to gain agreement to implement some of the key innovations included in the JCPOA into existing safeguards agreements. This will reduce the proliferation risks associated with national fuel cycle facilities worldwide. Thus in the future, when Iran is treated the same as all non-­‐nuclear weapons states with nuclear energy programs, all such programs will be more stringently constrained and verified.

As you have stated, this deal does not take any options off the table for you or any future president. Indeed it will make it much easier for you or a future president to know if and when Iran heads for a bomb, and the detection of a significant violation of this agreement will provide strong, internationally supported justification for intervention.

In conclusion, we congratulate you and your team on negotiating a technically sound, stringent and innovative deal that will provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, and provides a basis for further initiatives to raise the barriers to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the globe.”

New York Times Editorial Board

” The exaggerations and half-truths that some Republicans are using to derail President Obama‘s important and necessary nuclear deal with Iran are beyond ugly. Invoking the Holocaust, Mike Huckabee, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, has accused Mr. Obama of marching Israelis “to the door of the oven.” Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, has compared Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped negotiate the deal, to Pontius Pilate.

What should be a thoughtful debate has been turned into a vicious battle against Mr. Obama, involving not just the Republicans but Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies.

Policy considerations aside, what is most striking about the demagoguery is how ahistorical, if not downright hypocritical, it is. Negotiating with adversaries to advance a more stable world has long been a necessity, and Republican presidents have been among its most eager practitioners.

Critics complain that the nuclear deal fails to eradicate all of Iran’s nuclear program, even for peaceful energy production, and provides sanctions relief, including access to $50 billion in Iranian assets frozen in foreign banks.

But what these critics do not mention is that the basic bargain Mr. Obama agreed to — benefits in exchange for nuclear limits — was endorsed by President George W. Bush and the other major powers in 2006. Though Mr. Bush was certainly opposed to allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon, the proposal did not demand that Iran totally dismantle its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities (as critics now do); it instead offered assurances that Iran would have fuel for its civilian energy program and be integrated into the international economy. Two years later, the proposal was further enhanced, but talks with Tehran never went anywhere.

Negotiating with enemies is an essential component of statecraft and can be a crucial alternative to war. Even when America was at the height of its powers, its leaders — including Republicans — knew that any successful deal would involve some compromise with the other side, not complete capitulation. Yet that is exactly what the Republicans are demanding of Iran today as they lay plans to repudiate Mr. Obama’s hard-won accord in pursuit of some mythical “better” deal.

The accord has shortcomings, as all do, and there are risks in any decision. But a preponderance of responsible opinion — the five major powers, the United Nations Security Council, most American nuclear experts and scores of leading American diplomats — have endorsed the pact as the best way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.

America is stronger when important national security decisions have bipartisan consensus. None of that seems to matter to the accord’s opponents, many of whom never intended to vote for the deal and made clear during congressional hearings last week that facts will not change their minds.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi “A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to the United States, unacceptable to Israel, and unacceptable to the world. Aggressive restrictions and inspections offer the best long-term plan to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Congress will closely review the details of this agreement.” “I’ve closely examined this document, and it will have my strong support. [It’s] a good product. Not only better than the status quo, not only the best possible option, but a strong, effective proposal for keeping the peace and stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” The deal is “a diplomatic masterpiece.”

Sen. Dick Durbin “The United States, working with our allies, has reached a historic agreement with Iran that, according to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I commend our negotiators for this critical effort. Finding a diplomatic solution will make our country, our allies, and the world a safer place.” “We know the cost of war. We know it in human lives. We know it in the casualties that return. We know it in the cost to the American people. Given a choice between the invasion of Iran or working in a diplomatic fashion toward a negotiation so that we can lessen this threat to the world, I think President Obama made the right choice. I support this Administration’s decision to go forward with this agreement. I’ll be adding my vote to many in the Senate in the hope that we can see a new day dawning. In the hope, too, that like President Nixon, like President Reagan, and like other presidents before us who have sat down to negotiate with our enemies, at the end of the day we’ll be a safer and stronger nation because of it.” “There’s no alternative to this agreement. If for some reason it does not go through, and Iran closes the doors on their development of a nuclear weapon, how could Israel or any nation feel any safer? Absent an agreement, we believe Iran will set out to develop a nuclear weapon. We can’t just let Republicans just criticize the agreement without at least suggesting what the alternative would be.” “#IranDeal provides safeguards & inspections to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons now or in the future.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein “The agreement announced today between the world’s major powers and Iran is historic. It offers a verifiable, diplomatic resolution to one of our most pressing national security challenges. This is a strong agreement that meets our national security needs and I believe will stand the test of time. I stand behind the U.S. negotiating team and will support this agreement in the Senate.” “I support the #IranDeal because Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb are blocked through the agreement.”

Sen. Chris Murphy “The best way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy, not war. At a time when the Middle East is awash in crippling violence, we have an opportunity to address one of the most dangerous threats to the United States and the region through a negotiation, and I congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their team for the agreement that was reached today.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders  “I congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the leaders of other major nations for producing a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East. I look forward to learning more about the complex details of this agreement to make sure that it is effective and strong.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren “Diplomacy is our best hope of ending the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, far better than the alternative of escalating tensions & war.”

Arms Control Association “The agreement will establish long-term, verifiable restrictions on Iran’s sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities… If Congress somehow blocks implementation of this hard-won, balanced and effective multilateral deal, the United States will have broken from its European allies, the necessary international support for Iran-related sanctions would melt away, Iran would be able to rapidly and significantly expand its capacity to produce bomb-grade material; we would lose out on securing enhanced inspections needed to detect a clandestine weapons effort. The risk of a nuclear-armed Iran would thereby increase.”

Atlantic Council “The Iran Task Force of the Atlantic Council supports the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) announced in Vienna this week and applauds the bold intent and intense efforts of President Barack Obama and his team of diplomats and scientists who worked so hard to bring it to fruition. At the same time we support the JCPOA, we believe it is necessary to view the agreement with a clear-eyed, realistic perspective, wishing for the best outcome but also being prepared for less-favorable scenarios given past Iranian conduct. We hope that our colleagues in Congress will share this objective with a non-partisan appraisal of the agreement. This agreement is better than the alternatives if the JCPOA is rejected.”

Center for American Progress “The agreement between the P5+1 and Iran that constrains Iran’s nuclear program is a historic achievement for the United States and its partners. Iran’s nuclear program will now fall under unprecedented international scrutiny to ensure that Tehran cannot pursue nuclear weapons. It represents the strongest possible outcome for the United States and its partners, avoiding both the passive appeasement of Iran and the dangers of military action. It is the best way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Center for American Progress “The nuclear agreement gives the United States and its allies their best shot at reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It offers a longer delay than any military option and places restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities that would be absent without an agreement.”

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation “Americans support a good deal, and Congress must do the same. The announced deal: Increases the time Iran might ‘break out’ of the deal and obtain a nuclear weapon from two months to more than one year, provides the U.S. and the international community with ample time and capability to detect any potential violations of Iran’s commitments, stipulates an IAEA report by the end of the year on the possible military dimensions of Iran’s prior nuclear program, allows inspectors access to military facilities if they inspect suspicious nuclear activity, [and] places Iran’s nuclear program under lock, key, and camera, including its centrifuge factories and uranium supply chains.”

Council on Peace and Security “Although the agreement signed in Vienna between the world powers and Iran is not optimal, it should remove the immediate threat of an Iranian break-out leading to a nuclear military capability within a few months, as the situation without the agreement and prior to the interim agreement was evaluated. The agreement is expected to lengthen the break-out time to 12 months for at least 10 years.”

Just Foreign Policy “This is a good deal for America that makes the world safer by blocking potential Iranian pathways to a nuclear weapon, thereby removing any excuse for another disastrous war of choice. As Congress reviews the deal over the next two months, we will defend the deal and challenge Democrats and war-skeptic Republicans to defend it as well.”

National Iranian American Council “With a nuclear deal in hand, we who urged that the U.S. and Iran must give diplomacy a chance have been proven right. Peace was possible, provided that the right policies were adopted and backed with sufficient political will. Make no mistake: if Congress rejects this good deal with Iran, there will be no better deal forthcoming and Congress will be left owning an unnecessary war.”

Truman National Security Project “Many of us witnessed firsthand the damage done by an unnecessary war fought in the Middle East in the name of nuclear non-proliferation. This time, through tough American-led diplomacy, we have closed off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon without risking American lives.”

100 Former Ambassadors, including Amb. Thomas Pickering (ret.), Fmr. Amb. to Israel; Amb. Daniel Kurtzer (ret.), Fmr. Amb. to Israel; Amb. Nicholas Burns (ret.), Fmr. Amb. to NATO; and Amb. Ryan Crocker (ret.), Fmr. Amb. to Afghanistan and Iraq “The JCPOA deserves Congressional support. 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 alternatives. We are satisfied that the JCPOA will put in place a set of constraints and inspections that can assure that Iran’s nuclear program… will remain only for peaceful purposes and that no part of Iran is exempt from inspection.”

60 National Security Leaders, including Madeleine Albright, Fmr. Secretary of State; Samuel Berger, Fmr. National Security Advisor; William Perry; Fmr. Secretary of Defense; Admiral Eric Olson (ret.), Fmr. Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command; Amb. Edward J. Walker, Jr. (ret.), Amb. to Israel, Egypt, and UAE “We applaud the announcement that a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been reached with Iran to limit its nuclear program. We congratulate President Obama and all the negotiators for a landmark agreement unprecedented in its importance for preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. Though primarily a nonproliferation agreement, the JCPOA has significant implications for some of America’s most important national objectives:regional stability in the Middle East, Israel’s security, dealing with an untrustworthy and hostile nation, and U.S. leadership on major global challenges.”

70 members of the European Leadership Network, including Des Browne, Chair of ELN; George Robertson, Fmr. Secretary General of NATO; Michel Rocard, Fmr. Prime Minister of France; Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Fmr. Secretary General of NATO; Volker Ruhe, Fmr. German Defense Minister “We urge all the parties to implement it in good faith and call on all European states and the wider international community to support it. We believe that this agreement provides a sound framework for ending the crisis over the Iranian nuclear program and a foundation for re-integrating Iran into the international community. At the same time, the adoption of the document is just a first step in a process which must increase the level of the security of all countries in the Middle East, Europe and beyond.”

7 Former Under Secretaries of State and Former American Ambassadors to Israel “We are persuaded that this agreement will put in place a set of constraints and monitoring measures that will arrest Iran’s nuclear program for at least fifteen years and assure that this agreement will leave Iran no legitimate avenue to produce a nuclear weapon during the next ten to fifteen years. This landmark agreement removes the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the region and to Israel specifically. No agreement between multiple parties can be perfect or without risks. We believe that without this agreement, however, the risks will be much higher for the United States and Israel.  We see no fatal flaws that should call for the rejection of this agreement and have not heard any  viable alternatives from those who oppose the implementation of the JCPOA. The rejection of this agreement could lead to the U.S. having to use military force  without the support of other allies and without the understanding of the international community.”

Madeleine Albright, Fmr. Secretary of State “When the next president is elected, I hope that she will be in a position to make sure the deal is carried out. This agreement offers the opportunity to look at other parts of a bilateral relationship.”

Yossi Alpher, Fmr. senior official of Mossad “The Iran nuclear deal makes the Middle East a safer place in one extremely important dimension and for a reasonable period of time. If Netanyahu were wise, he would exploit the deal to Israel’s strategic advantage. Meanwhile, in the short term security is liable to deteriorate in other regional dimensions.”

Yukiya Amano, Director General of the IAEA “I am confident in our ability to do this important work. The IAEA stands ready to undertake the necessary monitoring and verification activities when requested.”

Steve Andreasen, National Security Council “The most likely alternative to this agreement is not some other agreement; rather, it is the unraveling of the international coalition in support of sanctions against Iran, less transparency into Iran’s activities, and a potential war between the United States and Iran. If Congress votes to kill this deal, the United States will be widely perceived as scuttling an accord negotiated over many years and supported by Europe, Russia, China, and much of the rest of the world. A verifiable agreement that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful would provide a foundation for strategic patience and at least delay if not obviate such a fateful course. The technical details of this agreement matter. However, what matters at least equally is what is not written down on paper: Iran’s capacity to produce a nuclear weapon cannot be erased by any agreement; an agreement with Iran can buy valuable time; and war with Iran is perhaps the most likely alternative to this deal.”

Kofi Annan, Fmr. Secretary-General of the United Nations “The countries of the world can be grateful for the… hope that this agreement has brought. It is vital that tangible and early progress is now made on implementation, in particular on watertight verification mechanisms and the lifting of sanctions on Iran.”

Ami Ayalon, Fmr. Director of Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service) “Reaching the agreement wasn’t a mistake. It is the best of the available options, even though it strengthens Iran as a troublemaker.”

Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis, Molad “Thanks to the talks, Iran’s nuclear program has been scaled back for the first time in over a decade. There is no better option. Netanyahu claims that the agreement places Iran on the nuclear threshold in ten years – but without the deal, it would be there by now.”

Barry Blechman, Stimson “This is an historic agreement which stops Iran’s nuclear program in its tracks for at least ten years, and probably for many more. It includes all necessary technical measures to ensure that Iran is complying with its commitments, provides sanctions relief only as those commitments are demonstrated, and will make the U.S. and its friends in the region far more secure than they would be in any other scenario.”

Hans Blix, Fmr. Head of the IAEA “I think it is a remarkably far-reaching and detailed agreement. And I think it has a potential for stabilizing and improving the situation in the region as it gradually gets implemented. The alternative mind you, as Obama says, the alternative really is toward war.”

Butch Bracknell and Adam Tiffen, Truman National Security Project “Serving in the U.S. armed forces during a time of conflict was a real honor. It also gave us front-row seats to one of the most significant foreign policy blunders in American history: Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tough U.S.-led diplomacy to reach an enforceable, verifiable agreement preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is essential to ensuring more of our fellow service members and frontline civilians are not placed in harm’s way in yet another ill-defined Middle East conflict.”

Michael Breen, Truman National Security Project “Keeping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is of central importance to American security. This agreement demonstrates the power of tough, principled diplomacy — and will make America and our allies safer and stronger if properly implemented and enforced. American leadership made this agreement possible. Through tough American-led diplomacy, we have charted a better, smarter course.”

David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom “The international community has delivered a historic deal with Iran. A deal which secures our fundamental aim – to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon – and that will help to make our world a safer place.” “I think that if there wasn’t a deal, I think we would face Iran with a nuclear weapon.  And that would’ve given a terrible choice to the West of either enabling that, allowing that to happen, or a very difficult decision to take military action. So, this the better outcome. It keeps Iran away from a nuclear weapon. It’s a successful negotiation for the allies. And I think we should be proud of a good deal done.”

Hillary Clinton, Fmr. Secretary of State “This is an important step in putting a lid on Iran’s nuclear program. In the agreement we have the access for inspections and the transparency that was absolutely necessary. As president [I would] be absolutely devoted to ensure that the agreement is followed.”

Avner Cohen, Israeli expert on nuclear issues “It’s good because it contains the potential to drastically change the Israeli agenda and the Israeli condition. The removal of the ‘Iranian threat’ can provide a huge positive impact on Israeli politics and on the entire public agenda and quality of life in the country. That perhaps is the real reason why Netanyahu has been whimpering that the accord is a bad one. If the pact works, it could change all of our priorities and force us to deal with Israel’s real pressing issues.”

Roger Cohen, The New York Times “If implemented, the agreement constitutes the most remarkable American diplomatic achievement since the Dayton Accords put an end to the Bosnian war two decades ago. It increases the distance between Iran and a bomb as it reduces the distance between Iran and the world. It makes the Middle East less dangerous by forestalling proliferation.”

Matthew Duss, Foundation for Middle East Peace “The historic nuclear deal announced Tuesday in Vienna between the U.S. and its P5+1 partners and Iran demonstrates an alternative vision of the use of American power. It shows that our security and the security of our partners can be effectively advanced through multilateral diplomacy, and proves once again the importance of U.S. global leadership in addressing shared problems. The Vienna agreement is a victory for a better vision of foreign policy.”

Oded Eran, Institute for National Security Studies “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) reached on July 14, 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 and the EU High Representative may ultimately prove to be one of President Obama’s greatest achievements.”

Chuck Freilich, Fmr. deputy national security adviser in Israel “[The deal] is a compromise agreement that postpones an existential threat to Israel, opens the possibility for a strategic change in the Middle East and strengthens Israel’s security.

Thomas Friedman, New York Times “The diplomatic option structured by the Obama team — if properly implemented and augmented by muscular diplomacy — serves core American interests better than any options I hear coming from the deal’s critics. I believe America’s interests are best served now by focusing on how to get the best out of this deal and cushion the worst, rather than scuttling it.”

Leslie H. Gelb, Council on Foreign Relations “As for the heart of the nuclear agreement— for certain it is not perfect, but it does represent clear steps forward in holding Tehran to account on its nuclear efforts. All provisions regarding developing uranium or plutonium hold Iran way below where it is at present and where it’s been headed.”

Fawaz Gerges, London School of Economics “It’s a good day for diplomacy, it’s a good day for compromise, it’s a good day for a new beginning between Iran — a pivotal state in the Middle East — and the United States”

Philip Gordon, Council on Foreign Relations “A bipartisan group of experts and distinguished former U.S. officials, including some of my former colleagues from the administration’s Iran team, put forward a similar list. It will be interesting to see whether the signatories of the Washington Institute letter conclude the outcome in Vienna meets the necessary bar. On balance I think it does.”

Efraim Halevy, Fmr. head of the Mossad “Without an agreement, Iran will be free to do as it pleases, while the sanctions regime will anyway crumble, as many of the world’s countries will rush to Tehran to sign profitable contracts. Iran made concessions in a series of critical matters. A moment before we storm Capitol Hill, led by the Israeli ambassador to Washington, it’s important to hold a profound debate in Israel on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes components that are crucial for Israel’s security. There will be no other agreement and no other negotiations. What is better, a signed agreement or no agreement?” “I think the United States scored a great success in creating this international coalition to face down the nuclear threat. This is not a perfect agreement, but when you negotiate, you win some and you lose some.”

Philip Hammond, U.K. Foreign Secretary “After more than a decade of tough negotiations we have reached an historic agreement that will impose strict limits and inspections on Iran’s nuclear programme. Having reached this important agreement, our focus will now be on its swift and full implementation to make sure that a nuclear weapon remains beyond Iran’s reach. We hope, and expect, that this agreement will herald a step-change in Iran’s relations with its neighbours and with the international community.” “We wouldn’t have agreed to the deal unless we were sure that it had robust measures in place to deliver effective oversight on Iran’s nuclear program. This is the best and maybe to only way to build the trust that will allow a dialogue on the many other issues we have in Iran” 

William Hartung, Center for International Policy “The historic Iran nuclear deal is a positive development in its own right. This is a huge step away from the ill-considered calls for military action against Iran that have emanated from U.S. neoconservatives. It’s good for America, good for Iran, and good for the region.”

Nader Hashemi, Center for Middle East Studies “The agreement is good for the Iranian people. The easing of sanctions will benefit the Iranian middle class and civil society, which comprises the core support base for Iran’s pro-democracy movement. a more nuanced perspective is needed. And that means realizing that this nuclear deal represents a historic defeat for Iranian foreign policy — and that it potentially opens the door for the revival of Iran’s pro-democracy movement. A more nuanced perspective is needed. And that means realizing that this nuclear deal represents a historic defeat for Iranian foreign policy — and that it potentially opens the door for the revival of Iran’s pro-democracy movement.” 

Laicie Heeley, Stimson “The U.S. and its international partners have delivered a strong deal. Under this deal, the American people and the populations of our closest allies will be safer and more secure, since Iran’s nuclear program will remain verifiably constrained. Congress should look favorably upon this agreement, which has achieved the aims it set out to obtain, and more.” 

Francois Hollande, President of France “It’s a very important deal that was signed overnight, the world is making headway.”

Meir Javedanfar, Israeli expert on Iran “If Iran really wants a weapon, with Obama’s agreement we will have a one year waiting period for Iran to actually make one, if it decides to make one.  OK – with this deal, it will be one year breakout period.  With what Netanyahu is suggesting, which is the continuation of the current tensions with Iran until Iran completely capitulates…Iran would only need two months to make a nuclear weapon. So, what do we want to choose? A two-months warning period for Iran to make a weapon or one year?  We want one year. And this is the situation.  Nobody is trusting Iran, the Iranian regime. It’s not about trust – it’s about mistrust and verify.” 

Adel al-Jubeir, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia “We are currently in talks with the American government regarding these details, but it (the deal) generally seems to have achieved these objectives.” 

John Kerry, Secretary of State “The fact is that the agreement we’ve reached, fully implemented, will bring insight and accountability to Iran’s nuclear program – not for a small number of years but for the lifetime of that program. This is the good deal that we have sought. I will tell you, sanctioning Iran until it capitulates makes for a powerful talking point and a pretty good political speech, but it’s not achievable outside a world of fantasy. The true measure of this agreement is not whether it meets all of the desires of one side at the expense of the other; the test is whether or not it will leave the world safer and more secure than it would be without it. There can be no question that this agreement will provide a stronger, more comprehensive, and more lasting means of limiting Iran’s nuclear program than any realistic alternative. I learned in war the price that is paid when diplomacy fails. I believe this agreement actually represents an effort to avert an inevitability of conflict that would come were we not able to reach agreement.  I think that’s what diplomacy was put in place to achieve.”

“[If Congress failed to approve the deal], the U.S. will have lost all credibility. We will not be in the hunt. And if we then decided to use military [after a deal fails], do you believe the United Nations will be with us? Do you think our European colleagues will support us? Not on your life.”  “We set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon, and we’ve achieved that. The deal we believe will make our country and our allies safer. We believe this is a good deal for the world, a good deal for America, a good deal for our allies and friends in the region, and we think it does deserve your support.” 

“I believe this agreement actually represents an effort by the United States of America and all of its colleagues in the P5+1 to come together with Iran to avert an inevitability of conflict that would come were we not able to reach agreement. I think that’s what diplomacy was put in place to achieve, and I know that war is the failure of diplomacy and the failure of leaders to make alternative decisions.”

“We have the support of Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and Germany. If we suddenly went off by ourselves and said no to this, we’re not only going to lose the support of the international community, we’re going to lose the access, lose the accountability. We would have no mechanism to verify that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. Without this deal, Iran could go do what it wants unchecked by the international community.”

“To those who are thinking about opposing the deal because of what might happen in year 15 or 16 — remember that, if we walk away, year 15 starts tomorrow — and without any of the long-term verification or transparency safeguards that we have put in place to ensure that we prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

“Remember that sanctions did not stop Iran’s nuclear program from growing steadily, to the point it had accumulated enough low enriched uranium that, if further enriched, could be used to produce about 10 nuclear bombs. The truth is that the Vienna plan will provide a stronger, more comprehensive, and more lasting means of limiting Iran’s nuclear program than any realistic alternative.” 

Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General “I warmly welcome the historic agreement in Vienna today and congratulate the P5+1 and Iran for reaching this agreement. This is testament to the value of dialogue. I hope – and indeed believe – that this agreement will lead to greater mutual understanding and cooperation on the many serious security challenges in the Middle East.  As such it could serve as a vital contribution to peace and stability both in the region and beyond. The United Nations stands ready to fully cooperate with the parties in the process of implementing this historic and important agreement.” 

Joe Klein, TIME “Yes, the Iran deal is risky. But we have been taking all sorts of bellicose risks since Sept. 11, 2001. Almost all of our military ventures have failed. So many lives have been lost. It’s time, finally, to take a risk for peace.” 

Michael Krepon, Stimson “This agreement significantly reduces Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons for ten years or more. It contains effective monitoring provisions. It is far better than any of the alternatives before us. A divide over this agreement, mostly along partisan lines, and repeated attempts to block its implementation will diminish U.S. leadership, destabilize the Middle East, place even greater burdens on U.S. military forces and weaken the U.S. Treasury. Friends and allies of the United States in Europe and the Pacific need to know that they can trust in U.S. executive agreements. Friends in the Middle East need a bipartisan plan to address their concerns about Iran. Congress voted to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Will it now vote against an agreement that verifiably limits Iran’s all-too-real nuclear capabilities?” 

Ellen Laipson, President and CEO of Stimson “Diplomacy – the long and hard slog of it – is one of the victors here. A negotiated agreement to change Iran’s policy and practice on issues with great regional security consequence could set a precedent for problem solving in a region where the resort to force is the default position. To make this agreement a truly lasting contribution to regional peace, all parties will need to support its implementation and Iran in particular could signal to its neighbors that it is willing to address other causes of tension and insecurity.” 

Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister “[The deal] without a doubt will play an important role in ensuring non-proliferation in general and make the situation in the Middle East healthier.” 

Hon. Mel Levine, Former Member of Congress, AIPAC Board Member “The accord is the one path that provides a peaceful means of resolving the major threat of Iran’s achieving a nuclear weapon and will enhance the security of Israel and the world. Without this deal, the risk of war in the Middle East dramatically increases as well as the real risk of nuclear proliferation. I believe my friends in AIPAC and some of my friends in Israel have made a regrettable rush to judgment in immediately opposing the Iran agreement.” 

Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary  Iran will not receive any new relief until it fulfills all of the key nuclear-related commitments specified in the deal. Should Iran fully comply with the terms of the JCPOA, and should the IAEA verify this compliance, phased sanctions relief will come into effect”

“Should Iran fulfill all of the necessary conditions, we will have reached what it is known as “Implementation Day,” and phased relief will begin. At that time, the United States will suspend nuclear-related secondary sanctions. These are the sanctions that primarily target third-country parties conducting business with Iran — including in the oil, banking, and shipping sectors.”

“While our focus is on successfully implementing this deal, we must guard against the possibility that Iran does not uphold its side of the deal. That is why, should Iran violate its commitments once we have suspended sanctions, we have the mechanisms ready to snap them back into place. For U.S. sanctions, this can be done in a matter of days. Multilateral sanctions at the UN also can be re-imposed quickly, through a mechanism that does not allow any one country or any group of countries to prevent the reinstitution of the current UN Security Council sanctions if Iran violates the deal.”

Jeffrey Lewis, Center for Nonproliferation Studies “This deal might not be ideal, or as good as the one we could have achieved a decade ago, but compared with the invasion of Iraq, a nuclear-armed Iran, or even a deal we might be able to negotiate a few years down the road, it is incredibly strong.” 

Aaron David Miller, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars “There’s no question the Obama administration got what it wanted out of this deal: a slower, smaller Iranian nuclear program more easily monitored and constrained for at least a decade. No chance now of a pre-emptive Israeli strike, and no need for an American one. For now, a putative nuclear crisis has been defused and kicked down the road.”

Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative and Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister “What we are announcing today is not only a deal but a good deal. And a good deal for all sides – and the wider international community. We call on the world community to support the implementation of this historic effort.” 

Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative “We agreed on a deal that is not based on trust, but on precise commitments, on transparency and verification. It is a deal made to withstand the challenge of time; a good deal, with no space for interpretations or doubts. A deal that, while implemented, will allow us to build trust and lay the foundations for a new relationship. The whole Middle East is in turmoil. We need to restart political processes to end wars.” 

Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy “We are better off forever in terms of Iranian nuclear activity under this agreement than we would be without it. What we have done is we have dramatically limited and constrained the program. We are very confident in our ability to detect the vestiges of any nuclear work beyond 24 days.” 

“The JCPOA prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, provides strong verification measures that give us ample time to respond if Iran chose to violate its terms, and takes none of our options off the table. This deal is based on science and analysis. I am confident that this is a good deal for America, for our allies, and for our global security.” “The deal provides an agreement between the great powers and Iran that Iran will never develop or acquire a nuclear weapon, in turn providing a basis for an overwhelming response should it ever attempt to do so. The unity of purpose by the signatories — China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States — is unprecedented. Most important, we got the science right. I spent 40 years as a nuclear physicist faculty member at MIT and much of this year negotiating with Iran’s nuclear experts. And I drew on exhaustive technical analysis by our leading nuclear experts at the Department of Energy’s national laboratories and nuclear sites. This deal moves them back from that threshold for a considerable period and raises our verification capabilities forever.” 

“The Arak reactor, which according to its original design would have been a source of plutonium for at least one nuclear weapon per year, will be transformed to produce far less plutonium than before and of a much lower quality.” 

“Iran already has an R&D program for a number of advanced centrifuges (IR-2m, IR4, IR-5, IR-6, IR-8). The pace of the program will be slowed substantially and will be carried out only at the Natanz site for 15 years, under close International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring. Iran will not pursue other approaches to uranium enrichment.”

This deal is not based on trust. It is based on unprecedented monitoring and verification. And the duration of the agreement is indefinite. Some provisions will be in place for 10 years, others for 15, and still others for 20 or 25. But transparency requirements and Iran’s most fundamental obligation — to forego a nuclear weapons program — are permanent.”

“Much has been made about a possible 24-day delay before inspectors could gain access to suspected undeclared nuclear sites. The IAEA can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hours’ notice. This this deal also creates a new mechanism to ensure that the IAEA gets the required access and sets a firm time limit to resolve access issues within 24 days. We have very high confidence that nuclear material used for advancing a nuclear program will detected in this time frame.”

Richard Nephew, Brookings “The deal negotiated by the P5+1 will create a one year or longer breakout timeline for Iran’s declared nuclear program for the first ten years of the implementation phase of the deal. We are far better off with the deal than without it.” 

President Barack Obama “This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change. Tough talk from Washington does not solve problems. Hard-nosed diplomacy. Leadership that has united the world’s major powers, offers a more effective way to verify that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”  “You should have some alternative to present. And I haven’t heard that. And the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are the options. Now you’ll hear some critics say, ‘We could have negotiated a better deal.’ Well Ok, what does that mean?”  “It’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure this deal holds.  Because without this deal, there would be no limits on Iran’s nuclear program. There would be no monitoring, no inspections. The sanctions we rallied the world to impose would unravel.  Iran could move closer to a nuclear weapon. Other countries in the region might race to do the same.  And we’d risk another war in the most volatile region in the world. That’s what would happen without this deal.”  “”In the debate over this deal, we’re hearing the echoes of some of the same policies and mindset that failed us in the past. Some of the same politicians and pundits that are so quick to reject the possibility of a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program are the same folks who were so quick to go to war in Iraq, and said it would take a few months. And we know the consequences of that choice and what it cost us in blood and treasure. I believe there’s a smarter, more responsible way. We’ve done the hard and patient work [of diplomacy] instead of chest-beating which rejects the idea of even talking to our adversaries.”

Dr. Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council “No other option comes even close to this deal when it comes to closing off all of Iran’s paths to a bomb. Military action in particular is far inferior — and far more risky. The deal will prevent a war with Iran.” 

Samantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. “[The deal gives Iran] an opportunity to prove to the world that it intends to pursue a nuclear program solely for peaceful purposes. If Iran seizes that opportunity … then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement.” 

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia “We are satisfied that the solution found is based on the principle of phasing and mutuality, which our country has been consistently supporting at every stage of these complicated negotiations.” 

Susan Rice, National Security Advisor “We have complete ability on our own to go into the Security Council with evidence of a violation after a process and snap those sanctions back into place. [The verification time] is more than an adequate time and we shouldn’t be worried.”

Hassan Rouhani, President of Iran “Negotiators have reached a good agreement and I announce to our people that our prayers have come true.”

Jacqueline Shire, Fmr. member of the U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran “This deal keeps Iran’s nuclear program confined, monitored from every angle, with narrow maneuvering room. It also provides a path for Iran to engage constructively with the world, more necessary now than ever before.” 

Javier Solana, Fmr. Secretary General of NATO “The successful outcome of the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program provides a splendid validation for those who put their faith in diplomacy. The agreement – concluded after more than a decade of talks – highlights the value of persistence in addressing impasses that seem insurmountable, and provides hope for the many other initiatives that will be needed to bring lasting peace to the Middle East. The historic agreement with Iran is just one of many that will be required to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. The first hurdle has been overcome. We must now run the rest of the race.” 

Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO “This agreement represents a historic breakthrough which, once fully implemented, will strengthen international security.” 

Greg Thielmann, Arms Control Association “The United States and its five negotiating partners have just extracted from Tehran what many thought was impossible — a comprehensive and verifiable deal that effectively closes off Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons for many years. It is now time for the U.S. Congress to make sure the deal can be implemented. To prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons and to protect the security of the United States and of our allies in the region, Iowa’s senators and representatives in Congress should embrace the chance to vote ‘yes.’” 

John Tirman, Center for International Studies at MIT “The Iran nuclear accord has three legacies. The first is limiting Iran’s enrichment capacity. The second is bolstering moderates in Iran. The third is changing Iran’s relationship with the United States. The most immediate beneficiaries are none of the powers at the table in Vienna, but the brutalized peoples of the Middle East.” 

Alex Vatanka, Middle East Institute “The Iranian public is very optimistic and hopeful that the painful economic sanctions will soon begin to be rolled back. The United States, for its part, has succeeded in finding a diplomatic path forward.” 

Fareed Zakaria, The Washington Post “Obama’s critics say he is gambling that Iran will comply with the accord. In fact, the administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure, intrusive inspections, verification mechanisms and the prospect of snapback sanctions. The deal’s opponents have conjured up a fantasy scenario.”


Rep. John Boehner “No deal is better than a bad deal. And from everything that’s leaked from these negotiations, the administration’s backed away from almost all of the guidelines that they set up for themselves. And so if, in fact, there’s no agreement, the sanctions are going to go back in place. And at some point, the Iranian regime, they’re going to have to change their behavior. Abandon their efforts to get a nuclear weapon, and stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. [If the talks fail and Iran continues its nuclear ambitions], then we’ll have a standoff. But that’s a lot better than legitimizing this rogue regime.” “Iran, by all accounts, still isn’t serious about abandoning its nuclear weapons program.  When will the president and his negotiators stand strong?  We cannot accept a deal that hands Iran billions of sanctions relief while allowing it to retain the capability to build a bomb almost immediately. Iran is a global menace, Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. And I think it’s a pipe dream to think that the regime will ever be a responsible partner. I think it’s time for the administration to come back to earth.” “The president has abandoned his own goals.  His ‘deal’ will hand Iran billions in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb – all without cheating. Instead of making the world less dangerous, this ‘deal’ will only embolden Iran. I won’t support any agreement that jeopardizes the safety of the American people and all who value freedom and security.  This isn’t about Republicans versus Democrats.  It’s about right and wrong.  And we will fight a bad deal that is wrong for our national security and wrong for our country.” “The deal that we have out there, in my view, from what I know of it thus far, is unacceptable. It’s going to hand a dangerous regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief while paving the way for a nuclear Iran. If in fact it’s as bad a deal as I think it is at this moment, we’ll do everything we can to stop it.” “This is a bad deal.  It paves the way for a nuclear Iran. President Obama says it’s this deal or war.  Well, that’s a false choice.  The sanctions were working, and bringing Iran to its knees.  We’re going to continue to review this, but we’re going to fight a bad deal that’s wrong for our national security and wrong for our country.”

Sen. Bob Corker “Knowing that the administration appears to be continuing to cross red lines that they previously have set, we want to point that out and hopefully stiffen their spines so the deal doesn’t erode further. I do feel it moving in a nonpositive direction, and I feel like one of my responsibilities is to share publicly those concerns, and privately.”  “We have gone from dismantling their program to managing proliferation. That’s the biggest concern. There are numbers of issues. It’s been going on a negative trend for some time. As was mentioned, they’re going to have their sanctions relief. So, you’re going to have a country whose economy is growing rapidly that’s going to have all kinds of — over $100 billion of money to help create further terrorism in the region. And so they’re going to be growing. They’re going to be getting more established. And then, after 10 years, there’s something called the Iranian nuclear development program that’s been agreed to. And at that point, they’re basically going to be able to industrialize their program.”  “We know they were building a bomb, we just don’t know how far along they were. I actually think the deadline was working in Iran’s favor. Iran will cheat by inches.”  “I want to read the agreement in detail and fully understand it, but I begin from a place of deep skepticism that the deal actually meets the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”  “I think every responsible person here in Congress should begin with a skeptical outlook. We’re dealing with a country that is not trustworthy, a country that has killed thousands of Americans in Iraq. These people are not our friends today, and so the fact is we need to go through this and look at it in great detail.” “We started several months ago with Iran as a rogue nation and a boot on its neck. Our goal was to dismantle its program. We’ve ended up with a deal that codifies the industrialization of its nuclear program. Everyone here knows that there is no practical need for the program they are building. It’s very easy to cover up nuclear weapons. I believe you have crossed a new threshold in U.S. foreign policy where it is now our policy to enable a sponsor of terror to gain a sophisticated nuclear program.”

“Throughout the negotiations, the Administration routinely asserted that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ and threatened to walk away if necessary, so clearly there was always another option for the White House — and it wasn’t war.”

Sen. Ted Cruz “I think this deal that is being negotiated by the Obama administration is  profoundly dangerous both to the security of our friend and ally Israel, but also to American national security.”

“Today, the international community led by the United States has agreed to not only legitimize and perpetuate the Iranian nuclear program, but also to further arm and enrich the brutal theocratic regime that has oppressed the Iranian people for more than thirty years. Despite these facts, it seems President Obama would concede almost anything to get any deal – even a terrible deal. I urge all my fellow citizens to speak out and let their elected leaders know that even if President Obama won’t see it, we know the leaders of the Islamic Republic who lead crowds in chants of ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ are not our partners in peace, and must not be put on the path to a nuclear bomb.” 

“You know one entity, one person with whom there is no ambiguity in terms of whether Iran wants a nuclear weapon is the Ayatollah Khamenei. Is President Rouhani. Both of whom explicitly said they are developing nuclear weapons. There is no doubt about it.” 

“President Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton couldn’t even be bothered to say before we even begin a conversation, release four hostages currently languishing in a hell hole. Those four hostages have been abandoned by the federal government. The projections are that one nuclear head in the atmosphere over the Eastern seaboard could result in tens of millions of Americans dying. That’s what is at risk… that millions of Americans will be murdered by radical theocratic zealots.” 

“If this deal goes through, the Obama administration, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, will become the leading global financiers of radical Islamic terrorism.”

“The Iranian nuclear deal is catastrophic — the single greatest national security threat facing America. To allow a country led by a theocratic zealot who chants ‘death to America’ to have a weapon that could in the flash of an eye murder millions of Americans. We have to stop this deal.” 

Sen. Lindsey Graham “We’re so far away from where we started from in these negotiations. We’re trying to make sure that the deal that’s being cut is a deal that’s worth a damn.”  “I would love to end the nuclear ambition of the Iranians without firing a shot, but you have to know who you’re talking to and what they actually want. This is North Korea in the making.”  “I don’t want a war but if that’s what you want, you’re gonna lose it. We’re gonna sink your navy and we’re gonna shoot your air force down”  “I really think there’s a better than 50/50 chance that we’ll get enough ‘no’ votes. If the Arabs come out and say this is a bad deal, if AIPAC says this is a bad deal, if public opinion says we don’t trust this deal, then our Democratic colleagues will hopefully come forward to say, ‘We can do better.’”  “My initial impression is that this deal is far worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the region, our national security and eventually the world at large. If the initial reports regarding the details of this deal hold true, there’s no way as president of the United States I would honor this deal. It’s incredibly dangerous for our national security, and it’s akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by the P5+1 because it ensures their primary antagonist Iran will become a nuclear power and allows them to rearm conventionally.” “This is a bad deal, the worst possible outcome. You’ve created a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. You put Israel at risk and you put us at risk”  “I would keep the interim deal in place. The interim deal has worked better than I thought it would, so hats off to John Kerry.”  “This interim deal gives the Iranians $7 billion in cash and leaves in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs around.”

  Sen. John McCain “The most concerning concessions – on sanctions, sunset, inspections and verification, research and development, and Iran’s enrichment capability, among others – were made long ago. To those concessions, it now appears that the Administration has made still more, especially the repeal of the international arms embargo on Iran. The result, I fear, is that this agreement will strengthen Iran’s ability to acquire conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, while retaining an industrial scale nuclear program, without any basic change to its malign activities in the Middle East.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell “I hope the Obama Administration will make the right decision now and press pause before heading further toward a bad deal with Iran. [The interim agreement] was bad enough, but apparently it was the high point—nearly every day since seems to bring news of a further weakening of an already-weakened Obama Administration position, encouraging hardliners in Tehran to insist upon additional concessions. We plan to pursue the policies and the programs that will be required to rebuild our military”  “It’s going to be a very hard sell. We already know that it’s going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. We could have ratcheted up the sanctions even further because that’s what brought to the table in the first place.”  “The Senate must now weigh why a nuclear agreement should result in reduced pressure on the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. We’ll hold hearings and examine the agreement, including several aspects that are particularly integral to understanding what concessions the Iranians were able to secure from the Obama Administration.”

Sen. Robert Menendez “If Iran insists on these red lines in negotiations, then I strongly urge you to suspend negotiations rather than accept a bad deal with Iran.” “Well, I think we started off with the wrong premise. And the problem here is that we have gone from preventing Iran having a nuclear ability to managing it. And at the end of the day, I hope that notwithstanding a deal, that the president makes a very clear statement to Iran that as it relates to the future, we cannot accept Iran having a nuclear weapon, period. But we have to make very clear that there is a deterrence in the longer term because, if not, in 12, 13 years, we will be exactly back to where we are today. Except that Iran will have $100 billion to $150 billion in its pocket and is promoting its terrorism throughout the Middle East.”  “I’m concerned that the deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold-nuclear state. I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights; that Iran will be required only to limit rather than eliminate its nuclear program, while the international community will be required to lift the sanctions, and that it doesn’t provide for anytime-any-place inspections of suspected sites. The bottom line is: The deal doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program – it preserves it.”

Sen. Marco Rubio “We already know that this deal is not in the interests of the United States. It will not keep Americans safer. It will only embolden the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism as it expands its influence and sows instability across the Middle East. If the President were serious about negotiating a deal that advances our security and protects our allies, such as Israel, he would walk away from the table and impose new sanctions on Iran until the regime comes to the table ready to negotiate seriously. If he instead chooses to conclude a deal that ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state, I am confident that a majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it, which will lay the foundation for our next President to undo this disaster.” “The Obama Administration’s decision to extend nuclear talks with Iran for the second time in one week is just another sign that it is time for President Obama to walk away from the table. The stakes are too high for this diplomatic charade to continue. Iranian leaders continue to walk back previous commitments, even as they actively sponsor terrorism, pursue regional domination and hold American citizens hostage. It is time for the president to level with the American people and the world and admit that Iran’s government is not negotiating in good faith. Continued negotiations at this point will only lead to further U.S. concessions and a better deal for Iran that funds and emboldens this terrorist-sponsoring regime. It is now clearer than ever that only increased pressure on Iran will ensure a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”  “This deal violates promises the president made to the American people on multiple fronts. It is not an anytime, anywhere inspection process.”  “I can tell you that there is not much hope of this deal surviving the next presidency, and I hope the next president will reject the deal and reimpose sanctions because this deal is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. I believe it weakens our national security, and it makes the deal a more dangerous place. The world should know that this is this administration’s deal, and the next president is under no moral or legal obligation to live up to it. The world should know that the majority of Congress do not support this deal and that it can be undone the day that President Obama leaves office. I don’t fault you for pursuing diplomacy. I do fault the President for striking a terrible with Iran.” 

AIPAC “This proposed agreement fails to halt Iran’s nuclear quest. Instead, it would facilitate rather than prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and would further entrench and empower the leading state sponsor of terror. We strongly believe that the alternative to this bad deal is a better deal. Congress should reject this agreement. Congress should insist on a better deal.” 

Republican Jewish Coalition “This deal meets zero of the criteria for a good deal – it is not enforceable, verifiable, or in America’s national security interest.  Unless Congress stops it, the world will be less safe as the United States will remove sanctions on Iran, and in return, Iran will still pursue nuclear weapons.  The Republican Jewish Coalition calls on all members of Congress to reject this deal.” 

Elliot Abrams, Middle Eastern Studies “Given Iran’s weak bargaining position, what is has achieved is remarkable. The structure of sanctions it took decades to build has been destroyed, but there is no end to the Iranian nuclear program. That program will continue, and eventually grow very large. Meanwhile, the arms embargo on Iran will be lifted after five years–the blink of an eye in international politics–and without requiring any change in Iran’s support for terror or its military actions in the region.” 

David Adesnik, Foreign Policy Initiative “If no deal is better than a bad deal, then rejecting a bad deal remains a viable option when Congress begins its deliberations. By threatening preemptively to veto any resolution of disapproval, President Obama has made it clear that he will not respect congressional determinations of whether this is a good deal or a bad one. In reality, the deal that has been reached may fuel Iran’s appetite for terrorism and conflict in the Middle East.” 

Jeb Bush, Fmr. Governor of Florida “Repeated concessions and desperate accommodation suggest the Obama Administration will do anything to secure a deal. I fear it will be a bad deal for the United States, Israel, and all who desire a stable Middle East. Iran foments instability and sectarian tension throughout the region. It is a delusion to believe, as the President does, that the current regime in Tehran can be a force for stability in the Middle East. The Obama-Clinton-Kerry Iran policy has failed not only because its weak negotiating strategy will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, but also because it has, from the beginning, ignored the comprehensive nature of the threat posed by Iran. The nuclear program is but one symptom of an underlying disease, and the Obama Administration has treated only this one symptom, and ineffectively at that. All of these challenges will, of course, be exponentially more difficult to address if, by consummating a bad nuclear deal with Iran, the Obama Administration squanders the international consensus and sanctions currently pressuring Iran’s leaders without securing a more fundamental shift in Iran’s behavior. “The Obama Administration’s negotiating strategy with Iran is called appeasement. We should walk away.” “The nuclear agreement announced by the Obama Administration today is a dangerous, deeply flawed, and short sighted deal. The people of Iran, the region, Israel, America, and the world deserve better than a deal that consolidates the grip on power of the violent revolutionary clerics who rule Tehran with an iron fist.”

Dick Cheney, Fmr. Vice President “I think [this deal] put us closer to use — actual use — of nuclear weapons than we’ve been at any time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II.”

Michael Doran, Hudson Institute, and Matthew Kroenig, The Atlantic Council “Some pundits have supported Bush’s caution and disparaged Walker’s statement as ‘lacking nuance’ but in reality, Walker’s position is correct. The Iran deal does not protect U.S. interests and one does not need access to classified intelligence briefings to understand this basic fact.”

Mark Dubowitz, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies “We think this deal is fundamentally flawed in its very design because it essentially is a deal, because of the sunsets and snapbacks, that gives Iran an expanding nuclear program over time”  If you vote yes for a deal that ends up failing in all of the ways the critics have been suggesting, then it’s your name on a deal that ends up being a national security disaster” 

Carly Fiorina, GOP Presidential Candidate “I would have walked away because if you can’t walk away from the negotiating table, the other side just keeps negotiating. We have caved on every major goal that President Obama set.” 

Mike Huckabee “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.” 

“You don’t negotiate with people, especially a pyromaniac who’s standing there with a can of gasoline and a book of matches in his hand, and expect him not to start a fire.”

“This president thinks he was anointed king. I don’t know where his crown is, but this is frustrating, because Chuck Schumer is an honorable guy when it comes to issues in the Middle East, nobody is a more staunch supporter of Israel. I — and I know this was painful for Schumer because he would like to be a good party guy and go along, but what Chuck Schumer did was significant, because it’s an act of statesmanship, not an act of blind partisanship, and God knows we need some more of that in Washington right now.”

Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic “I worry that Obama’s negotiators might have given away too much to the Iranians. The dirty little secret of this whole story is that it is very difficult to stop a large nation that possesses both natural resources and human talent, and a deep desire for power, from getting the bomb.” 

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel “[The agreement is] bad mistake of historic proportions. Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons. When willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result.”  “The deal agreed to in Vienna, I regret to say, paves this terrorist regime’s path to the bomb. Unfortunately, the current deal allows Iran to avoid making that choice between a path to the bomb and sanctions relief. That’s not a triumph for diplomacy, but a failure of diplomacy.”  “This deal paves Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal. I feel it’s my obligation as the prime minister of Israel to speak out against something that endangers the survival of my country, the security of the region, the security of the world. I think the right thing to do is not to do this bad deal.” 

“The nuclear deal with Iran doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb — it actually paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

“Worse, it gives Iran two paths to a bomb: Iran can get to a bomb by keeping the deal or Iran can get to the deal by violating the deal.”

“Don’t let the world’s foremost terrorist regime get its hands on the worst most dangerous weapons. Oppose this bad deal.”

“That’s utterly false. We in Israel don’t want war — we want peace.”

“The alternative to this bad deal is still no deal or a better deal. … I don’t oppose this deal because I want war. I oppose this deal because I want to prevent war.”

“And this deal will bring war that will spark a nuclear arms race in the region and it will feed Iran’s terrorism and aggression that would make war, perhaps the most horrific war of all, far more likely.”

Mitt Romney, Fmr. Governor of Massachusetts “The generational calamity that will result from President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran will last a very long time indeed. Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. The Obama deal prescribes a pathway for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Iran will be a nuclear monster.” [7/2]

Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post “With the concessions Iran obtained this year, it can now resume enrichment after eight years. This is only one reason the deal must be thwarted before it begins. In sum, the deal would radically and quickly shift leverage to Iran, would infuse the Middle East with Iranian weapons and money and thereby severely diminish the non-military options for thwarting Iran. It is essential to stop the deal before these complicating factors are set in motion.”  “Unless and until Congress receives all the information (whether from the administration or the IAEA) and can determine whether the Swiss cheese inspections system is acceptable, it must block the deal from proceeding.” 

Dr. Max Singer, Hudson Institute “The P5+1 agreement with Iran is almost certainly a mistake and bad for Israel.” 

Donald Trump “I think it’s an outrage, I think it’s done by people of gross incompetence, I think it’s a tremendous win for Iran and many of our enemies and I think it’s something that shouldn’t be allowed.” “It’s outrageous that a deal like this is going forward and can be allowed to go forward. With proper negotiators we could have had a great deal.” “We have people that have no concern about the views of our country. It’s incredible. Only very stupid people are in favor of it. It’s incredible the way this thing was just rammed through and how they gave up so many points at the end. Did you see the last day? They just gave up so many points at the end. It’s a very, very incredible situation and frankly our representatives should be ashamed of themselves. It looks like they’re not going to be able to stop it because the veto is not going to get overridden based on everything I see and hear. That’s a real bad mark on our politicians including the Republicans that can’t get the votes.”

“Iran is taking over Iraq 100%, just like I predicted years ago. I say this, I didn’t want to go there in the first place. Now we take the oil.”

“We should have kept the oil. Now we go in, we knock the hell out of them, take the oil, we thereby take their wealth. They have so much money.”

“They have better internet connections than we do in the United States. They’re training our kids through the internet. We have to knock out their wealth.”

Gov. Scott Walker “It’s a bad deal for us, it’s a bad deal for Israel, it’s a bad deal for the world. It will accelerate the nuclear arms race, and it is empowering Iran to do what they’re going to do.” 

Ted Deutch “After a decade in public life working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief — in return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state.”

Chuck Schumer 

“Every several years or so a legislator is called upon to cast a momentous vote in which the stakes are high and both sides of the issue are vociferous in their views.

Over the years, I have learned that the best way to treat such decisions is to study the issue carefully, hear the full, unfiltered explanation of those for and against, and then, without regard to pressure, politics or party, make a decision solely based on the merits.

I have spent the last three weeks doing just that: carefully studying the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reading and re-reading the agreement and its annexes, questioning dozens of proponents and opponents, and seeking answers to questions that go beyond the text of the agreement but will have real consequences that must be considered.

Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.

While we have come to different conclusions, I give tremendous credit to President Obama for his work on this issue. The President, Secretary Kerry and their team have spent painstaking months and years pushing Iran to come to an agreement. Iran would not have come to the table without the President’s persistent efforts to convince the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to join in the sanctions. In addition, it was the President’s far-sighted focus that led our nation to accelerate development of the Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran. So whichever side one comes down on in this agreement, all fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.

In making my decision, I examined this deal in three parts: nuclear restrictions on Iran in the first ten years, nuclear restrictions on Iran after ten years, and non-nuclear components and consequences of a deal. In each case I have asked: are we better off with the agreement or without it?

In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime”; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) — the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.

Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.

Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.

Additionally, the “snapback” provisions in the agreement seem cumbersome and difficult to use. While the U.S. could unilaterally cause snapback of allsanctions, there will be instances where it would be more appropriate to snapback some but not all of the sanctions, because the violation is significant but not severe. A partial snapback of multilateral sanctions could be difficult to obtain, because the U.S. would require the cooperation of other nations. If the U.S. insists on snapback of all the provisions, which it can do unilaterally, and the Europeans, Russians, or Chinese feel that is too severe a punishment, they may not comply.

Those who argue for the agreement say it is better to have an imperfect deal than to have nothing; that without the agreement, there would be no inspections, no snapback. When you consider only this portion of the deal — nuclear restrictions for the first ten years — that line of thinking is plausible, but even for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses mentioned above make this argument less compelling.

Second, we must evaluate how this deal would restrict Iran’s nuclear development after ten years.

Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today. And the ability to thwart Iran if it is intent on becoming a nuclear power would have less moral and economic force.

If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.

To reduce the pain of sanctions, the Supreme Leader had to lean left and bend to the moderates in his country. It seems logical that to counterbalance, he will lean right and give the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the hardliners resources so that they can pursue their number one goal: strengthening Iran’s armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and terrorist actions.

Finally, the hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources.

When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.

Using the proponents’ overall standard — which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it — it seems to me, 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.

Ultimately, in my view, whether one supports or opposes the resolution of disapproval depends on how one thinks Iran will behave under this agreement.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?

To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one.”


Photo: Times of Israel

Harry C. Blaney III

The agreed deal with Iran is a good one for both Iran and for the rest of the world including America and yes Israel. It is, in short, a “win-win” for all despite some compromises by both sides. It does exactly what President Obama said he wanted, namely, closing off all likely paths for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons over the next ten years and likely, from my perspective, even beyond.

We have already posted the details of the agreement and its requirements for both Iran and the international community. The key issues of these very difficult negotiations were addressed: inspections and verification; the phasing out of sanctions and how they might be brought back in case of violations; and the institutionalizing of the verification requirements of the “Additional Protocol” of the NPT. The “Additional Protocol” is unlimited and makes a “breakout” highly unlikely without the West knowing exactly what is taking place. The deal restricts research and development on more advanced centrifuges.  It keeps in place and adds major limits on the amount of low enriched uranium while significantly reducing the number and function of existing or future centrifuges during the agreement’s specified time period.

In short, as President Obama said “This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework this spring,” furthermore he said, “Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off, and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place.”

What we need now to focus on first is the implementation of the accord and not let it unravel either in Tehran or in Washington. Above all we need to not  let the caustic and irresponsible utterances of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assessment that the accord was an historical mistake and that Iran would still get a nuclear weapon out of the agreement deter us.

The sad part of all this is that the main beneficiary of this accord is Israel, as without the agreement there would be no limitations on Iran building an atomic bomb. The other alternative is seen by most to be ultimately war.  Now there is time and perhaps the willingness to work towards a long-term security structure for the entire Middle East. Israel is far more secure now unless it acts foolishly. This agreement has reduced a likely un-winnable war which would have catastrophic results for the entire region not least Israel.

I see the impact of this accord at a number of levels. For example, a possible rapprochement and security framework for the Middle East, implications for non-proliferation efforts and the NPT, and recognition of the role of and need for new intense diplomacy and what it can accomplish in determined hand, rather than cries for war. American leadership in wise hands can accomplish a lot. We may have an opening to widen political and economic possibilities should both sides decide that engagement, compromise, stability and true security is in the common interest. I argued at the start of these negotiations that an agreement was likely in the end because on any “net assessment” both sides could gain.


Looking beyond this agreement, we have repeatedly written long ago that a possible agreement might lead to other diplomatic actions by both sides. While it remains uncertain if new cooperation might be possible, this agreement could, with hard work, have profound impact on the Middle East hopes for reconciliation and security.

Out of this now established dialogue with much difficulty, a larger set of solutions to the many conflicts and bitter rivalries between the Sunni and the Shia, and also more security for Israel. We need to have the Arab states themselves see a better way forward. Both sides now need to grasp at the momentum of the July 14th deal and start looking at fundamental issues that can be resolved for again a “win-win” solution. Courage on all sides will be required.


It is clear the move towards a world with less nuclear weapons and the possible use of them has likely gained by this agreement if implemented. But for this to happen there is a need for a deeper and wider look at other “nuclear actors” and to try to create a structure where non-proliferation and nuclear weapons are seen more as a mortal danger rather than an instrument of security and national safety. That means frankly we need to look hard again at India, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Israel and at those that might be potential proliferators in the future. America and Russia need to look for further reductions in their nuclear weapons. Here the lesson is that the instruments of diplomacy need to be fully engaged in new and creative ways. If America with the other powers and Iran can sit down together and hammer out this agreement then other nuclear regimes and nexus of conflict can and should also be addressed in new and stronger ways.


From this agreement new possibilities for cooperation can arise for areas like economic growth, trade, addressing poverty and unemployment, and new views on building mutual security. There is need to get at the more fundamental causes of conflict, hate, prejudices, and long standing conditions that breed terrorism and mass violence.

America saw this after World War II with the Marshal Plan. This initiative moved away from retribution and punishment to rebuilding societies including former enemies, helping nurture cooperation and institutions like the UN, the World Bank, NATO, the EU and so many other organizations to cement cooperation and sharing of burdens and risks.

Some in America, especially among the far right today in the Republican Party, have long natured a move towards military adventurism, a hate of multilateral diplomacy especially by a democratic President, and thought war was the main or only effective instrument of global engagement. That has proved to be a disaster for all. Already Republican leaders have stated their blind opposition without even reading the text, their motivation being not the national interest but their distaste for our president.

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have proven these naysayers and critics wrong. Time and time again strong diplomacy gained as with the New SALT agreement, lowering our military footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, reaching out to countries like India, Burma, Cuba and our pivot to Asia, and in many other ways.  We should strengthen our efforts to deal with incipient conflicts in many areas, with what I call “preventive diplomacy” as a less costly alternative to military action.

We need to strengthen the use of our many diplomacy tools, and yes, that does mean sanctions when necessary, and also the application of “carrots” and “sticks” when needed. It includes wise development assistance and listening to others.

Efforts by this administration at mediation, engagement, and dialogue show to the American people that under Obama America is still, as he said, a kind of “indispensable nation” but also with others, in creating a more peaceful world. By addressing arising conflicts rather than ignoring our problems we have made some progress in a difficult environment. This approach is better than  putting, as some Republicans seem to want, either putting our heads in the sand in isolationism or seeing mindlessly putting “troops on the ground” as the simplistic answer to every problem.

We need to recognize the necessity of strengthening, reforming, providing more resources and in general making more effective international institutions. The IAEA has played a vital role in the Iran nuclear agreement and its inspection and verification role. But also International Organizations like UNHCR, UNRRA, The World Bank, NATO, World Food program, and the United Nations as a whole and the Security Council, which voted sanctions which led to this agreement. We also need new strong instruments of multilateral diplomacy, of effective peacekeeping and peacemaking. All of these instruments of “diplomacy” can in time bring our now dangerous and conflict ridden world a bit of peace and security that all can share.

We welcome your comments!



President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry face both criticism and support as the framework for the Iranian Nuclear Deal falls into place.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry face both criticism and support as the framework for the Iranian Nuclear Deal falls into place.

“The notion that Iran is undeterrable–it’s simply not the case. And for us to say, ‘Let’s try’–understanding that we’re preserving all our options, that were not naive–but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically, we are more likely to be safe, more likely to be more secure, in a better position to protect our allies, and who knows? Iran may change. If it doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in place…We’re not relinquishing our capacity to defend ourselves or our allies. In that situation, why wouldn’t we test it?”   

-President Obama in an interview with New York Time’s op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman on the risks of the Iran Nuclear Deal, published April 6, 2015

By: Harry C. Blaney III

In many ways this “framework” agreement achieves the key necessary elements for assurance against any Iranian unknown nuclear “breakout.” It provides the basis for future initiatives that might, with great focus and a large amount of wisdom and patience by all sides, move some of the destructive dynamics in the region towards some measure of reconciliation and what we used to call ‘detente.” Yet, from the cries from its critics at home, the hysterical opposition of Netanyahu and his right-wing supporters, and some in the Sunni Gulf States, there is still a lot of hefty lifting to do to sell this effort by President Obama and Secretary John Kerry at home and abroad.

The road towards the final text and agreement may still produce some bumps, but the key signal is that both sides want and need an agreement that puts to rest the dangers of both the Iranian weapons program and the likely dangers of a non-agreement for a long period. This agreement also can set the stage, with some luck, for other measures of dialogue and possible understandings that might serve American interests in achieving a more general security landscape for all nations in the region.

While right now this seems a very difficult task given the convulsions now seen,  for that very reason it is one that needs to be undertaken and likely may take years or even a decade to come fully to fruition.

The domestic opposition comes from the same expected right-wing neo-cons and Republicans hawks that seem to think that anything short of bloody war is unacceptable.  Would they put American troops on the ground in Iran? Would they have us bomb Iran to smithereens for Israel’s own misguided right wing war-hawks or to help facilitate a mad joint attack?  They have not said about “then what” because there is no good answer or outcome of that option. They talk in vague generalities and provide no clear security and mutual accommodation path towards stable peace in the Middle East, but indeed seem to want added conflict and chaos.

President Obama already has indicated he will “consult” with Congress. But sadly, it is likely that the diehards on the right of the GOP and even some Democrats will be seen as skeptical to appease their paymasters and crazies in deadly opposition to Obama no matter what is in the agreement. The key now is to stop any effort to pass a new sanctions bill on Iran or one that would require Congressional agreement to the final accord. There is a long history of such international agreements by both Republican and Democrat presidents. If this had been Ronald Reagan, the Republicans would be praising the hell out of this accord.

Obama holds hopefully the high card here as, in the end, he can veto any bill that tries to destroy this agreement. Obama will need to work hard to get enough support in Congress to prevent the dismantling of the agreement.  It will be a very hard hill to climb to get them to agree to revoking sanctions. However, there are other avenues to this end via Presidential actions, our cooperative allies, and the UN Security Council.

The problem with getting understanding, let alone agreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that the whole justification of his regime is to maintain a constant state of aggression and antipathy against the Palestinians and Iran. While there is some understanding for this given the past, it is a counterproductive stance if one wants long-term peace and security for all in the region. It is doubtful that Bibi will relent and may likely employ his minions in the U.S. to fight this accord no matter the circumstances.

Yet, many supporters of Israel know that an agreement that ensures a de-nuclearized Iran for a long period of time, the full engagement of the U.S. in the region, and the creation of a true peace deal, is in the real interests of Israel and the required two-state agreement. The former security officials of Israel know that it is unfortunate that Bibi only cares about his own political future, rather than his people and keeping Israel’s state security free from continued threats and the escalation of military capabilities.  While some kind of reconciliation with the U.S. would be hoped for, it is for Bibi to make the first move given his continued intransigency and duplicitous behavior. Yet, in some way the administration needs badly to make clear to Israel’s citizens that this agreement is in their interest, that we care about and support their security, and want and will still seek a peaceful region. For that, we are already rethinking our stance in the region and paths towards some kind of firm of peace settlement.

The other task is to get the support of the American people and our allies as to the benefits of this agreement. Most of the public has little knowledge of the issues, the trade-offs, and the importance of this agreement. This needs to change. Administration leaders need to get on the airwaves to argue for this accord. Obama can expect widespread conservative and right-wing media opposition from the likes of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the talking nuts on radio. This will be hard to overcome unless the administration, experts in the area, and Democratic politicians do a full court press on the merits of this accord with the media. On their side is the polls show most Americans do not want to make war with Iran.

On the issue of dealing with the largely Sunni Gulf States and in particular Saudi Arabia, the president has invited the leaders of these states this Spring to Camp David.  Already Saudi King Salman has taken a less confrontational position and has said to Obama that he hoped it would strengthen “stability and security in the region.” The discussion will include not only the new agreement, but likely an attempt to get some measure of wide cooperation on a strategy that will also address other security concerns in the region, as well as to see if a path is possible for some measure of cooperation and meeting of the minds between Sunni and Shia nations. This is but only one step towards a more stable region, but it is one of the key building blocks in a very complex region filled with conflict and mutual animosity that needs to be addressed.

In the end, we and our allies will need to talk to both leaders of Sunni and Shia nations as there are already signs of common interest in putting down ISIS’s universal butchery towards both Sunni and Shia as well as other minorities and in bringing stability and economic prosperity to the entire region. This is a job for more than one administration and America had better be wise in its future choice of its own leaders.

We welcome your comments!

A version of this essay was also carried at the London School of Economics and Political Science Web Blog. Visit the Link Here:


Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The press conference of March 2nd  in Geneva in which Secretary John Kerry provided a broad outline with great clarity of some of the most pressing foreign affairs and national security issues facing this administration. There is so much substance to this press briefing in Geneva that we decided it deserves to be highlighted and its text posted to provide to our readers a chance to not only read it in full but also to comment, if they wish, on Secretary Kerry’s outline of our objectives and perspective.

What is clear is that the international landscape presents extraordinary challenges and difficulties that require not only wisdom and real resources by America but also the full participation by our allies and friends in the difficult task of dealing effectively with the many crises that clearly face the international community. In the coming days we will post some of our analysis of these and others topics in our earlier post on looking at American strategy in 2015 and beyond.   

“I met this morning with Foreign Minister Lavrov. And we spent a fair amount of time discussing Syria, Ukraine, ISIS, and Iran. I reiterated the urgency of Russia’s leaders and the separatists that they back implementing the full measure of the commitments under the Minsk agreements and to implement them everywhere, including in Debaltseve, outside Mariupol, and in other key strategic areas. And I underscored this morning that if that does not happen, if there continue to be these broad swaths of noncompliance, or there continues to be a cherry-picking as to where heavy equipment will be moved back from without knowing where it’s been moved to, or if the OSCE is not able to adequately be able to gain the access necessary, then there would be inevitably further consequences that will place added strain on Russia’s already troubled economy. Now, obviously, Ukraine is just one of those issues, as I mentioned, that we focused on. And it’s only one of those issues, frankly, on which the United States and Russia are focused.”

“We spoke at length about steps that might be able to be taken in order to try to see if there is a potential of common ground. And we agreed that there is no military solution; we agreed there is a need for a political solution; and we agreed on the need of those countries who have been supporting people in this endeavor, in this conflict, to be able to search yet again to see whether or not there is a path either to Geneva 1 or to some hybrid or some means of ending the violence. And one of the things that drives that interest, that common interest, is the reality of Daesh, the reality of what is happening to Syria as a result of the presence of Daesh there and its use of Syria as a base for spreading evil to other places.”

“We continue to believe, all the members of the P5+1, that the best way to deal with the questions surrounding this nuclear program is to find a comprehensive deal, but not a deal that comes at any cost, not a deal just for the purpose of a deal; a deal that meets the test of providing the answers and the guarantees that are needed in order to know that the four pathways to a nuclear bomb have been closed off. And that is the task. And we hope it is possible to get there, but there is not guarantee.”

“Sanctions alone are not going to provide that solution. What needs to happen is that Iran needs to provide a verifiable set of commitments that its program is in fact peaceful. And that average people and experts alike looking at that verifiable set of commitments have confidence that they are sustainable, that they are real, and that they will provide the answers and guarantees well into the future.

Any deal must close every potential pathway that Iran has towards fissile material, whether it’s uranium, plutonium, or a covert path. The fact is only a good, comprehensive deal in the end can actually check off all those boxes.”

“Now, I want to be clear about two things. Right now, no deal exists, no partial deal exists. And unless Iran is able to make the difficult decisions that will be required, there won’t be a deal. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is the standard by which negotiation is taking place, any anyone who tells you otherwise is simply misinformed.” 

“Now, we are concerned by reports that suggest selective details of the ongoing negotiations will be discussed publicly in the coming days. I want to say clearly that doing so would make it more difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they share in order to get a good deal. Israel’s security is absolutely at the forefront of all of our minds, but frankly, so is the security of all the other countries in the region, so is our security in the United States. And we are very clear that as we negotiate with Iran, if we are able to reach the kind of deal that we’re hoping for, then it would have to be considered in its entirety and measured against alternatives.”

“President Obama has said this repeatedly: We will not accept a bad deal. We have said no deal is better than a bad deal, because a bad deal could actually make things less secure and more dangerous. Any deal that we could possibly agree to would make the international community, especially Israel, safer than it is today. That’s our standard. So our team is working very hard to close remaining gaps, to reach a deal that ensures Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively and verifiably peaceful, and we have made some progress, but we still have a long way to go and the clock is ticking.”

To read the full text of this press conference from Geneva on March 2nd visit 

We Welcome Your Comments!


John Kerry during his testimony of the 2016 Foreign Affairs Budget on February 25, 2015. (Photo: Zimbio)
John Kerry during his testimony of the 2016 Foreign Affairs Budget on February 25, 2015. (Photo: Zimbio)

“In the United States, we get 1 percent of the entire budget of the United States of America. Everything we do abroad within the State Department and USAID is within that 1 percent–everything. All the businesses we try to help to marry to economic opportunities in a country, all the visas, the consulate work, the diplomacy, the coordination of DHS, FBI, ATF. I mean, all the efforts that we have to engage in to work with other countries’ intelligence organizations, so forth, to help do the diplomacy around that is less than 1 percent.

I guarantee you more than 50 percent of the history of this era is going to be written out of that 1 percent and the issues we confront in that 1 percent. And I ask you to think about that as you contemplate the budgets. Because we’ve been robbing Peter to pay Paul and we’ve been stripping away our ability to help a country deal with those kids who may be ripe for becoming part of ISIL. We’ve been diminishing our capacity to be able to have the kind of impact we ought to be having in this more complicated world…”

To read more of Secretary Kerry’s Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on February 25th, follow the link to the full text 

We Welcome Your Comments!