John Kerry at confirmation hearing: U.S. will 'do what we must' to stop Iran nuclear weapon

[bananas]

Source: Associated Press

Sen. John Kerry, President Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of state, said Thursday that the U.S. will "do what we must" to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, even as he signaled that diplomacy remains a viable option with Tehran.

<snip>

"The president has made it definitive -- we will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in his opening statement. "I repeat here today: Our policy is not containment; it is prevention. And the clock is ticking on our efforts to secure responsible compliance."

Pressed on Iran and its nuclear ambitions, Kerry said he was hopeful that the U.S. and other nations could make progress on the diplomatic front, but added that Tehran needs to understand that it must prove its program is for peaceful purposes.

"It is not hard to prove," he said, stressing that "intrusive inspections" are required.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20130125/NEWS07/301250076/John-Kerry-at-confirmation-hearing-U-S-will-do-what-we-must-to-stop-Iran-nuclear-weapon

---

John Kerry is an expert on this.

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/senate-faces-loss-nuclear-weapons-expertise/

Senate Faces Loss of Arms Control Expertise

Dec. 18, 2012
By Rachel Oswald
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The Senate faces the loss of much of its institutional knowledge of complicated nuclear weapons matters with the imminent exit of two veteran Republican national security hands and the expected departure of the Democratic head of the Foreign Relations Committee, experts say.

Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) is retiring, Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) failed in his re-election bid, and John Kerry (D-Mass.) is widely anticipated to be nominated to become the next secretary of State.

Those three lawmakers are largely what remains of the upper chamber’s expertise on strategic issues as other experienced senators have retired or been ousted by voters. Few arms control accords have come before the Senate since the Cold War ended to force members to keep up with the highly technical and nuanced topic.

<snip>

As head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry shepherded ratification of New START. The pact commits Moscow and Washington to reduce their respective deployed strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems.

“Kerry did have unparalleled knowledge of the issues and a willingness to hold the hearings” on behalf of the accord, Isaacs said.

<snip>

[graham4anything]

1. the interesting thing is- John Kerry created a situation now

should there be no war with Iran, President Obama will get 100% of the credit and quite possibly a second Noble Peace Prize.

however, John Kerry will get 100% of the blame if that is not the case for double reasons:

reason one is that he left the job he was suited for and in an upper senior position having the strength and knowledge of this needed in the Senate

and reason two is he will get the blame is that it is 100% now his job to make sure there is no war, and if there is one, he will get the blame

so if there is no war, President Obama will get the credit, and it will be part of his legacy.
if there is a war,ironically John Kerry will become the new Robert McNamara.

BTW, Robert McNamara served 2595 days is the record for longest SOS. Should President Clinton keep John Kerry on, in 2017, he could break that record of 7.11 years if he is still SOS in 2020.

Interesting trivia.

[AAO]

7. McNamara was SOD, not SOS.

[Socal31]

2. I think that the day after a full exchange occurs, history will look back for blame.

The probability of a full exchange between two countries with thermonuclear weapons, be it accidental or otherwise, is greater than 0.

If there are surviving humans, the greatest failure will be assigned to the US and Stalin. There should have been an instant agreement to do everything possible to prevent the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea from obtaining such weapons.

Once Iran tests their first, which could easily be any time now, the Saudis are instantly going to "need" one. Then it will steamroll from there.

I just love how recent stories like India/Pakistan trading live fire in Kashmir, killing soldiers, and North Korea coming out and saying they are trying to develop weaponized plutonium warheads and the systems to deliver them to the US, are an after-thought.

The real "boogie man" is out there. But instead of addressing the single largest threat to human kind, we get to read about Kate having twins or who the Kardashians are "dating."

[Scootaloo]

4. It has been "any time now" since 2001

Iran is always going to have a nuke exactly tomorrow, and has been for the last twelve years.

Twelve years from now, they will still be days away from a nuclear weapon. And we'll still be the same stupid islamophobic fuckwits, assuring ourselves that since Muslims are all crazy evil suicidal genocidal monsters, that the moment Iran has their bomb (tomorrow!!!!) they're going to blow up everyone.

[davidpdx]

3. With those three leaving national security experience in the Senate is needed

John "get off my lawn" McCain is way past his expiration date.

[onwardsand upwards]

5. Iran's independence is its crime

Why, exactly, is Iran being singled out in this way?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was basically deal: the non-nuclear countries agreed to not develop nuclear weapons (and have a right to develop peaceful nuclear programs) and the existing nuclear powers agreed to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Since the NPT came into force in 1970, (43 years ago) the existing nuclear powers have completely failed to live up to their side of the deal. They insist, however, that certain non-nuclear countries live up to their side of the deal.

According to the NPT, Iran has a right to develop a peaceful nuclear program -- unambiguously. Also, because the nuclear powers have effectively broken the deal by not eliminating the nuclear weapons (or anything close to it), arguably, Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons themselves.

Of course, several other countries have already done this. Aside from the 5 nations that officially have nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, UK, and France which also happen to be the only "permanent" members of the Security Council -- the only ones with veto power) India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel now have nuclear weapons, unofficially.

With the exception of North Korea (which has Chinese protection), the "non-official" nuclear powers are "allies" (ie, they do as they are told) with the US, and so are not threatened with war for having these weapons.

Iran, however, does not dance to the American tune (at least, not since they successfully overthrew the US-controlled puppet Shah, (who was violently installed by the US to replace the democratically elected Mossadegh -- who tried to nationalize the oil), in 1979).

Thus, it is their independence, not their nuclear program, that has Kerry rattling the sabre.

[Sunlei]

6. Iran is singled out because they have said they will destroy other countries

[onwardsand upwards]

8. Clarify

You mean, they threaten other countries in the same way the US does?

[Sunlei]

9. Think about it!!! many countries have nukes and don't use them. You think Iran would do the same?

[onwardsand upwards]

10. Think, yourself!!!

The only country I know of that has actually used nukes in warfare is the USA, when they had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, and no-one could retaliate. Once the USA lost its monopoly, nuclear warfare stopped.

Iran isn't suicidal -- regardless of the propaganda you have been fed.

It may not be very democratic (thanks, again, to the US-imposed coup of 1953) but they would not start a nuclear war that would annihilate them.

[JDPriestly]

11. At this point, I don't think we have any reason to be so sure of that.

We don't have that certainty at all. And it would be even harder to disarm all of the rest of us if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Much as most Americans do not want another war no matter what, an Iran with nuclear weapons is a no-go. It is bad enough that Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea??? Are you kidding? No way.

I don't understand why the Bush and Obama administrations have allowed North Korea to get as far as they have with this. Much less Iran.

[Sunlei]

12. good points, thank you.

I think China keeps a lot of tabs on NK, maybe even sells technology to them. China may someday, in distant future "use" NK to attack someone.

[TwilightGardener]

13. They've all been sanctioned to hell and back. It's not a matter of "letting" them.

Unless you mean we should destroy them through war. In which case, we would if we had to.

[The Stranger]

15. No, we don't have to, and we're not going to.

We had the Neonazicon George W. Bush attacking other sovereign nations unnecessarily, and we're not doing it again.

[TwilightGardener]

16. We will if we have to. I have no doubt of that. I don't think it will come to that, but

if this doesn't resolve peacefully under Obama, either he will take action or the next President will--who is bound to be more hawkish, and won't have Obama's diplomacy-oriented national security team.

[JDPriestly]

17. Precisely. The Iranians should take this opportunity to make a deal.

They won't get another one.

[The Stranger]

14. Plenty of countries threaten other countries.

So that doesn't make Iran different in any way.

The notion that Iranians are deranged terrorists and would suddenly launch an attack as soon as they had a weapon is, at its core, bigoted. It is attempting to paint whole swaths of people with a racist caricature.

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. How about instead stopping US support for the terrorist, genocidal Zionist government of Israel?

[onwardsand upwards]

19. A non-starter. They're in the club.

US. foreign policy is about power, nothing else.

[cbrer]

20. Does he mean give Iran dollars, or bombs? nt

[ronnie624]

22. We're so imposed upon.

Destined to forever being 'forced' to attack other countries, it seems.