Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:04 AM Jul 2015

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:28 AM - Edit history (2)

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:


And secondly,this does put a Lid on the nuclear program but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by Iran,which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism,which does go after and undermine governments in the region,that poses an existential threat to Israel,that unfairly,unlawfully confines and tries Americans on trumped up charges.

That bad behavior is something we have to address.

Having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, I think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine Iran's bad behaviors in other arenas.

I will be talking as soon as I leave you with the other Secretaries of State and other national security advisors to get more details.

But as I say, I think this is an important step that puts the lid on Iran's nuclear programs and it will enable us then to turn our attention as it must to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran's other bad actions.



In the latter part of her address, as we see (linked above), she says she's "immediately" going to form a coalition to sanction "bad" Iran for being a regional rival that Israel and the Sunni states don't like. In her speech, she said "bad" and "Iran" in the same sentence over and over again. For emphasis.

In other words, she now says disarming Iran's nuclear program is just step one in President Hillary Clinton's plan to eliminate Iran as a regional power - "the world's greatest terrorist threat, an existential threat to Israel, does bad things within Sunni Arabia, blah, blah." Bottom line, HRC adds further confirmation she'll push like hell to be at war with Iran within a year of her Inauguration.

Listen to what she's saying. She isn't playing 8-D chess. She's a committed neocon who wants further conflict with Iran regardless of the outcome of nuclear talks.

62 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid (Original Post) leveymg Jul 2015 OP
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Le Taz Hot Jul 2015 #1
Her supporters hear only what they want to, and work hard to insure that we do the same. leveymg Jul 2015 #3
You're also confused if you think the OP is being straightforward. He butchered Clinton's quote, KittyWampus Jul 2015 #22
Did you listen to the video? Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #2
It's linked in the OP. Did you watch it? leveymg Jul 2015 #5
I did listen to the video, there are Americans held in Iran, we need to negotiate to get those Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #8
We have Iraqis and citizens of several different countries held for sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #58
oh, that is just bull puckey. boston bean Jul 2015 #4
She said she intends to immediately "lead a new coalition" against Iran. That's not an option leveymg Jul 2015 #6
Why is negotiating for the release of Americans not an option? Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #9
You're evading the larger point - HRC just announced she will lead hostilities against Iran leveymg Jul 2015 #11
You are not giving the whole story, Iran is nit going to become docile with this deal Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #14
There are far worse terrorists in the region. Including the ones who attacked us on 9/11 leveymg Jul 2015 #17
I never said there are not terrorist who are worse than Iran. In fact there was a resolution before Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #20
She NEVER said she'd lead hostilities against Iran. NEVER. YOU are asserting that. KittyWampus Jul 2015 #23
Here's the transcript - that's exactly what she's saying. Read it and watch the video linked: leveymg Jul 2015 #24
Isn't that the same thing the President just said? Walk away Jul 2015 #30
Obama did not say he's going to form a new coalition against Iran. Hillary said that. leveymg Jul 2015 #33
"Largest state sponsor of terrorism" where is the proof? WDIM Jul 2015 #37
I can't believe you are serious. Walk away Jul 2015 #39
So you deny the US has and does sponsor terrorism? WDIM Jul 2015 #41
you are being extremely misleading, "against Iran" are YOUR words added to Hillary's. KittyWampus Jul 2015 #21
The transcript is above. Her meaning is plain - she will lead us into continued hostilities w/Iran. leveymg Jul 2015 #25
Yes, she is a warhawk, always has been. peacebird Jul 2015 #7
Chickenhawk..nt WDIM Jul 2015 #38
You are correct! peacebird Jul 2015 #45
She's trying to have it all ways--take some credit, be a loyal Dem, but still please neocons. TwilightGardener Jul 2015 #10
+1. n/t Jefferson23 Jul 2015 #12
Jury Results oneshooter Jul 2015 #13
Interesting to see that some don't even try to be objective on jury. I know I do. Metric System Jul 2015 #15
I so LOATHE that condescending :"Iran's Bad Behavior" *%$# 2banon Jul 2015 #16
"but she's the peace candidate: she has a D after her name for heaven's sake!" MisterP Jul 2015 #18
Are we supposed to ignore leftynyc Jul 2015 #19
No, and President Obama echoed what Hillary said. This agreement is ONLY still_one Jul 2015 #26
Then perhaps you should leftynyc Jul 2015 #46
Most of the world, including the UN, doesn't label Hezbollah and Hamas as "terrorist" organizations. leveymg Jul 2015 #27
But Bernie does. And so does Elizabeth Warren. So do they go under the bus now too? DanTex Jul 2015 #36
Neither Sanders nor Warren are calling for a Second Crusade, as is HRC. leveymg Jul 2015 #44
And neither is Hillary, of course. I have no idea how you get from preventing Iran from DanTex Jul 2015 #49
Oh, she's just a Saint. Why do people pick on her? leveymg Jul 2015 #50
You don't think both leftynyc Jul 2015 #47
It's not our job to enforce such value judgments leveymg Jul 2015 #51
We ignore the US history WDIM Jul 2015 #32
So what? leftynyc Jul 2015 #48
Why not "build coalitions" against the US? WDIM Jul 2015 #59
Whatever leftynyc Jul 2015 #61
Complacency like yours is the reason US bombs fall on innocent civilians over seas. WDIM Jul 2015 #62
Watched the entire PBO Iran presser...PBO was very bearish on Iran. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #28
Here's the Transcript of the Obama statement. He is not being belligerent, as was HRC. leveymg Jul 2015 #42
I never lie about anything. I rather be sodomized with a HIV laden bat than compromise my dignity DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #43
Then she said "have you heard the song bomb Iran?" WDIM Jul 2015 #29
Then she said "have you heard the song bomb Iran?" "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran." DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #34
That was sarcasm. pointing out her hardline against Iran just like John McCain. nt WDIM Jul 2015 #40
Never enough war, eh Hil? [nt] Jester Messiah Jul 2015 #31
She made sure to quickly threaten them in a debate with Obama JonLP24 Jul 2015 #35
Makes no sense HassleCat Jul 2015 #52
She believes it's her destiny and that she's above politics leveymg Jul 2015 #53
Whatever way the wind blows. boomer55 Jul 2015 #54
A completely separate issue from the one in the news now. Lil Missy Jul 2015 #55
She seems to be talking about Lebanon next. leveymg Jul 2015 #56
More HRC Doublesoeak cantbeserious Jul 2015 #57
Typical warmongering for neoliberal Clinton. 99Forever Jul 2015 #60

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
1. I'm sorry, I'm confused.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:13 AM
Jul 2015

From what her supporters have posted, she single-handedly brokered the Iran deal all by herself.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. Her supporters hear only what they want to, and work hard to insure that we do the same.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:19 AM
Jul 2015

Reminds me of Winston Smith's job in the Ministry of Truth - rearranging the past to conform with the Line of the Day.

War is Peace.

Confusing work.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
22. You're also confused if you think the OP is being straightforward. He butchered Clinton's quote,
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:08 PM
Jul 2015

added his own misleading words and intent.

So yeah, you're confused.

No need to apologize though.

We'll blame the OP'er who uses a partial quote and adds his own words.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. It's linked in the OP. Did you watch it?
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:21 AM
Jul 2015

Do you have anything to say about what she actually said in the second half about HRC's stated intention to "lead a new coalition" against Iran? Or, should we just ignore that.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
8. I did listen to the video, there are Americans held in Iran, we need to negotiate to get those
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:36 AM
Jul 2015

Americans released. Are you thinking we should not try to get those Americans released?

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
58. We have Iraqis and citizens of several different countries held for
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:55 PM
Jul 2015

years here in that gulag known as Gitmo where they are tortured, never charged, force fed when they go on hunger strikes, many have died while we held them.

Should THEIR nations form coalitions against the US? I think we would probably designate them as 'terrrorist states' if they did.

Or do you think we are 'special' people who are so important and so superior that only WE have a right to seek revenge when some of our people are accused and held in other nations?

Why are they being held in Iran? Were they tourists, spies, what were the charges? I KNOW for a fact that several nations have asked for the release of THEIR citizens from Gitmo, but we tend to just ignore such requests, even from 'allies'.

IF we are going to demand that our citizens, regardless of what another country may view as a threat to THEIR 'security' not be detained, then we need to do something about the egregious crimes committed against the thousands of people we have held 'indefinitely' though since some were tortured to death there isn't much that can be done at this point.



boston bean

(36,221 posts)
4. oh, that is just bull puckey.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:20 AM
Jul 2015

Keeping all options on the table is a good thing in these types of negotiations..

I'm sure the agreement didn't come about because Kerry and Obama said, "Oh, don't worry, even if you don't sign this, or keep your promises, we will never use force".

Why wouldn't they say that, because it would be stupid to say that.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
6. She said she intends to immediately "lead a new coalition" against Iran. That's not an option
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:23 AM
Jul 2015

it's a statement of intention. Listen to the statement at the link, and come back. Or don't.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
11. You're evading the larger point - HRC just announced she will lead hostilities against Iran
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:50 AM
Jul 2015

regardless of any nuclear deal.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
14. You are not giving the whole story, Iran is nit going to become docile with this deal
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:32 AM
Jul 2015

The deal is not halting the terrorist support and they grab Americans on trumped up charges. Is continuing to support terror and the holding of Americans not an option. Listen to the video again, tell the reason Hillary said Iran was still going to change things.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
17. There are far worse terrorists in the region. Including the ones who attacked us on 9/11
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 12:19 PM
Jul 2015

These are among the ones that Hillary wants us to join in their religious war against Iran and its Shi'ia allies in the region.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
20. I never said there are not terrorist who are worse than Iran. In fact there was a resolution before
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:03 PM
Jul 2015

Congress for action against ISIS but it was voted down. Still does not change the fact Iran is going to be docile after the Iran deal and we still have Americans she is trying to get released.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
23. She NEVER said she'd lead hostilities against Iran. NEVER. YOU are asserting that.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:09 PM
Jul 2015

YOU are using a partial quote and adding misleading words and context.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
24. Here's the transcript - that's exactly what she's saying. Read it and watch the video linked:
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:24 PM
Jul 2015

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

And secondly,this does put a lid on the nuclear program but we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by Iran,which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism,which does go after and undermine governments in the region,that poses an existential threat to Israel,that unfairly,unlawfully confines and tries Americans on trumped up charges.

That bad behavior is something we have to address.

Having been part of building the coalition that brought us to the point of this agreement, I think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine Iran's bad behaviors in other arenas.

I will be talking as soon as I leave you with the other Secretaries of State and other national security advisors to get more details.

But as I say, I think this is an important step that puts the lid on Iran's nuclear programs and it will enable us then to turn our attention as it must to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran's other bad actions.



In the latter part of her address, as we see (linked above), she says she's "immediately" going to form a coalition to sanction "bad" Iran for being a regional rival that Israel and the Sunni states don't like. In her speech, she said "bad" and "Iran" in the same sentence over and over again. For emphasis.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
30. Isn't that the same thing the President just said?
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:07 PM
Jul 2015

Aren't we still going to try to stop Iran from funding terror organizations like Hezbollah in the area? We know they are doing it now and with this agreement they will have a plenty of money to do more. Didn't President Obama just say that we would have to double down in our efforts to keep Iran from doing this?

What is wrong with the world keeping Iran from supporting terrorism even though we have brokered an agreement regarding their nuclear program?

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
33. Obama did not say he's going to form a new coalition against Iran. Hillary said that.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:23 PM
Jul 2015

Hillary is announcing that regardless of the outcome of the nuclear talks, she intends to continue hostilities against Iran because Iran assists its Shi'ia allies in the region against the Saudis and the GCC, and because Israel has issues with Iran. In effect, she is taking sides in an intra-Islamic religious war as well as backing up Bibi in his efforts to scuttle any sort of settlement with Iran.

That is an example of what Obama means when he says, "don't do stupid stuff." Her statement is a reflection of her intentions to take sides in that increasingly complex, bloody regional war - that is dangerous, inflammatory, and yes, stupid.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
37. "Largest state sponsor of terrorism" where is the proof?
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:33 PM
Jul 2015

I see this statement made about Iran all the time. And I say where is the proof? Some State Department memo?

Id say the number of air drops and military supplies from the US that have fallen into the hands of the Islamic State would put the US at the number one sponsor of terrorism.

The MIC needs prepetual war and they are funding both sides while arms manufacturers and defense contractors get fat off the death and misery they create.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
39. I can't believe you are serious.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:37 PM
Jul 2015

This is exactly how it feels to discuss politics with a republican. It's not worth the effort.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
41. So you deny the US has and does sponsor terrorism?
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:54 PM
Jul 2015

Just google US air drops to ISIS and you will find account after account of supplies going to the Islamic State. Could much of it be lies? sure it could there are many lies out there. But could it be true? Yes it could.

The Neo-cons and their plans for preputual warfare in the middle east have been well documented. The people who truly benefit from this prepetual warfare is the megacorporations that build the weaponary and vehicles.

It doesnt matter if ISIL steals it and we blow it up the defense contractors still get their profit for building a new one. US "accidentally" air drops guns and ammunition to the IS oh well that just means the defense contractors just have to make more.

All wars are a rich mans war fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich. And the war profiteers have never been richer thanks in part to Hillary Clinton who continues her hardline chickenhawk stance to this day.

The US has cause more death and destruction in the middle east then all the countries of the middle east combined. That is an undisputable fact.

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
21. you are being extremely misleading, "against Iran" are YOUR words added to Hillary's.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:06 PM
Jul 2015

You butchered the quote and added words and a more hostile/aggressive meaning than she almost certainly intended.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
25. The transcript is above. Her meaning is plain - she will lead us into continued hostilities w/Iran.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:47 PM
Jul 2015

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
10. She's trying to have it all ways--take some credit, be a loyal Dem, but still please neocons.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:50 AM
Jul 2015

It ends up meaning nothing.

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
13. Jury Results
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:28 AM
Jul 2015

On Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251446525

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Facts matter and this OP is an outright lie. It's the equivalent of "Bernie Sanders eats kittens for breakfast" or "Martin O'Malley murdered and butchered his lover." Posting outright lies that are refuted by the video (which is long and many won't watch) is a chaos/FUD-creating thing to do here. It counts on DUers being lazy and unwilling to click links, and it shouldn't be allowed. DUers disagree about their favorite candidates, but telling outright lies in thread headlines steps over the line and devalues the web site.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:23 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillary is a neocon, deal with it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Seven idiots recommended this OP. That in itself is something to ponder.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The solution for the poster who is objecting to the post is to refute it if he/she believes it to be incorrect. It may or may not be an outright lie, but rather information which could and/or should be corrected as the objector so has facts to do. I do not believe in silencing opposing points of view and in the objected to post, there are no attacks and/or any DU rule violation which would or should cause this post to be hidden. This is a discussion forum -- so let us discuss.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ban the Alerter.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Discuss. Argue. Debate. Point out distortions. But this is not an "offensive" post, regardless of how wrong it may be.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Clear attempt at disruption.

Hide it.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
16. I so LOATHE that condescending :"Iran's Bad Behavior" *%$#
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:56 AM
Jul 2015


Her aspirations to be another Margaret Thatcher sickens me to my core.
 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
19. Are we supposed to ignore
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 02:55 PM
Jul 2015

Iran's history of financing hezbollah, hamas, islamic jihad and other terrorist organizations? They're about to get their hands on billions of dollars. Do you or anyone else have a problem making sure that money doesn't make its way into the terrorist's hands?

still_one

(92,219 posts)
26. No, and President Obama echoed what Hillary said. This agreement is ONLY
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:55 PM
Jul 2015

to address the nuclear issue. Other issues such as the one you said will be pursued separately

The ironic thing is he had to keep reminding the press corp of that, and the seemed to have a comprehension problem, because they kept trying to tie this deal with all the Middle East issues

I guess the press corp isn't the only one with a comprehension problem

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
46. Then perhaps you should
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 06:09 PM
Jul 2015

save your condensation for the posters that think this agreement solves all the issues with Iran. Hillary merely pointed out this was only on the nuclear issue and to some posters here, that MUST mean she wants all out war.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
27. Most of the world, including the UN, doesn't label Hezbollah and Hamas as "terrorist" organizations.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:57 PM
Jul 2015

They just happen to be majority ruling parties in Lebanon and Gaza allied with Iran, and that pisses off the Israelis. In early 2015 an assessment from the U.S. director of National Intelligence removed Hezbollah from the list of terrorist threats against the United States. Hamas is the elected majority party in Gaza and in 2014 entered into a national coalition gov't with Fatah.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
36. But Bernie does. And so does Elizabeth Warren. So do they go under the bus now too?
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:32 PM
Jul 2015
All 100 Senators, including Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, joined in passing a Senate resolution on July 17, 2014 supporting “the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/24/why-did-bernie-sanders-get-gaza-so-wrong/

To me, it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel, and I am committed to ensuring its long-term security by maintaining its qualitative military edge. Israel must be able to defend itself from the serious threats it faces from terrorist organizations to hostile states, including Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others.

http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/foreign-policy

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
44. Neither Sanders nor Warren are calling for a Second Crusade, as is HRC.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 05:26 PM
Jul 2015

Undefined but limited expressions of support are probably the best we can hope for on this issue. By comparison, HRC is off the scale along with the neocons, of which she is in fact a leading shadow.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
49. And neither is Hillary, of course. I have no idea how you get from preventing Iran from
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 06:14 PM
Jul 2015

supporting terrorists and illegally imprisoning Americans to a "Second Crusade" (capitalized!).

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
47. You don't think both
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 06:11 PM
Jul 2015

hamas and hezbollah are terrorist organizations? Just because they're not a threat to the US doesn't mean their innocent little kittens. And you don't have to tell me who the Gazans voted into office - I've been disgusted with them ever since. And now they're stuck with these terrorists who will never allow them to vote again. Great call.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
51. It's not our job to enforce such value judgments
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:13 PM
Jul 2015

everywhere in the world. The exception is when terrorists attack us as they did on 9/11 - but for some reason we continue to support them in their holy wars against Iran. Make s no sense if petrodollars didn't control US politics and policy and politicians like HRC.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
59. Why not "build coalitions" against the US?
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 08:34 AM
Jul 2015

If Iran deserves sanctions for what it has done shouldn't the US?

Every "bad thing" Iran has done and that Clinton listed the US has done and worse. Yet because Iran is a small country with oil the US leaders feel it needs to be our whipping boy. And the US history of death and destruction across the globe goes ignored.

 

leftynyc

(26,060 posts)
61. Whatever
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:04 AM
Jul 2015

I have no desire to converse with "but, but, but the US is soooooo much worse" nonsense. You think a group of countries can get it together to put sanctions against us (which would only hurt them really), go knock yourself out. Obviously Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China disagree. You are talking about a country that took our embassy personnel hostage for over a year and blew up hundreds of marines in Lebanon using their hezbollah proxies.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
28. Watched the entire PBO Iran presser...PBO was very bearish on Iran.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:59 PM
Jul 2015

Watched the entire PBO presser...PBO was very bearish on Iran and explicitly said Israel has every right to fear them.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
42. Here's the Transcript of the Obama statement. He is not being belligerent, as was HRC.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:54 PM
Jul 2015

Here is the transcript of President Barack Obama's remarks, given from the White House on Tuesday morning, following the negotiation of a deal with Iran: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/14/transcript-of-president-barack-obamas-statements-on-iran-deal
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, European Union High Representative Federica Mogherini, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, from left, pose for a group photo following talks with Iran on their nuclear program in Vienna, Austria, Tuesday, July 14, 2015.
More on Iran:

• A Deal Unlike Any Other in History
• Why Our Middle Eastern Allies are Nervous
• Where Congress Stands Post-Deal
• The Nuclear Deal's Glaring Omission
• Who the Iran Deal Affects Most
• What Are Israel's Security Options?
• Quiz: How Well Do You Know Iran?

"Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not: a comprehensive long term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change – change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. This deal is also in line with a tradition of American leadership. It's now more than 50 years since president Kennedy stood before the American people and said, 'Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.' He was speaking then about the need for discussions between the United States and Soviet Union, which led to efforts to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons. In those days the risk was a catastrophic nuclear war between two superpowers.

In our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the Middle East, the most volatile region in our world. Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. Because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

This deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. In the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. Because of this deal Iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium weapons grade plutonium that form the raw materials necessary for a nuclear bomb. Because of this deal Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce highly enriched uranium for a bomb, and store them under constant international supervision. Iran will not use its advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. Iran will also get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

To put that in perspective Iran currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. Because of this deal, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. This stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. Because of this deal, Iran will modify the core of its reactor in Iraq so that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium. And it has agreed to ship the spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the lifetime of the reactor. For at least the next 15 years, Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors.

Because of this deal we will for the first time be in a position to verify all of these commitments. That means this deal is not built on trust. It is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran's key nuclear facilities. Iran will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain – its uranium mines and mills, its conversion facility and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. This ensures that Iran will not be able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones. Some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years. Because of this deal inspectors will also be able to access any suspicious location.

Put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the IAEA, will have access where necessary, when necessary. That arrangement is permanent. And the IAEA has also reach an agreement with Iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into the possible military dimensions of Iran's past nuclear research.

Finally, Iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which provided the basis for the international community's efforts to apply pressure on Iran. As Iran takes steps to implement this deal, it will receive relief from the sanctions that we put in place because of Iran's nuclear program – both Americans' own sanctions and sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be phased in. Iran must complete key nuclear steps before it begins to receive new sanctions relief. And over the course of the next decade, Iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles. All of this will be memorialized and endorsed in a new United Nations Security Council resolution. And if Iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place – so there's a very clear and senate for Iran to fall through. And there are very real consequences for a violation.

That's the deal. It has the full backing of the international community. Congress will now have an opportunity to review the details and my administration's stands ready to provide extensive briefings on how this will move forward. As the American people and Congress review the deal, it will be important to consider the alternative. Consider what happens in a world without this deal. Without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning Iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. Nothing we know about the Iranian government suggest that it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure. And the world would not support an effort to permanently sanction Iran into submission. We put sanctions in place to get a diplomatic resolution. And that is what we have done.

RELATED
Obama Warns Congress Not to Stand in Way of Iran Deal


Without this deal, there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the Iranian nuclear program. Iran could produce, operate and test more and more centrifuges. Iran could fuel a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb and we would not have any of the inspections that allow us to detect a covert nuclear weapons program. In other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on Iran's nuclear program. Such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. It would also present the United States with fewer and less-effective options to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

I've been president and commander in chief for over six years now. Time and again I have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. It's the greatest decision that any president has to make. Many times, in multiple countries, I have decided to use force. I'll never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. I strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon – which means that without a diplomatic resolution, either I or a future U.S. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it. Put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.

Moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. If, in the worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future. And I've no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with Iran further away from my weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the Iranian program. For this reason, I believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. But, on such a tough issue, it is important to the American people and their representatives in Congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. After all, the details matter. And we've had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. And we're dealing with a country, Iran, that has been a sworn adversary of the United States for over 35 years.

So I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. But I will remind Congress the you don't make deals like this with your friends. We negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviet Union when that nation was committed to our destruction. And those agreements ultimately made us safer. I am confident that this deal will meet at the national security interest of the United States and our allies. So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. We do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict and we certainly shouldn't seek it. And precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. 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.

Now, that doesn't mean that this deal will resolve all of our differences with Iraq. We share the concerns expressed by many of our friends and Middle East, including Israel and the Gulf States, about Iran's support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region. That is precisely why we are taking this step. Because an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more dangerous to our friends and to the world. Meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program and its human rights violations. We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel's security, efforts that go beyond what any American administration has done before. And we will continue the work we began at Camp David – to elevate our partnership with the gulf states to strengthen their capabilities to counter threats from Iran or terrorist groups like ISIL. However, I believe that we must continue to test whether or not this region, which is known so much suffering, so much bloodshed, can move in a different direction.

I've made clear to the Iranian people that we will always be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. Our differences are real. And the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored. But it is possible to change. The path of violence and rigid ideology, a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate Israel -- that's a dead end. A different path, one of tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflict, leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community, and the ability of the Iranian people to prosper and thrive.

This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it. We have come a long way to reach this point. Decades of an Iranian nuclear program, many years of sanctions and many months of intense negotiations. Today, I want to thank the members of Congress from both parties who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so effective, as well as the other countries who joined us in that effort. I want to thank our negotiating partners – the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China – as well as the European Union, for our unity in this effort, which showed that the world can do remarkable things when we share a vision of peacefully addressing conflicts. We showed what we can do when we do not split apart.

And finally, I want to thank the American negotiating team. We had a team of experts working for several weeks straight on this, including our Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. And I want to particularly thank John Kerry, our secretary of state, who began his service to this country more than four decades ago when he put on our uniform and went off to war. He's now making this country safer through his commitment to strong-principled American diplomacy. History shows that America must lead, not just with our might, but with our principles. It shows we are stronger not when we are alone but when we bring the world together. Today's announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful, more hopeful world. Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
43. I never lie about anything. I rather be sodomized with a HIV laden bat than compromise my dignity
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 05:02 PM
Jul 2015

My initial remarks:

Watched the entire PBO presser...PBO was very bearish on Iran and explicitly said Israel has every right to fear them.




"Israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to Iran. I mean, you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that Israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the Holocaust, that has financed Hezbollah, and as a consequence, there are missiles that are pointed towards Tel Aviv..."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/15/transcript-obamas-news-conference-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/



WDIM

(1,662 posts)
29. Then she said "have you heard the song bomb Iran?"
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:01 PM
Jul 2015

"Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Chickenhawk Clinton likes to put other people's lives where her mouth is.

Still pushing the same fear campaign as the Bush Regime. Iran has never invaded another country, the US has invaded 3 unprovoked, Iran has never bombed civilians with drones, the US has bombed countless numbers of civilian. Iran has never funded both sides of a war to keep prepetual warfare going. As the US is doing right now in Iraq and Syria.

The US owns more nuclear weapons, sponsors terrorism overseas, topples democratically elected governments, has close working relationships with true state sponsers of terror such as Saudi Arabia.

So really ask yourself who is the real threat to the world? The Corporate run US goverment or a little nation in the middle east whose only crime is owning vast supplies of oil and rejecting US hegemony.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
35. She made sure to quickly threaten them in a debate with Obama
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 04:30 PM
Jul 2015

before answering a question.

Hillary Clinton The Atlantic

She also struck a notably hard line on Iran’s nuclear demands. “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment,” Clinton said. “Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich. This is absolutely unfounded. There is no such right. I am well aware that I am not at the negotiating table anymore, but I think it’s important to send a signal to everybody who is there that there cannot be a deal unless there is a clear set of restrictions on Iran. The preference would be no enrichment. The potential fallback position would be such little enrichment that they could not break out.” When I asked her if the demands of Israel, and of America’s Arab allies, that Iran not be allowed any uranium-enrichment capability whatsoever were militant or unrealistic, she said, “I think it’s important that they stake out that position.”

JG: Am I wrong in saying that the Obama administration’s negotiators have a more flexible understanding of this issue at the moment?

HRC: I don’t want to speak for them, but I would argue that Iran, through the voice of the supreme leader, has taken a very maximalist position—he wants 190,000 centrifuges and the right to enrich. And some in our Congress, and some of our best friends, have taken the opposite position—absolutely no enrichment. I think in a negotiation you need to be very clear about what it is going to take to move the other side. I think at the moment there is a big debate going on in Tehran about what they can or should do in order to get relief from the sanctions. It’s my understanding that we still have a united P5+1 position, which is intensive inspections, very clear limits on what they can do in their facilities that they would permitted to operate, and then how they handle this question of enrichment, whether it’s done from the outside, or whether it can truly be constrained to meet what I think our standard should be of little-to-no enrichment. That’s what this negotiation is about.

JG: But there is no sign that the Iranians are willing to pull back—freezing in place is the farthest they seem to be willing to go. Am I wrong?

HRC: We don’t know. I think there’s a political debate. I think you had the position staked out by the supreme leader that they’re going to get to do what they want to do, and that they don’t have any intention of having a nuclear weapon but they nevertheless want 190,000 centrifuges (laughs). I think the political, non-clerical side of the equation is basically saying, “Look, you know, getting relief from these sanctions is economically and politically important to us. We have our hands full in Syria and Iraq, just to name two places, maybe increasingly in Lebanon, and who knows what’s going to happen with us and Hamas. So what harm does it do to have a very strict regime that we can live under until we determine that maybe we won’t have to any longer?” That, I think, is the other side of the argument.

JG: Would you be content with an Iran that is perpetually a year away from being able to reach nuclear-breakout capability?

HRC: I would like it to be more than a year. I think it should be more than a year. No enrichment at all would make everyone breathe easier. If, however, they want a little bit for the Tehran research reactor, or a little bit for this scientific researcher, but they’ll never go above 5 percent enrichment—

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
52. Makes no sense
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:13 PM
Jul 2015

I'm assuming you checked the accuracy of your sources, but it makes no sense for her to do this, certainly not in the primaries. Not many Democratic voters want war with Iran. Considering how our last war turned out, I would say only a few people want another military adventure in the region. Clinton would know this.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
53. She believes it's her destiny and that she's above politics
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:20 PM
Jul 2015

It makes complete sense in that context. Not the first time she's been so frightfully candid. She said it - there's no question about that.

Lady's on a mission from G-d, or so she thinks.

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
55. A completely separate issue from the one in the news now.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:24 PM
Jul 2015

" I think we will have to immediately upon completion of this agreement and its rigorous enforcement look to see how we build a coalition to try to prevent and undermine Iran's bad behaviors in other arenas."

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
56. She seems to be talking about Lebanon next.
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:39 PM
Jul 2015

Perhaps some other arena in the.forever war being fought in the region in which she wants to further invest the US.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
60. Typical warmongering for neoliberal Clinton.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 08:38 AM
Jul 2015

Another chickenhawk that has never met a war she didn't like.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»HRC actually said regardl...