About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Tuesday, March 3, 2015
President Obama: Achievement if Iran can only nuke Israel in 2025 - compares Israel to France

IMRA: these are among the assertions of President Obama:
#1. Deal that Iran can only nuke Israel in 2025 is achievement: " If in
fact Iran can accept terms that would ensure a one year breakout period for
ten years or longer ...why would we not take that deal when we know the
alternatives?
#2. Iran's development of IR-8 centrifuges - 16 times the enrichment of the
current IR-1 as well as tremendous progress in delivery systems for nuclear
weapons during the interim deal does not constitute an "advance" but rather
a "rolled back" program.
#3. France's security exposure associated with the decision by George W.
Bush to initiate the war in Iraq was similar in magnitude to Israel's
security exposure associated with the Iranian nuclear program.
=====================
Exclusive: Full text of Reuters interview with Obama
WASHINGTON Mon Mar 2, 2015 5:34pm EST
(Reuters) - Reuters White House Correspondent Jeff Mason interviewed
President Barack Obama on Monday on topics including U.S.-Israel relations,
Iran, China and Russia. Here is a full transcript of the interview.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/02/us-usa-obama-transcript-idUSKBN0LY2J820150302

REUTERS - Mr. President, thanks very much for joining us.

OBAMA - Good to see you.

REUTERS - Let’s start right on Israel. Your administration has described
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress tomorrow on Iran as
destructive. What damage has really been done?

OBAMA - Well, first of all, I think it’s important to realize the depth of
the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Under my administration, billions of dollars
have gone to support Israel’s security, including the Iron Dome program that
has protected them from missiles fired along their borders. The military
intelligence cooperation is unprecedented and that’s not our estimation.
That’s the estimation of the Netanyahu government. And that bond is
unbreakable. So we need to make clear from the outset how strong our
alliance with Israel is.

The second point is that we actually share a goal, which is making sure Iran
does not have a nuclear weapon. That’s something that I committed to when I
was still a senator. It is a solemn pledge I made before I was elected
president and everything that I’ve done over the course of the last several
years in relation to Iran has been in pursuit of that policy. There is a
substantial disagreement in terms of how to achieve that. And what it boils
down to is what’s the best way to ensure that Iran is not developing a
nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that the best way to do that is either
through doubling down on more sanctions or through military action, ensuring
that Iran has absolutely no enrichment capabilities whatsoever. And there’s
no expert on Iran or nuclear proliferation around the world that seriously
thinks that Iran is going to respond to additional sanctions by eliminating
its nuclear program.

What we’ve said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime,
what we can do is bring Iran to the table. And by bringing Iran to the
table, force them to have a serious negotiation in which a) we are able to
see exactly what’s going on inside of Iran b) we’re able to create what we
call a breakout period, a timeline where we know if they were to try to get
a nuclear weapon it would take them a certain amount of time.

And the deal that we’re trying to negotiate is to make sure that there’s at
least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them
actually being able to obtain one.

And as long as we’ve got that one-year breakout capacity, that ensures us
that we can take military action to stop them if they were stop it.

Now, we’re still in the midst of negotiations. What I’ve said consistently
is, we should let these negotiations play out. If, in fact, Iran is agree,
willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is
right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist …

REUTERS - Double digit years?

OBAMA - Double digit years. If we’ve got that and we’ve got a way of
verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such
assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.

Now, Iran may not agree to the rigorous inspection demands that we’re
insisting on. They may not agree to the low levels of enrichment
capabilities they would have to maintain to ensure that their breakout is at
least a year. But if they do agree to it, it would be far more effective in
controlling their nuclear program than any military action we could take,
any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions
will be.

And we know that because during the period in which we applied sanctions for
over a decade, Iran went from about 300 or a couple of hundred centrifuges
to tens of thousands of centrifuges in response to sanctions.

REUTERS - Let’s talk a little bit specifically about the prime minister.
Susan Rice said that what he has done by accepting the invitation to speak
was destructive to the fabric of the relationship. Would you agree that it’s
destructive? And if so, will there be any consequences for him or for
Israel?

OBAMA - You know, I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu is sincere about his
concerns with respect to Iran. And given Iran’s record and given the
extraordinarily disruptive and dangerous activities of this regime in the
region, it’s understandable why Israel is very concerned about Iran. We are
too. But what we’ve consistently said is we have to stay focused on our
ultimate goal, which is preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Now, as a matter of policy, we think it’s a mistake for the prime minister
of any country to come to speak before Congress a few weeks before they are
about to have an election. It makes it look like we are taking sides.

REUTERS - But aside from that, what about that is destructive?

OBAMA - I’m answering your question, Jeff. And the concern is, not only does
it look like it politicizes the relationship but what’s also a problem is
when the topic of the prime minister’s speech is an area where the executive
branch – the U.S. president and his team – have a disagreement with the
other side.

I think those who offered the invitation and some of the commentators who
have said this is the right thing to do, it’s worth asking them whether,
when George W. Bush had initiated the war in Iraq and Democrats were
controlling Congress, if they had invited let’s say the president of France
to appear before Congress to criticize or to air those disagreements, I
think most people would say, well, that wouldn’t be the right thing to do. I
guarantee you that some of the same commentators who are cheerleading now
would have suggested that it was the wrong thing to do.

I don’t think it’s permanently destructive. I think that it is a distraction
from what should be our focus. And our focus should be,‘How do we stop Iran
from getting a nuclear weapon?’ Now keep in mind the prime minister, when we
signed up for this interim deal that would essentially freeze Iran’s
program, roll back its highly enriched uranium - its 20 percent highly
enriched uranium - and so reduce the possibility that Iran might breakout
while we were engaged in these negotiations, when we first announced this
interim a deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was
going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting 50
billion dollars worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None
of that has come true.

It has turned out that, in fact, during this period we’ve seen Iran not
advance its program. In many ways, it’s rolled back elements of its program.
And we’ve got more insight into what they’re doing with more vigorous
inspections than even the supporters of an interim deal suggested.

So the question is this: If in fact we are trying to finalize a deal, why
not wait to see a) is there actually going to be a deal? Can Iran accept the
terms that we’re laying out? If in fact Iran can accept terms that would
ensure a one year breakout period for ten years or longer and during that
period we know Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon - we have inspectors
on the ground that give us assurances that they’re not creating a covert
program - why would we not take that deal when we know the alternatives,
whether through sanctions or military actions, will not result in as much
assurance that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon?

There's no good reason for us not to let the negotiations play themselves
out. Then we'll show, here - here's the deal that's been negotiated, does it
make sense? And I am confident that if, in fact, a deal is arrived at, then
it's going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a
nuclear weapon.

REUTERS - You obviously disagree about that. If the prime minister wins
reelection, would you be able to work with him?

OBAMA - Absolutely. We're working with him now on a whole range of issues.

REUTERS - Would you meet with him?

OBAMA - Of course. As I've said before, the only reason that we didn't meet
with him this time is a general policy we don't meet with somebody two weeks
before an election. I've met with Prime Minister Netanyahu more than any
other world leader. And given the strong relationship between the United
States and Israel, I would expect that to continue.

REUTERS - Is it fair to say you're angry with him?

OBAMA - This is not a personal issue. I think that it is important for every
country in its relationship with the United States to recognize that the
U.S. has a process of making policy. And although we have separation of
powers, ultimately, the interaction with foreign governments runs through
the executive branch. That's true whether it's a Democratic president or a
Republican president. And that's true regardless of how close the ally is.

REUTERS - Have Israel's actions been disruptive to the ability to get this
deal?

OBAMA - I think that it's been a distraction. I think that in the meantime
negotiators are going full speed ahead. Ultimately, what's been remarkable
is the international unity we've been able to maintain in saying to Iran,
you have to show the world that you are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. You
can have very modest enrichment capabilities for peaceful use, so long as
there's a vigorous enough inspection process that we have assurances that
you are not obtaining breakout capacity. And the biggest challenge right now
to getting a deal is for Iran to recognize this is its path in order to
ultimately re-enter into the community of nations.

REUTERS - Have your communications with the Supreme Leader helped in this?

OBAMA - You know, I would say that most of the work has been done directly
between the negotiators and Secretary Kerry, Foreign Minister Zarif of Iran,
the expert teams that have worked together along with our P5+1 partners.
They've done the lion's share of the work.

REUTERS – But has that been useful?

OBAMA – I think it’s been important for us to send a clear signal to all
parties inside of Iran that we are not the aggressors here. We are looking
to resolve this diplomatically if we can. But given the history of Iran
engaging in covert programs, given the history of Iranian sponsorship of
terrorism in the region and around the world, given the rhetoric that's come
out from the Iranian regime including anti-Israel and anti-Semitic
statements, it is important for them to understand that they have a high
threshold that they have to meet in terms of proof and convincing the world
that they're prepared to not pursue a nuclear program.

If they do that, and we have ways of measuring that, very concrete ways, if
they do that, that's the best path for us to take. What we should not do is
to try to jettison the talks, undermine the talks.

I'm less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu's commentary than
I am with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before
they're complete. And what I've said to members of Congress, both Democrats
and Republicans, is there will be plenty of time for us to reapply
sanctions, strengthen sanctions, to take a whole range of other measures, if
in fact we do not have a deal. But what we should not do is pre-judge the
deal and initiate sanctions that might allow Iran to walk away and claim
that the United States is the one that has eliminated the path to diplomacy.

REUTERS – How would you judge, what’s your assessment of the percentage
likelihood now of this happening.

OBAMA - The likelihood of?

REUTERS - Of a deal coming through? You’ve said before less than 50 percent.

OBAMA - You know, I would say that it's probably still more likely than not
that Iran doesn't get to yes. But I think in fairness to them, they have
been serious negotiators. And they've got their own politics inside of Iran.
It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five
months ago. But there are still some big gaps that have to be filled.

REUTERS - We're running short of time. So I'm going to ask you about Russia.
A top opponent of President Putin was gunned down last week. What does this
say about Vladimir Putin's Russia and do you believe that the Kremlin was
not involved?

OBAMA - What I've called for is a full investigation and, hopefully, an
independent investigation of what happened. Whether that can occur inside
today’s Russia is not clear. The individual involved is somebody that I
actually met with back in 2009.

This is an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil
society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the
Internet, have felt increasingly threatened, constrained, and increasingly
the only information that the Russian public is able to get is through
state-controlled media outlets. That is a problem. It's part of what has
allowed, I think, Russia to engage in the sort of aggression that it is has
against Ukraine.

REUTERS - You don't want to say whether or not the Kremlin was involved?

OBAMA - I have no idea at this point exactly what happened. What I do know
is more broadly the fact that free - freedom of the press, freedom of
assembly, freedom of information, basic civil rights and civil liberties
inside of Russia are in much worse shape now than they were four or five,
ten years ago.

REUTERS - Let me ask you about another area of the world, China. Are you
concerned about how hard China is making it for U.S. tech companies to do
business there?

OBAMA - I am concerned. This is something that I've raised directly with
President Xi, and my entire foreign policy team as well as people like
Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker
have raised with them. They've got a couple of laws that are working their
way through the system that would essentially force all foreign companies,
including U.S. companies, to turn over to the Chinese government mechanisms
where they could snoop and keep track of all the users of those services.
And as you might imagine, tech companies are not going to be willing to do
that.

Those kinds of restrictive practices I think would, ironically, hurt the
Chinese economy over the long term because I don't think there's any U.S. or
European firm, any international firm, that could credibly get away with
that wholesale turning over of data, personal data, over to a government.
And so we've made very clear to them that this is something they're going to
have to change if they expect to do business with the United States.

REUTERS - Let me close with a lightning round of yes or no questions.
Keystone veto just happened. How soon do you think we'll have a decision
from the State Department and ultimately the White House - weeks, months or
not before the end of your administration?

OBAMA – I think it will happen before the end of my administration.

REUTERS - Weeks or months?

OBAMA - Weeks or months.

REUTERS – O.K. and on Cuba, do you expect to have relations, diplomatic
relations restored between Cuba and the United States before the Panama
summit?

OBAMA - My hope is that we will be able to open an embassy, and that some of
the initial groundwork will have been laid. Keep in mind that our
expectation has never been that we would achieve full normalization
immediately. There is a lot of work that still has to be done. But we are
going down a path in which we can open up our relations to Cuba in a way
that ultimately will prompt more change in Cuba. And we're already seeing
it.

The very fact that since our announcement, the Cuban government has begun to
discuss ways in which they are going to reorganize their economy to
accommodate for possible foreign investment, that's already forcing a series
of changes that promises to open up more opportunities for entrepreneurs,
more transparency in terms of what's happening in their economy, and that's
always been the premise of this policy. That after 50 years of a policy that
didn't work, we need to try something new that encourages and ultimately I
think forces the Cuban government to engage in a modern economy. And that
will create more space for freedom for the Cuban people.

REUTERS - Very last question on domestic policy. The Supreme Court is seeing
arguments on the Burwell v. King this week. Your administration has said it
does not have a Plan B. Isn't that a little risky?

OBAMA - This should be a pretty straightforward case of statutory
interpretation. If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of
those who were involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the
law, the understanding was that people who joined the federal exchange were
going to be able to access tax credits. Just like if they went to a state
exchange. And you know what? The thing's working, exactly as intended. Which
is why we signed up 11 million people to go through these exchanges.

And we're seeing more competition, lower prices, more choice, more shopping
among people than even I expected, even proponents of it expected. And it's
costing less than anybody expected. So the thing's working. And there's in
our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down. But, you know,
we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides.

REUTERS - They could rule against you. Then what?

OBAMA - Well if they rule against us, we'll have to take a look at what our
options are. But I'm not going to anticipate that. I'm not going to
anticipate bad law. All right?

REUTERS - Mr. President thanks very much for your time.

OBAMA - Thank you so much.


(Reporting By Jeff Mason, Roberta Rampton, Julia Edwards and Caren Bohan;
Editing by Toni Reinhold)

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)