John Kerry Defends Nuclear Agreement with Iran

Last Thursday, John Kerry held a meeting with students at the University of Chicago's Political Science Institute, discussing his experiences as a senior diplomat. The U.S. Secretary of State responded to students' questions on various topics in U.S. foreign policy. In response to the possibility of a thaw in relations with Iran, Kerry stated, "Honestly, I haven't thought much about traveling to Iran. But Iran is a very interesting subject to study. Iran, of course, not as a country but as a civilization has a 5,000-year history, and after the 1979 revolution, at the time of its occurrence, we did not act as carefully as we should have regarding who we supported and what policies we adopted, and so on, and what interventions we had — the CIA had a direct intervention in the ousting of Mossadegh in 1953. So there is a historical context here. In 1979, when they occupied our embassy and took hostages, this incident had a significant impact on our policy — one of the main reasons for President Carter's defeat by Ronald Reagan was this." Kerry, when asked if there is an ally in Iran for the U.S., said, "There is a significant difference between the general concept of the Iranian people and the revolutionary government that has a radical and inflexible approach to the world, to the U.S., and to the region. Therefore, I want to say that we must have a very, very careful look at Iran. There are people in Iran who want a different Iran, an Iran that is open to the world, an Iran that has relations with the people of the world, an Iran that can return to the global community with approval and respect. There are extremists who fight every step of the way against such changes. Even now, as Iran is trying for a fundamental transformation to improve its economic and social situation with the nuclear agreement reached, they have hostility towards any contact with the West, and they slander anyone who contacts the West. Therefore, there is tension in Iran, and Iranians must find a solution to this tension. We cannot find a solution for it." The U.S. Secretary of State, in response to the comment that Iran and the U.S. have common interests in the fight against ISIS, but there is also tension between the two countries, stated that our relationship with Iran is not entirely clear and straightforward. He said, "I think I made it clear. We do not have a relationship. We do not have an official relationship. We do not coordinate anything with them. They are also pursuing their own interests without coordination. Yes, we have common interests. They are pursuing their own interests without a relationship with us, and we are pursuing our own interests. We are very willing to see Iran in a constructive role that helps resolve the important political issue of Syria. Iran is at the negotiating table along with Russia in the International Support Group for Syria. Theoretically, the issue is simple; you want to bring all stakeholders to the negotiating table, and in this case, one must be realistic. Without their involvement, the issue cannot be resolved. Sometimes we are criticized for why we are sitting with the Russians and why we are negotiating with them. We negotiate with them because they exist, because they are conducting bombing operations, because they support Assad, because they changed the situation when Assad was in a weak position. And if you do not talk to them, you cannot establish a ceasefire and find a solution to the war." Kerry, in response to the question of whether the nuclear agreement has somehow limited the ways the United States can pressure Iran to abandon its support for "terrorism," said, "Let me be very, very clear. In our negotiations with Iran, we made it very clear and transparent to the Iranians that the issue we want to resolve is not the arms issue and the transfer of weapons or support for Hezbollah and other issues. If that were the case, we would still be at the starting point and still arguing at the negotiating table. Our belief was that the main threat in the region was the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons within a two-month timeframe. That Iran had the necessary nuclear materials to build 12 bombs. So for Israel and for the rest of the region, we believe the issue was to remove the nuclear program of Iran from the path. Because other issues in any negotiation will be affected by whether they have nuclear weapons or not. Therefore, if we did not rid ourselves of nuclear weapons, we would have completely different negotiations regarding Hezbollah, Israel, and terrorism than we do now. Of course, this is Iran's good reputation; let me say that this does not mean legitimizing them, but I say that this gave them a good reputation that the leader of Iran decided not to have nuclear weapons and was willing to negotiate to arrange that they could prove they are moving in a peaceful direction. The arms embargo remained in place, and we did not touch it. In fact, we specifically argued about how long it would remain. Because according to previous arrangements, it would gradually be lifted. We actually kept these sanctions for the duration of this agreement, meaning for eight years. We kept U.S. sanctions due to support for terrorism. We also kept the human rights-related sanctions. So we did not lift other sanctions for this reason. And in fact, after the agreement, when the Iranians launched missiles, we imposed new sanctions. So in relation to the overall security of the region, we did not give up a bit of what is important to us. But in the long term, Iran must comply with 15 years of restrictions on 3.67% enrichment. For 15 years, it must operate with a stockpile that cannot exceed 300 kilograms of enriched uranium. The production of centrifuges must be monitored for 20 years under CCTV. The step-by-step production of uranium from start to finish must be recordable and traceable for 25 years. It may be said that all of this will end in 10 or 15 years; no, it will not. We have also established an additional protocol. According to this protocol, the International Atomic Energy Agency can inspect whenever there is suspicion that agreements are being violated, that Iran is enriching beyond the permitted level, or has more uranium than it should. This is forever. So if after 15 years, after 20 years, we witness an increase of one or two or however many percent in the activities under supervision, we will raise the alarm and say they are trying to do something. At that time, we will have enough time and enough tools to understand what is actually happening. And if necessary, in 10, 15, or 20 years, we will have the same options available to us that we have today. The issue is whether Iran will change during this time? Will the reform efforts that Rouhani is pursuing still exist? Will the region change during this time? I mean, I hope so. I am an optimistic person. I hope that in the next 15 years many of these differences will be resolved. We can move away from sectarianism. We can address the Palestinian-Israeli problem, we can reach a peace agreement that changes the dynamics of Hezbollah, Lebanon, and the region. So we must believe in the possibility of change, and I think if nothing changes, we have a secure region, Israel, us, the region is protected, and for this reason, I think this agreement is a good agreement.