Re: FW: HRC Iran statement

From:seizenstat@cov.com To: Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com CC: dkurtzphelan@gmail.com, John.Podesta@gmail.com, huma@hrcoffice.com Date: 2015-06-30 01:36 Subject: Re: FW: HRC Iran statement

Ok Stu Thanks Stu. I need to grapple with some of these edits, which go beyond where I might suggest she go at this point. Others are very well taken. Let me give it another crack and come back to you. On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Eizenstat, Stuart <seizenstat@cov.com<mailto:seizenstat@cov.com>> wrote: Dear Dan and Jake, Here is a cleaner version. Something happened with the one I just sent that left gaps in the sentences. Stu Dear Dan and Jake, I am sorry for the delay, but I only landed this morning from Israel via JFK. Please see my comments below. Of course, we do not know the details at this time. Stu Dear Stu, Jake asked that I share with you the current draft of HRC's statement on the Iran deal. It's pasted below. Some of this could of course change depending on the details of a final agreement, but it would be great to have your feedback at this stage, Many thanks, Dan ** I applaud President Obama and Secretary Kerry for securing a nuclear agreement that offers the strongest chance to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. With vigorous enforcement, unyielding verification, and swift consequences for any violations, this deal will make the United States, Israel, our Arab partners, and the region safer and more secure than if there were no agreement. At the same time, there are aspects of the agreement that are a cause for concern, and a basis for special diligence. has not been required to answer questions about the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD), including allowing the IAEA to inspect sites, interview key scientists and officials, and review documents that would shed light on their past and current PMD activities. In addition, clarity is required on what limits are imposed during the term of the agreement and thereafter to preclude Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges. It is also critical that sanctions relief must come only when Iran has demonstrates to the satisfaction of the IAEA that they have complied with their obligations. Sanctions for terrorism and other non-nuclear sanctions must remain in place. I I want to make sure as President that any violation of the agreement by Iran would trigger a reimposition of sanctions, without an Iranian veto over the findings, and in ways that assure the US can act if we feel there is a violation. Most important is monitoring and verification. The IAEA inspectors must have timely and effective access to all sites in Iran, including military sites. It is unclear if this is the case. Despite these concerns, it is critical in assessing this agreement to ask what alternatives exist. We already have in place the most effective, broad-based sanctions ever imposed on a country in peacetime. While they have brought Iran to the negotiating table, they have not stopped the continued expansion of their nuclear program. It is difficult to see what other sanctions would lead to greater Iranian concessions. Without an agreement, there would be no two-thirds reduction in their number of centrifuges; no dismantlement of their plutonium plant at Arak; no 24/IAEA inspections; no dilution of their 20% enriched uranium. Their capacity to “break-out: would be far more likely without this agreement, than with it. We also have to consider it we could maintain the partnership with the European Union, which has made the sanctions most effective. Today’s agreement is the culmination of an effective strategy executed over many years. By the end of the Bush administration, Iran was rapidly expanding its nuclear centrifuge capacity despite unilateral American sanctions and ineffective saber rattling. The Obama administration took a different approach, working with Congress and our allies and partners around the world. As Secretary of State, I logged tens of thousands of miles and twisted a lot of arms – especially in Moscow and Beijing – to build a global coalition to impose the most crippling sanctions in history against Tehran. That unprecedented pressure shattered Iran’s economy, halted the progress of its nuclear program (NB. BE CAREFUL THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED THE NUMBER OF CENTRIFUGES AND AMOUNT OF ENRICHED URANIUM SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE), and forced its leaders to the table to negotiate a deal that puts a nuclear weapon out of reach. As President, I will use every tool in our arsenal to compel rigorous Iranian compliance. The response to any violation will be clear, immediate, and devastating -- starting with the return of sanctions but taking no options off the table, including, if necessary, the use of force. The message to Iran must be loud and clear: We will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon; we will never allow you permit you to produce sufficient fissile material or otherwise acquire it, sufficient for a nuclear weapons; not just during the term of this agreement – never. Going forward, we have to be clear-eyed when it comes to the broader threat Iran represents. Even with an agreement that limits its nuclear ambitions, Iran still poses a direct challenge to the United States and our allies, especially Israel. The funds it will receive with sanctions relief will provide billions of dollars more for Iran to use to support terrorism. It continues to destabilize countries from Yemen to Lebanon, while exacerbating conflict in Syria. And it fuels terrorism throughout the region and beyond, including through direct support to Hamas and Hizballah. We have to aggressively oppose and raise the costs for Iran’s destabilizing activities, insist on the return of U.S. citizens being held by the Iranian government, and strengthen cooperation with our allies and partners. This agreement under my Administration will not see this agreement as the beginning of an American-Iranian partnership. Our allies in the Middle East deserve to have this assurance, and they will have it if I am elected President. Israel should be confident that now and in a Hillary Clinton Administration, the United States will always defend its security and ensure its military edge in the region. Our two countries have to be on the same page when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, so I would invite the senior Israeli leadership to Washington for early talks on further strengthening our crucial alliance. I will provide Israel with all the military means it requires to defend itself against an Iranian threat, and support its actions to defend itself. We should also deepen our security relationship with Arab partners who are threatened by Iran’s ambitions. Ultimately, this agreement is the best way to protect our country and our allies. To walk away from a deal that will stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, or to bomb Iran as long an agreement offers an alternative, [as some Republican candidates for President suggest,] would be both dangerous and shortsighted – fracturing our global coalition, raising the risk of regional war, and ultimately bringing Iran closer to a nuclear weapon. So we should proceed with wisdom and strength in implementing a deal born out of effective diplomacy and strong American leadership. **