Re: AIPAC/Iran

From:jake.sullivan@gmail.com To: seizenstat@cov.com CC: tom.nides@morganstanley.com, huma@clintonemail.com, huma@clintonfoundation.org, John.Podesta@gmail.com, pverveer@aol.com Date: 2015-03-03 16:47 Subject: Re: AIPAC/Iran

Got it. Thanks. > On Mar 3, 2015, at 1:29 PM, Eizenstat, Stuart <seizenstat@cov.com> wrote: > > Jake, > We need to keep the military option on the table, but it would be the additional sanctions in the new congressional bill, which would give the future President the right to impose them upon a finding of a violation. But it would als include current sanctions--SWIFT, CBI, etc. > Stu > > From: Jake Sullivan [mailto:jake.sullivan@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 08:53 AM > To: Eizenstat, Stuart > Cc: Thomas (Tom) R. Nides (tom.nides@morganstanley.com) <tom.nides@morganstanley.com>; Huma M. Abedin (huma@clintonemail.com) <huma@clintonemail.com>; Huma M. Abedin (huma@clintonfoundation.org) <huma@clintonfoundation.org>; John D. Podesta (John.Podesta@gmail.com) <John.Podesta@gmail.com>; Melanne Verveer (pverveer@aol.com) <pverveer@aol.com> > Subject: Re: AIPAC/Iran > > Thanks Stu. What would those sanctions look like? If Iran actually tried to break out at the end of the period, ostensibly we'd be talking about military action? > > > >> On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Eizenstat, Stuart <seizenstat@cov.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Jake, >> >> Attached is my speech at AIPAC yesterday to the Rabbinical Assembly, the organization of Conservative American Rabbis, on rising anti-Semitism in Europe; the Iran nuclear negotiations; and U.S.-Israel relations. >> >> I would like to suggest for Secretary Clinton that on the most sensitive issue, Iran, she be generally supportive of an agreement along the lines I outlined, but, crucially, she indicate (a) grave concerns that Iran’s missile program is unconstrained and has no civilian purpose, and that we should make its restraint a priority; (b) that Congress should pass additional sanctions after an agreement that could be imposed by a future President following the 10-15 year expiration period of the agreement, if Iran seeks a “breakout” at that point. In other words, one major flaw in the emerging agreement is that Iran would be free of constraints after the period. She should take the position that unless Iran radically changes its posture over this period of time, the U.S. should never allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state, as North Korea is now. >> >> This position would be supportive of the Obama Administration’s efforts, but would signal a tougher position on what a post-agreement world should look like. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Stu >> >> >> Stuart Eizenstat >> >> Covington & Burling LLP >> One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW >> Washington, DC 20001 >> (202) 662 5519 (tel) | (202) 778-5519 (fax) >> seizenstat@cov.com >> www.cov.com >> >> <image002.png> >> >> <AIPAC CONSERVATIVE RABBIS STU SPEECH FINAL FINAL 030215 DOCX.doc>