Subject: Iran statement
From: Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>
To: Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, John Podesta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:15:53 +0000

John, we’re working on an Iran statement in anticipation of some kind of deal.  Would love your thoughts.
Thanks
Dan

The understanding that the major world powers have reached with Iran is an important step toward a comprehensive agreement that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and strengthen the security of the United States, Israel, and the region.  Ten years of pressure and diplomacy under both a Republican and Democratic president have gotten us to this point.

Getting the rest of the way to a final deal by June won’t be easy, but it is absolutely crucial. The alternative – walking away – would reduce pressure on Iran. There would be no inspections, a fragmented coalition, faltering sanctions, and Iran could resume at full speed a nuclear program that has been frozen by our current efforts.

We’re on the right track: a deal extending Iran’s breakout time, reducing its uranium stockpiles, dismantling centrifuges in its underground facility, eliminating its effective capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and establishing the kind of aggressive monitoring we need to police Iran's activities.

But I know well that the devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation.  So I strongly support President Obama and Secretary Kerry’s efforts between now and June to fill in the details so that we can reach a final deal that verifiably cuts off all of Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.

We have to expect that Iran may try to cheat. That is why tough, unyielding verification is so vital -- the kind of verification that only a negotiated outcome can produce. We should also spell out clearly what the consequences will be if Iran breaches the deal. Sanctions relief should be carefully phased and sanctions should snap back immediately in the event of a violation. If Iran violates the agreement, all options should remain on the table. Any consequences for a breach would be Iran’s responsibility.

Even with a successful nuclear deal, Iran will remain a great threats to peace and stability in the Middle East. Its aggression increases instability, fuels terrorism, and threatens the interests of our allies and partners.

So our efforts to deny Iran any pathway to a nuclear weapon has to be part of a comprehensive strategy to check its regional ambitions, strengthen our allies and partners, and revitalize American leadership in the Middle East. That means reinvigorating our partnership with Israel, no matter the recent differences, including increased support for Israeli missile defense systems. It means stepping up efforts to curb Iran’s ballistic missile programs and enforce sanctions related to its support for terrorists and violations of human rights.  And it means expanding security cooperation with our partners in the Gulf, including new security assurances specific to potential Iranian aggression. We have to push back on Iran’s destabilizing actions across the board, confront terrorism, and strengthen the hand of moderate forces in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.  To be clear, none of these problems would be solved by another U.S. ground war in the Middle East. But we have many tools of American power that will help partners prevail: military and economic assistance, humanitarian support, diplomatic pressure, and counterterrorism actions.

There is much to do and much more to say in the months ahead. But with clear-eyed and constant American leadership, we can protect our national interests, keep our people safe, defend our allies and partners, and limit Iran’s ability to threaten the region and the world.

Should Congress be able to weigh in on the deal?
Congress, of course, should have a role.  But, it is important to let President Obama complete these negotiations. When there is a final, comprehensive deal, Congress and the administration should work out together the appropriate role so that we are maximizing our leverage and flexibility.

Are there things you would change about the deal?
It's not a perfect deal. And I might have approached certainly issues differently -- that's just the nature of this kind of diplomacy. But it’s not helpful to be a Monday morning quarterback from thousands of miles away.  That’s particularly true when the deal that is developing is so much better than any alternatives.

Wouldn’t military action do more to stop Iran going nuclear?
The best estimates are that a strike might delay Iran by 3 years. But it would also harden Iran’s determination and shatter the international consensus needed for sanctions. So in the short term, it might delay Iran a bit more than a deal. In the longer term, it would ensure that the extreme mullahs harden their grip on power and find a way to break out and go nuclear.