So i wanted to also ask about this idea, weve heard a lot about sanctions. And sanctions as i understand, iran has written the United Nations on july 20th about the sanctions regime. And one of the issues that has concerned me about this agreement is that once the sanctions, the long list of mainly congressally mandated sanctions that will be lifted under this agreement are undertaken if iran for example, engaged in terrorist activity, which is known to do, separate from the Nuclear Program, iran seems to have taken the position in its letter to the u. N. And ive actually read the agreement, and ive been concerned that the agreement provides the same that in fact, iran says it has understood that reintroduction or reimposition including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance which would relieve iran from its commitments in part or in whole. So my question is as i read this, im deeply concerned that if we want to reimpose t
Acknowledging the costs and consequences if we had to take a course of action. Secretary carter speaking now just very generally and not specifically, the two things that make it the successful implementation and agreement preferable from that point of view to a strike is the effects of a strike are temporary. And secondly, iran would, as i said earlier, respond to an American Military strike upon iran and one needs to a through what the set when steps are including the possibility that iran, at that point, would become irreconcilably committed to getting a Nuclear Weapon. I say that is predicated on the effective implementation of this agreement. Effectively implemented, the agreement stops iran for 15 years. Way beyond that. So we are comparing that situation, which is effective implementation complete implementation of this agreement to military options. There may not be effective upon mentation of this agreement. We have to recognize that there may not be any agreement and so forth
Ability, and we are stopping that. We are taking that away from them and providing a life time of inspection. Mr. Mccain senator, your time has expired. How did the north korean deal work out for you . Senator mccaskill. Mr. Kerry dont ask me. I didnt write the deal. Senator mccaskill is there anything that would constrain our ability to take any action we felt was necessary against iran . Mr. Kerry no. Senator one thing i do not think has been covered enough in all of the testimony that has occurred, i got the point that senator nelson was trying to make, that the money is not in our control, and it appears, looking at it, if all the other countries walk away from us, if we reject this deal, that they are going to get the money one way or another, either because they are entitled to it if we do the deal or because we cannot control it. But i dont know that that is completely accurate, and i think its important. This is not about is this a good deal. This is also about what happens if
Helpful if you did not use that term much because it is an illusion. Ill have my question. The snap back is more focused on the United States than it is iran. As you know, mr. Secretary those of us who are involved in the bush administration, getting countries to economically isolate iran, we used a lot of leverage with countries saying you are either going to be in their market or hours. And that was effective. But he goes to this idea, if there is some kind of snap back, that was a slog. That wasnt a snap. It took used to get countries to divest out of the iranian economy. It will take years to do it again. But let me ask a hypothetical. It was a question in the closed hearing. A number of senators were not satisfied. This focus is a little bit on what senator ayotte said. Lets assume sanctions are lifted. We get the 60 billion the iranians are looking for 120 billion additional investments. No violations in the agreement. The economy is humming along. There is an act of terrorism. B
Meanwhile, the United States, the department of defense, and the men and women of the finest fighting force the world has ever known will continue, with your support to work in americans interests defend allies, and upholds the president s commitment that iran will not gain a Nuclear Weapon should it walk away from this deal. Mr. Mccain thank you. Mr. Dempsey. Mr. Dempsey i will keep my comments brief. As i have stated previously i was consulted during the course of the negotiations and provided my best military advice. It addresses a critical and the most dangerous point of friction with the iranian regime, but as i have stated repeatedly, there are at least five other areas of concern from weapons trafficking to the use of surrogates and proxies in naval minds and undersea activity, and last but not least, to malicious activity in cyberspace. The negotiated deal does not change the options at our disposal. We will continue to engage our partners in the region to address these areas.