Obama defends Iran deal
December 7th, 2013
04:37 PM ET
9 years ago

Obama defends Iran deal

Updated 6:27 pm ET, 12/7/2013

Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama defended his administration's nuclear deal with Iran, arguing that the ground had been set for a comprehensive agreement that would make the United States, Israel and the Middle East safer, but warning that all options would remain on the table if a deal fell through.

"The best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is for a comprehensive, verifiable, diplomatic resolution, without taking any other options off the table if we fail to achieve that. It is important for us to test that proposition during the next six months," he said Saturday at the Saban Forum, a policy summit organized by the Brookings Institution to discuss issues surrounding the Middle East and U.S.-Israeli relations.

[twitter-follow screen_name='politicalticker']
"If at the end of six months, it turns out that we can't make a deal, we're no worse off, and in fact we have greater leverage with the international community to continue to apply sanctions and even strengthen them," he continued.

One of the most vocal critics of the deal is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On the eve of the agreement, he told CNN's Candy Crowley that no deal was better than a bad deal and, "This is a bad deal."

Obama must have been watching.

"If we can't get there, then no deal is better than a bad deal. But presuming that it's going to be a bad deal, and as a consequence, not even trying for a deal, I think, would be a dire pursuit," he said.

Throughout the 45-minute conversation with Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media mogul and namesake of Brookings' Saban Center, Obama stressed that relations with Israel were still strong. Military coordination, intelligence cooperation, and security support have never been better, he said.

Still, the president was surprisingly honest about where there are differences between him and Netanyahu.

"There are times where I, as president of the United States, am going to have different tactical perspectives than the prime minister of Israel, and that is understandable," he said.

He made clear that he respects Israel's need to look after its own security first, but argued that getting Iran to completely abandon its nuclear aspirations was chimerical.

"One can envision an ideal world in which Iran said we'll destroy every element and facility and - you name it, it's all gone. I can envision a world in which Congress passed every one of my bills that I put forward. I mean, there are a lot of things that I can envision that would be wonderful," he joked.

Ultimately, however, a deal in which Iran is granted nuclear power for civilian purposes in exchange for intrusive inspections is the best, most realistic option, he argued.

That concession has outraged some in Israel and the U.S., who argue it is a naive appeasement that gives Iran the right to enrichment. Obama believes otherwise.

"There's nothing in this agreement or document that grants Iran a right to enrich," he said. "If negotiations break down, there will be no additional international recognition that's been obtained, so this deal goes away and we're back to where we were before the Geneva agreement."

Obama pushed further, saying that if a comprehensive deal was reached, enrichment capability would be so limited and inspections so intrusive that "as a practical matter," Iran would not have the breakout capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

Iranian leaders interpret the deal differently. After Geneva, Rouhani said the outcome means world powers have "recognized Iran's nuclear rights," including the right to enrich uranium.

"This right has been explicitly stipulated by this agreement, stressing that Iran will go on with enrichment," he said.

Like other aspects, it is an important and ambiguous detail that for the moment allows both sides to claim victory and going forward could be worked out in this comprehensive agreement down the road.

And just how far away is that kind of deal?

"If you asked me what is the likelihood that we're able to arrive at the end state that I was describing earlier, I wouldn't say that it's more than 50-50," said Obama. "But we have to try."

–CNN's Holly Yan, Josh Levs, and Tara Kangarlou contributed to this report.

Filed under: Iran • Nuclear weapons • President Obama
soundoff (31 Responses)
  1. just saying

    obama, kerry and the usa being played for fools once again, just like putin played obama and kerry for fools in syria. iran saw that and decided to do the same. and now they are able to keep going with their enrichment while getting sanctions dropped. mission accomplished for iran.

    obama and kerry have just ignited a nuclear arms race in the middle east and put israel in a corner in which they may have little option but to attack iran, most likely with cooperation of other arab gulf states. yes, this deal could have a lot of unintended consequences, just like obamacare. how ironic that we all get to lose our healthcare and doctors but iran gets to keep their nuclear enrichment. obama promised neither would happen. can anything this guy says be believed?

    December 8, 2013 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  2. Donna

    Roughly 74 percent of the centrifuges Iran now has on hand were installed since the Obama-Biden team assumed office

    Mission Accomplished Democrats!!! If Iran gets the bomb, we know whose watch it happened under.

    December 8, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  3. rs

    It is more like Iran's interests are not our interests. Israel is our friend and the only real democracy in the Middle East…
    Ask those who aren't Jewish (like the Palestinians) living in Israel just how "democratic" Israel is.

    December 8, 2013 01:28 pm at 1:28 pm |
  4. rs

    Iran is a terrorist state, they orchestrated the killings of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also supported the attack in Bengazi (read foreign press for the truth). Way makes you think they have turned over a new leaf , they have never renounced their goal to destroy Isreal and still view us as their enemy. So why in the world, especially if Obama thinks it is less than 50 50 it will work would you ease the sanctions giving Iran 6 months to accelerate their goal of getting the bomb.
    So, if Iran is so close to getting a functional nuclear devise, just what is the solution you think should be pursued? The Republicans have crippled the American war machine (by cutting taxes during war), and the American people are weary of sending their sons and daughters off to war, while the ones who get rich from such wars are safe and sound at home.

    December 8, 2013 01:32 pm at 1:32 pm |
  5. rs

    Iran is most likely taking page out of North Korea's book. Nothing they have said indicates they intend to stop enrichment. Time will tell if Obama, Kerry and the rest of the world were snookered yet again. But one thing is for sure, this whole thing has frozen Israel in its tracks. Maybe that is all it was intended to do?
    Think Donna, think. The Bush doctrine DID NOT work in N. Korea, and everything else (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) has at best backfired. Why in the world should we pursue what did not work in the past? The GOP wants status quo, we get that, but we have neither the money nor the manpower to try to stamp out the rudimentary technology around the world that produces nuclear weapons. The world has to figure this out not us, and Halliburton can just go on and be less profitable for a few years. Mr. Cheney will just need to trim his spending.

    December 8, 2013 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  6. Anonymous

    Obama is right, everyone knows that Nentanyahu would be against any peace deal the world comes up with. Israel would always benefit more if there is going to be a state of war brewing in the Middle East so that the Zionist government could continue stealing Palestinian lands and practice the evil apartheid against Christians, Muslims and atheists unnoticed by the the rest of the world.

    December 8, 2013 04:26 pm at 4:26 pm |
1 2