WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)—White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest dialogued with reporters on Tuesday, March 4, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress and President Obama responded at the White House. Following is the transcript of questions and answers related to Netanyahu’s speech.
EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. You all just had an opportunity to hear from the President about his reaction to the speech from Prime Minister Netanyahu this afternoon. And I’m here to take your questions on that or any other topics that are on your mind today.
Q Okay. And the speech we just heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu, his whole premise of hating this potential deal was that Iran is such a threat, it can’t be trusted really under any means. Do you think that he overstated that threat on the basis that a deal is being worked out? And do you think that he did betray the trust between allies, as you put it, because he discussed some key points of that potential deal?
EARNEST: Well, Michelle, let me take the first part first, which is I think Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor, had a rather cogent way of summarizing our approach to this deal: Distrust and verify. As she laid out, and even as the President relayed in his comments in the Oval Office, there are a variety of reasons to not trust the Iranians. There are numerous examples of the Iranians not being honest with the international community about their nuclear program. There are a variety of examples of that. One, and in some ways, the best example of that is the nuclear facility at Fordow that the United States and our allies revealed early on in the President’s tenure in office, back in 2009.
So that is why, as the President mentioned in the Oval Office, any sort of deal that the United States signs on to will include historically significant verification measures. We’re talking about detailed verification measures that would include, of course, as you would expect, the routine inspection of nuclear facilities in Iran, but it would also expand to things like regular inspections of uranium mines that exist in Iran, regular inspection of manufacturing facilities that are related to nuclear equipment that are critical to the functioning of their nuclear program. We’re talking about an in-depth, rigorous inspections regime that can verify for the international community that Iran is living up to their end of the deal.
Now, the second part of your question was related to?
Q This idea that he was talking about, these points of a potential deal. Should he not have done that? Was that a betrayal of trust?
EARNEST: Well, again, the Israeli Prime Minister is allowed to make the decisions, as I referred to yesterday — is allowed to make the decisions about what he’s going to say based on his own assessment about the best interests of Israeli national security. That’s his responsibility as the politically democratically elected leader of Israel.
But the President has made clear that there are other concerns in mind, principally ensuring that the relationship between the United States and Israel isn’t subjected to the turbulence of partisan politics. And that’s why the President has chosen a somewhat different approach. It’s why the President is not meeting with the Prime Minister on this visit to the United States. But it does not reflect any change in this administration’s or this country’s commitment to Israel’s national security.
Q Back to Netanyahu’s speech. Did the Prime Minister say anything in his characterization of what Iran’s behavior has been, or is likely to be, that the administration disagrees with?
EARNEST: Well, I think it depends. What Prime Minister Netanyahu did detail at some length are the reasons that the international community does distrust promises that are made by Iran’s leaders. There is no doubt that Iran has done things, like routinely supported and continues to support terrorism around the globe, most of it in the region, but also around the globe.
There is no arguing, as the President pointed out, with the fact that Iran has menaced our closest ally in the region, repeatedly, including using some vile anti-Semitic language. There’s also no question, and I don’t think that Prime Minister Netanyahu raised this, but there are also some American citizens who are currently being unjustly held in Iran.
So the list of concerns that we have with Iran is lengthy, and several of the items at the top of that list are significant. But what we know is that it is important for Iran not to obtain a nuclear weapon, because obtaining a nuclear weapon would only strengthen their hand as they try to do the other bad things that they do. That if Iran has a nuclear weapon and they’re supporting terrorism, it makes their support for terror groups even more dangerous. If Iran has a nuclear weapon and they are menacing Israel, that makes those threats even more dangerous.
And the fact is, if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon and they unjustly detain American citizens in their country, it makes it harder to get those citizens back. So that is why the President has made as his priority resolving the broader international community’s concerns with their nuclear program.
And the strategy that the President has laid out is one that we can count on to best resolve our concerns with their program. If we can put in place very tough monitoring requirements and extend the breakout time to one year, that’s the best way, that’s the best possible way to resolve the international community’s concerns with their nuclear program.
The alternative that was advocated by Prime Minister Netanyahu and others falls far short of that. Military action we know would fall far short of that. Additional sanctions that would cause our international coalition to crumble would fall far short of that.
The strategy that the President has laid out is the one that has the best likelihood of success and is the one that can best resolve the concerns of the international community. The only X factor is whether Iran is going to sign on to an agreement that does all of those things.
And that is why all along we have continued to place the likelihood of success of this particular path at 50/50. But because of the potential benefits that lie at the end of this path, that’s why the President believes it’s one that’s worth pursuing.
Q As you may be aware, the Prime Minister said, the alternative isn’t military action or doesn’t necessarily need to be; it’s a better deal. Meaning, force Iran to dismantle its underlying nuclear technology so it can’t have this capability and can’t have a breakout potential. Is the Prime Minister describing a world that he imagines but that doesn’t actually exist?
EARNEST: It certainly is not a plausible outcome in the minds of the United States. And what is a plausible outcome is an outcome that has Iran voluntarily rolling back key aspects of their program, that has Iran agreeing to a set of monitoring restrictions that would allow international experts routine and frequent access to their nuclear facilities so that they can confirm for themselves that Iran is living up to their end of the agreement.
That is the best way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program.
Q Can you tell us what the White House’s assessment of what the Prime Minister’s speech does in terms of the President’s ability to sell this deal on Capitol Hill? If ultimately, if Iran — if permanent sanctions, were they to mean — these are two Republican houses that have now shown great enthusiasm and support for what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today. Does that, in fact, kill the deal for President Obama if he can’t sell it to Congress?
EARNEST: Well, no. Let me take this in a couple of different parts. The first is, the President made pretty clear in the Oval Office when he was talking about this that he’s not focused on the politics or on the theater, he’s focused on resolving the threat from Iran’s nuclear program. And so he is not going to be distracted from focusing on that threat and he’s hopeful that others won’t be either.
Now, the other thing that’s true is that there was a lot of talk from Prime Minister Netanyahu criticizing, and in some cases even outright condemning, a deal that hasn’t been struck, a deal that doesn’t exist. So the fact of the matter is there will be ample opportunity for Congress and for the American public to review any agreement that’s struck between the Iranians and the international community, if such an agreement is struck.
Now, what we have said is that the odds of that happening are at best 50/50. But if we are able to complete this path, and we are able to reach an agreement that extends significantly Iran’s breakout period and puts in place tough verification and inspection measures, then everybody will have an opportunity to evaluate the deal. And at that point, we can have a discussion and maybe even a debate about whether or not the President is making the right judgment when he says that this is the best possible way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. We’re confident that if the agreement is reached and it reflects the kinds of outlines that the President himself has laid out, that that’s the conclusion that fair-minded people will reach.
Q We’re not talking about fair-minded people, we’re talking about Congress. (Laughter.)
EARNEST: The transcript will reflect that you said that, not me. (Laughter.)
Q It’s true on both sides, all sides. And in this case, you’re going to have a situation where you’re in effect going to be asking Republicans to trust President Obama’s judgment over Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment. Can you honestly say you think that’s a likely scenario?
EARNEST: Well, what I can say — let me say a couple things about that. The first is, the President is the one who’s responsible for looking out for American national security. The Israeli Prime Minister himself acknowledged that he’s primarily focused on Israeli national security.
The good news is that because we’re such close allies and because we share such deep common values, that those interests almost always align. But it does mean that Prime Minister Netanyahu is taking a look at this situation from a slightly different perspective than individuals, including those individuals in Congress, who should be principally focused on American national security. So that’s the first thing.
The second thing is, members of Congress will have an opportunity to take a look at the agreement that’s been reached between the Iranians and the international community. And the other thing I think that is relevant here is that we did see a fair amount of skepticism both from Prime Minister Netanyahu and from some Republicans on the Hill about the interim agreement that was put in place between the United States and Iran, the so-called Joint Plan of Action.
And this is an agreement that was put in place a little over a year ago that has been in place while these most recent negotiations have taken place. And what that Joint Plan of Action did was it ensured daily access to Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow. It essentially blocked the continued efforts to construct a heavy water reactor at Arak that would have provide a plutonium path to a nuclear weapon.
It put in place verification measures that would essentially allow daily access to those facilities. And it put in place inspections measures that would prevent Iran from developing a covert path. It eliminated Iran’s stockpile of highly-enriched uranium. It capped their stockpile of low-enriched uranium. They have not added any additional enrichment facilities. They have not installed any additional centrifuges since this deal went into place. And we have the international community in place to verify that they’ve lived up to their terms of the agreement.
The irony of this whole situation is that a year ago Prime Minister Netanyahu was calling this a historic mistake, but in his speech to Congress today he’s suggesting that this agreement should remain in place in perpetuity.
The point is, Prime Minister Netanyahu and other critics of our approach to resolving the international community’s with Iran’s nuclear program have routinely, time and again, criticized agreements before they’d been struck, but then once they had been in place, frankly, touted their benefits.
So I guess my point is there will be an opportunity for people to evaluate for themselves the wisdom of the approach that the administration is taking on this. And the truth is, our track record on this is quite strong.
Q One last question. Is there any chance the President or Secretary Kerry would go back to the table and say, look, guys, look what I’ve got to deal with here, we’ve got to make this deal even stronger than the one I’ve already proposed?
EARNEST: The fact is the President is already driving a hard bargain at the table — making sure that we’re going to shut down the four paths to a nuclear weapon that Iran has available to them, making sure that we’ve got, frankly, historically stringent inspection regimes in place to verify that Iran is living up to their end of the agreement.
And so we’re already driving a very hard bargain here. And we’re doing this, frankly, in concert with our international partners, and that only strengthens our hand. The international unity around this is something that is starkly different than what was in place when the President took office. An approach that just relied solely on sanctions with no real hope of negotiations, frankly, fractured the international community and allowed the Iranian regime to, frankly, unify the opinion inside that country. But under this President’s leadership, we’ve actually reversed that scenario where the international community is united and we see a lot of cracks in the Iranian government about the wisdom of trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.
So you’re saying there’s no need to revise the negotiating position of the American side at this point of the P5-plus-1?
EARNEST: Because it’s so strong.
Q Can I ask you to elaborate on one thing the President said in the Oval Office? He said foreign policy runs through the executive branch, through the President. Does he view the speech today as an effort by Congress to usurp his constitutional prerogatives? Can you elaborate on that?
EARNEST: I think what’s clear is that Congress, in arranging this speech, tried to go around the executive branch. This is why you had representatives from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, or at least the Israeli government, working closely with representatives and the Speaker of the House without informing the executive branch. And I’m certainly no constitutional scholar, but it is clear that in our founding documents that our Founding Fathers envisioned the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief as being the principal policymaker when it comes to foreign policy and for representing the interests of the United States overseas.
Now, it doesn’t mean there’s not a role for Congress, and I welcome a debate about the proper role for Congress, particularly when it comes to passing a right-sized authorization to use military force against ISIL. So there is a role for Congress to play when it comes to foreign policy, but in this situation we saw congressional leaders — Republican congressional leaders, I might add — try to do an end run around the executive branch, and that was a departure from protocol.
Q And by saying that today so pointedly, is he trying to send a message to them that he’s not going to stand for that?
EARNEST: No, I don’t think — I think the President was responding to a direct question that he’d received from a journalist in the Oval Office, and it’s entirely consistent with the case that we’ve been making for weeks now that this represented a departure from protocol and certainly threatened to inject partisan politics in a relationship that has long benefitted from strong bipartisan support.
Q Despite that departure from protocol, didn’t you hear the Prime Minister show respect to the President by saying he’s done enormous things for Israel, things that are public, other things that are private that might be classified? So why didn’t the President show the Prime Minister the respect of, A, watching the speech or, B, at least sending an official of some level — any official — to go?
EARNEST: Well, two reasons for that, Ed. The first is, the President was not able to watch Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech because he was preparing for and convened a meeting with our —
Q But you added that right before the speech, right?
EARNEST: Well, this is a meeting that had been in the works for at least a couple of weeks, and it was an opportunity for the President to visit with his counterparts in Europe about the urgent situation in Ukraine. So this was an important foreign policy priority as well, and something the President was preparing for and leading in the midst of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech. But the President did show the Prime Minister the respect of reading his speech and both talking about it in public and even responding to a question about it.
Q When the President said he heard no viable alternative from the Prime Minister, does that mean the President was expecting some sort of a plan for a deal with Iran or some other way to prevent Iran? Did he want a plan?
EARNEST: Well, what the President had said is that the path that we are pursuing is the one that can most successfully address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapon. If there are concerns about this plan, then it’s not fair to just sit on the sidelines and complain about a plan. You are under some pressure and even an obligation, particularly if you consider this a priority, to present your own plan that you think would be better. And we didn’t hear that. And the President would make the case, as he did in the Oval Office, that there is not a better plan that exists.
Q Except we don’t know what the plan is. Isn’t it hypocritical to say, Mr. Prime Minister, lay out the details of a plan when you’re saying today, again, there is no deal. And you’re worried about leaks and you don’t want any of the details to come out. So the Prime Minister doesn’t know, the American people don’t know. So how can you demand a plan from the Prime Minister when we don’t know what your plan is?
EARNEST: I see what you did there, Ed. That’s what the kids do on the Internet. (Laughter.)
Q You said you want a plan. We don’t know your plan.
EARNEST: This is what’s clear — is the President has a very clear strategy that he has laid out, a plan for resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapon. And that is a plan that would extend the breakout period to 12 months, more than the two or three months that currently exist according to experts.
And what also would be part of that deal is a proposal to put in place historically stringent inspection measures to ensure that Iran is living up to their end of the bargain. And that is, in the mind of the President, the best possible way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. If there is anyone out there — a Republican, a Democrat, a leader in the Israeli government — who thinks that they have a better way for resolving the international community’s concerns about their nuclear program, then we’d like to see them put that plan forward.
What we know is that the military option does not do as much to resolve Iran’s — the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. This is the best possible path, and it depends, however, on one thing. It depends on Iran and their political leadership making some difficult decisions to agree to this plan. And there is reason for them to not. It is a tough deal. It requires them to roll back key aspects of their nuclear program. It requires them to abandon what we know, despite their protestations, has been an objective of at least some government leaders in Iran, which is to develop a nuclear weapon. And we know it will require them to submit to the kind of inspections measures that they have previously resisted.
So it is a tough deal. There is a reason why some people in Iran may say no. But it would clearly be in the best interest of the international community if Iran says yes.
Q On Prime Minister Netanyahu, is there any concern within the White House that this is such a bilateral fight, meaning is there — would the White House like some of the other leaders of the P5-plus-1 to back the President up on his view of taking on some of the criticism that the Prime Minister leveled today?
EARNEST: To be blunt about it, no. The President feels very confident in the position that he has taken. And it reflects the views of our negotiating partners in the P5-plus-1. It also reflects the view of the broader international community. The President also is confident — and he’s been presented zero evidence to the contrary — that the strategy that he is pursuing is the one that is best equipped to resolve the threat related to Iran’s nuclear program.
So the President is confident in this. And the President, frankly, is looking forward to what he hopes will be an opportunity for the broader international community to evaluate the agreement that’s been reached between Iran and the international community.
But, ultimately, that’s going to require Iran to agree to some very tough things, both as it relates to rolling back key aspects of their nuclear program, but also as it relates to agreeing to the kind of monitoring requirements that they have previously chafed under. So everybody will have an opportunity to evaluate the wisdom of this approach for themselves once a deal has been reached, if a deal has been reached.
Q Would the President revise the deal if people don’t like the deal?
Q In the speech itself, Nancy Pelosi called it an insult to the intelligence of the U.S. as part of the P5-plus-1 and suggested it was condescending. Is she right?
EARNEST: Well, I didn’t have an opportunity to see her comments. I know that she was planning to attend the speech today and she’s certainly entitled to her own opinion and her own reaction.
Q Was it an insult to the intelligence of the U.S. as part of the P5-plus-1?
EARNEST: Well, I think you heard very clearly the President’s own reaction. And the President’s view is that he’s not going to be distracted by the politics or the theater. He’s going to be focused on our goal, which is eliminating the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.
Q Another Democrat, Dianne Feinstein, called it a powerful speech, even though she agrees largely with the position that you all are taking. Would you call it a powerful speech? And if so, is there any concern about the impact that it might have on public opinion?
EARNEST: What the President is confident of is that once there is an opportunity for us to evaluate a deal, if a deal is reached, that the President will be able to make a very persuasive case about how lengthening the breakout period and putting in place very tough monitoring restrictions — or very tough monitoring requirements — that we can make a very good case that this is the best possible way for us to confront the threat from Iran’s nuclear program; that if we know that what’s happening in Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis, and if we know that at a minimum it would take Iran a year to break out and build a nuclear weapon, that we have resolved the international community’s concerns with that program. We’ve eliminated that threat.
Now, it would require vigilance. It’s going to require the international community and our international inspectors to continue to carefully inspect Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. We’re going to have to be vigilant about making sure that Iran lives up to this deal. But if we do, we know that Iran will not be able to acquire a nuclear weapon. And that will prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It will prevent Iran from being able to use that nuclear weapon to menace our strongest ally in the region, and it will strengthen the ability of the international community to deal with the volatility in the Middle East.
Q So would a correct summary of the White House position on this speech be that you don’t think it will have a negative impact — negative from your perspective — negative impact on either public opinion, on the ability of the President to sell the deal to Congress, or the negotiations themselves?
EARNEST: I think the easiest way to distill the reaction from the White House is that it doesn’t change the President’s mind about the wisdom of the approach that he’s pursing.
Q But it may change the mind of people who he needs to get this deal done.
EARNEST: And it should raise serious questions in the minds of people who doubt that pursuit because no alternative has been presented. And until there is, there is no reason to think that the President isn’t right when he says that this strategy is the way that we can — is the best possible way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with their nuclear program.
*
Preceding provided by the White House
__________________________________________________________________
Care to comment? San Diego Jewish World is intended as a forum for the entire Jewish community, whatever your political leanings. Letters may be posted below provided they are civil, responsive to the article that prompted them, and signed with your first and last name, as well as with your city of residence. There is a limit of one letter per writer on any given day.
__________________________________________________________________