Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chairman Kerry Opening Statement At Hearing On Engaging Iran

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:53 PM
Original message
Chairman Kerry Opening Statement At Hearing On Engaging Iran

Chairman Kerry Opening Statement At Hearing On Engaging Iran

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) released the following opening remarks at the hearing titled, “Engaging Iran: Obstacles and Opportunities”.

Full text as prepared is below:

Faced with a crowded field of foreign policy challenges, we are here today to discuss one of the most controversial and most consequential: How to engage with Iran and prevent it from becoming a nuclear-armed nation.

This is our third public hearing on Iran in the last two months and it won’t be the last. We are fortunate to have two panels of witnesses whose broad experience helps us anticipate the road ahead.

Make no mistake, there are obstacles in our path as we pursue a new policy. But there are also opportunities.

As I’ve said before, President Obama is right to open the door to direct talks with Iran. We want to join with him in seeking a new way forward, based on mutual respect and mutual interests.

We start with the reality, always recognized by the administration, that engagement alone is not a strategy and talks are not an end in themselves. They are only the beginning of what will be a long and difficult effort to forge a new era in US-Iran relations.

Progress is not a given. Our efforts must be reciprocated by the other side: Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Tehran and recognize a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran’s leaders must moderate their behavior and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

And Iran’s leaders must comply with the international community’s requirements that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes and meet its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty obligations.

We cannot succeed alone. We need to work with our allies to establish realistic goals for negotiating with Iran and to reach a private agreement on a set of escalating measures should Iran fail to respond to negotiations.

This is neither the time nor the forum to outline these contingencies. This is the time to reaffirm our commitment to giving meaningful negotiations with Iran’s leaders a chance, not to fall back on the stale rhetoric and failed strategies of an earlier administration.

Still, as policymakers, we need to understand the sanctions that have defined our relationship with Iran for more than two decades. Understanding the past is essential if we are to build a new relationship with an old enemy.

Sanctions – even coordinated, multilateral sanctions – are a blunt instrument with an imperfect track record. When it comes to Iran, the verdict on them is mixed at best.

Sanctions slowed Iran’s nuclear program, but they did not prevent it from acquiring the capacity to enrich uranium on an industrial scale.

With the help of other countries, we’ve had more success in denying banks and companies involved in Iran’s proliferation and terrorism activities access to the U.S. financial system.

But, as our first witnesses will explain, the firewalls and filters don’t always work.

The most startling example came to light recently when Britain’s Lloyds Bank settled a criminal case with the New York District Attorney and the Justice Department. Lloyds agreed to pay a $350 million fine for helping Iranian banks wash hundreds of millions of dollars worth of prohibited transactions through U.S. financial institutions.

The scheme was so pervasive that bank employees were given a handbook on how to evade U.S. prohibitions.

The CIA and FBI are reconstructing several hundred thousand individual transactions to determine whether they involved material and technology destined for Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.

We’re going to hear about that case and others from a man whom I’ve known and respected for more years than either of us cares to count: Robert Morgenthau, the district attorney of New York.

They often say that crime knows no borders. Neither does Mr. Morgenthau. Criminals fear his name not just in mob hangouts in New York or the corridors of Wall Street– but in foreign capitals, too, as I found out when we worked closely together to uncover the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal.

We’re honored to have Mr. Morgenthau here, along with Assistant District Attorney Adam Kaufmann, who led the investigations and prosecutions of these procurement cases.

Following their testimony will be another familiar face and distinguished public servant.

Ambassador Nick Burns was the Bush administration’s point man on Iran as undersecretary of state from 2005 to 2008 and he is a well regarded and strong advocate for diplomacy. Now that we have an administration that seems to be enacting many of the policies that Nick has been pushing for years, I wonder if he regrets retiring in 2008.

Nick will pick up the other side of the coin, if you will, and help us understand the diplomatic challenges and the opportunities for success.

Let me just add that after serving many years overseas and wandering the wilderness of Washington, Nick is now teaching at Harvard. I’m pleased to welcome Nick and his wife, Libby, back to their home state of Massachusetts.

We thank the three of you for being with us today and we look forward to your testimony. I recognize Senator Lugar for his opening statement.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting that Kerry tapped Morgenthau for this hearing on Iran......
Edited on Wed May-06-09 04:58 PM by blm
considering the experiences both men have had tracking the dirty money deals of BCCI and the fascist cronies who use illegal banking networks around the globe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. They both referred to that time
not to mention the entire topic of this kind of illegally funding these things and the ways to make it harder here a big issue they discussed. In addition, just as the BCCI stuff ended up showing lots of stuff that had little to do with banking, the info Morgenthau uncovered will inform what we know on Iran's program. That was the unsettling part of this hearing.

The second panel is what was more reassuring - at least as far as anything on Iran is. My overall take away was:
1) Iran is making serious progress in creating a bomb
2) Regime change is NOT the current policy
3) Burns speaks of the non-engagement policy being not just Bush's, but all Presidents since Carter (clearly spreading the blame there - but it seems fair)
4)Burns has some optimism that Obama can get Iran and Russia to deal with him when they wouldn't with Bush.

It is now on: http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090506a.html

This is a great hearing - you in particular will love it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Forgot to anwer the first part
The reason Morenthau was there because he recently busted Lloyd's Bank (UK) with offering a service to Iranian banks. When Iran wants to buy things in foreign countries, it is done with dollars, so the transactions need to go through the US, specically through big NYC banks. Lloyd's took the financial records from Iranian banks and produced replicas with the information that iit originated in Iran stripped out and made to look like it was from a Lloyd's client. It is incredible that Morgenthau's team found this and pursued it - and Kerry praised him for always pursuing these tough cases. (He said as a young assistant Da, he and others patterned how they ran their offices after Morgenthau - adding something like it was a "fun" job. )

This really was a hearing that where it was incredibly right that Kerry was the Chair of the SFRC. The questions at one point sounded like ones he has thought of for decades - they echoed concerns in The New War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. I think Morganthau would've been a key advisor to Kerry's DoJ if BushInc had stolen 2004.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nikolas Burns had at least some optimism on this
as he thought that, in addition to other disagreements, that the Russians were reluctant to ally with the US under Bush, because they were concerned that it could be a prelude to war. He thought they might be more willing to under Obama. He and Kerry both argued that Russia as a neighbor of Iran has a vested interest in Iran not having a bomb.

If you haven't you may want to listen to the hearing - which is short for a hearing. In spite of all the serious things spoken about, it was in many ways the most optimistic hearing on Iraq. I liked the fact that there were clear statements that regime change is not our policy. There was also the recognition that we did not engaged diplomatically with Iran for 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Pres Obama has been offering deals to the Russians
in order to get their help with Syria and Iran.

Basically, Russia was pissed that the US was sponsoring 2 former satellite nations NATO membership and that the US was going to build military bases along the old borders. However, Pres Obama has offered to cancel the bases in exchange for some help from Russia on other matters.

There is movement here and there are more possibilities than there were under Bush, that's for sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Kerry said it was impossible to do with past administrations - there was no WILL to confront
them and we certainly know enough about Bush1 and his coziness with the elite in China to know that he was fine with whatever they wanted as long as they stayed on board with his fascist agenda which included all that cheap labor for WalMart's stockecd shelves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-06-09 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
7. k&r - every committee in Congress needs to be connecting dots.. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC