RUSH: John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry, by the way, who served in Vietnam, on his way to Switzerland to close the deal with Iran on nuclear weapons. A New York Times story today, headline is: “In Nuclear Talks, Iran Seeks to Avoid Specifics.” Well, of course. Why would they get specific? “Death to America!” It’s just for domestic consumption. “In Nuclear Talks, Iran Seeks to Avoid Specifics.” First sentence of the article says this: “If an agreement to limit IranÂ’s nuclear capability is reached by deadline in the next seven days, one thing may be missing: an actual written accord, signed by the Iranians.”
Not kidding. If there is a nuclear deal with Iran, it may not be committed to paper. It may not be written down. And if it isn’t written down, obviously there’s no way anybody can verify what it actually says. And if it isn’t written down, any signature that is said to accompany it is meaningless.
No wonder Obama doesn’t want to have to show this deal to Congress. It’s a secret deal, no wonder he doesn’t want to have to show it. There isn’t gonna be anything on paper to show. Here’s more from the article. If a deal is reached, “the United States and its five negotiating partners may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of describing the accord as they understand it while the Iranians go home to offer their own version.”
So, in other words, folks, the Iranians might tell their people that they’re still gonna continue to pursue nuclear weapons, but the Regime, the Obama Regime will probably explain that they’re only saying that for domestic consumption. It isn’t gonna be written down. The Iranians can go home and tell their people whatever they want.
Let’s do another scenario, based on real life that happened already this week. We have a deal with Iranians, we don’t know what it is other than what we’re told because it’s not on table. Kerry and Obama tell us, let’s say, the Iranians have agreed, they’ve seen the wisdom of our ways and they have agreed to postpone the development of any nuclear weapons for 10 years. They are going to continue to develop nuclear for the purpose of generating power for the poor in their country, but they have agreed with us to abstain from any nuclear weapons development for 10 years. Trust us, don’t doubt us, and that’s what the Iranians signed.
Then, back in Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei or the president goes on TV and announces they’ve just agreed with the United States to create nuclear weapons within the next two years to balance the status of forces and power in the Middle East. Okay, so then we have the Regime telling us that they forced the Iranians to agree to postpone any nuclear weapons development for ten years, which is the deal that we’ve been told. That’s what Netanyahu says. That’s the deal. But let’s just say the Iranians go home and start bragging to their people that they’re gonna have a nuke in two years.
So obviously some in the media might see the disparity here and ask somebody at the State Department about this. “Wait a minute, you just told us here that the Iranians have agreed — we haven’t seen it ’cause there isn’t an agreement — but you’ve told us that they’ve agreed to postpone nuclear weapons for 10 years. But the Ayatollah Khamenei just told his people he’s gonna have ’em in two years.”
“Well, he was just saying that for domestic consumption,” Marie Harf might say.
“We have to allow that the Iranians got their clocks cleaned,” this is the State Department spokesman talking. “We have to allow, we have to understand that our superior negotiators led by our superior leader, Barack Obama, really just skunked the Iranians in these talks. We got them to stand down, no nooks next week for 10 years, but they have to save face. So the Ayatollah Khamenei will go on Iranian TV and tell everybody he’s got a nuke coming in two years just to save face and we’re going to have to understand this.”
I mean, that’s a hypothetical, but we’re gonna have two different characterizations of the deal, or we likely could. Nothing’s gonna be written down. So we’re gonna have to take somebody’s word for what it is. The Obama administration, do they really think they can make a gentleman’s agreement with these lunatics in Iran? Do they really think they can take the mullahs at their word? I think Obama does.
I think Obama thinks, based on his personality type and the way he comported himself in the 2007-2008 campaign period, that he believes in the power of his words, the power of his charismatic personality and whatever else he thinks he’s got going for him. ‘Cause I think, see, Obama will be more than happy to take the Iranians at their word. He seems to get along better with them than he does with our allies. He doesn’t seem to have any problem with the Iranians.
The Iranians and the supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, go on Iranian TV “Death to America! Death to America! There is no deal! There is no deal where we are postponing nuclear weapon development. Death to America!” Just don’t worry about it, we’re told, that’s just for domestic consumption. He doesn’t seem to have any problem with the Ayatollah Khamenei pledging death to America. He doesn’t seem to have any problem with them eventually getting a nuclear bomb or taking over the Middle East in Yemen, which, how many short years ago was it that Obama told us that Yemen was one of the great success stories of American foreign policy, and Yemen has fallen.
Yemen is now under the control of ISIS and other extremist militant Islamists, and we were told just a few short years, maybe months ago, that Yemen stands out as a gigantic success story for American foreign policy. All of this sounds somewhat extreme, I admit, but we don’t have any actual evidence to show that Obama is opposed to any of this. All we have is his word. And now we’re told in the New York Times, no less, the Bible of the administration, that we’re gonna have a nuclear deal with Iran that is not written down. It will not likely be committed to paper. What in the name of Sam Hill?
RUSH: Jonathan Karl of ABC News pressed Josh Earnest today, the White House press secretary, on whether the Iranian nuke deal would be in writing. It was reported earlier today, it’s in the New York Times, that it might not be in writing. John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, is on his way to Switzerland. They’ve got six days to get this done by their imposed March 31st deadline, and we’re being told that it may not be committed to writing, that we’re just gonna have to trust what we are told about what’s in the deal.
Well, Jonathan Karl heard about this, and he’s been demanding that Earnest explain this, and Earnest would not. He would not commit. He’s mumbling things about tangible commitments. Here’s the sound bite. Karl says, “On the nuclear agreement with Iran, given that you need to show something to Congress, this would have been to be a written agreement. It would have to be an agreements signed by both sides. You’re not gonna just take a verbal, ‘Yeah, sure. We’re gonna do this’? Obviously still details still have to be worked out — you got a June detail for doing that — but this interim framework needs to be in writing and signed by both sides, right?”
EARNEST: We’re gonna seek very tangible commitments from the Iranians, and the president made a commitment to sharing those tangible commitments with members of Congress and with our allies, certainly —
KARL: Does that mean written? I’m just trying to understand what “tangible” means.
EARNEST: Well, again, I don’t want to get into what the — you know, where the talks are gonna lead here. We hope to be able to elicit tangible commitments that the Iranians have made that we can then share with our P5+1 partners, and with our allies, and with the United States Congress.
RUSH: There isn’t gonna be anything written down. That’s what that means. So Kerry’s gonna come away from whatever these next few days of talks with Iran are and tell us what the tangible agreements are. We’re gonna get “tangible commitments” from the Iranians, and then Kerry is gonna come back and liaisons will report to our so-called allies the P5+1 partners, our allies, and the US Congress. “Well, the Iranians have tangibly committed to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.” Wait a minute. How can we ratify that?
There’s nothing in writing? You’ve just got “tangible commitments”? Meanwhile, over in Tehran, the Ayatollah Khamenei is gonna be going on television announcing what these tangible commitments are that he’s committed to. “Death to America! Death to America!” We’re gonna be asking about that. “Oh, don’t worry about that. He’s just playing to his domestic audience. Don’t worry. We have tangible commitments.”
There isn’t gonna be anything written down. Now, why do you think that is? (interruption) Why…” (interruption) Well, it’s not just… (interruption) No… (interruption) Well, yeah, it’s not just that Congress won’t have a chance to veto it. It’s that Obama can make it whatever he wants to be. If there’s nothing written down and there’s no Iranian signature, Obama can say, “Yep, they swore off nuclear weapons forever!” Where does it say that? “It doesn’t. They made a tangible commitment. Don’t doubt me!”
But we can’t rely on that. We have to see somebody having signed that. We’ve gotta see those words. “No, you don’t, because there isn’t anything like that on paper. The Iranians wouldn’t go for that, but I trust ’em. I believe ’em.” They tangibly committed to whatever Obama says it is. That’s the thing. Obama wants the flexibility to be able to tell us whatever it is that’s been negotiated. If it’s on paper, it’s what it is. (interruption) How can it not be…? (interruption) Well… (interruption)
Okay, wait a minute. Wait a second. You’re asking me how can it not be on paper, right? Well, how the hell can 25 million people be granted citizenship with the wave of a wand? How can any of this be happening here? Because Obama’s doing it, and who’s gonna stand up to him? If Congress can’t sign it because there’s nothing to sign, if they can’t ratify it because there’s nothing written, then it just means that it is whatever Obama wants it to be and that’s gonna become the law of the land and it’s never gonna effectively be ratified. (interruption)
Snerdley is shouting at me through the IFB that whether we see it or not, there has to be some kind of a document somewhere that both sides have signed. At least the framework will have been committed to paper. Well, maybe, but we’re not gonna be shown it, and so if we not gonna have it shown to us, it doesn’t exist. If there is a signed document that nobody sees other than the signatories, then it essentially doesn’t exist. A tree just fell in the forest. Do you know it or are you relying on me to tell it just happened.
Were you there? Did you have to be there to know the tree just fell?
I just saw a beaver chewed through a tree there. It plopped over and killed a couple lizards on the way down. Did you see it? No. You’re having to rely on me to tell you. Poor lizards. But at least we got the beaver! (interruption) But there’s nothing on paper. You just gonna have to trust me. Trees fall in the forest all the time. Our enemies agree with us on all this. You just have to trust me that they have agreed… (interruption) Tangible… (interruption) Unconstitutional? Unconstitutional, you say? Unconstitutional? So F-ing what? To quote John Kerry.