Long May He Live BUT MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON PRES BIDEN’S SOUL

.
This section contains information about each of our so-called “Working Groups” that are currently underway.

During our 17 years of existence, we have had 5-6 so-called Working Groups whenever a particular policy issue (1) may require immediate action on the spur of the moment (rendering addressing it at the next regular monthly meeting impractical), and/or (2) may require long-term attention.

*****
Recent examples in the second category (“long-term attention”) are

(1) Our 2016-2018 Working Group to oppose the Destruction/Extinction of Great Salt Lake to grow alfalfa hay to feed Chinese cows, and

(2) Our 2018-2019 Thorium-Fission Working Group to solve global warming 100% in short order WITHOUT having to invade other countries militarily (such as China to prevent it from bringing on stream another monster-size coal-fired electric-generation plant EVERY WEEK) when the only economic green-energy source is nuclear (which even Bill Gates recognizes) and it is 100% safe if the fuel is thorium which is incapable of exploding so it cannot be used to produce a bomb, and which does NOT even need cooling systems or containment chambers.

*****
APPALLING example in the first (“short-fuse”) category --

The need for Working Groups in the first category was first recognized more than 12 years ago -- as described on the face of this bulletin board for Sec. 3 entitled “Possible Topics for Future Meetings” in the portion entitled “SHORT-FUSE NOTICE” describing, inter alia, the Yale University Biology Department’s creation of “Chimeras” with 50% human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA and PLANS TO CREATE “Chimeras” with 75% human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

Appallingly, this information was brought to our attention by a report on the PBS Newshour comprising an interview of a Yale Biology Prof. by Gwen Ifill, Co-Anchor and Managing Editor of the PBS NewsHour.

(1) “Appallingly” because Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

(2) But, even more “appallingly,” Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Gwen Ifill’s report of the Yale Biology Department’s Human/Chimp “Chimeras” was the topic of our 4/9/2008 meeting for which attendees were required to watch “The Island” – a 2005 movie starring Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor who are clones of wealthy individuals who have financed the creation of their clones so that their vital organs can be “harvested” if the wealthy individuals ever need transplants. [“Harvesting” meant, of course, death for the clone!!!]

*****
Chimera Reprise and Our “Short Fuse” Response -

Unfortunately, a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) regarding “Chimera” research appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

We formed a “Short Fuse” Working Group and filed comments with the NIH before their 9/6/2016 deadline!!!
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2033
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Long May He Live BUT MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON PRES BIDEN’S SOUL

Post by johnkarls »

.

Report of the EMERGENCY Meeting of The Iran Nuclear Deal (aka JCPOA) Working Group this morning (Sat April 3)


Following Reading Liberally’s tradition whenever a meeting report of any of its components is produced, Yours Truly prepares a report from his notes which is then posted on www.ReadingLiberaly-SaltLake.org following which any other meeting attendees are free to post any comments regarding inaccuracies or omissions.

This meeting report will be posted on www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org

(1) As a so-called reply to viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2021&sid=052f157f3 ... 3531b985b3; and

(2) As the fourth posting in Section 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org entitled “Working Groups Currently Underway.”


***************************************************************************
Report of the EMERGENCY Meeting of The Iran Nuclear Deal Working Group – Sat April 3

The face of Section 8 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org explains our long-time need for, and use of, Working Groups.

The first posting in Section 8 entitled “The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) Working Group” contains our 12/19/2020 e-mail to each of our then-192 members explaining once more the nature of our Working Groups and inviting every member to become a member of our Iran Nuclear Deal (aka JCPOA) Working Group.

On Pres. Biden’s Inauguration Day (Jan 20), our Iran Nuclear Deal Working Group sent a letter to Pres. Biden FedEx Overnight (the FedEx Tracking No. is 782820885644).

The subject of that letter was “Re: Reforming the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) To Prevent A Nuclear Holocaust in the Middle East.”

The text of that letter is replicated below following the first set of DOUBLE ASTERISKS (though without the original formatting of the original letter which can be downloaded at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2021&sid=052f157f3 ... 3531b985b3
or at viewtopic.php?f=619&t=2022&sid=052f157f ... 3531b985b3).


***************
On 1/25/2021, our working group met to decide whether to launch one our “Six Degrees of Separation E-mail” Campaigns to oppose Senate confirmation of Wendy Sherman as Deputy Secretary of State.

Wendy Sherman was the “lead negotiator” on the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal.

We decided NOT to oppose Wendy Sherman’s Senate confirmation because –

(1) President Biden was on notice (from, inter alia, our Jan 20 letter) of the dangers of agreeing to another Iran Nuclear Deal and we felt that “MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL” if he opts for any deal that does not satisfy our criteria;

(2) President Biden is capable of providing “guard rails” for Wendy Sherman and his other negotiators; and

(3) Denying President Biden his nominee would provide a convenient excuse for a failure to honor our plea.

A report of that meeting is available as the first so-called reply to viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2021&sid=052f157f3 ... 3531b985b3; or as the third posting in Sec. 8 of our website at viewtopic.php?f=619&t=2025&sid=052f157f ... 3531b985b3.


***************
The NON-ANNOUNCEMENT of next Tuesday’s (April 6) State Department Meeting with Iran in Vienna Austria on The JCPOA


The State Department has NOT EVEN issued a Press Release about this meeting. [Their Press Releases are catalogued at https://www.state.gov/press-releases/.]

Indeed, the U.S. media would not even know as of today about the meeting if it had not been announced by “the Europeans” on Thurs April 1 -- State Department “spokesperson” Ned Price during the daily State Department press briefing that afternoon said he had “just seen” the European announcement but (according to the transcript of the briefing) he could provide no information other than Pres. Biden has always wanted to jump back into the JCPOA.

The following afternoon (Fri April 2), the State Department daily press briefing was conducted by Jalina Porter who is a “Principal Deputy Spokesperson” for the State Department – whatever a “Principal Deputy Spokesperson” is though it appears to be higher in the hierarchy than Thursday’s Ned Price who was merely a “spokesperson.”

According to the April 2 transcript, Jalina Porter confirmed the U.S. State Department would meet in Vienna with Iran on Tues April 6 but --

(1) Did not know who would be the U.S. representatives; and

(2) Said the negotiations would be confined to (A) “nuclear steps that Iran would need to take in order to return to a compliance with the terms of the JCPOA” and (B) “sanction relief steps that the U.S. would need to take in order to return to that compliance.”


***************
Judy Woodruff and the PBS NewHour Interviewing Fri Evening Apr 2 The U.S. Chief Negotiator with Iran in Vienna on Tues April 6

[The transcript of that interview is reproduced below following the SECOND SET OF DOUBLE ASTERISKS.]


A mere 4.5 hours after the State Department Press Briefing in which they did NOT know who their Chief negotiator with Iran on Tues April 6 would be, Judy Woodruff was interviewing him for the PBS NewsHour.

Judy Woodruff originally joined the NewsHour in 1983 when it was known as The MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour; when Jim Lehrer retired in 2011, Woodruff became Co-Anchor with Gwen Ifill; when Gwen Ifill passed away in 2016, Woodruff became Sole Anchor and Managing Editor.


***************
Judy Woodruff SELLING HER SOUL TO THE DEVIL


It would appear that Judy Woodruff SOLD HER SOUL TO THE DEVIL in order to get the interview by confining her questions to what would be needed to restore Iran’s compliance and restore U.S. compliance.

SELLING HER SOUL because she obviously is not so ignorant that she fails to know AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT OUT IN THE INTERVIEW --

FIRST, the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal -

(1) did NOT provide for “anytime anywhere” inspections,

(2) did NOT impede at all Iran’s development of nuclear-capable short-range and inter-continental ballistic missiles (which are typically launched with such slogans painted on their sides as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the Big Satan” aka the United States – BTW, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has often, even in the wake of the JCPOA, led crowds in chants of “Death to America”), and

(3) guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons by 2030.

SECOND –

A nuclear Iran will immediately cause the so-called “Gulf State Six” to go nuclear!!! After all, they have no more faith in the so-called American “nuclear umbrella” than President Charles de Gaulle who pulled France out of NATO in 1966 in order to develop French nuclear weapons which the U.S. then derisively called the “Force de Frappe.”

[The “Gulf State Six” could immediately buy nuclear weapons from, say, Pakistan or North Korea, if not on the “black market” from a variety of sources.]

[The ‘Gulf State Six,” more formally known as the “Gulf Cooperation Council,” comprise Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (aka UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.]

THIRD –

A nuclear war between Iran and the “Gulf State Six” might well constitute “Valhalla - The Twilight of The Humans” and would, at the very least, mean that –

(1) With the world’s prevailing winds flowing from west to east, half of the world’s population could be wiped out by nuclear radiation, and

(2) With half of the world’s oil supply coming from the Persian Gulf or downwind from the Persian Gulf and becoming radioactive, the world could become impoverished overnight.

FOURTH –

Supporters of the Iran Nuclear Deal have argued that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was born in 1939, is likely to have departed the scene by 2030. However –

(1) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is just as rabid as his predecessor, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 when The Shah was deposed until 1989.

(2) So why should anyone think that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship -- only approved candidates are permitted to run for INFERIOR offices NOT INCLUDING “Supreme Leader” -- would produce a successor for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is any different from him or from his predecessor?

(3) After all, the record shows that since 1984, Iran has headed the list of the world’s “State Sponsors of Terrorism” (a list that the U.S. State Department is required to maintain under Sec. 6(j) of the Arms Export Control Act and under Sec. 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act and a list it took Iran only 5 years after the Shah was deposed to head continuously for the last 37 years).

(4) And worst of all, Iran’s behavior has grown continually worse (rather than better) in the wake of the Iran Nuclear Deal.


***************
Our Refusal To Join Judy Woodruff IN SELLING OUR SOULS TO THE DEVIL

For all of the reasons set forth in the preceding section about what Judy Woodruff FAILED TO ASK (which BTW were contained in our Jan 20 letter to Pres. Biden), we recommended to Pres. Biden the following –

(1) The imposition of the “snap back” boycott provisions that the Obama Administration so wisely built into the original JCPOA should be maintained and perhaps even increased/broadened if necessary to compel Iran to prove that it is willing to give up its nuclear weapons program, as it has always argued it is willing to do and, indeed, has argued does not even exist.

(2) Proof that it is willing to give up its nuclear program should comprise, at a minimum –

• Anytime, anywhere inspections;

• A ban on development of short-range and inter-continental ballistic missiles; and

• A ban on Iran’s ever acquiring nuclear weapons.

Pres. Biden, personally and through his representatives, has made clear that he WANTS TO GROVEL HIS WAY BACK INTO THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL by restoring U.S. compliance!!!

As explained above and in our Jan 20 letter to Pres. Biden, Iranian compliance with the deal is meaningless because it does not require anytime - anywhere inspections or any ban on the development of missiles – and guarantees Iran nuclear weapons by 2030.

Indeed, The Iran Nuclear Deal effectively begged Iran NOT to announce they had acquired nuclear weapons before 2030 since the lack of anytime - anywhere inspections guarantees they can acquire them anytime they want (if, indeed, they have not already done so).

After all, it was widely reported years ago even by the mainstream media that North Korea was testing Iran’s nuclear weapons for them with Iranian nuclear experts in attendance.

And what would we do if Iran suddenly announced that it already has nuclear missiles???

Wouldn’t it be too late to impose or re-impose sanctions at that point???

After all, even Prof. Kissinger at whose feet I studied “nuclear diplomacy” in the 1960’s, would say it would be silly to think Iran would ever give up its nukes once they have been acquired, so it is better to “move on” and implement “MAD” or “Mutual Assured Destruction” which has been the basis of our relations with Russia and China for many decades.

ACCORDINGLY, UNLIKE JUDY WOODRUFF AND THE PBS NEWSHOUR, we unanimously decided that we do NOT believe that we should turn our backs on the destruction of half the world’s population and half the world’s energy supply by stooping to make suggestions confined to the only thing Pres. Biden and his minions will consider – viz., how to comply with an Iranian Nuclear Deal that virtually guarantees the destruction of half the world.

Respectfully submitted,

John Karls



***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Harvard Club – Box 126
27 West 44th Street
New York, NY 10036
john@johnkarls.com
January 20, 2021


Strictly Personal and Confidential – Via FedEx

President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Re: Reforming the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) To Prevent A Nuclear Holocaust in the Middle East

This is a plea from a 192-member monthly public-policy study group that I have facilitated for the past 15 years. Its participants from around the country include many attorneys and professors. This plea enjoyed unanimous support from our 192 members.

The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) may have been the best agreement attainable in 2015 but its most-glaring inadequacies, which were recognized from the start, include –

(1) It does NOT provide for “anytime anywhere” inspections,

(2) It does NOT impede at all Iran’s development of nuclear-capable short-range and inter-continental ballistic missiles (which are typically launched with such slogans painted on their sides as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the Big Satan” aka the United States – BTW, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has often, even in the wake of the JCPOA, led crowds in chants of “Death to America”), and

(3) It guarantees Iran nuclear weapons by 2030.

We believe –

(1) A nuclear Iran will immediately cause the so-called “Gulf State Six” to go nuclear!!! After all, they have no more faith in the so-called American “nuclear umbrella” than President Charles de Gaulle who pulled France out of NATO in 1966 in order to develop French nuclear weapons which the U.S. then derisively called the “Force de Frappe.”

[The “Gulf State Six” could immediately buy nuclear weapons from, say, Pakistan or North Korea, if not on the “black market” from a variety of sources.]

[As you know, the ‘Gulf State Six,” more formally known as the “Gulf Cooperation Council,” comprise Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (aka UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.]

(2) A nuclear war between Iran and the “Gulf State Six” might well constitute “Valhalla - The Twilight of The Humans” and would, at the very least, mean that –

• With the world’s prevailing winds flowing from west to east, half of the world’s population could be wiped out by nuclear radiation, and

• With half of the world’s oil supply coming from the Persian Gulf or downwind from the Persian Gulf and becoming radioactive, the world could become impoverished overnight.

Supporters of the Iran Nuclear Deal have argued that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was born in 1939, is likely to have departed the scene by 2030. However –

(1) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is just as rabid as his predecessor, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who ruled Iran from 1979 when The Shah was deposed until 1989.

(2) So why should anyone think that Iran’s theocratic dictatorship -- only approved candidates are permitted to run for INFERIOR offices NOT INCLUDING “Supreme Leader” -- would produce a successor for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is any different from him or from his predecessor?

(3) After all, the record shows that since 1984, Iran has headed the list of the world’s “State Sponsors of Terrorism” (a list that the U.S. State Department is required to maintain under Sec. 6(j) of the Arms Export Control Act and under Sec. 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act and a list it took Iran only 5 years after the Shah was deposed to head continuously for the last 37 years).

(4) And worst of all, Iran’s behavior has grown continually worse (rather than better) in the wake of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

Accordingly, we believe –

(3) The imposition of the “snap back” boycott provisions that the Obama Administration so wisely built into the original JCPOA should be maintained and perhaps even increased/broadened if necessary to compel Iran to prove that it is willing to give up its nuclear weapons program, as it has always argued it is willing to do and, indeed, has argued does not even exist.

(4) Proof that it is willing to give up its nuclear program should comprise, at a minimum –

• Anytime, anywhere inspections;

• A ban on development of short-range and inter-continental ballistic missiles; and

• A ban on Iran’s ever acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thank you very much for your consideration.


Respectfully submitted,


John S. Karls
JD, Harvard Law School, 1967
Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003
Who’s Who in The World, 1994-2003



***************************************************************************
***************************************************************************
Judy Woodruff and the PBS NewHour Interviewing Fri Evening Apr 2 The U.S. Chief Negotiator with Iran in Vienna on Tues April 5


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-a ... clear-deal


U.S. and Iran agree to talks on returning to the 2015 nuclear deal
Apr 2, 2021 6:45 PM EDT


The United States announced Friday that it will join indirect talks with Iran beginning next week in Vienna, Austria. The ultimate goal is to have nations return to a 2015 deal in which Iran curbed nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Robert Malley, the U.S. special envoy to Iran, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.

• Judy Woodruff:

One major shift in this Biden administration, a willingness to engage with Iran to curb that country's nuclear ambitions.

As talks start in Vienna next week, there is a lot on the line.

And, for more, we speak with Robert Malley, the U.S. special envoy to Iran.

Rob Malley, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

So, first off, what is the U.S. goal in these talks, these indirect talks?

• Robert Malley:

So, the goal is to see whether we can agree on what steps the United States needs to take to come back into compliance with the nuclear deal and what steps Iran has to take to come back into compliance with the nuclear deal.

It's been many years since the United States has had that kind of engagement with Iran. It's going to be indirect. But we have seen the product of several years in which the Trump administration had tried to impose maximum pressure on Iran, withdrawing from the deal, trying to get Iran to surrender and to agree to better terms.

Well, the result four years later, is that we're worse off vis-a-vis Iran, both on the nuclear front, where Iran has expanded its program, and on the regional front, where they have become more aggressive.

So, our goal is to see whether we could agree on a road map back to compliance for both sides.

• Judy Woodruff:

So to clarify, this is about coming up with an overall agreement, making sure both sides are on the same page, coming up with an overall agreement, not with negotiating piecemeal steps?

• Robert Malley:

Well, that's right. But, again, this is just the first step. It's going to be a difficult, arduous path because of how much time has gone by and how much mutual distrust there is.

But our goal is to discuss indirectly with our European and other partners who have internal discussions with Iran to see whether we could define those steps that both sides are going to have to take. If they're serious about coming back into compliance with the deal, we're serious. President Biden said it during the campaign and since that the United States is prepared for a mutual return back into compliance.

Let's see if we could reach an understanding with Iran about what that means.

• Judy Woodruff:

Well, what is the minimum that the U.S. is prepared to accept? Does Iran have to come back into full compliance? And how do you confirm, how do you verify what that means?

• Robert Malley:

Well, absolutely. And we did it once before. We did it in 2016.

There is the International Atomic Energy organization that can do that verification. That's what we want to do. We want Iran to be back in full compliance with the deal.

I will just note, today, they have 10 times more enriched uranium than they did at the time in 2017. So, by the simple test, are we better off today than we were then, no, we're worse off. And so we want to get Iran back into compliance. And the United States knows that, in order to get back into compliance, it's going to have to lift those sanctions that are inconsistent with the deal that was reached with Iran and the other countries involved in the nuclear deal.

• Judy Woodruff:

Which raises, of course, the question, is the U.S. prepared to raise those sanctions?

We know, what is it, something like 1,500 new sanctions were imposed in the Trump administration. Is the Biden administration prepared to lift all of those?

• Robert Malley:

Well, what President Biden said is, we're prepared to come back into compliance if Iran is prepared to come back into compliance. So we will have to go through that painstaking work of looking at those sanctions and seeing what we have to do so that Iran enjoys the benefits that it was supposed to enjoy under the deal.

So we'd have to remove those sanctions that are inconsistent with the deal, if Iran is prepared to retract those steps and reverse the steps that it is taking in violation of its nuclear commitments.

• Judy Woodruff:

I want to quote to you something that Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, said in a tweet today.

He said, the aim of the session would be to — quote — "rapidly finalize sanction lifting and nuclear measures for choreographed removal of all sanctions, followed by Iran ceasing remedial measures."

Is that — is that — does it sound like you're on the same page?

• Robert Malley:

Well, I'm not going to engage in Twitter diplomacy.

I would put it this way. If we're realistic about what both sides have to do, if we engage in this with a realistic and constructive frame of mind, we could get there. But if either side takes a maximalist position, and says that the other side has to do everything first before it's going to move one inch, I think it's hard to see how this succeeds.

But Let's go in there with a constructive attitude, see what happens, see whether we can land on the same page. As I said, it's just the first step. We haven't had this kind of even indirect conversation with Iran in some time.

And so it will take some time to get back even to the semblance of the same page. But we hope we can take this first step in a constructive way and lead to the outcome that we would like to see, which is a mutual return into compliance with the deal.

• Judy Woodruff:

Rob Malley, how do you deal with the fact that Iran's nuclear scientists now have so much more information than they did in 2015, when this deal was originally agreed to?

Does this — is this just something the United States has to live with?

• Robert Malley:

Well, that's one of the questions that we're going to have to address. That's what coming back into compliance with the deal means, looking at what they have acquired, and how do we address that?

And that's why this is not as easy as just turning on a switch and we're back in compliance, they're back in compliance. It's going to require difficult discussions about what they need to do, so that we and others in the Iran nuclear deal and the International Atomic Energy organization are satisfied that Iran is back in compliance with the commitments that it made.

But that's exactly what we have to discuss and that we're going to be working on next week in Vienna.

• Judy Woodruff:

Is it fair to say the burden is equal on both sides, or do you look at Iran as having the greater burden of proof here?

• Robert Malley:

Again, I don't look at it in either way.

I think it's an issue of whether both sides can take the steps that are necessary to come back into compliance. President Biden said it. I mean, he was elected. That was the mandate that he ran on, which is that he believed that we were worse off out of the deal than we were in the deal.

And I think that's noncontroversial when you look at how much more Iran has developed its nuclear program, the reason — and how much more aggressive is it in the region than it was back in 2016. So, our goal, that — and so it's not a matter of who has the greater weight. It's whether both sides are prepared to carry the burden that they have to come back into compliance.

So, that's really — that's what we're going to test in the coming week and more, because this is — we're only in the first phase.

• Judy Woodruff:

And, as you know, there's a lot of discussion about the timing here.

Is it essential that this agreement be reached before Iran holds its elections in June?

• Robert Malley:

What's essential is that we get a good understanding, an understanding that's consistent with U.S. national security interests, from the U.S. point of view.

So, we're not going to rush this in order to beat any artificial or real deadline. But we're also not going to drag our feet in order to wait for those elections.

When there's an understanding that both sides are comfortable with, that's when there will be a deal. It has to be satisfactory to the U.S. It has to meet the conditions that the U.S. has and that other parties to the JCPOA, to the Iran nuclear deal, have.

We understand that there's an election coming up. And we know that Iran is very well aware of it. But our goal is to get to a correct return to the JCPOA, to the nuclear deal. And that's — and we will follow that pace in a very determined way. But we're not going to cut corners if we can't get a proper understanding before that time.

• Judy Woodruff:

But, just quickly, you do believe it's possible to get this done before June?

• Robert Malley:

It's possible, of course. I mean, every day that goes by, it becomes less possible, but it is possible.

And I do want to say before I leave just a thought that we have American detainees unjustly detained in Iran. We can't forget them. And anything that happens on the nuclear side, whether we succeed or fail, our goal is going to be to get them back home.

One of them, Siamak Namazi, is going to be marking 2,000 days unjustly detained in an Iranian prison tomorrow. So, we will work as hard as we can on the nuclear deal. We will get it as soon as it's possible. But we're never going to forget the Americans who are wrongfully detained and need to be reunited with their loved ones.

• Judy Woodruff:

Can there be a deal if they are not returned?

• Robert Malley:

We're going to get them home, and we will do everything we can. That's a priority for the president. It's a priority for the secretary of state. And it's a priority for my entire team.

• Judy Woodruff:

Robert Malley, who is the U.S. special envoy to Iran, thank you very much.

• Robert Malley:

Thanks so much for having me.

Post Reply

Return to “Section 8 – Working Groups Currently Underway”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest