2016 contenders sound off on Iranian nuclear deal
The Obama administration has announced some kind of initial framework towards a deal with the country of Iran over the topic of nuclear weaponization. As foreign policy will be a hot topic in 2016, many of the possible 2016 candidates have offered opinions on the deal.
First, the two Democrat responses I could find from Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley.
Clinton, meanwhile, held up the tentative agreement as an “important step” in preventing a nuclear Iran.
“Getting the rest of the way to a final deal by June won’t be easy, but it is absolutely crucial. I know well that the devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation,” Clinton said in a statement. “The onus is on Iran and the bar must be set high. It can never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon.”
But the former secretary of state allowed leeway for herself in case things go awry in the coming months, stating, “There is much to do and much more to say in the months ahead, but for now diplomacy deserves a chance to succeed.”
On the other hand, he stated that a nuclear-armed Iran would present the gravest “man-made” danger to American interests. “The greatest threat that we face right now in terms of man-made threats is a nuclear Iran and related extremist violence,” O’Malley said. “I don’t think you can separate the two.”
All he had to say about a possible deal with Iran was: “I’m hopeful.”
Reached for comment, O’Malley’s spokeswoman Lis Smith told JP, O’Malley “believes that allowing negotiations to continue has been the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. As the details of a possible agreement emerge, that agreement must be evaluated on its merits.”
As expected, Republicans were quick to pounce on the deal with criticism.
“Americans and our allies are right to be wary of a nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama Administration,” Perry said in an emailed statement to Breitbart News.
The likely 2016 presidential candidate issued this statement: “Each and every day, Iran undermines our allies, threatens our vital interests and murders innocent civilians across the globe. John Kerry lacks the judgment, common sense and moral clarity to negotiate any deal, much less Iran, and I am very concerned with the framework of this deal.”
Huckabee added, “We should be tightening our grip with the current sanctions not abdicating to the Ayatollah’s interests.”
“U.S. officials know that Iran has had a long-term plan to gain a nuclear weapon and destabilize the region through its support of terrorist organizations. And it is known that President Rouhani has never agreed to full and unfettered United Nations inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the potential 2016 presidential candidate wrote.
She went on to say the Iranian government constantly violated sanctions placed on Iran by the United Nations.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the deal — aimed at reining in Iran’s nuclear capabilities — “will only legitimize those activities.”
“Nothing in the deal described by the administration this afternoon would justify lifting U.S. and international sanctions, which were the product of many years of bipartisan effort,” Bush said. “I cannot stand behind such a flawed agreement.”
“The very first step for any deal, good or bad, should be submitting it to Congress, and the President making the case both to Congress and to the American people why this advances the national security interests of the United States,” Cruz told reporters after a town hall in Cedar Rapids. “Now everything President Obama has said up to this date has suggested that he is going to do everything he can to circumvent Congress.”
“By leaving Iran as a nuclear threshold state, President Obama’s deal with the Supreme Leader risks provoking a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world, one that threatens the survival of our closest regional ally Israel and our key Arab partners,” the post said. “History and common sense tell us that we should remain distrustful of Iran.”
More comments as I find them.