...

In the first decade of this century, we all saw what happens when America favors the force of arms over the force of our diplomacy. In three of today’s most pressing challenges – in Iran, Syria, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – we saw the dangerous direction that events were heading. But with the careful balance of strength and diplomacy, we have now worked hard to transform those trends to shape a more secure future for our friends and allies, and deliver a hard-won and sustainable peace.

In Iran, the regime was spinning centrifuges faster and faster. In 2003, there were 164 centrifuges. Now, there are 19,000. There was a clear direction in which that program was moving, and Iran was clearly marching closer and closer to a nuclear bomb. The Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people, started a civil war that has taken more than a hundred thousand lives, and continues to use starvation as a weapon of war. Right next door, we see a demographic ticking time bomb testing whether Israel can remain both a Jewish and a democratic state. And we see a Palestinian people frustrated in their hopes of realizing their legitimate aspirations of economic opportunity and sovereignty.

In each of these cases, pundits and armchair isolationists said addressing the problem would be too hard, or that we were too late, or that it wasn’t our place, or that diplomacy wasn’t up to the task. But today, we see that American diplomacy, often backed by the strength of our military, in fact gives us the best chance to deliver a more secure future for our friends and allies, one where the people of the region are more free to pursue their common aspirations.

From day one, President Obama realized the danger a nuclear Iran would pose to our national security interests in the region, including our ally Israel. The President has kept his personal commitment to assuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and will not obtain a weapon by keeping the credible threat of force on the table while using all of the tools of American diplomacy to pursue a peaceful resolution.

As only the President of the United States can, President Obama brought the world together to impose the most biting sanctions regime in history. Thanks to the President’s leadership, Iran did come to the table. In fact, you can, beyond any reasonable doubt, carry the argument that the Iranian election was profoundly affected by the will of the people to get out from under those sanctions, and that they sent a message directly contrary to what was the original intent of the regime and the people they were backing for president, that they wanted to move in a new direction. And Iran came to the table, and we are negotiating from a position of strength.

So when those same pessimists said that we should accept or contain a nuclear armed Iran, the President actually saw a different future. He knew that if the United States didn’t test Iran, the region would only grow more dangerous, that if Iran indeed was merely contained, or that somehow we threw up our hands and said this can’t be achieved, there would absolutely be to a certainty an arms race in the Gulf states and in the region.

Today, to the contrary, it is clear that diplomacy provides the best path to neutralize this threat. And I am convinced beyond any doubt that our friends in the region absolutely, positively became safer the moment this agreement was inked. And the moment it is implemented, they will truly be able to measure additional safety. And that is because we have ensured, providing the implementation provides – proceeds forward, that Iran’s program will not advance while we negotiate.

As we negotiate, Iran will forfeit its entire stock of 20 percent enriched uranium, and that – that puts it a short step away from weapons grade uranium and bomb-making material. As we negotiate, Iran will be unable to grow its stock of 3.5 percent uranium, or to stockpile centrifuges, or to increase the number of centrifuges that were in operation. As we negotiate, international inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s key facilities, including daily access – which we don’t have today – to Fordow, daily access – which we don’t have today – to Natanz, and regular access to Arak, the heavy water reactor. As we negotiate, construction on the – as we negotiate, during the reprocessing facility at Arak, which could have provided an alternative path to a bomb because the plutonium – that now will not be able to move forward. All components that are not yet installed will not be able to be installed. No fuel rods will be transferred. No fuel will be transferred. No additional fuel will be able to be tested. The nuclear component of that facility will stop dead in its tracks where it is today.

As we negotiate, our Treasury Department will strongly enforce core sanctions architecture, which has deprived Iran of nearly 80 billion to 100 billion in oil revenues since 2012 as well as access to the international banking system. None of that architecture is undone in this first step agreement. It stays in place. As we negotiate, we will continue to be clear – absolutely clear – about the price of noncompliance, or of failing to satisfy the international concerns about the nuclear program in Iran. And guess what? If, in the course of this, Iran does not live up to those agreements, or if in the course of this we have failed to be able to reach agreement, we will immediately have the ability to ratchet up new sanctions and take whatever further steps are needed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Nothing has been taken off the table.

The first step that the P5+1 achieved in Geneva, I will tell you, was far from easy. And our task is far from complete. And none of us approach this on the basis somehow of existing trust. It’s not based on trust. Reagan said trust but verify. We say test but verify – test and verify. And that is exactly what we’re setting out to do. And we know the next six months are going to be even harder than this first step, because it’s going to take really tough decisions by Iran in order to absolutely live up to the notion that they’re prepared to prove that their program can only be peaceful. And when we say that, we know there are capacities that have already been built in and that are already part of their capacity today, but what we seek to do in this is expand every conceivable notion of breakout possibility from months to years. That makes Israel and the region and the world safer.

Now, it’s going to take strong military consultations with our partners, including Israel. Yossi Cohen, the national security advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is here in Washington this week, already consulting with us. And we will consult with all of our partners – our European partners, Russia, China, our P5+1 partners, as well as other countries in the world – in order to focus in on what we must achieve at the negotiating table.

We still are convinced – we know that no deal, in the end, is better than a bad deal. A bad deal can lull you into some belief that you achieved something you haven’t while they have a loophole that allows them to do what you don’t want them to do. I assure you every expert in the world will be looking at this. Obviously, our friends and allies will, and we will, with as careful an eye as is humanly possible to make certain that if Iran has this program going forward, it is indeed the peaceful program, and can only be the peaceful program, that they profess it to be.

...

If diplomacy, backed by the credible threat of military force, can erase the menace of chemical weapons in Syria, if it can ultimately prevent the menace of nuclear weapons in Iran, if it can pave the way to peace and security between Israelis and Palestinians, if we can fully address these threats near and far without going to war, the region and the world will be far better off, and you, we, together will invite a true transformation in the life of that region. And the United States will gain because of that.

...