Iran Nuclear Deal: The Obama Doctrine & Iran | EXCLUSIVE FULL INTERVIEW | The New York Times

mr. president thank you for meeting with us that this really historic juncture good to be with Iran relations so you know as I think about it you've actually had the most intimate and direct negotiations with the Iranian leadership of any president since 1979 okay well I think that it's important to recognize that Iran's a complicated country just like work on complicated country there is no doubt that given the history between our two countries that there is deep mistrust that is not going to fade away immediately the activities that they engage in the rhetoric both anti-american anti-semitic anti-israel is deeply disturbing there are deep trends in the country that are contrary to not only our own national security interests and views but those of our allies and friends in the region and those divisions are real but what we've also seen is that there is a practical streak to the an Iranian regime I think they're concerned about self preservation I think they are responsive to some degree to their publics I think the election of rouhani indicated that there was an appetite among the Iranian people for a rejoining with the international community an emphasis on economics and the desire to link up with a global economy and so what we've seen over the last several years I think is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they've been in for a long time to to move in a different direction it's not a radical break but it's one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship and this nuclear deal I think is a potential expression of them you've had sent letters to the supreme leader obviously been indirectly receiving responses back have you learned anything about him in particular and where he is right now through these negotiations I he's a pretty tough read I don't have great insight beyond what I think I get from our intelligence folks I haven't spoken to him directly in the letters that he sends there's typically a lot of reminders of what he perceives as past grievances against Iran but what is I think telling is that he did give his negotiators in this deal the leeway the capability to make important concessions that would allow this framework agreement to come to fruition so what what that tells me is that although he is deeply suspicious of the West he is I think very insular in how he thinks about international issues as well as domestic issues and deeply conservative he does realize that the sanctions the regime that we put together was weakening Iran over the long term and that you know if in fact he wanted to see Iran re-enter the community of nations then there were gonna have to be changes obviously the Israeli government we know is opposed this deal and they've been consistently against it a couple of questions I had one is is it time for a u.s. Israel mutual defense treaty well we simply signal to Israelis signal to the region most of all to the Iranians don't even think about this well if you remember the speech that I gave you the United Nations I was very clear that one of the core interests of the United States in my mind and this is how our administration operated is that our allies in the region will be protected we will work with them and come to their defense and we don't have a greater ally than Israel in the Middle East and so you know what I have done is instruct my team to work with the Israelis to build on the already unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation that's in place I think even in the midst of the disagreements that I've had with Prime Minister Netanyahu both on Iran as well as on the Palestinian issue I've been consistent saying that our defense of Israel is unshakable I would consider it a failure on my part a fundamental failure of my presidency if on my watch or as a consequence of work that I had done Israel was rendered more vulnerable not just a strategic failure and and I think that's not a just a strategic failure I think that would be a moral failure I I think that in at a time when we see anti-semitism on the rise in Europe at the time when the violence and chaos of the Middle East so often expresses itself in the desire to destroy Israel the easy rhetoric with which people deny the Holocaust that's not just an affront to Israel that's that is a challenge to you know the kind of common humanity and the values that we fought for in World War two and a challenge to what America believes in terms of the Worth and dignity of all people so this is something I feel very deeply and the question is are there additional things that we can do to make sure that the Israeli people understand we've got their backs and that is true in my administration I am confident it will be true in subsequent administration's we have shown that through iron dome we've shown it through the military and intelligence cooperation that we've engaged in I personally have shown shown it in in times where there was great controversy for example last summer with respect to Gaza I was very consistent despite international cries to the contrary that Israel has a right to defend itself and the Israeli people are right to be afraid of the environment that they're in right they're gonna watch this video what would you say to them to persuade them that this is a deal worth pursuing well what I'd say to them is this you have every right to be concerned about Iran this this is a regime that at the highest levels has expressed the desire to destroy Israel that has denied the Holocaust that has expressed venomous anti-semitism etic you know ideas and is a big country for the big population and and is is a as a sophisticated military so it Israel is right to be concerned about Iran and they should be absolutely concerned that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon what I would say the Israeli people is however that there is no formula there is no option to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon that will be more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward and that's demonstrable we know that a military strike or a series of military strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program for a period of time but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb will provide an excuse for hardliners inside of Iran to say this is what happens when you don't have a nuclear weapon America attacks we know that if we do nothing other than just maintain sanctions that they will continue with the building of their nuclear infrastructure and we'll have less insight into what exactly is happening and so this may not be optimal you know in a perfect world Iran would say we won't have any nuclear infrastructure at all but what we know is that this has become a matter of pride and nationalism for Iran even those who we consider moderates and reformers are supportive of some nuclear program inside of Iran and given that they will not capitulate completely given that they can't meet the threshold that Prime Minister Netanyahu sets forth there are no Iranian leaders who would do that completely recognizing Israel which he's now asked for and given the fact that this is a country that withstood an eight-year war and a million people dead so they've shown themselves willing I think to endure hardship when they considered a point of national pride or in some cases national survival for us to examine those options to say to ourselves you know what if we can have vigorous inspections unprecedented and we know at every point along their nuclear chain exactly what they're doing and that lasts for twenty years and for the first ten years their program is not just frozen but effectively rolled back to a larger degree and we know that even if they wanted to cheat we would have at least a year before which is about three times longer than we'd have right now and we would have insights into their programs that we've never had before in that circumstance the notion that we wouldn't take that deal right now and that that would not be in Israel's interest is simply incorrect and look I have to respect the fears that the Israeli people have and I understand that Prime Minister Netanyahu is expressing the deep-rooted concerns that a lot of the Israeli population feel about this but what I can say to them is number one this is our best bet by far to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon and number two what we will be doing even as we enter into this deal is sending a very clear message to the Iranians and to the entire region that if anybody messes with Israel America will be there and and I think the combination of a diplomatic path that puts the nuclear issue to one side while at the same time sending a clear message to the Iranians that you have to change your behavior more broadly and that we are going to protect our allies if you continue to engage in destabilizing aggressive activity you know I think that's a combination that potentially at least not only assures our friends but starts bringing down the temperature and as you know Tom the the issue here is not just Iran's conflict with Israel the issue is also Iran's conflict with the Sunni States and what I've done alongside the negotiations around they were on nuclear program is also to reach out to the Gulf countries invite them to Camp David and suggest to them how can we work together to strengthen their defense capabilities against external aggression so that in each case our friends and allies are traditional friends and allies who are rightly concerned about Iranian behavior overall don't think that this somehow changes our traditional commitments one thing I'm not clear about in the draft agreement is the framework um if we suspect that Iran is harboring a nuclear program outside of the facility so that in you know southeastern Iran we discover that on a military base there is it is that your understanding it is our right to inspect that facility that it anywhere in Iran not just the the known nuclear sites well there are a couple of things that are I think are important been a lot of debate absolutely be good to clarify in the first instance what we've agreed to is is that we will be able to inspect and and verify what's happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz what that means is is that we're not just gonna have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites we are going to be able to see what they're doing across the board and in fact if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon they'd have to completely duplicate they'd have to create created a whole different supply chain that's point number one point number two we're actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what they're importing what they're bringing in that they might claim as dual use to determine whether or not what they're using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program and number three what we're going to be doing is setting up a say a mechanism whereby yes ie ei inspectors can go any place any place in Iran now that we suspect that we suspect yeah obviously a request will have to be made Iran could object mm-hmm but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard that it is not a final veto that Iran has but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection and if they determine it should be that's the tiebreaker not Iran saying no you can't come here so overall what we're seeing is not just the additional protocols that IEA has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs we're going even beyond that and and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before there'll be as vigorous as they'd ever done I want to go back to your point about our Sunni Arab allies and Iran you've spoken about the need to make our relationship our strategy in the region they have more of an equilibrium to it I wonder if you could talk about that mr. president and also how do we do that without Saudi Arabia and Iran fundamentally you know burying the hatchet or finding a way to contain the whole Sunni Shiite conflict well here's how I think about it Tom I think that our friends in the region are traditional Sunni States have some very real external threats but they also have some internal threats they had the internal threat of populations that in some cases are alienated youth that are underemployed a an ideology that is destructive and an nihilistic in some cases just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances and so part of our job is to work with these states and say how can we build your defense capabilities against external threats but also how can we strengthen the body politic in these countries so that Sunnis youth feel that they've got something other than ISIL to to choose from and and that's going to be a generational process we're not going to be able to do that overnight and by the way ultimately it will be up to those societies to do it the conversations I want to have with the Gulf countries is first and foremost how do they build more effective defense capabilities I think when you look at what happens in Syria for example there's been a great desire for the United States to get in there and do something but the question is you know why is it that we can't have Arabs fighting on behalf of you know the terrible human rights abuses that have been perpetrated or fighting against what Assad has done I also think that I can send a message to them about the USS commitments to work with them and ensure that they are not invaded from the outside and and that perhaps will ease some of their concerns and allow them to have a more fruitful conversation with the Iranians what I can't do though is commit to dealing with some of these internal issues that they have without them making some changes that are more responsive to their people and and I think that I guess one way of thinking about this time is when it comes to external aggression I think we're going to be there for our friends and I want to see how we can formalize that a little bit more than we currently have and also help build their capacity so that they feel more confident about their ability to protect themselves from external aggression but I think the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading it's going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries now that disentangling that from real terrorist activity inside their country how we sort that out how we engage in the counterterrorism cooperation that that's been so important to our own security without automatically legitimizing or validating whatever repressive tactics they may employ i think that's a that's a tough conversation to have but it's one that we have to have clear there's a debate inside Iran also on this issue um and obviously got extremists who will super impose any deal but there's a few feels like a legitimate debate inside going on that you've triggered what would you say to the Iranian people about why this is a good deal for them what I'd say the Iranian people is if we take the Supreme Leader's fatwa seriously and that was preceded by Ayatollah Khomeini's but would that they will not have a new that they will not have a nuclear weapon then the the notion that they would want to expend so much on a symbolic program as opposed to harnessing the incredible talents and ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the Iranian people and be part of the world economy and see their nation excel in those terms that should be a pretty straightforward choice for them you know Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to be a powerhouse in the region for that matter what I'd say the Iranian people is you don't need to be anti-semitic or anti-israel or anti Sunni to be a powerhouse in the region I mean the truth is Iran has all these potential assets and going for it where if it was a responsible international player if it did not engage in aggressive rhetoric against its neighbors if it didn't express an anti-israeli an anti-jewish sentiment if it maintained a military that was sufficient to protect itself but was not engaging in a whole bunch of proxy wars around the region by virtue of its size its resources and its people it'd be an extremely successful regional power and and so you know my hope is is that the Iranian people begin to recognize that clearly part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences the sense that their country was undermined that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war and so part of what I've told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven offensive Iran and the the defensive Iran that it it feels vulnerable and sometimes this may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past and and hopefully if we're able to get this deal finalized and I want to emphasize we're not done yet there's a lot of details to be worked out and you could see backtracking and slippage and you know real political difficulties both in Iran and and obviously here in the United States Congress still not 50/50 so it's better than 50/50 50/50 now but but we still got work to do yeah but but if we're able to get this done then what may happen and I'm not counting on it but what may happen is is that those forces inside of Iran that say you know we don't need to view ourselves entirely through the lens of our war machine let's excel in science and technology and job creation and developing our people yeah that those folks get stronger and and I say that time but but emphasizing that the the nuclear deal that we've put together is not based on the idea that somehow the regime changes it is a good deal even if Iran doesn't change at all even for somebody who who believes as I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that there's no difference between rouhani and the supreme leader and they're all you know adamantly you know anti west and anti-israel and perennial liars and cheaters even if you believed all that this still would be the right thing to do it would still be the best option for us to protect ourselves in fact you could argue that if they are you know implacably opposed to us all the more reason for us to want to have a deal in which we know what they're doing and that for a long period of time you know we can prevent them from having a nuclear weapon yeah you've knocked down the wall with Burma you're knocked down a bigger wall with Cuba and potentially you're gonna knock down a really big wall with Iran I actually started as a journalist in 1979 I realized my whole career has only been defined by hostility and from my whole generation in this relationship I feel like underneath there is a bit of an Obama doctrine in there and it's take care of all the strategic concerns and satisfy them as much as you can but you you do believe that that the engagement is possible that that engagement can lead to different outcomes that are unpredictable you know in advance can it do I have that right well how do you see it you know what I'd combine it with though tom is also a sense that we are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk that's interesting and and and and that's the thing that sometimes as I hear these debates going on people don't seem to understand you take some country like Cuba you know for us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people there aren't that many risks for us it's a it's a tiny little country it's it's not one that threatens our core security interests and so for us to test the proposition and if it turns out that it doesn't lead to better outcomes we can adjust our policies the same is true with respect to Iran a larger country a dangerous country one that has engaged in activities that result in the death of US citizens but the truth the matter is Iran's defense budget is thirty billion dollars our defense budget is closer to six hundred billion dollars Iran understands that they cannot fight us and you believe they are datura belitz noting that they're under turrible is simply not the case and and so the so for us to say let's try understanding that we're preserving all our options that were not naive but if in fact we can resolve these issues diplomatically we are more likely to be safe more likely to be secured in a better position to protect our allies and who knows Iran may change if it doesn't our deterrence capabilities our military superiority stays in place so you know to to use a simple analogy it's not as if in all these conversations I'm leaving all you know rifles that you know at the door we're walking these negotiations and everybody knows that we've got the most firepower and and and we're not relinquish offend ourselves or our allies in that situation why wouldn't we test it it and and now you know what what you might hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu which which I respect is the notion look Israel's more vulnerable we don't have the luxury of testing these propositions the way you do and and I I completely understand that and further I completely understand Israel's belief that given the tragic history of the Jewish people they can't be dependent solely on us for their own security but what I would say to them is that not only am i absolutely committed to making sure that they maintain their quality of qualitative military edge and that they can defer defer deter at any potential future attacks but what I'm going to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood including Iran a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state that we would stand stand by them and and that I think should be you've just made that commitment right now I mean that's a signal to that that that should that should be in sufficient to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table the the one thing that changes the equation is when these countries get a nuclear weapon then how we approach countries necessarily changes you know witnessed North Korea which is a problem state that you know is rendered a lot more dangerous because of of their nuclear program if we can prevent that from happening in anyplace else in the world that's that's something where it's worth taking some risks two quick questions to close mr. president one is on Congress if the deal is this good why not let them debate it and approve it and I understand the other side of it which is they're people there who really want to debate it just to reject it is there a middle ground let them debate it and have a non-binding resolution obviously their choice not yours but how are you thinking about that now yeah I think I've reached out to Speaker Boehner and Mitch McConnell as well as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and what I've said to them as we will not only go through all the details of what the current framework is and provide them updates in terms of how the negotiations go going forward but we are committed to finding a mechanism for appropriate congressional involvement and oversight you're right tom that what I'm not interested in seeing is folks who are hell-bent on just defeating any deal aren't interested in listening the nuclear scientists aren't interested in listening the experts but are viewing this purely through the lens of partisanship I'm not interested in endangering a very critical international agreement on that basis number two is I've got to be concerned about setting precedents there has been a suggestion on the part of some members of Congress that President United States doesn't have the power to enter into binding agreements with other countries well they're a whole bunch of agreements that we make all over the world from protecting our troops when they're on foreign soil to arrangements that fall short of a formal treaty but have always been understood to be binding on the United States of America as part of our international leadership international commitments and I don't want to set precedents that suggest that every time a president enters into one of these agreements that Congress gets a up or down vote but having said that I do think that senator corker the head of the Foreign Relations Committee is somebody who's sincerely concerned about this issue and it is a good and decent man and my hope is is that we can find something that allows Congress to express itself but does not encroach on traditional presidential prerogatives and ensures that if in fact we get a good deal that we can go ahead and implement so um one of these that's really wonder if it's concerning you is it people crossing some red lines here we've seen senators writing a letter to a foreign leader in the middle of the negotiations we've seen people fighting a foreign leader here you know outside the normal channels of meeting with the president what's going on here I I do worry that some traditional boundaries in how we think about foreign policy have been crossed I thought the letter that was sent to the Supreme Leader was inappropriate I think that you'll recall there were some deep disagreements with President Bush about the Iraq war but the notion that you would have had a whole bunch of Democrats sending letters to leaders in the region or European leaders who were not part of the coalition trying to undermine the president's policies I think is troubling Mabon um line is that we're gonna have serious debates serious disagreements and I welcome those because that's how our democracy is supposed to work and in today's international environment whatever arguments we have here other people are here and then reading about it's not a secret you know that the Republicans may feel more affinity with Prime Minister Netanyahu's views of the Iran issue than they do with mine but keeping that within some formal boundaries so that the executive branch when it goes overseas when it's communicating with foreign leaders is understood to be speaking on behalf of the United States of America not a divided States of America making sure that whether that president is a Democrat or a Republican that once the debates have been had here that he or she is the spokesperson on behalf of u.s. foreign policy and that's clear to every leader around the world that's important because without that what you start getting is multiple foreign policies confusion among foreign powers as to who speaks for who and that ends up being a very dangerous circumstance that could be exported by our enemies and could deeply disturb our friends you also get Israel becoming a Republican cause not a bipartisan cause well this this is a this is an area that you know I've been concerned about look Israel's a robust rowdy democracy just like ours and you know they're very few countries in the world that where we share so much we share blood family video cultural ties that are unequaled and part of what has always made the us-israeli relationship so special is that it has transcended party and and I think that has to be preserved there there has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements for example without being viewed as in some fashion opposing Israel there has to be a way for Prime Minister Netanyahu to disagree with me on policy without being viewed as anti Democrat and I think the the right way to do it is to recognize that as many commonalities as we have there are going to be strategic differences here and I think that it is important for each side to respect the debate that takes place in the other country and not try to work just with one side again it has to do with those boundaries in the sense that ultimately you have governments dealing with governments when it comes to foreign policy that I think has to be maintained but you know this has been as hard as anything I do because of the the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people it's been a hard on Parvati personally I mean it has been personally difficult for me to hear the sort of expressions that somehow we don't have this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel's interest and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences that that's not you know in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and and a concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face that's something that I feel deeply and I feel personally and and will continue to do mr. president IDI the one question I got will stop here is that so many people asked me to ask is when exactly do the sanctions come off a lot of confusion there in in what's come out from both sides you could clarify that that'd be really helpful right after that there are still details to be worked out but I think that the basic framework calls for Iran to take the steps that it needs to around Fordow and the centrifuges and so forth at that point then the UN sanctions are suspended although the sanctions related to proliferation the sanctions related to ballistic missiles there's a set of sanctions that remain in place and at that point then we preserve the ability to snap back those sanctions if there is a violation if not though Iran outside of the proliferation and ballistic missile issues that stay in place they're able to get out from under the sanctions understanding that this constant monitoring will potentially trigger you know some sort of action if they're in violation there are US sanctions they're related to Iran's behavior within terrorism Iran's behavior with respect to human rights abuses there are certain sanctions that we have that would remain in place because they're not related to Iran's nuclear program and and this I think gets to a central point that we've made consistently if in fact we are able to finalize the nuclear deal and if Iran abides by it that's a big piece of business that we've gotten done but it does not end our problems with Iran and we are still going to be aggressively working with our allies and friends to reduce and hopefully at some point stop the destabilizing activities that Iran has engaged in the sponsorship of terrorist organizations and that may take some time but it's our belief it's my belief that we will be in a stronger position to do so if the nuclear issue has been put in a box and you know if we can do that it's possible that Iran seeing the benefits of sanctions relief starts focusing more on the economy and its people and investment will become investment starts coming in and the country starts opening up if we've done a good job in bolstering the sense of security and defense cooperation between us and the Sunni States if we have made even more certain that the Israeli people are absolutely protected not just by their own capacities but also by our commitments then what's possible is you start seeing an equilibrium in the region and Sunni and Shia Saudi and Iran start saying you know maybe we should lower tensions and focus on the extremists like ISIL that would burn down this entire region if they could but the Iranians need to know that if they cheat that you won't hesitate also to take any option off the table we will absolutely not hesitate that option always remains and this goes back to the earlier point that you asked about an Obama doctrine the doctrine is we will engage but we preserve all our capabilities and I've been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch and and I think they should understand that we mean it but I say that hoping that we can conclude this diplomatic arrangement and that it uh sure is a new era in us-iranian relations and just as importantly over time a new era in Iranian relations with its neighbors because our interest is that the one thing I always tell folks in the region whatever has happened in the past at this point the u.s. is core interests in the region are not oil are not territorial strategic concerns our core interests are that everybody is living in peace that it is orderly that our allies are not being attacked that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them that massive displacements aren't taking place you know we we are our interests in this sense are really just making sure that the region is working and if it's working well then we'll do fine and you know that's gonna be a big project given what's taking place but I think this is at least one place to start mr. president thank you for meeting with us right now this is a really important time and appreciate this I join up a bit appreciate thank you much Oh

Channel: The New York Times

Views: 123,134

Rating: 4.2152591 out of 5

Keywords: Iran (Country), Obama Doctrine, The New York Times (Newspaper), Barack Obama (US President), Iranian Peoples (Ethnicity), Nuclear Power (Industry), diplomacy, Middle East (Region), Interview, Islam (Religion), Islamic Republic (Form Of Government), Muslim, Shiite, Sunni Islam (Religion), Shia Islam (Religion), Israel (Country), Thomas L. Friedman (Author), iran news, 2015, Exclusive, United States, NY Times, NYT, Times Video, nytimes.com, news, newspaper, feature, reporting

Id: lpX9k_YhUTQ

Length: 46min 25sec (2785 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 06 2015