Remarks of Secretary Jacob J. Lew at the 4th Annual Jerusalem Post Conference (Press release 150607)
YORK – Thank you, Steve, for the kind introduction, and I want to thank the Jerusalem Post and all of you for
the warm welcome today. It is wonderful to be among so many friends who are dedicated to the security and prosperity
of the State of Israel. This conference builds on the Jerusalem Post’s proud history of asking hard questions,
spreading ideas, and informing the public, a critical function in any democracy. And as we carry that tradition forward
today, let me join all of you in thanking the Post for bringing us together.
Earlier this year, I was
privileged to lead President Obama’s delegation to Poland to mark the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
At the commemoration, through the stories of the survivors and the living history of the death camps themselves, we remembered
what took place behind those walls seven decades ago: some of the most unspeakable crimes in human history. But we were
also inspired by heroic acts of courage and sacrifice that occurred there—acts by decent men and women under the worst
But even as we marked the triumph over Nazi brutality that day and recommitted
ourselves to “Never forget. Never again,” we were all aware that the scourge of anti-Semitism remains with us.
It had been only a few weeks since terrorists attacked a kosher grocery store in Paris, killing four innocent Jews, senseless
murders that laid bare the hard truth that violence against Jews has been increasing in many parts of the world, with Jewish
communities targeted in Brussels, Copenhagen, and also here in the United States.
That same week, I traveled
to Paris and met with French Jewish community leaders. We discussed the terrorist attack, and I made it clear that the
Obama Administration is committed to working with governments, citizen groups, and international organizations to combat anti-Semitism
wherever it takes root. People everywhere must be free to practice their faith regardless of what they believe, how
they worship, or where they come from.
At the same time, we must always defend freedom of speech. Vigorous
debate over ideas, principles, and public policy is healthy. But there is a line between healthy debate and the use
of hateful speech to demonize. If this line is crossed, it is wrong, and we need to condemn this kind of speech
whenever and wherever it arises. And certainly acts of violence cannot be tolerated or explained away.
In these difficult
times, the President has reaffirmed for the world time and time again that the United States of America stands with the State
of Israel. This commitment began with a promise at Israel’s founding that has been continued by every President
and every Congress since. And like those American leaders before us, protecting the homeland of the Jewish people is
something we are proud to honor and uphold. As the President said in Jerusalem, “America’s commitment to
the security of the State of Israel is a solemn obligation, and the security of Israel is non-negotiable.” The
United States stands with Israel because a strong and secure Israel is vital to America’s strength and America’s
security. And our two nations do not just help each other—our vibrant and deep partnership has made the world
a better place.
We recognize that the threats to the State of Israel’s existence today are real, they are complex,
and they must be taken seriously. That is why the Obama Administration has done so much over the past six years to advance
Israel’s security. Every day, we help Israel confront its strategic challenges. That means standing up to
those who undermine the State of Israel’s basic legitimacy; taking on terrorist groups like Hizballah and Hamas; deepening
trade, commerce, and investment between our two countries; cooperating on unprecedented intelligence sharing, and, of course,
providing Israel with a historic level of military assistance.
The simple fact is this: No Administration
has done more for Israel’s security than this one. Under President Obama, and with the support of
Congress, America has provided $20 billion in military support to Israel. This assistance has not only enabled Iron
Dome, which has saved countless lives, it will lead to the delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to Israel next year.
With this stealth fighter, Israel will be the one and only country in the Middle East to have the next generation of technologically
advanced fighter jets.
We are serious when we say Israel must maintain its qualitative military edge against
its opponents. And we are equally serious when we say Israel must be able to defend itself.
To that end, the United
States has been steadfast in its determination to support Israel’s economy. Since Israel’s founding, the
United States has provided more than $120 billion in bilateral assistance to Israel. America and Israel have worked
together to expand our economic ties. And our U.S. loan guarantee program ensures that Israel has access to financing.
This program has been extended three times—most recently in 2012—demonstrating this Administration’s ironclad
commitment to Israel’s continued prosperity and security.
One reason I accepted this invitation to talk
with you today is because I know that many of you are concerned about one of the greatest threats facing Israel—Iran’s
nuclear program. This is a concern our Administration deeply shares, and it is a concern that I personally share. The
potential for a nuclear agreement has certainly been a source of much consternation, so I want to pierce through all the noise
and set forth clearly why the United States is pursuing this agreement, and what we are doing to effectively guarantee that
Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.
Making sure Iran never gets a nuclear weapon is a national security priority
of the highest order. A nuclear-armed Iran would likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; it would increase
the potential for a nuclear war in the region; it would unlock opportunities for terrorists to get a nuclear weapon; and it
would mean a nation whose leaders have openly called for wiping the state of Israel off the map, would have the means to make
that threat a reality.
So on this point there is no room for disagreement: We must never allow Iran to
get a nuclear weapon.
Of course, keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is not a new or recent
national security priority for the Obama Administration—it has been a core priority since the very beginning.
And our commitment to stopping Iran was not just rhetoric—our commitment was backed up with action.
For us at the
Treasury Department, that meant working with Congress, agencies across the federal government, and our counterparts around
the globe to build an international sanctions regime without precedent. Let us not forget that when this sanctions regime
was being put together, it was criticized—called “idiot diplomacy,” “merely a political statement,”
and “an idea whose time has come and gone.” After all, the United States had already had a near-total embargo
on Iran for more than a decade. Many doubted whether the international community would remain united to stop Iran, whether
countries with great energy needs like China and India would join us and agree to dramatically rein in their oil purchases,
and whether the United States government could put together a sanctions program that would be effective enough to pressure
the leadership in Tehran to alter its plans.
Those doubts were proven wrong. Thanks to our sanctions, Iran finds
itself isolated from the international financial system, its oil exports are slashed by more than half, and much of its oil
revenue and foreign reserves are out of reach. In other words, today, when we look at Iran, we see an economy struggling
under the weight of the most effective and most innovative sanctions regime in history. At the same time, inside Iran,
sanctions helped shape the country’s political discourse. Iran elected a president who campaigned on the importance
of ending Iran’s international isolation.
To be clear, sanctions were always a means to an end. They were designed
to help bring Iran’s leaders to the table to negotiate a serious agreement on its nuclear program. And while we
will not know until the process is completed whether there will be an agreement, there is no doubt that our sanctions worked
to bring Iran to the table, prepared to make serious concessions.
Following months of hard bargaining
and tough negotiations, we struck an interim understanding with Iran in November 2013. In accordance with that arrangement,
Tehran froze and rolled back parts of its nuclear program while we continued to negotiate on a longer term deal. At
that time, some denounced the interim understanding, known as the Joint Plan of Action. They said Iran would cheat,
that our sanctions would fall apart, and that this temporary deal would allow Iran to move closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon.
But none of that came to pass. Iran remains under enormous economic pressure. It has halted and scaled back key
elements of its nuclear program. And we have gained unprecedented insight into Iran’s nuclear activities.
Still, we take
nothing for granted certainly not that we can simply trust Iran. We know that Iran has historically told the international
community one thing, while doing something very different. And since the outset of our negotiations, we have abided
by a critical principle: distrust and verify. So through painstaking verification, we have made sure that the Iranians
are keeping their commitments—allowing us to continue the talks knowing that Iran was not simply using negotiations
as a form of smoke and mirrors. And while Iran has received limited, reversible relief in exchange for its compliance,
at the same time, we have continued to aggressively implement and enforce our core sanctions on Iran, ensuring that the pressure
remains strong and that Iran has a real incentive to make concessions at the negotiating table.
Over the last week, there
have been news reports, based on information from the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran’s stockpile of uranium
has grown over the past 18 months. Some took this to mean that Tehran failed to meet its commitments under the Joint
Plan of Action. But the IAEA did not reach that conclusion. Quite to the contrary, the IAEA verified that Iran
has met the terms of its agreements, that the progress on its nuclear program has been frozen, and that fluctuations in Iran’s
stockpile of uranium were an entirely expected part of the chemical conversion process. To put it another way, even
though Iran’s stockpile of uranium has gone up and down at various times over the past 18 months, this was something
we anticipated and at each of the deadlines that have been set, Iran’s uranium stockpile levels have been within the
levels that were agreed to.
That brings us to the framework for a final agreement—the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action—which we reached in Switzerland in early April, a framework that is the basis of a good, comprehensive
deal. It meets our core objective: blocking each of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. This includes break-out attempts
at the known nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Arak as well as any potential secret path to developing a nuclear weapon.
At the same time, as the framework lays out, the final deal will be built around an incredibly robust and intrusive inspections
regime on Iran’s nuclear program. We will have more insight into Iran’s program that we have ever had.
We will be inspecting and monitoring Iran’s nuclear sites and, importantly, supply chains. Uranium mines, uranium
mills, centrifuge production sites, assembly and storage facilities, the purchase of sensitive equipment—all will be
under penetrating surveillance.
Make no mistake, we are not operating on an assumption that Iran will act in good
faith. This deal will only be finalized if the connective tissue of the agreement meets a tough standard of intense
verification and scrutiny. A final agreement will have to specifically address concerns about a potential covert nuclear
weapon program. If we reach an agreement and Iran ends up flouting its obligations, we will know, and we will have preserved
all our options—including economic and military measures—to make sure that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon.
In return for
meeting the demands that have been put on it by the international community, Iran would obtain phased-in relief from nuclear-related
sanctions. But, in the same way that we have structured inspections around the notion that Iran might try to cheat, we have
approached winding down sanctions so we can police against the same risk.
Should we come to a final agreement,
sanctions relief will be granted under two conditions.
First, sanctions would be lifted in phases, only after Iran meets agreed-upon
benchmarks. Our phasing will be designed to ensure that Iran meets and maintains its commitments.
And second, we will make
sure that if Iran violates its commitments, we will have the full capability to snap sanctions back into place and reverse
The framework meets our requirements in both respects, and if we can get a comprehensive deal, here is
how it will work.
Iran will receive relief from certain UN, EU, and U.S. sanctions only after it verifiably completes major
Right now, Iran is two to three months away from acquiring a bomb’s worth of nuclear material.
Under the agreement we are pursuing, for at least 10 years, Iran will be kept at least one year away from having enough enriched
uranium to produce a nuclear weapon and will have no path to developing a bomb using plutonium.
That is because we will
have blocked all four of Iran’s pathways to develop a nuclear weapon. The core of the reactor at its only plutonium
facility—Arak—will be dismantled and replaced. As far as uranium, Iran will no longer enrich uranium at
its Fordow facility, and it will reduce its centrifuges at Natanz by two-thirds. The remaining centrifuges at Natanz
will enrich uranium to below 5 percent for the next 15 years, only enough for energy purposes. In addition, Iran will
have to reduce and maintain its stockpile of low-enriched uranium from approximately 12,000kg to 300kg — a reduction
of 98 percent. But in addition to safeguarding these declared nuclear sites, a potential deal must prevent Iran from
using a covert site to break out. And that is why any deal must ensure comprehensive and robust monitoring and inspection
anywhere and everywhere the IAEA has reason to go.
In return for taking these steps, and only if these steps are taken, we
are prepared to provide significant sanctions relief, including suspending secondary oil, trade, and banking sanctions.
And while we would suspend these sanctions using a combination of Executive authorities, the President’s authority to
re-impose sanctions would remain in place. In the meantime, our legislative sanctions authorities, which only Congress
can end, will remain in place. And we will only ask Congress to vote to end those sanctions after Iran has complied
with the agreement for many years.
This aspect of the framework is very important. By maintaining our sanctions
architecture and providing relief through waivers, we will be able to quickly reinstate sanctions if Iran violates the agreement.
This snapback mechanism will give us crucial leverage to ensure that Iran remains in compliance for years after any agreement
And, snapback provisions are not limited to U.S. sanctions alone. The international coalition that
put together the current multilateral sanctions regime remains united in the view that Iran must face the full force of international
sanctions if it fails to meet its obligations under the agreement. We are still developing the exact mechanisms by which
sanctions stemming from UN Security Council Resolutions would be re-imposed. But we will not allow such a snapback to
be subject to a veto by an individual P5 member, including China or Russia.
Before closing, I want to explain a
little about what sanctions relief will actually mean and what it will not mean for Iran should an agreement be reached and
should Iran verifiably meet its commitments under that agreement.
We share the concern that Iran may
use the money it gets from sanctions relief to support terrorism and the activities of its dangerous proxies throughout the
Middle East. But it is important to note that our sanctions on Iran’s terrorist networks will remain in place,
even after Iran takes the steps necessary to get relief from nuclear-related sanctions. In addition, we are deepening
our cooperation with Israel and our other regional partners who want to stand up to Iran’s influence and interference.
On top of that,
the idea that Iran’s economy will instantly recover if a deal is reached is a myth. Iran’s economy has to
climb out of an incredibly deep hole. Iran’s domestic investment needs are estimated to be at least half a trillion
dollars, which far exceeds the benefit of sanctions relief. Iran’s priority—as expressed with the election
of President Rouhani—is to address those domestic needs first: fixing its budget, paying for infrastructure upgrades,
increasing imports, and shoring up the rial. Reserves that would be released are far less than what Iran requires
to address all of these needs.
The truth is, it will take Iran quite a while to recover from the effect of the
unprecedented international sanctions effort led by the United States. Consider these facts.
Our sanctions have cost Iran more than $160 billion in oil revenues since 2012 — revenues Iran can never recoup.
And even if Iran were able to quickly double its current oil exports — a big if given how low oil prices are today and
how much investment Iran’s infrastructure needs to produce at this level — it would take more than three years
for Iran to earn that much money.
GDP shrank by 9 percent in the two years ending in March 2014, and it is today 15 to 20 percent smaller than it would have
been had it remained on its pre-2012 growth trajectory. It will take years for Iran to reach the level of economic activity
it would be at now had sanctions never been put in place.
Given the state of Iran’s economy and the long road ahead, Tehran
will need to channel substantial resources to address its urgent domestic needs. But that does not mean that Iran will stop
supporting dangerous actors like Hizballah and the Assad regime. That support has gone on for years now, even as Iran’s
economy has suffered tremendously, and we have every reason to believe it will continue. And the unfortunate truth remains
that the cost of this support is sufficiently small, that we will need to remain vigilant with or without a nuclear deal to
use our other tools to deter the funding of terror and regional destabilization.
But a nuclear deal was never meant
to resolve all the conflicts between the United States and Iran. That is not what this deal is about. The framework
we have established paves the way for an international agreement between Iran and America, Britain, France, Germany, the EU,
Russia, and China to stop Iran from obtaining the most dangerous type of weapon the world has ever known. The region
and the world will be a more dangerous place if we fail, and a nuclear armed Iran would be more a more menacing supporter
of terrorist groups and destabilizing regional forces.
We are resolved to hold Iran accountable and continue to use all our available
tools, including sanctions, to deter Iran’s aggression, its violation of human rights, its sponsorship of terrorism,
and its threats against America’s allies—like Israel. Iran knows that our array of sanctions focused on
its efforts to support terrorism and destabilize the region will continue after any nuclear agreement. That means Treasury
will continue to aggressively target the finances of Iranian-backed terrorist groups and the Iranian entities that support
them, including Hizballah and the IRGC-Qods Force. And as we have always done, we will continue to stand with Israel
and publicly condemn any hateful speech towards the State of Israel from Iranian officials.
As we meet this afternoon,
we are only a few weeks away from the deadline for a final agreement. From now until then, our negotiators will work
around the clock to try to iron out the remaining details of a comprehensive deal. Now, as everyone here knows, Prime
Minister Netanyahu does not believe Iran can be trusted. Neither do we. That is why the only way we will agree
to a deal is if we get the access to ensure that Iran is keeping its word and we have a procedure in place to re-impose sanctions
in the event that Iran violates the terms of the agreement.
A diplomatic solution is the best, most enduring
path to achieve our goal of keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But we have also been clear, we remain steadfast
in our determination to take any steps necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That is not just important
to Israel’s security but America’s security.
As history makes clear, we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to future
generations to give diplomacy a chance. Whether it was Nelson Mandela emerging from prison after 27 years to negotiate
the peaceful end to apartheid, Ronald Reagan sitting at a table with a nation he called the “evil empire” to negotiate
the end to the Cold War, or Menachem Begin meeting at Camp David to negotiate a peace accord with Egypt, Israel’s sworn
enemy—diplomacy is not conducted with our friends but with our adversaries. And when given a chance, smart, tough,
hard-fought diplomacy can succeed.