Apart from the pointless fluff (which was his job description, I know), what are his arguments in favor?
First is an argument that has nothing to do with the merits of the deal:
Some ask why our agreement didn’t stop Iran’s destabilizing behavior, including its support of Hezbollah and the brutal Assad regime in Syria.
He tries to paint this as a badge of honor for refusing to trade away regional issues for concessions on the nuclear issue. Well good for you, super genius. You didn't do anything that stupid.
But wait. It was a long time ago, I know. But somebody said the deal would make Iran a better state:
President Barack Obama has spoken of his ambition to bring Iran in from the cold, saying the long-time US foe could be “a very successful regional power” if it agrees to a deal over its nuclear programme. ...
“There's incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody,” Mr Obama said.
Can you imagine the idiot who made that kind of connection?
Oh, and wait. On page 1 the deal says it will "contribute to regional and international peace and security." Never mind. In Kerry's defense, maybe Ben Rhodes explained the deal to him.
There were a lot of lies told to sell the deal.
There is more idiocy. Contra Kerry, the deal doesn't actually stop all of Iran's paths to nuclear weapons. It allows Iran to improve their nuclear skills (and says we should help them do that) while only delaying internally available paths for a bit. What about the North Korea path to nukes? By increasing their skill level, Iran makes it easier to maintain any nukes sold by North Korea, you must admit.
And as for the Additional Protocol having a 100% record in keeping states from going nuclear, why is that relevant? Who has agreed to it? Belgium? Andorra? If a lot of nations with no interest in nukes agreed to Additional Protocol inspections (as well as nations already nuclear powers), that has nothing to say about a mullah nutball state apparently determined to have nukes, like Iran.
And then the worst Secretary of State in my living memory obscures the charge that we paid up front before Iran had to comply with the deal by bringing up irrelevant initial base moves Iran had to make in order to start the deal not go nuclear in the deal period.
The charge in the real world is that the rewards should have been unpaid until after the deal period expired with Iran non-nuclear. Or spread the benefits out over the period of the deal gradually. Seriously, even deal supporters once said that all the money and sanctions relief granted up front made it dumb to cancel the deal now, and avoid getting the eventual benefit of Iran not going nuclear during the deal period.
For Kerry to resort to this sleight of hand shows how weak his arguments are.
Further, arguing that "other arms control agreements" had expiration dates and so the Iran deal's expiration dates are normal ignores that the other agreements were between nuclear-armed powers and not a deal with a non-nuclear power agreeing not to go nuclear! Is Kerry saying this is just a deal to control the level of Iran's nuclear arsenal like other arms control agreements?
Let's see. Iran agreed to a cap on their low-enriched uranium stockpile. But what about North Korea? What about all the military bases we don't have access to for purposes of inspection? What will Iran put in their new base in Syria granted by Assad? This is such a pointless defense that I am stunned.
As for inspection provisions that don't expire? Gosh, I can't imagine Iran just unilaterally ending them under the veto protection of Russia or China. Or making them irrelevant by simply limiting them to clean targets.
If we end the deal, we will not be isolated. I guarantee that. Only Iran and Russia will be truly upset. So what? Yes we start in a hole of Kerry's making, but the way out isn't to keep digging.
And what's with claiming that ending the deal just hands Iran's "hard-liners" a victory? Didn't Kerry just deign to explain to us that the idea of making Iran a better state with the deal was only believed by idiots?
And that claim further perpetuates the myth of Iranian "moderates" in the government. In Iran the difference between hard-liners and moderates is that the latter wear suits and do not scream "Death to America!" in English while on camera. They are all nutballs if the mullahs approve them to run for office.
The Iran deal was based on the conditions I always knew would be applied: Iran pretended to not want nuclear weapons; and Kerry pretended to believe them.
I will grant Kerry one thing. That awful deal--that isn't even a deal signed by anybody in Iran--truly was the result of their "best judgment."
God help us all.
