Stay updated with breaking news from Didnt stop iran. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
they can move on to a different track. which of those do you think it is? >> i think everybody needs to understand sanctions never stop a country from their bad behavior. what sanctions are meant to do is to force a choice about coming to the negotiating table in seriousness. when we began negotiations with iran and europeans did in 2006. they had 164 centrifuge. by the time administration got into deep negotiations, they had 19,000. so these sanctions, which should be ratcheted up need a team to enforce them all over the world. it will take a little time. they will not stop iran's program -- sorry, they are not stop -- they didn't stop iran's program. they won't stop north korea's program. the idea is to put pressure on them in the negotiating table but this is a much, much tougher problem than even iran was. >> excellent point.
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - FOXNEWS - 20150406:06:04:00 vimarsana.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from vimarsana.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
>> absolutely, chris. again, i think everyone would say that the congressionally mandated sanctions are what helped in a strong way get iran to the table. and so, certainly we should approve this deal. we should approve what we see prior to those being lifted. and, look, i've talked to the negotiators. no one, no one has said that congress weighing in would have any effect on this deal. as a matter of fact, what we know is just quite the contrary. we know that during the negotiation the fact that congress was likely to weigh in was something that the administration, the other western countries were able to use to ensure that this deal isn't worse than it is. so the fact that they knew congress would weigh in was helpful in the negotiation. certainly the american people want to know that someone is teasing out all of the details, especially as they see iran reporting one thing in their country and the u.s. something else here.
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - FOXNEWS - 20150406:06:03:00 vimarsana.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from vimarsana.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
iran has a perfect record of violating every inspection agreement. and i don't think that these snap-back prorovisions are -- they're easier said than done. >> let's put it quickly what the agreement says snap-back, i never heard this before, sanctions would be lifted but if there's any violation then they, quote, snap back. >> we're farming out the inspections to u.n. officials. once those sanctions are lifted you'll have companies in asia and europe going in to cut deals with iran. and then there will be tremendous pressure to keep those deals in place. snap-back provisions or no snap-back provisions because there will be an economic interest from those countries to keep that business going. so, once we lift these sanctions, i think it will be very hard to get back to where we are now. i would also add, that neither president obama or the iran foreign minister mentioned that
so, look, this is the place where sober and thoughtful people to dig in. look, i want to see a negotiated agreement. i know that a lot of water has to go under the bridge over the next 90 days. it's very important that congress is in the middle of this, understanding, teasing out, asking those important questions, just like the ones that you begun to ask this morning. >> but, senator, foreign minister zarif of iran said yesterday if there is no deal or if the west backs out then iran will be freed and continue to resume and build back its nuclear program. and president obama says that sanctions, the existing sanctions prior to this negotiation, didn't stop iran from developing its nuclear program. for instance, 19,000 centrifuges. then the president said this -- >> do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world's major powers is a worse option than the risk of another
bill farrow asked, why would anyone who had iran struggling because of the embargo take such a weak stance in negotiation, but mary ann writes kerry did the best he could. there is no way iran will give up this program. juan, how do you answer bill and mary ann? >> well, i don't think it's in so much about concessions, especially to bill's question. i think this really is about commitments. what we got here is iran was forced to the bargaining table by the sanctions. remember, the sanctions, bill, the sanctions are imposed by an international committee, not the united states alone. so, unless you have the whole group, plus i might add, places like japan, india, pakistan, if that broke down then just u.s. sanctions would not have been sufficient to continue this and iran would have continued building their nuclear weapons. right now i think the estimate it would take three months for
one of the questions is how fast the sanctions will be lifted, another one is how quickly iran could ramp up its centrifuge program after the initial ten years. but let me just ask you -- and i understand that you don't know all the details -- are there any red flags that you see right now? is there anything at least at this initial point that looks clearly unacceptable to you? >> so, there are four things i would lay out. first of all as you mentioned, how will the sanctions be relieved? iran is saying immediate, the u.s. is saying phased. what are the elements that we're going to be looking at to alleviate those? secondly, and very importantly, the covert activities. what are the snap types of inspections we're going to be able to do? what are the processes that will be in place? is this going to create some long dispute? thirdly, you refer to the -- the document refers not even in capital letters to a nuclear development program that iran has agreed to. it's my understanding that this
accept is they end their nuclear program. >> none of measures include closing our facilities. the proud people of iran would never accept that. >> we absolutely made no concessions on our bottom lines and that is the only thing that's important here. >> president obama setting a tough marker for a nuclear deal with iran during a 2012 presidential debate, but iranian foreign minister zarif and marie -- and marie harf putting together a very different spin this week on the framework deal that's actually been agreed to. it's time now for our sunday group. syndicated columnist, george will. mara liasson from national public radio. jason riley of the "wall street journal." and fox news political analyst, juan williams. well, as we say, president obama started out with a firm red line, if you will, that iran must end its nuclear program, we're obviously a long way from there. george, there are obviously concessions in any negotiation. did president obama and the west give up too much or is this a reasonable deal?
as to the motivations of justice department, i just would have no way of knowing. >> senator corker, i have to leave it there. thank you so much for coming in and talking to us today. and we'll follow what happens with your legislation, sir. >> thank you, sir. up next, our sunday group joins the conversation about this interim deal with iran. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the agreement? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday and we may use your question on the air.