The Corner

National Security & Defense

Kerry: That ‘Ridiculous’ Bush Position that Iran Has No Right to Enrich Uranium … Is Now My Position

In response to My Mexican Spider Hole

As I recounted in a column late yesterday, in 2009, the ineffable John Kerry, then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a staunch Obama ally, told the Financial Times that it was “ridiculous” to claim Iran did not have a right to enrich uranium.

At the time, it was the official position of the United States and our allies that the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not endow member states with a right to enrich uranium (or to any particular path to nuclear power), though it does provide that states have an “inalienable right” to the peaceful use of nuclear power. That longstanding policy had been forcefully advocated by the administration of George W. Bush, who defeated Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

Nevertheless, during the early days of the Obama presidency and of election turmoil in Iran that would soon have the jihadist regime shooting protesters in the street, Kerry countered that the NPT clearly endowed Iran with a right to enrich uranium. As the Financial Times reported on its interview with Kerry:

“The Bush administration [argument of] no enrichment was ridiculous . . . because it seemed so unreasonable to people,” said Mr. Kerry, citing Iran’s rights as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. “It was bombastic diplomacy. It wasted energy. It sort of hardened the lines, if you will,” he added. “They have a right to peaceful nuclear power and to enrichment in that purpose.”

A recent MEMRI report that I outlined yesterday indicates that, according to senior Iranian officials, beginning in 2011, secret communications by then-Senator Kerry and Obama administration officials, including President Obama himself, signaled to the regime in Tehran that the United States government was prepared to concede an Iranian right to enrich uranium. Recognition of this “right” had been a non-negotiable demand by the regime. Obama’s winking concession to it – presaged by a letter from Senator Kerry to the regime, explicitly recognizing “Iran’s rights regarding the enrichment cycle” – is what brought the regime to the bargaining table according to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s “supreme leader.”

Such a concession would be reckless, and not just because of what ought to be the unacceptable prospect of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism enriching uranium – a process that can lead to weapons-grade nuclear energy.

There is no sensible way to read the NPT to grant Iran a right to enrich uranium without conceding every country a right to do so. Thus, this interpretation could (and undoubtedly will) lead to a surge in uranium enrichment and, in turn, to an arms race in the world’s most unstable region (among other places). Given that the stated intention (if not the practical effect) of the NPT is to prevent the weaponization of nuclear power, the Obama administration’s concession of a right to enrich uranium would have a perverse result.

So, not surprisingly, after explicitly agreeing to Tehran’s enrichment of uranium in Obama’s Iran deal, the administration is now insisting it has made no concession of a right to enrich uranium. In that connection, Kerry – now, of course, Obama’s secretary of state – had the following exchange on Tuesday with Reuters editor-at-large, Sir Harold Evans:

EVANS: Secretary, deal with the common statement that they won, quote, the right to enrichment. Just deal with that.

KERRY: Well, they don’t have a right to enrich. They have – under the NPT there is no right. The NPT is silent on the right to enrich. It doesn’t grant people automatically a right to enrich. But the NPT also doesn’t ban it. It doesn’t say you can’t enrich. And there are about 12 NPT countries, we among them, who enrich. At the moment we’re not doing that, but others are…. [The Iranians] say they need the right to enrichment. And – or not a right – they need to be able to, because they don’t have a right. And that’s very important to remember here.

Got that?

Forever Kerry: He was for Iranian enrichment before he was against it.

Most Popular


Yes, Hillary Should Have Been Prosecuted

I know this is ancient history, but — I’m sorry — I just can’t let it go. When historians write the definitive, sordid histories of the 2016 election, the FBI, Hillary, emails, Russia, and Trump, there has to be a collection of chapters making the case that Hillary should have faced a jury ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Yes, There Was FBI Bias

There is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Clinton-emails investigation. Horowitz’s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault. It is also, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise — it omits half ... Read More

Let the World Have Soccer

The United States of America did not qualify for the World Cup this year. Good for us. Soccer is corrupt, hyper-regulated, impoverished by a socialist-style fondness for rationing, and organized to strangle human flourishing. It is so dependent on the whims of referees that is in effect a helpless captive of the ... Read More

Staying on the Path

Dear Reader (Including those of you who are no longer my personal lawyer), Almost 20 years ago, I wrote in this space that the movie A Simple Plan was one of the most conservative movies of the 1990s. In case you haven’t seen it, the plot is pretty straightforward, almost clichéd. It focuses on three men ... Read More

Child Separation at the Border

If you want to read a thoughtful and constructive explanation and partial defense of the policies being implemented by the White House, you should read this piece by Rich Lowry. If you want to read a trollish and counter-productive screed fit for a comment section, read the White House’s official press ... Read More
Economy & Business

Asymmetrical Capitalism

I like to think of American Airlines CEO Doug Parker as my pen pal, but, in truth, he never writes back. It’s a lopsided relationship — asymmetrical, in a word. I have for many years argued that most people would be enthusiastic about capitalism if not for their interactions with a small number of ... Read More