U.S. Senator John McCain: "Do you, Secretary Carter, believe that Iran will change its behavior as a result if this agreement is finalized? And have you seen any indication of that?"
Carter: "I've not, Mr. Chairman. In speaking just from my own judgment I don't foresee that or have any reason to foresee that.
"That is why it's important that the agreement be verifiable. That is why it's important that Iran not have a nuclear weapon and that is also why it's important that we keep doing everything that we need to do. Defend our friends and allies, remain strong in the Gulf, freedom of navigation, ballistic missile defense--all of the things we're doing.
"We need to keep doing those things, and the agreement doesn't limit us in anyway.
"Obviously if Iran changes its behavior, that would be a welcome thing. But I see no reason to foresee that chairman, personally."
A few years ago Bernard Lewis said in an interview that the mullahs in Iran couldn't be deterred. He said that "the mullahs 'are religious fanatics with an apocalyptic mindset. In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, there is an end-of-times scenario—and they think it's beginning or has already begun.' So 'mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent—it's an inducement'."
If Lewis is right, and having dedicated his life to studying it he knows more about that region than anyone else, then there is a high probability that once the mullahs get the bomb, as a final offering to Allah they will use it to do away with the Jewish non believers.
It is not rocket science for Israel then to conclude that it is them or us, and that the best time is now before Iran gets nuclear weapons--actually I believe they already have them but are still working on miniaturizing them enough to put on rockets at the Parchin facility that even the IAEA only has limited access to, and that under a separate secret agreement still being negotiated that even the U.S. can't see.
Regarding cheating, it shouldn't be that difficult. Tuesday I watched the testimony of Kerry, Moniz and Lew to the House Foreign Relations Committee. One thing that struck me of John Kerry's testimony was the use of the same complex formulation every time the issue of inspections and the consequences of cheating came up.
Kerry kept saying that we would act "If they are in material breach in a way that is threatening."
The parts that I found most odd, and which Kerry kept adding every time he referred to cheating or breach, were "material," and, most particularly, "in a way that's threatening." That latter surely we wouldn't know until it's too late. What is Israel supposed to do then?