Kerry: Iran Can't Use $140 Billion Sanctions Relief to Fund Terror b/c of a UN Resolution
July 20, 2015
Daniel Greenfield
Anyone who has wondered after the Iran deal whether Kerry can really be this stupid, here's your answer. He really is this stupid.
Asked on PBS by Judy Woodruff about the impact of the $100 billion - $140 billion in sanctions relief on Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, Kerry explained that there's a UN resolution.
"They’re not allowed to do that. They’re not allowed to do that, outside even of this agreement. There is a U.N. resolution that specifically applies to them not being allowed to transfer to Hezbollah. They are specifically not allowed under another U.N. resolution to transfer to the Shia militia in Iraq. They are specifically not allowed to transfer to the Houthis."
Okay, problem solved then. There's a UN resolution. That's the one Iran has been gleefully violating then. And since Kerry and co. didn't even bother shoving that into their worthless agreement with Iran, Kerry has to belatedly admit that the terror funding will indeed happen.
Not long before the deal, Iran extended a $1 billion credit to Syria. That's the tip of the iceberg.
Now, with respect to the money, I can’t tell you that some — you know, some amount of money might not find its way to some effort. But I tell you something. None of what they are doing today, around which they have been pretty successful, is a reflection of money.
It's not? I realize this administration has trouble with the concept of money, but yes funding terrorists does involve money. Lots and lots of money.
Iran’s total budget for the military is about $15 billion a year. The Gulf states are spending $130 billion a year. So there is something else going on. This is about organization, about a capacity. And what we’re going to do is build the capacity of other states in the region to be able to push back.
Is Kerry really this stupid?
1. Iran's real military budget is at least double that and since the country is thoroughly militarized, as in the USSR, the distinction between the military and governmental budget is vague. For example Iran's nuclear program, which Kerry insists is "peaceful" cost over $100 billion.
Iran is basically an Islamic Socialist state with a complex military and terrorist (IRGC) infrastructure in which money vanishes. And that's not counting the funding that comes in from drug dealing and smuggling.
2. It costs a lot less to disrupt by funding terrorists than it does to defend against them. Building capacity in this context is idiotic. Iran can spend 1 percent of what the Saudis do on disrupting Yemen and still come out ahead. That doesn't mean that money doesn't matter. It means that even small amounts of money have a greater impact. Likewise, the Qataris could spend a few little on Al Qaeda while we have to spend hundreds of billions dealing with the resulting mess.
3. None of this means that money is irrelevant. And considering Iran's funding of high end weapons systems for Hezbollah and Hamas, it's actually a really big deal.
But don't worry. The Iranian government will put butter before guns.
"President Rouhani needs to deliver to the Iranian people. They have high expectations from this deal for a change in their lifestyle."
How did that work out in North Korea?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259529/kerry-iran-cant-use-140-billion-sanctions-relief-daniel-greenfield
