Rounds Joins Colleagues in Letter Urging Secretary of State Not to Placate Iran
PIERRE—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week joined his colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent assurances to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif that new Visa Waiver Program (VWP) restrictions would not impact Iranian interests. The letter is critical of Secretary Kerry’s attempt to reassure Iran and highlights the fact that U.S. law is not the problem, Iran’s continued support for terrorism is. The Senators ask Secretary Kerry to make this clear in future interactions with his counterpart, as well as the fact that these reforms were drafted to address U.S. national security interests, not Iranian interests.
“Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans,” the Senators wrote. “As you continue to engage with Mr. Zarif, we urge—rather than seeking to placate the complaints of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism—you to press him and his government to cease its support for terrorism and provide tangible evidence that it is doing so. We also ask you to clarify to Mr. Zarif and his colleagues that these reforms to the VWP were not drafted with Iranian interests in mind, but U.S. national security interests.”
The letter, led by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), was also signed by Sens. with Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Signed into law last month, the Fiscal Year 2016 Omnibus included reforms to the Visa Waiver Program that would prohibit an individual from traveling to the U.S. under the VWP if, since March 2011, they have visited Iraq or any country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, or if they hold dual citizenship with those countries. These prospective travelers are now required to go through the standard visa application process. Iran is a designated state sponsor of terrorism, and these new restrictions apply to individuals who have traveled to Iran or hold dual Iranian citizenship. The provision allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive individuals if it is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.
Foreign Minister Zarif expressed frustration with these restrictions, and the letter from Secretary Kerry assured him that the new law would not interfere with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the “legitimate business interests of Iran.”
Full text of the letter is below:
Dear Secretary Kerry:
We are gravely concerned about your recent letter to Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif that sought to allay Iran’s complaints about Visa Waiver Program (VWP) reforms recently signed into law in the United States.
As you know, the new reforms would prohibit any national of a VWP country who has traveled to a country designated by the U.S. Government as a State Sponsor of Terrorism since March 2011, or who holds dual-citizenship with designated countries, from traveling under the VWP. Instead, these individuals would be required to obtain a visa. Iran is a U.S.-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism.
Mr. Zarif, who described reforms to protect the Visa Waiver Program against terrorist infiltration as “absurd,” also had the temerity to ask: “Has anybody in the West been targeted by any Iranian national, anybody of Iranian origin, or anyone travelling to Iran?”
Iran-sponsored terrorists and militants are responsible for the death of more than 700 Americans. During the 1980s, Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed over 290 Americans in Lebanon—including 241 U.S. servicemen in the Beirut Barracks Bombing of October 23, 1983. During the 2000s, Iran-backed attacks killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. On July 9, 2015, General Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Senators: “I know the total number of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines killed by Iranian activities [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the number has been recently quoted as about 500.”
As you continue to engage with Mr. Zarif, we urge—rather than seeking to placate the complaints of Iran, the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism—you to press him and his government to cease its support for terrorism and provide tangible evidence that it is doing so. We also ask you to clarify to Mr. Zarif and his colleagues that these reforms to the VWP were not drafted with Iranian interests in mind, but U.S. national security interests.
###
Nice idea but totally worthless with this administration. Just look at how they handled the detention of the sailors last week and what Kerry said afterwards.
And just what specifically would you have done?
Remember. It was our sailors, for whatever reason, violated their territorial waters in an armed vessel.
We would have done the same near a military base of ours.
–And just what specifically would you have done?
That’s why we have LEADERS. Kerry wanted the job because he was soooo well-qualified. If he hasn’t a clue on what to do, or needs to spend a few days to conduct a survey for better ideas, then he needs to resign.
–Remember. It was our sailors, for whatever reason, violated their territorial waters in an armed vessel.
Well, that’s what the Iranians are telling us. Neither Obama nor Kerry apparently have any idea if that is true. Seems as though they just acquiesce to whatever the Iranians say it was, so as to not “offend” the ayatollahs in order keep their precious nuclear agreement in place.
–We would have done the same near a military base of ours
No, we would have followed the Geneva conventions.You don’t parade the captured combatants before cameras or force them to apologize in front of those cameras. Those are all violations of the Geneva conventions.
Your eagerness to equate “them” with us is disgusting and unamerican.
“–And just what specifically would you have done?
That’s why we have LEADERS.”— And if we accuse them of handling a situation badly we should have the intellectual honesty and integrity to offer suggestions that would be better—That is, if we aren’t in the habit of just whining and criticizing every event and issue because pf politics?
Released in 14 hours—What should have been done differently?
Poor conservatives lose again——no dead Americans to use for contrived political gotchas
‘Nice idea but totally worthless with this administration. Just look at how they handled the detention of the sailors last week and what Kerry said afterwards’
Yeah, because this administration’s ‘handling’ of the situation is so much worse than George W Bush’s handling of the Hainan Island incident which began on April 1, 2001. And ended April 11, 2001, with the release of our airmen. But do carry on with your superfluous, moronic hysteria.
You probably forgot that we were promised “change”. So a comparison to that former president as being no better or worse is an admission that the promised “change” is an utter failure.
Lastly, we were told by the same moron that “leading from behind” with a “soft touch” and with “open hands” would elevate the perception and attitudes towards the US. Instead, we get the same old enemies and terroristic regimes violating the Geneva Conventions.
No change.
No hope.
At least GW never apologized to our enemies–change that we don’t need.
There have been a lot of changes since Obama became president. You likely don’t like the changes – and probably do not like Obama – so you resort to the failure card. Because that’s all you’ve got.
I’m not sure which countries you are labeling ‘old enemies’. You’re likely not sure either. Germany? Italy? Japan? Which Geneva Conventions are they violating? There are four treaties so I’m curious which one is being violated and by which country.
You must watch FOX News a lot and believe the rhetoric and misinformation. Obama has not apologized to ‘our enemies’. Unless you consider European countries enemies? It’s hard to tell. You are quite irrational and silly. Please provide evidence that Obama has apologized to ‘our enemies’.
” Ronald Reagan—the American president who actually negotiated with terrorists—tried and failed to secure the release of western hostages held by Iranian proxies even after sending the mullahs in Tehran a cake, a Bible and $500 million in U.S. weapons. And as it turns out, after the collision of an American spy plane with a Chinese fighter jet in international airspace on April 1, 2001, President Bush told Beijing the United States was “very sorry” for the loss of their pilot and for our airmen landing on Hainan Island.”
And that is exactly what Bush should have done.. Evidently the excuse for conservatives today don’t have the basic common sense, common decency, nor integrity to offer an apology when one is due….
Do list those Obama apologizes, or are you still referring to the long time debunked “apology tour?
“Hainan Island incident which began on April 1, 2001. And ended April 11, 2001,”— Ten days compared to 14 hours.You people really would have liked to have seen those sailors killed so you could have your war.
Iranian hostages released today— More ban news for the cons.——–They are alive
” George W Bush’s handling of the Hainan Island
President Bush told Beijing the United States was “very sorry” for the loss of their pilot and for our airmen landing on Hainan Island.”
Bush APOLOGIZED in order for their release—-brrraaaaahhhhahahhhhhaaaasnot—- Do you people ever know what you are talking about?
“how they handled the detention of the sailors last week”?– They were released within 14 hours,Answer the question –“And just what specifically would you have done?”
At least John Kerry said what he said with a long face.
Like rummy was a great leader.By the way boys who started the war in IRAQ.Wow I got a splinter in my eye,
Anon change is coming, I think its a woman.
So Mike you and your buddy Thune look pretty bad now that Iran has given up its nuclear program.What do we expect as how you ran the State.Lowest teacher wages and straight wages.