While Matt Lauer pressed Secretary of State John Kerry on the Iran nuclear deal during an interview on Friday’s NBC Today, the co-host did allow Kerry to continue to make false claims about the policy without challenge.
A clip played of Thursday’s congressional hearing on the deal, with Republican senators accusing Kerry of being “fleeced” and “bamboozled” by Iran. Lauer asked: “Bamboozled, out-maneuvered, out-negotiated. Were you fleeced?” Kerry dismissed the criticism: “There’s a lot of politics going on, Matt....people actually are learning that this is the only viable alternative to be able to control Iran's already existing nuclear program.”
Kerry then made a statement that has been proven false: “People forget, when President Obama came into office and when I became Secretary of State, Iran already had in the tens of thousands of centrifuges. They already had fissile material, enough for 10 to 12 bombs.”
In a fact-check for Fox News’s Special Report on Thursday, chief Washington correspondent James Rosen explained: “In fact, IAEA reports show 75 percent of Iran's centrifuges were installed on Mr. Obama's watch.”
Lauer failed to push back on Kerry’s assertion.
To Lauer’s credit, he did hammer Kerry on “one of the most controversial aspects of this deal,” that “if we suspect the Iranians are cheating and not abiding by the rules of this deal...they can wait 24 days before allowing international inspectors into that site. Why would we allow that to happen?”
Lauer employed an analogy to point out the absurdity:
LAUER: I just try to bring it down into some way that we can understand it. If the police in this city suspected some guys down the block were running a meth lab, wouldn’t-
KERRY: Yeah, but this is not drugs, this is nuclear material.
LAUER: I know, but wouldn’t it be amazing if they called those people, say, “We think you’re doing that,” and then wait 24 days to go in and look at it.
KERRY: It's so different from that, Matt, and that is what people need to focus on. This is nuclear material, it is – it irradiates. It’s – you have the ability for literally a thousand years to be able to – I mean, this is not something that you can flush down the toilet. It's not possible.
After declaring that “Israel hates this deal,” Lauer wondered: “If the Israelis are not convinced, and they take that action, where would it leave us? Would we support Israel? Would this treaty go up in smoke?”
Kerry took Iran’s side: “Well, if they bombed them, sure, I presume Iran would then have a reason to say, ‘Well, this is why we need a bomb.’”
While Lauer was tough overall, he avoided asking about secret side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency that have sparked controversy.
At the end of the interview, Lauer lobbed a softball on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal.
Here is a transcript of the July 24 exchange:
7:12 AM ET
MATT LAUER: Turning now to the current secretary of state, John Kerry, who found himself on Capitol Hill on Thursday, fiercely defending that landmark agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program. While he's calling it a good deal for the world, some lawmakers are not so sure.
SEN. BOB CORKER [R-TN]: I believe you have been fleeced.
SEN. JIM RISCH [R-ID]: You guys have been bamboozled and the American people are going to pay for that.
JOHN KERRY: It isn't a, quote, “better deal,” some sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran's complete capitulation. That is a fantasy, plain and simple.
LAUER: Secretary Kerry, it’s great to have you here. Good morning.
KERRY: Glad to be with you, thank you.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: John Kerry Speaks Out; Secretary of State on Iran Nuclear Deal Backlash]
LAUER: Bamboozled, out-maneuvered, out-negotiated. Were you fleeced?
KERRY: There’s a lot of politics going on, Matt. The more people learn about this agreement the more people actually are learning that this is the only viable alternative to be able to control Iran's already existing nuclear program. People forget, when President Obama came into office and when I became Secretary of State, Iran already had in the tens of thousands of centrifuges. They already had fissile material, enough for 10 to 12 bombs. What we’ve done is rolled that program back and provided a capacity to have inspectors going forward so we will know what Iran is doing.
LAUER: Something else-
KERRY: It’s the only way to control it.
LAUER: Something else people don’t forget is that Iran has cheated in the past.
KERRY: Sure.
LAUER: They violated international law. And I don't know anybody who trusts them.
KERRY: There is no trust. No, no, no. This is not based on trust. That's what's important to understand. Everything in this agreement is verifiable. It is a process by which we will know what they’re doing. And if we don't what they’re doing, we have all the options available to us that we have today.
LAUER: Except one of the most controversial aspects of this deal, Secretary Kerry, is if we suspect the Iranians are cheating and not abiding by the rules of this deal and we think it’s happening at a certain site, they can wait 24 days before allowing international inspectors into that site. Why would we allow that to happen?
KERRY: Because nuclear material – we – the Department of Energy has done tests. They’ve had people sandblast, paint over, concrete, do everything to any kind of nuclear material. You can't get rid of it. Years later, we have discovered nuclear material in places where people were trying to hide it. 24 days is nothing compared to that ability.
LAUER: But some experts with the IAEA say no, smaller portions of this program can be concealed and cleaned up in 24 days.
KERRY: But not fissile material. Not what you need to make a bomb. With respect to a bomb, you have to have fissile material, you have to have uranium that’s been enriched. You have to have it. And the only way to do that, Matt, is to go through the enrichment process, which, by the way, we have a limitation on their enrichment process. Once they begin to enrich at a higher level, all the bells and whistles are gonna go off. And that we will know because we have 24/7 inspection of that.
LAUER: I just try to bring it down into some way that we can understand it. If the police in this city suspected some guys down the block were running a meth lab, wouldn’t-
KERRY: Yeah, but this is not drugs, this is nuclear material.
LAUER: I know, but wouldn’t it be amazing if they called those people, say, “We think you’re doing that,” and then wait 24 days to go in and look at it.
KERRY: It's so different from that, Matt, and that is what people need to focus on. This is nuclear material, it is – it irradiates. It’s – you have the ability for literally a thousand years to be able to – I mean, this is not something that you can flush down the toilet. It's not possible.
LAUER: Israel hates this deal. They’ve made no bones about that.
KERRY: Some people do. No, the former head of Shin Bet believes this is a good deal. The former head of the Mossad believes it’s a good deal.
LAUER: The Prime Minister does not like this deal.
KERRY: The former head of – well, the Prime Minister doesn’t, I understand that. But there are lots of people in Israel who understand this is the best way to proceed in order to roll back Iran's program and make Israel safer.
LAUER: Do you think, because many in Israel, including the Prime Minister, are very uncomfortable with this deal that it's now making it more likely than two years ago, for example, that Israel might attempt some unilateral action – military or cyber-attack – against Iran?
KERRY: Well, I think that’d be an enormous mistake. A huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region. And I don't think it's necessary. The fact is that we will have, for 15 years, a restraint on Iran that absolutely prevents it from developing a weapon. They can't enrich beyond 3.67%. You can't make a bomb at 3.67%. They will have only 300 kilograms of a stock pile of enriched uranium. You can't make a bomb with that. They will have inspections on a daily basis in their enrichment facilities. So we are – we’re confident about this.
LAUER: If the Israelis are not convinced, and they take that action, where would it leave us? Would we support Israel? Would this treaty go up in smoke?
KERRY: Well, if they bombed them, sure, I presume Iran would then have a reason to say, “Well, this is why we need a bomb.” And what Iran will decide to do is dig deeper because Israel does not have the ability, nor do we, to stop – unless we went to all-out war and literally annihilated Iran, which I don't hear people talking about. So if you proceed along a normal, reasonable military operation you’re talking about rolling their program back for two to three years. Then what do you do? And if you did that, what will Iran's response be? Most likely to decide now you’ve proven why we need a bomb and they will dig deeper and go out and get it.
What people forget is this is not something that may happen in the future, Matt. Iran already has enough fissile material for 10 to 12 bombs. They haven’t decided to make it, they haven’t done it yet. We’re rolling that back. That’s what makes the world safer. We have a one-year break-out for 10 years, which is eight months more than you have today. So we will have more time to respond. I mean, I think as people look at this, they will see the alternative is to have no inspectors, not know what Iran is doing, go back to where they are today with the ability to make a bomb, and then you’re going to hear everybody say, “Uh oh, we’ve gotta go bomb them now.”
(...)
