Close this search box.

PA-Sen: McGinty Announces Support of Iranian Nuclear Deal

U.S.-IranThe final 2016 Senate candidate has weighed in on the Iranian nuclear deal.

Senator Pat Toomey and former Congressman Joe Sestak both made their opinions known rather early in the debate.

Democratic Senator Bob Casey announced his support of the agreement last week.

McGinty, though, held off on a decision, a move that earned her several critiques from her opponents.

Now, however, the Senate candidate is making her opinion clear with a long statement in support.

She cites George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft in her argument.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has now accumulated enough votes to filibuster any effort to fight the deal in the Senate. House Republicans are currently debating what to do.

McGinty’s full statement is presented below:

“After very careful consideration, I am announcing my support for the international nuclear agreement (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) between the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany with Iran as the best option to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

“In my view, this agreement, aggressively enforced, offers a critical opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Although I understand and respect the heartfelt concerns of opponents of the agreement, I believe this agreement offers the most realistic way available to achieve our nation’s and Israel’s critical security goals.

“Iran is an avowed enemy of the U.S. and Israel. A nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and a danger to the world. That prospect must urgently be stopped, and, for the reasons discussed below, I believe this agreement enables us to achieve that essential objective.

“Consider that without this agreement, Iran would be on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons capability – it is estimated that Iran could produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb within 2-3 months (the “breakout period”). Under this agreement, for at least ten years, Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon are essentially blocked.

“Uranium enrichment is significantly restricted. Iran’s stockpiles of low-enriched uranium are required to be reduced from 10,000 kgs to 300 kgs. For 15 years, Iran cannot enrich uranium over 3.67 percent (weapons grade uranium needs to be enriched to 90%). Furthermore, Iran is required to reduce the number of centrifuges used to develop enriched uranium by two-thirds – from 19,000 to 5,060. The centrifuges remaining in use would be older, less sophisticated designs.

“Energy Secretary and nuclear expert Ernest Moniz has noted that under this agreement weapons grade plutonium production will be stopped. Cement will be poured into the core of the Arak reactor that now produces weapons-grade plutonium. The reactor will be replaced by a research reactor that does not produce weapons grade plutonium.

“Rigorous inspection and verification measures—along with snap back sanctions—are at the heart of this agreement. The agreement is not based on taking Iran’s word for it, but instead allows the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors regular and complete access to Iran’s declared nuclear facilities to monitor and verify compliance.

“Concern has been raised about the 24-day period governing IAEA access to non-declared, suspected nuclear sites. On this point, I find convincing those scientists who point out that the half-life and detectability of radioactive materials is such that non-compliant activities can and will be detected at suspect facilities. Bolstering the inspection regime is the ability under this agreement for the IAEA and our own intelligence assets closely to monitor the supply chain and in that way also identify activity of concern.

“For these reasons, some 29 nuclear experts have reviewed the agreement carefully and found the verification provisions to be of unprecedented strength. They concluded the agreement has “much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

“I also find it critically important that nothing in this agreement prevents the United States or its international partners from responding if Iran fails to abide by the terms of the JCPOA or from taking military action if they try to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran must clearly understand that we will not allow it to achieve a nuclear weapon. Indeed Iran must know that we have the capacity to, and will in fact, stop them if they resume work toward a bomb.

“As a strong supporter of the State of Israel, I understand the sincere concern expressed with respect to Israel’s security. I feel strongly that Israel’s security is America’s security. By effectively blocking Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years, the agreement in my view provides important new protection for Israel’s security.

“And new protections are essential. It is important to keep in mind that, while sanctions have had serious adverse impact on Iran’s economy and have been instrumental in bringing Iran to the table, Iran vastly increased its nuclear capabilities while the sanctions have been in place.

“Moreover, our allies have made clear that they will not support the continued imposition of tough sanctions. As Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush recently wrote in The Washington Post:

‘If we walk away, we walk away alone. The world’s leading powers worked together effectively because of U.S. leadership. To turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abdication of the United States’ unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among allies and friends. We would lose all leverage over Iran’s nuclear activities. The international sanctions regime would dissolve. And no member of Congress should be under the illusion that another U.S. invasion of the Middle East would be helpful.’

“Compliance with the agreement provides Iran with phased relief from nuclear sanctions. As it implements key provisions of the agreement, we must also take steps to fight their state sponsorship of terror and human rights abuses.

“In pursuit of this important goal, I believe the United States must take action in addition to this agreement, including: continuing sanctions on Iran to counter terrorism and human rights abuses; making clear to Iran that violations or any dash to breakout will strongly be countered, including potentially with military force; further making clear to Iran that the United States has the technical capacity and determination to use weapons capable of destroying their nuclear infrastructure; increasing support for Israel in every respect, and heightening intelligence sharing between the United States, Israel and our Gulf partners.

“Having been involved in the negotiation of various international agreements, I know that no side wins on every aspect. That is necessarily and especially the case here where we negotiate with a determined enemy. While reflective of the tough negotiations that produced it, I support this agreement because I believe it enhances security by effectively blocking Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a decade or more.”

24 Responses

  1. Diano – that is an incredibly racist and unintelligent statement to make. Israel does not need to defend it’s existence or rationalize anything. Period.

  2. Genocidal Israel. Where would we be without Democrats’ hyperbole. They actually believe this stuff, which is embarrassing. Repeating it is shameful. But, like Alinski taught them, they’ll just keep saying it until wrong becomes right and they feel justified.

  3. aaron-

    The rationalization for Israel (as a Jewish state) has been as a safe haven for Jews to protect them from genocide. So, Israel engaging in genocidal behavior toward the Palestinians and the people of Gaza to drive them out, makes them a terrorist state.

    Israel needs to get rid of Netanyahu and his ilk, and get back to its ideals, not perpetrating the same kinds of crimes they fought against.

  4. Diano – Israel should not need a “rationalization for its own existence.” Nor should they be worried about undermining such rationalization.

  5. Could never understand why Jewish people in general vote democrat…hummm…
    The prejudiced southern democrats fought against integration for years yet…
    Crazy world…

  6. Observer #2-

    “Admiral Sestak already knows defense issues” ??

    1) Then how come he didn’t provide an answer as good or complete as Katie?

    2) Sestak’s more interested in military action than diplomacy. I’m sure he’s more with McCain and the bomb-bomb-bomb bomb-bomb-bomb Iran crowd.

    waaaaaa waaaa
    You fail to understand that Netanyahu is undermining the rationalization for Israel existence.

    Let’s try this another way: Netanyahu is the living embodiment of the false anti-Israeli anti-Semitic propaganda that Israel tries to fight.

    By picking Netanyahu, they are basically acknowledging the arguments of Israel’s critics.

    Israel needs to reject Netanyahu and get its soul back.

  7. Admiral Sestak already knows defense issues. McG is completely out of her league running for Senate. Just another wannabe. I suggested CEO of a fracking company or hedge fund would be more in line for her climb up the ladder.

  8. Observer #2-

    Katie did a lot more homework on this than Sestak. Go read Sestak’s reason for supporting the deal. It’s less complete.

  9. Took her a long time to do her homework. The Admiral already knows this issue and all the others. She’s a lightweight.

  10. waaaaaa waaaa-

    No. I pointed out that Netanyahu is destroying Israel’s argument for existence by promoting genocide against others it doesn’t want to exist.

  11. hahaha Diano just called for the elimination of Israel, looks like we have another more immediate revelation here

  12. steventodd and aaron-

    Katie came out with a more complete and coherent answer in her support for the Iran deal. Aaron didn’t even realize Sestak’s position.

    Point: McGinty.

  13. Finally, something to compare Sestak and McGinty to in the Dem Primary…you know: the upcoming race. I am undecided, and I am trying to choose who to back. Neither side offers any help, even upon direct request to the campaigns.

    Sestak’s at least answers. McGinty’s hasn’t even done that for me.

    Bravo for finally taking the right side, Katie. Boo for waiting till it is super safe, and even irrelevant.

    Advantage – Sestak: for correct answer in time to matter.

    Sure, taking the correct position is key…of an ally. But a leader comes forward decisively right away, even when the outcome is unknown and could blow up in your face.

    Sestak owned this one. McGinty waited to see which way the wind blew. Once it was veto-safe, she took that side, but not before.

  14. Diano – if that’s the case, then regardless of whether its sestak or mcginty, neither will get more than 45% of the vote against Toomey. The majority of people in PA have soured on Obama and more than a majority in PA oppose the iran “deal”. Bob casey can get away with supporting it because he’s bob casey.

  15. Reagan: Trust but Verify

    Obama: Trust×250-0220dbaaddacefebb1d7b46670ef37fd.jpg

    The administration wanted to drop the “unjust” sanctions, which is why they didn’t push for more sanctions when negotiators passed their first deadline. Iran figured Obama out and just ran out the clock knowing he’d sign whatever they gave us in the end.

    Democrats and Democrats alone now own all the credit for the nuclear future of Iran and their proxies.

  16. Mr. Field — Still waiting for your article about today’s Editorial in the Daily News.


  17. (Future Senator) McGinty-

    Thank you for pointing out: “I find convincing those scientists who point out that the half-life and detectability of radioactive materials is such that non-compliant activities can and will be detected at suspect facilities”

    The half-life of Uranium is 4.5 billion years: the age of the Earth. (Or for the bible thumpers who want to teach creationism: 450,000 times the age of the Earth). So, as McGinty rightly points out, 24 days is nothing.

    Unsanctioned R-

    If Netanyahu stays in charge, Israel might not survive the next 10 years, except as a revealed terrorist state, due to its continued abuses in Gaza.


    Sestak already supported the deal.

  18. Sestak has already won—McG is out of her league–she’s a puppet…and a wannabe………….

  19. She just lost the primary. If the admiral comes out with a tough stance against Iran, he will be seen as a serious/electable choice to face Toomey. What a nut.

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen