Follow us on social

Kerry-zarif

GOP Congressman shocked to think Iran's Zarif would lie about John Kerry

Lawmaker uses climate hearing to question the envoy's honesty about an alleged conversation regarding Israeli airstrikes in Syria.

Middle East

Republican members of Congress grilled U.S. climate envoy John Kerry about his alleged interactions with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif during a Wednesday hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Kerry denied Zarif's claim that they had talked about Israeli activities in Syria, but one Republican member had a hard time believing that Iran’s foreign ministry was not a trustworthy source.

Watch here:

“So Mr. Zarif is a liar?” Scott Perry (R–Pa.) asked.

“Mr. Zarif may be confused or incorrect or he’s trying to embellish,” Kerry responded. “I’ve seen him be quite emotional. I can’t vouch for why he did or what he said. I’m just telling you that didn't happen, end of story.”

The attack on Kerry stems from a recording of a confidential interview between Zarif and an Iranian journalist that was leaked last month.

In the recording, Zarif emphasized that the Iranian military had kept his ministry out of the loop on many issues, and claimed that he only learned about 200 Israeli airstrikes on Iranian positions in Syria from a conversation with Kerry.

Zarif’s claim stretches credulity — the Israeli strikes have been reported on by media and publicly discussed by Israeli officials for years — but hawks have seized on the claims to pressure the Biden administration over its current negotiations to restrain Iran’s nuclear program.

Perry said that there were reasons to be “suspicious” of Kerry’s intentions, citing Kerry’s 1985 trip to Nicaragua and a 2006 trip to Syria. In the process, Perry suggested that the United States should have tried to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria during the Iraq War.

“It’s a sea of war, and horrifying activities in Syria right now,” Perry said. “If we could have done something with Assad then, maybe we wouldn’t be dealing with what we’re dealing with now.”

Reps. Lee Zeldin (R–N.Y.) and Ann Wagner (R–Mo.) also grilled Kerry over his interactions with the Iranian foreign minister. Wagner made a token effort to connect her questions to climate change, which was the subject of the hearing.

“If true, Javad Zarif’s claims raise serious questions about your ability, sir, to unreservedly protect U.S. interests as special presidential envoy for climate,” she said. “An overly-narrow focus on left-wing action items like the deeply flawed Paris [climate] agreement and the Iran nuclear accord cannot blind us to the malign intentions of adversaries like Iran, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China.”

But another member of the committee called the whole exercise absurd.

“I am saddened that some of my colleagues would seemingly put the faith in the word of the Iranian foreign minister over that of yours,” Rep. Dean Phillips (D–Minn.) said. “The irony is not lost on me.”


Climate envoy John Kerry (shutterstock/drop of light) and Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif (Gabriel Petrescu / Shutterstock.com)
Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.