Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Middle East
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions
Top image credit: Roman Samborski via shutterstock.com
Popular YouTuber discovers how corrupt the Pentagon budget is

Despite ban, pernicious military 'earmarks' are back in the billions

Military Industrial Complex

A new report finds that lawmakers added nearly $34 billion to the Pentagon’s procurement and research accounts for FY2026, through 1,090 individual program increases, many of which the Defense Department did not even request funds for.

Although individual program increases are not earmarks, they serve a similar function. Formal earmarks themselves were temporarily banned in 2011 to curb lawmaker-driven runaway spending, then reintroduced in 2021 by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as “Community Project Funding,” and “Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS)” in the House and Senate respectively — and subject to transparency requirements, where lawmakers must associate themselves with the earmarks they propose.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.