[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S2922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Iran
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night, I read the memorandum of
understanding between the United States and Iran. I read it twice. And
for what it is worth, here is my conclusion: I think we ought to give
peace a chance. And that is all I am saying today. You are entitled to
your opinion, but all I am saying today is I think we ought to give
peace a chance.
I have--all week long, even before the memorandum came out--I have
heard all the speculation about the agreement, the rank speculation. I
have listened to people say: Well, I don't like this, and I don't like
that; or this is in it and it shouldn't be and this isn't in it and it
should be; and if we do this, this is going to happen.
And it is all rank speculation. The people offering these points of
view, to which they are entitled, they are not clairvoyant. They are
not any more clairvoyant than I am. Just like me, they have to wait for
the future, like everybody else.
Here is what I see in the document. The only certainty, the only
practical, real consequence of this document is that for 60 days
America has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. And for 60
days, Iran has removed its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which
means ships containing oil and natural gas and fertilizer can go back
and forth just like they were before the conflict started.
The other practical consequence is that Iran will be able to start
selling its oil again for 60 days.
The other thing that we are certain of is that, as a result of this
agreement, the price of oil is going down. And as a result of that, the
price of gasoline is going down.
And as a result of the Strait of Hormuz being opened, the price of
fertilizer, for example, and other commodities that go back and forth
through the Strait of Hormuz are coming down, and that is a good thing.
And that is all we know. That is all--that is the only practical
consequence of this document.
Now, in the document, Iran says that it is willing to negotiate for
60 days to get rid of its fissile material that it can use to make a
nuclear weapon, including, but not limited to, its centrifuges that it
uses to enrich the uranium.
And in the document, Iran says: We are willing to renounce our desire
to have a nuclear weapon.
And in the document, Iran says: For 60 days, we are willing to
negotiate some sort of inspection protocol so that the world can go in
and make sure that Iran is telling the truth.
They have got 60 days to do it--not 160, not a year. They have got 60
days. And President Trump has said if they don't do it, I think his
expression was: I'll start dropping bombs on their head again.
That is the other thing that we know. Now, this might be a good time
to say that--as I have said all week and as I have said in another
context before--I trust the Iranian Government like I trust gas station
sushi.
The Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--the Iranian
Government are a bunch of religious nuts. Their religion tells them
that if you--if you and I or anybody--don't agree with all the tenets
of their religion, that they want to kill you and hurt you the entire
time you are dying.
As far as I am concerned, if your religion tells you, in order to be
devout, you have to kill somebody, you probably ought to get another
religion.
My experience with the Iranian Government--not the Iranian people--is
that they lie like they breathe. They lie like fish swim. They learned
to lie before they could--before they learned to talk.
But you know what, they have got 60 days to prove otherwise. Sixty
days--not 160, not a year. They have got 60 days to prove otherwise.
And if they don't prove it, the bombing is going to start again.
I heard President Trump say it last night, big as Dallas, right there
on television: They got 60 days. And if they don't do it, if they are
jacking me around, I am going to start bombing again.
The other thing that I am certain of today is that Iran is
immeasurably weaker than it was a year ago, than it was before the
United States and Israel bombed their nuclear facilities last June, and
before the conflict that we have watched transpire over the last couple
of months--immeasurably weaker.
There are whole swathes of Iran that look like the aftermath of a bar
brawl. There are entire regions in Iran that look like something out of
``Mad Max'' 4. We have bombed the living bejesus out of them. We
haven't destroyed all their missiles, but we have destroyed a bunch of
them. We have destroyed their weapons production factories. We have
destroyed their entire navy. We have destroyed a lot of their drones.
We have just given them a curb stomping. Hated to do it, but we did
what we have to do.
The private sector--Iran has got--I don't know how anybody is eating
or living in Iran. They have got 70 percent inflation, huge
unemployment.
In Iran today--and I regret this, but it had to be done. In Iran
today, its public and private sectors are held together with spit and
duct tape, and all the President has done is said: OK. For 60 days, I
am going to give peace a chance and give you a chance to do what you
say you are going to do.
It is 60 days. That is it. I hope it works out, but I have my doubts.
The President is taking a big risk here, and he has been roundly
criticized by my Democratic friends, which I don't really get.
You know, since the conflict started, my Democratic colleagues have
been offering bill after bill after bill to stop the conflict and to
take the authority away from the executive branch and prosecute. I
don't know how many bills it has been--a squillion. It has been bill
after bill after bill. They haven't passed. But now that the President
has done it, the Democrats are unhappy.
I was reading the New York Times this morning. I mean, they are just
bashing this agreement which they have been asking for. Now, I don't
mean any disrespect, but I discount what is in the New York Times
because I know the folks running the New York Times, and the folks
running the New York Times hate Republicans as much as the Devil loves
sin. The New York Times and the people running the New York Times would
endorse a dead armadillo over a live Republican if the dead armadillo
had a ``D'' behind its name. That is just the way it is. I get it. They
are entitled to their opinion. The New York Times has been called many
things--some good, some bad--but they have never been called unbiased.
That is just a fact that goes with the turf. Once again, this is
America--you are entitled to your opinion.
But I wanted to come down this morning to say that I think we ought
to give peace a chance. I think we ought to give peace a chance. It is
only 60 days, and we are just going to have to trust the President on
this one. We will know soon, and I hope it works. I hope our giving
peace a chance makes peace possible.
My work here is done. I can see myself out.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________