Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Nuclear Deal Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on November 12, 2015 17 Comments
In a look at the history of the tensions between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, The New York Times several days ago started with an interesting anecdote.
For President Obama, it was a day of celebration. He had just signed the most important domestic measure of his presidency, his health care program. So when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel arrived at the White House for a hastily arranged visit, it was likely not the main thing on his mind. To White House officials, it was a show of respect to make time for Mr. Netanyahu on that day back in March 2010. But Mr. Netanyahu did not see it that way. He felt squeezed in, not accorded the rituals of such a visit. No photographers were invited to record the moment. "That wasn't a good way to treat me," he complained to an American afterward. The tortured relationship between Barack and Bibi, as they call each other, has been a story of crossed signals, misunderstandings, slights perceived and real. Burdened by mistrust, divided by ideology, the leaders of the United States and Israel talked past each other for years until the rupture over Mr. Obama's push for a nuclear agreement with Iran led to the spectacle of Mr. Netanyahu denouncing the president's efforts before a joint meeting of Congress.
It's interesting because this is not at all how I remembered it. I remember that the lack of attention to the meeting was perceived as an intentional slight of Netanyahu. A quick check of the contemporaneous reporting confirmed this.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 21, 2015 17 Comments
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani confirmed what we all, ahem, knew, that when hundreds of thousands of Iranians led by the Iranian leadership chant "Death to America," they don't really mean it. He didn't say "I’d really like to visit Disneyland," but he did downplay the significance. What they mean is, well, here's the explanation, on 60 Minutes:
Steve Kroft: I'm sure you realize that it is difficult for many Americans to get past the fact that President Obama has signed an agreement with a country that says, "Death to America, Death to Israel." How do you explain this? What are they to make of it? Are they to take it literally? Is this for domestic, internal Iranian political consumption? What are Americans to make of it, the language? President Rouhani: This slogan that is chanted is not a slogan against the American people. Our people respect the American people. The Iranian people are not looking for war with any country. But at the same time the policies of the United States have been against the national interests of Iranian people. It's understandable that people will demonstrate sensitivity to this issue. When the people rose up against the shah, the United States aggressively supported the shah until the last moments. In the eight-year war with Iraq, the Americans supported Saddam. People will not forget these things. We cannot forget the past, but at the same time our gaze must be towards the future.

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 12, 2015 11 Comments
Marco Rubio is not a fan of the Iran deal and had plenty of criticism for Democrats and his own party in a recent interview on FOX News. Al Weaver of the Washington Examiner reported:
Rubio pans Dems for 'walking the plank' on Iran deal Sen. Marco Rubio lit into Democrats supporting the Iran nuclear deal Friday after 42 of them blocked a resolution that rejected the deal on Thursday. During an interview with Fox News' Martha MacCallum, the 2016 hopeful called out Democrats for "walking the plank" by supporting the deal after seeing how Sen. Charles Schumer was treated by the administration after he came out against the agreement in August. Rubio also argued that Democrats who backed the agreement have "become captive to a radical element in their party." "They know it's a bad deal. The Democrats know it's a bad deal," Rubio said. "That's why they all couched their terms in the sense of 'I don't think it's perfect, I don't think it's ideal.'"

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on September 11, 2015 21 Comments
On Tuesday I wrote about National Review contributing editor Andrew C. McCarthy and Representative Mike Pompeo's clearly accurate assertions that President Obama has failed to comply with the requirements of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. Both McCarthy and Pompeo further asserted that this non-compliance meant that the Congressional review period for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran had not started, and therefore that the time within which Congress must vote on it had not yet started. I also wrote that that McCarthy and Pompeo disagreed about the consequences of this non-compliance, with Pompeo claiming that “the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions” and McCarthy arguing that Obama still had "authority to waive the existing sanctions — although not to lift them permanently." By Wednesday, however, McCarthy had basically -- and quite happily, it seems -- admitted that his interpretation was wrong. Senator Ted Cruz, he says, explained that,
Under Corker [i.e., the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015] section (b)(3), "prior to and during the period for transmission of an agreement … and during the period for congressional review … the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran[.]" Further, under other provisions of the Corker law, the prohibition against Obama’s taking actions to lift sanctions is extended to ten days after the date that he vetoes a “resolution of disapproval” (assuming one is passed by both houses of Congress). Get it? From the time Obama reached the deal with Iran, through the time for congressional review, and for up to ten more days after Obama’s veto of a disapproval resolution, the sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program must remain in place.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 10, 2015 13 Comments
Well, that didn't last long. Chuck Schumer's breakaway from the Democratic Party and obedience to Obama, by coming out against the Iran nuke deal, lasted about as long as the inmates who escaped from Dannemora prison in upstate NY in June. John McCormack at The Weekly Standard reports, Schumer Praises Obama on Iran, Hits Republicans as Hostage-Takers:
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is the highest-ranking Democrat to oppose President Obama's executive agreement with Iran over the Islamic republic's nuclear program. But during the Senate Democratic leadership's final press conference prior to a vote on the deal, Schumer didn't say anything about it. Instead, he chose to attack Republicans. "Everywhere Republican leaders look this fall, there's potential disaster lurking thanks to their hard right members determined to hold the government hostage unless they get everything they want," Schumer said on Wednesday, referring to budget negotiations.

Posted by New Neo on September 10, 2015 10 Comments
As expected, the Iran deal disapproval measure failed to win the requisite 60+ votes to invoke cloture in the Senate and allow a vote on the merits. The linked article describes the Congressional Democrats as: "overcoming ferocious Republican opposition and delivering President Barack Obama a legacy-making victory on his top foreign policy priority." But the reality is that Obama's side not only did not get a single Republican vote, it failed to get all the Democratic votes, either. So this was another bipartisan vote---but as usual with Obama, the bipartisanship was all on the side of the opposition to the president. This "victory" of Obama's, so "legacy-making," therefore consisted of Obama getting just enough Democrats on his side to block a vote on the merits (that vote to invoke cloture failed by a margin of two). Even had cloture gotten the necessary 60+, and the disapproval bill come to a vote and been passed, Obama would have vetoed it and there would not have been enough votes to override that veto.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 10, 2015 28 Comments
Just in case you were wondering, no, this is not from The Onion. I know it's hard to tell these days, but this is an actual thing that happened. According to Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon, the New York Times has provided a nifty new tool, a Congressional 'Jew Tracker.'
The New York Times has come under fire from Jewish organizations for launching a website aimed at tracking how Jewish lawmakers are voting on the Iran nuclear agreement. The online chart, which tracks whether lawmakers who opposes the accord are Jewish, is being criticized as anti-Semitic in nature and an attempt to publicly count where Jews fall on the issue, which some have sought to turn into a debate about dual loyalty to Israel. The feature, titled “Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal,” includes a list of legislators currently opposing the deal.
On the outset, the NYT article seems harmless enough, "Lawmakers Against the Iran Nuclear Deal," it's called. But then there are the charts...

Posted by New Neo on September 10, 2015 25 Comments
It started yesterday, when conservative Republicans in the House expressed strong disagreement with the GOP leadership over whether to proceed with the vote of disapproval on the Iran deal. The conservative wing aimed to force Obama to first live up to the terms of Corker-Menendez and disclose the still-secret side deals with Iran that (which are an enormously important part of the big picture.) They claimed that the clock on the Congressional review period would not start until Obama complied, and thus the disapproval vote should be delayed. The movement had the support of Ted Cruz in the Senate, and many conservatives in the House (Roskam of Illinois; Pompeo of Kansas and the rest of the House Freedom Caucus). The House doesn't have a cloture or filibuster rule, so it is much easier to bring something to a vote there over minority Democratic opposition than it is in the Senate. Later, it was leaked that Boehner had given in to House conservatives on this issue, agreeing to postpone the vote and substituting a series of votes on three other resolutions in the House:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 09, 2015 33 Comments
Wednesday afternoon, Senator Cruz joined the Tea Party Patriots rally to Stop the Iran Deal. Cruz's fiery speech outlined the consequences of the passage of the Iran Nuclear Deal. The Obama administration would be, "quite literally the world's biggest financier of Islamic terrorism," said Cruz. His full speech from the rally is here:

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on September 08, 2015 28 Comments
Two recent news analysis pieces highlight President Obama's lawlessness in the case of his proposed nuclear deal with Iran. Recall that about one week after the administration’s announcement that it had reached an agreement with Iran, Congressman Mike Pompeo revealed that the IAEA had told him and Senator Tom Cotton that:
Two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. One agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.
A draft that was said to the same as the final text of one of these side deals was leaked to, and published by, the Associated Press. The second of the two still remains secret. Asking Congress to approve an agreement, the complete terms of which it has not even seen, is of course absurd on its face. Even more absurd is that a sufficient number of Senators to sustain a Presidential veto of Congressional disapproval have agreed to do so.

Posted by David Gerstman on September 07, 2015 17 Comments
The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power recently wrote a piece for Politico arguing the Congress not reject the nuclear deal with Iran. In short she argued that rejecting the deal would leave the United States, not Iran isolated and the ability of the United States would be greatly compromised in its ability to influence outcomes globally. Towards the end she summed up her argument:
The Iran nuclear deal has been championed by the president of the United States, every one of America’s European friends and countless other countries around the world. If Congress rejects the deal, we will project globally an America that is internally divided, unreliable and dismissive of the views of those with whom we built Iran’s sanctions architecture in the first place. Although it is hard to measure the precise impact of these perceptions, I and other American diplomats around the world draw every day on our nation’s soft power, which greatly enhances our ability to mobilize other countries to our side. While that soft power is built in many ways, two of its most important sources are the belief among other countries’ leaders and publics that we share similar values, and that America delivers on its commitments. Of course, there is no substitute for the essential deterrent and coercive effects rooted in the hard power of America’s unmatched military arsenal. But we should not underestimate the political capital we will lose—political capital that we draw upon for influence—if we walk away from this deal.
What makes Power's plea so inexplicable is her record. As Claudia Rosett explained back in July:

Posted by David Gerstman on September 04, 2015 11 Comments
Sen. Ben Cardin (D - Md.) today announced his opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran (AKA Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) in an op-ed published in The Washington Post. With Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D - N.J.) Cardin becomes the third Democrat to break ranks with President Barack Obama and oppose the deal. But Democrats already have enough votes to override a veto. Cardin's main points of disagreement with the deal is that it would legitimize Iran's nuclear program and boost its economy making the imposition of sanctions difficult if not impossible.
The JCPOA would provide this legal path to a country that remains a rogue state and has violated its international nonproliferation obligations for years. It would provide Iran with international endorsement of an industrial-scale nuclear program. Worse, Iran would be economically strengthened by frighteningly quick relief from sanctions and international economic engagement. If Iran violates the agreement, building international support for new sanctions would take too long to be effective. A military response in this scenario would be more likely, although disastrous.

Posted by Vijeta Uniyal on September 03, 2015 28 Comments
As if biting off a big chunk off Ukraine in Crimea wasn’t enough, Putin is now putting Russian troops on the ground in Syria. Counting on President Obama’s continuing Foreign Policy paralysis on Syria, Russian army is reinforcing Dictator Bashar al-Assad’s air and ground forces. Neither Russia nor Assad’s Syria have any real intentions of destroying the Islamic State (ISIS) in the region. Their primary aim is to restore and maintain territorial control. Emboldened by America’s retreat under President Obama’s reign and the recent rise of its regional ally Iran in the Middle East, Russia feels confident opening up a new front in the Arab heartland. A story by Michael Weiss in The Daily Beast confirms that Russian troops are playing combat role in Syria. Previous reports from the Syrian frontlines dating back to 2013 had indicated Russian presence amidst the ranks of Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Michael Weiss writes:
Russian pilots are gearing up to fly missions alongside the Syrian air force, dropping bombs not just on ISIS but on anti-Assad rebels who may or may not be aligned with the United States or its regional allies. Several sources consulted for this story said the Pentagon is being unusually cagey about Russia’s reinvigorated role in Syria. A former U.S. military officer told The Daily Beast, “I’m being told things like, ‘We really can’t talk about this.’ That indicates to me that there’s some truth to these allegations.”
After Iran gets access to over $100 billion of frozen reserves as a signing amount for the nuclear deal, Regime in Tehran is setting about carving out a new map of the Middle East -- tightening its hold on Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Russian want to play a bigger role in this scramble for the Middle East.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 02, 2015 45 Comments
The Iran nuclear deal, which is so bad in so many ways explained here so many times, is a done deal. Democrats now have enough votes in the Senate to prevent an override of an Obama veto of a resolution of disapproval, if it even gets to a vote given Democrats are close to the votes needed to filibuster. Partial blame belongs to Republicans in the Senate for agreeing to a procedure that required passage of a resolution of disapproval by a supermajority, rather than approval by a supermajority, or even a majority. But at least Republicans opposed the deal, which means that majorities in each house of Congress are against it. Whatever procedural mistakes Republicans made are dwarfed by the substantive embrace of the deal by most Democrats in Congress. That despite the fact that the deal is hugely unpopular overall, and is at best a split decision even among Democrats not in Congress. It is not an exaggeration to say that loyalty to Obama was the overriding factor. Democrats in Congress were the main targets of Obama's demagoguery -- be with Obama or be for war; be with Obama or be for the monied lobbyists. The message was clear: Be with Obama or be a traitor. So the deal will not fail. To say that it "passes" is inaccurate. There will be calls once the votes are taken to heal. To make Israel, once again, a matter of bipartisan consensus.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 31, 2015 24 Comments
It appears likely that Democrats will have enough votes in the Senate to preserve an Obama veto of legislation disapproving of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Democrats may even have enough votes to filibuster to prevent a vote, though that is more uncertain. What is crystal clear is that the Iran nuclear deal is wildly unpopular among the American public. Quinnipiac just released its latest poll on the Iranian nuclear deal. I trust this poll more than others because it doesn't try to describe the deal in terms that would influence the result. So if you ask a question such as "Do you support the Iranian nuclear deal that will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons and avoid war" ... you have gamed the question by presuming a positive result of the deal. This mid-August CNN poll which showed even support/opposition, is a prime example of biased wording designed to increase supportive answers: http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm Quinnipiac simply asks if people support the deal or not, without characterization. And the results show that Americans oppose the deal by more than 2-1 (55-25-20). There isn't a single group (by party, age, race) in which there is majority support for the deal. Even Democrats only support it 46-25-28.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 30, 2015 11 Comments
It's safe to say that former Vice President Dick Cheney is not a fan of Obama, especially with regard to foreign policy. While Obama is pushing congress to approve his Iran Deal, Cheney is ringing alarm bells. Rebecca Shabad of The Hill:
Cheney: Obama has 'surrendered' America's global power Former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney, say President Obama has “dangerously surrendered” U.S. global leadership during his time in office. In an adapted excerpt published by The Wall Street Journal from their upcoming book, "Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America," the two write that until Obama became president, Republican and Democratic presidents understood the “indispensable nature of American power.” “For the most part, until the administration of Barack Obama, we delivered,” they wrote, arguing that Obama has “departed from this 75-year, largely bipartisan tradition of ensuring America’s pre-eminence and strength.” The Cheneys said Obama has “abandoned Iraq” and is “on course” to do the same in Afghanistan.
The Wall Street Journal piece by Dick and Liz Cheney can be read here. In case you missed it, Cheney appeared on the Hannity show earlier this month to discuss the Iran Deal. Needless to say, he doesn't approve:

Posted by David Gerstman on August 28, 2015 21 Comments
One of the frustrating aspects of the nuclear deal with Iran is the degree to which the Obama administration, especially the President has adopted the premises of the Iranian regime. It isn't just off-putting to hear  Obama using the language of a regime that hates the United States, but it raises the question of how successful the administration could be at negotiating the nuclear agreement if it accepted the other side's arguments as valid. Two examples come to mind. First, in his American University speech three weeks ago, Obama said:
Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they’re just not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure -- even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That oftentimes is what the critics are calling “a better deal.” Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.
So here is Obama saying we didn't ask for a better deal, meaning an end to enrichment because Iran would never consent to it. This was certainly Iran's stated position but why is this even relevant?

Posted by David Gerstman on August 25, 2015 18 Comments
Both Rep. Donald Norcross (D - N.J.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D - Pa.) have announced that they will stand on principle and oppose the nuclear deal with Iran (a/k/a, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA.) I know almost nothing about either of these legislators, but I have tremendous respect for them. They are both freshmen and yet they have both announced that they will stand against their party's leader, President Barack Obama, even though the President has made it clear that the JCPOA is a priority. I have little doubt that both men understand the risk; the administration has made it clear that it will not tolerate apostasy. I give a lot of credit to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D - N.Y.) too, because he may have jeopardized his chances of a spot in the leadership by announcing his opposition to the JCPOA. The New York Daily News reported:
Josh Earnest, President Obama’s spokesman, ripped Schumer Friday after the senior New York senator broke with the President over the nuclear deal with Iran. Earnest all but encouraged Senate Democrats to consider Schumer's opposition to the pact when they vote next year to elect a new Democratic leader.
Accessibility by WAH