Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Nuclear Deal Tag

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.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 21, 2015 11 Comments
Longtime readers know the history of Legal Insurrection and Mia Love, whose success was one of the most satisfying moments for Legal Insurrection. This interview with Lou Dobbs shows why we've supported her since the start. Via Washington Examiner. Love became very emotional when discussing the Planned Parenthood videos:
Freshman Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, had to wipe away tears while talking about the undercover Planned Parenthood videos on the Fox Business network Wednesday night. "It's our job to protect those who do not have a voice to protect themselves, and to see what is actually happening to babies while they're still alive, I mean, it's horrific," said Love. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ETa_sUCDhk "This is not about a Right or Left issue – this is right or wrong, and whether we are going to stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves, or if we're going to just turn a blind eye and pretend that this is not happening," she added, wiping away tears.... "This is who we are as Americans; our job is to protect human life," said Love as tears streamed down her face. Love said she has "always been pro-life" and that as a mother and wife, she wants the American people to know what is happening and "stand up" to protect life.
On Iran, she was just as powerful:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 18, 2015 29 Comments
New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez announced his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal today in a speech at Seton Hall University. Menendez laid out his reasons why the deal not only was bad, but also worse than the alternatative. Hope, he said, is not a strategy. “Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’– hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration. Hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals. And hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their fate. “Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.... “I know that, in many respects, it would be far easier to support this deal, as it would have been to vote for the war in Iraq at the time. But I didn’t choose the easier path then, and I’m not going to now. I know that the editorial pages that support the agreement would be far kinder, if I voted yes, but they largely also supported the agreement that brought us a nuclear North Korea. (Full text here)(full video at bottom of post) Menendez addressed Obama's claim that people opposing the Iran deal are the same people who called for the invasion of Iraq:

Posted by David Gerstman on August 12, 2015 12 Comments
Following the nuclear negotiations with Iran, I am constantly amazed at the revelations that get reported (though often not widely enough) that document the administration's systematic capitulation to every single Iranian demand. Though it's probably not the most shocking news I've heard, the news broken by MEMRI, that already in 2011 President Barack Obama had conceded that Iran had the right to enrich uranium, is probably near the top. Before any serious negotiations were underway the administration gave away its most significant bargaining chip. The Free Beacon summarized MEMRI's report:
President Barack Obama approved of Iran’s right to operate a nuclear program in 2011 during secret meetings with Iranian officials, according to new disclosures by Iran’s Supreme Leader. ... Secretary of State John Kerry sent a letter to Iran stating that the United States “recognizes Iran’s rights regarding” nuclear enrichment, according to another senior Iranian official, Hossein Sheikh Al-Islam. “We came to the [secret] negotiations [with the United States] after Kerry wrote a letter and sent it to us via [mediator Omani Sultan Qaboos], stating that America officially recognizes Iran’s rights regarding the [nuclear fuel] enrichment cycle,” Al-Islam said in a recent interview with Iran’s Tasnim news agency, according to MEMRI.
Keep in mind that Kerry, at this point was a senator, not the Secretary of State and that it was the vitriolic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was president of Iran, before the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani was anything more than a gleam in the eyes of our top Iran experts.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 12, 2015 8 Comments
The man in the video below is Sergeant Robert Bartlett who was wounded in Iraq in 2005. Bartlett is part of a group called Veterans Against the Deal which obviously opposes the Iran Nuclear Deal. The video makes a very strong statement because you're hearing from someone who has experienced the brutality of war in the Middle East and was wounded, as he says, by an Iranian bomb. This isn't a political party or a defecting senator Obama or his supporters can demonize, this is an American veteran. Allahpundit of Hot Air points to an article in the Military Times which strengthens the argument of this group:
Iran linked to deaths of 500 U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan At least 500 U.S. military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan were directly linked to Iran and its support for anti-American militants — a newly disclosed statistic that offers grim context for the Obama administration's diplomatic deal with the Iranian regime aimed at curtailing the rogue nation's nuclear ambitions. That figure underscores the controversy surrounding Washington's deal with Tehran, a long-sought goal for the president — but one that is fiercely opposed by many Republicans in Congress and other critics.

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on August 11, 2015 19 Comments
If the overheated rhetoric and denunciations of the opponents of the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal weren’t over the top before Chuck Schumer announced his position, they certainly have reached that point now. William Jacobson and Kemberlee Kaye have catalogued some of the more appalling responses here and here. Two of the worst accusations that are being made against Senator Schumer, as well as other members of Congress that have openly opposed the deal, are first, that they are acting against American interests, and second, that they do so at the behest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and AIPAC. Those who call Schumer “Netanyahu’s marionette” appear oblivious to the Senator’s deliberative, thoughtful, and well-reasoned statement, which rebuts the President’s arguments point by point. They similarly ignore the fact that, as the New York Times reports, Schumer met with the President, with Wendy Sherman and John Kerry, and in addition to those meetings, had “three hourlong meetings with members of the negotiating team during which he received answers to 14 pages’ worth of questions on the agreement.” The charge that Senator Schumer did anything other than exercise his own independent judgment is scurrilous. Clearly, what is really unacceptable to his attackers is the fact that Schumer failed to blindly follow the party line. All of which has left me wondering, when did it become anti-American to exercise independent judgment?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on August 10, 2015 15 Comments
Monday, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer reiterated his opposition to the Obama administration's nuclear deal. "First let me say this, this was one of the most difficult decisions that I had to make. I studied long and hard, read the agreement a whole bunch of times, had many, many, many meetings and interviews people on both sides including three classified briefings where can ask questions that are not in the confines of the document but very relevant to making a decision." "I have found when it's such a difficult decision as this has been, you gotta study it carefully, come up with a conclusion, not let pressure, party, or politics influence your decision, and then do the right thing. Well that's what I've done."

Posted by David Gerstman on August 09, 2015 15 Comments
The approach of the President Barack Obama and his administration to the nuclear deal with Iran has been one of knocking down straw men and vilifying opponents of the deal as beholden to lobbyists, following mindless partisanship, and working against America's national security. These are "dog whistle" remarks, which have brought out a rather nasty response Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D - N.Y.) decision last week to oppose the deal. The administration's nastiness even earned condemnation from Tablet Magazine:
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
But I think it's a mistake to think that Obama's strategy is counterproductive because it won't build support for the deal.
Accessibility by WAH