Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Nuclear Deal Tag

Posted by Jared Samilow on August 09, 2015 21 Comments
With each passing day, it looks more certain that Obama will get his way on Iran. The Republicans in Congress will not persuade enough of their blue colleagues to defy Obama. Not that this comes as a surprise. The President has run circles around Republicans for as long as anyone can remember. Why should now be any different? But even Obama’s luck can run out eventually. A report suggests that a senior French diplomat is having second thoughts; there are whispers that other European leaders may be seeing the light. We can wistfully ponder the possibilities Congress might open up if, by some miracle, that light reaches its Democratic precincts. As it were, the sensible alternative to no deal is actually not war, but no deal. Full stop. John Kerry may hold forth that no deal spells war. But what he really means is that only those who want war could possibly oppose him. It’s a primitive scare-tactic.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 09, 2015 46 Comments
Ever since the White House leaked Thursday night that Sen. Chuck Schumer would be coming out against the Iran deal, the progressive movement has foamed at the mouth with vitriol directed Schumer's way. Much of it is just the plain old progressive vitriol of the MoveOn.org, Daily Kos and netroots types. Schumer is a warmonger, wants war, loves war, and so on. https://twitter.com/tparsi/status/630051055687090176 Obama set up that argument when he claimed that Republicans were making common cause with hardline Iranians -- even though Obama clinched the deal with hardline Iranians who are laughing all the way to the bank and an internationally-authorized nuclear enrichment program. Obama set up the disloyalty argument, and it's no surprise that it's being used against Democrats who don't support the deal, particularly Jewish Democrats like Schumer. That dual loyalty charge -- often expressed in terms of being an "Israel firster" -- is an old anti-Semitic line of attack, as we explored in detail in a prior post, GreenStar boycott group trainer hurls “Israel-firster” slur at Schumer. The dual loyalty charge is almost exclusively made against Jewish supporters of Israel. You rarely hear it used against American Christians who support Israel. As The Tablet magazine reports, given the various dog whistles put out by the Obama administration, it's no wonder these type of accusations are resurfacing.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 08, 2015 11 Comments
Nasty, anti-Semitic accusations of dual loyalty, or worse, lack of loyalty to the U.S. are being thrown by progressives at Chuck Schumer for coming out against the Iran nuclear deal. We will have more on that in a separate post. https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/629832847717728256 Schumer is likely to lose his position as Senate Minority Leader when Harry Reid retires because of his Iran nuclear deal position: https://twitter.com/dylanotes/status/629509946154029057 In the absence of Schumer's support, Obama's go to guy keep enough Dems in line to avoid a veto override in the Senate is Dick Durbin, as HuffPo reports, Dick Durbin Becomes Lead Whip For Peace On Iran:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 06, 2015 16 Comments
The Huffington Post is reporting that Chuck Schumer will come out against the Iran Nuke Deal:
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the chamber's third-ranking Democrat, plans to announce his opposition to the nuclear deal negotiated by the U.S., Iran, and five world powers tomorrow, three people familiar with his thinking tell The Huffington Post. Schumer's move will come a day after New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Schumer's fellow New York senator, Kirstin Gillibrand, announced their support for the deal. That momentum is blunted by Schumer's pending announcement. Backers of the deal had hoped that if Schumer decided to oppose the deal, he would hold off until the last minute.
(added) Schumer made the announcement Thursday night, as reported by CNN:
New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, an influential Jewish Democrat who's poised to assume leadership of his party in the Senate, will oppose President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, he announced on Thursday evening.

Posted by New Neo on August 06, 2015 11 Comments
Senator Charles ("Chuck") Schumer of New York faces a particularly tough choice: back Obama's Iran deal and anger many of his New York Jewish constituents, or oppose the deal and anger Obama and much of the Democratic Party leadership. My prediction: Schumer will cave to Obama and cling to his own long-nourished hopes of one day succeeding Harry Reid. Or he will take the weaselly option mentioned here, voting to override Obama's veto of a Congressional bill to continue sanctions but being careful to not bring along enough people with him to make an override stick. Schumer, as the probable heir apparent to Reid's position, seems to have quite a bit of influence over his fellow Democratic senators who are likewise hesitating, and therefore his vote is considered a sort of bellweather or linchpin. As for the vote itself, here's a good discussion of the "is the Iran deal a treaty or not?" question, from back in March:
There is no currently no suit on the issue [of its being a treaty] being discussed on Capitol Hill, and it's far from clear that Republicans would be standing on firm legal ground with such a challenge. The debate, rumbling for decades, has yet to be definitively resolved in case law.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 05, 2015 30 Comments
There John Kerry goes again. Jeffrey Goldberg, the go-to person when the Obama administration wants to get its position out because Goldberg is pro-Israel, landed an interview with John Kerry. The topline storyline is that Kerry is warning the U.S. Congress not to screw (with?) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:
“The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them,” Kerry said. “This”—a congressional rejection—“will be the ultimate screwing.” He went on to argue that “the United States Congress will prove the ayatollah’s suspicion, and there’s no way he’s ever coming back. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.”
Seriously, we are afraid of ruining the expectations of an Ayatollah who defends calling for the death of America and Israel;

Posted by Amy Miller on August 05, 2015 11 Comments
Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted a webcast with American Jewish participants urging them to oppose the Iran nuke deal. His message reached an estimated 10,000 people, and served as a counter to propaganda spread by pro-deal activists plying the media with misinformation about the motive behind Israel's opposition. From the Washington Examiner:
"The deal that was supposed to end nuclear proliferation, will actually trigger nuclear proliferation. It will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East," contended Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister, who spoke Tuesday afternoon on a video conference organized by the Jewish Federation of North America, pled with the nearly 10,000 participants to actively speak out against the deal. "The days when the Jewish people could not or would not speak up for themselves, those days are over," he said. "Today we can speak out. Today we must speak out. And we must do so together." Netanyahu, who has been an ardent critic of the deal argued that the agreement would bring Tehran closer to producing a nuclear weapon. "The nuclear deal with Iran doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb," he charged. "It actually paves Iran's path to the bomb." In the prime minister's estimation, if Iran upholds the agreement it could obtain a nuclear weapon within 15 years.
Watch:

Posted by Amy Miller on August 03, 2015 21 Comments
Right on cue, Iran has proven just how woefully ignorant western powers are to the true motives of those pushing for controversial nuclear concessions. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has released a 416 page book blasting the existence of a Jewish state and touting a plan to "reclaim Muslim lands." "Palestine" labels the Holocaust "a propaganda ploy," describes Israel as a "cancerous tumor," and details how Khamenei believes Iran can bring about the end of both Israel, and the United States' claim to global hegemony. The crux of Khamenei's plan? The insane assertion that Israel has no right to exist as a state:
He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.” Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.” One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.
Of course, Khamenei isn't suggesting that he'll simply push a button and sink Israel into the Mediterranean. Oh no---he's planning on dragging this out in the worst way possible.

Posted by David Gerstman on August 02, 2015 25 Comments
Late last week there was a significant event in the course of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Iran lodged a complaint with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) complaining that the United States was already in "material breach" of the agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive  Plan of Action (JCPOA) based on a statement by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest (quoted below) (h/t The Tower). Before addressing the (remarkably thin) substance of the complaint, it's interesting to note that the administration has been warning that the JCPOA is the best or perhaps only means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon immediately. In the words of Secretary of State John Kerry last week at a Senate Armed Forces Committee hearing, if Congress rejects the deal Iran would "consider themselves free to go back and enrich and to go back to where they were with the 12,000 kilograms, 10-12 bombs, et cetera." Of course Iran may be preparing to say "no" before Congress decides on the deal. Will Kerry rebuke Iran and threaten that it follows through on its threats it risks being a pariah? So even without looking at the merits of the Iranian complaint, Iran, absent any Congressional action, is already attempting to free itself from the obligations it agreed to a little more than two weeks ago.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 28, 2015 24 Comments
You know what I always ask myself when considering my stance on any hot-button piece of legislation, particularly matters of national security? Gee, I wonder what Hollywood thinks. Except I don't do that because I have a brain. One that I enjoy using. But there must exist people who demand Hollywood's expertise on matters of national importance or videos like this one wouldn't exist. Utilizing one of the most annoying video formats in existence, various celebrities work together to complete a sentence. Like this one:
"I love playing frisbee with my sons. I love the sound of the waves on the Pacific at sunrise. I love curling up with a good book. I love to see my grandkids smile. But if Congress sabotages the nuclear deal with Iran, we could be denied the very moments that make our lives worth living."
minion-gifs-1

Posted by Amy Miller on July 25, 2015 8 Comments
This week, conservatives in Congress discovered the existence of a side agreement that renders Obama's nuclear deal with Iran even more reckless than we originally believed. During a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was revealed by Administration officials that, as part of the agreement between Iran and western powers, the IAEA's investigation into Iran's past nuclear activity will depend on samples collected by Iran from its own military bases. From National Review:
As a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction, I found this allegation impossible to believe when I heard Senator James Risch (R., Idaho) make it yesterday morning.
In his questioning of administration witnesses, Risch said: Parchin stays in place. Now, does that sound like it’s for peaceful purposes? Let me tell you the worst thing about Parchin. What you guys agreed to was [that] we can’t even take samples there. The IAEA can’t take samples there. [Iranians are] going to be able to test by themselves! Even the NFL wouldn’t go along with this. How in the world can you have a nation like Iran doing their own testing? . . . Are we going to trust Iran to do this? This is a good deal? This is what we were told we were going to get when we were told, “Don’t worry, we’re going to be watching over their shoulder and we’re going to put in place verification[s] that are absolutely bullet proof”? We’re going to trust Iran to do their own testing? This is absolutely ludicrous.
The Iranians also announced they will not allow inspection of military sites. The Ayatollah knew all of this, of course, and now he's rubbing it in via Twitter (h/t Gateway Pundit) .

Posted by Mirabelle Ward on July 25, 2015 12 Comments
The day after Secretary of State Kerry finished negotiating his disastrous nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama asserted that, “ninety-nine percent of the world community” supports it. Like so many of the President’s statements on this topic, this one is both false and irrelevant. Our culturally closest friend, Canada, has already stated that it intends to keep its own sanctions on Iran in place. India’s defense establishment, meanwhile, is concerned and preparing for a Middle East arms race. Saudi Arabia may be the only Arab state that has openly opposed it, however, the other Persian Gulf nations have also indicated their disapproval. In Israel, opposition comes not only from Prime Minister Netanyahu, as Obama would have us believe, but from across the political spectrum.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 24, 2015 6 Comments
We are told that the Obama administration, its successor and European governments will strictly enforce Iran's adherence to the nuclear deal. Put aside for the moment the problems with the deal, and focus on compliance. Put aside also that Iran has a history of cheating on nuclear issues. We have a recent example of how the West will become complicit in non-compliance. In Syria, The Wall Street Journal reports, Mission to Purge Syria of Chemical Weapons Comes Up Short (paywall):
.... One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to. An examination of last year’s international effort to rid Syria of chemical weapons, based on interviews with many of the inspectors and U.S. and European officials who were involved, shows the extent to which the Syrian regime controlled where inspectors went, what they saw and, in turn, what they accomplished. That happened in large part because of the ground rules under which the inspectors were allowed into the country, according to the inspectors and officials.... Demanding greater access and fuller disclosures by the regime, they say, might have meant getting no cooperation at all, jeopardizing the entire removal effort.
That is a key point with Iran too -- the fear that Iran will simply back out of the agreement by claiming Western non-compliance will cause the West to back away for fear of losing all compliance. The WSJ article continues noting that control on the ground gave Syria a huge advantage, and Russia ran interference for Syria (as it will do for Iran on compliance issued):

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 24, 2015 10 Comments
John Kerry testified before a senate panel about the awful Iran deal Thursday and was met by skepticism and derision from lawmakers in both parties. In a classic Democrat defense move, Kerry again tried to spin the issue and suggest it's his critics who are being unrealistic. CNN reported:
Kerry to senators: No 'fantasy' alternative to Iran deal Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there is no "unicorn" or "fantasy" alternative if the U.S. rejects the deal, which the administration maintains will keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon but which many Republicans see as providing Iran a path to a bomb. But Committee Chairman Bob Corker, a Tennesse Republican, said that the U.S. had been "fleeced" and that Kerry had "turned Iran from being a pariah, to now Congress being a pariah" in the course of making the agreement. And Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who is seeking the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, repeatedly warned that the next president could overturn the deal, which isn't a binding treaty.
Here's a short highlight reel:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 22, 2015 17 Comments
Dozens of organizations have come together to emphasize the danger Iran poses to Israel and the international community. To that end, they've joined forces to host a Stop Iran Rally in Times Square. The Stop Iran Rally has an impressive list of speakers: poster9

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on July 21, 2015 4 Comments
When Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei isn't spending time negating U.S. diplomatic statements, he's taunting Israel and the whole of the West on social media. "We will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen Israel's security," said President Obama at the beginning of a video Ayatollah Khamenei tweeted Monday. The video ended with Khamenei saying, "Israel's security will not be ensured whether there will be a nuclear agreement or not."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 20, 2015 22 Comments
Guess the Obama administration isn't waiting for Congress. The United Nations Security Council, at around 9 a.m. (Eastern) this morning, unanimously approved the Iran nuclear deal, Resolution 2231, 15-0. https://twitter.com/AdiKhair/status/623118022337761280 [caption id="attachment_135057" align="alignnone" width="600"][U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote] [U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Samantha Power, Iran Nuclear Deal Vote][/caption]

Posted by New Neo on July 20, 2015 33 Comments
Obama's Iran deal has generated enormous anger, and some of that ire has been directed at the Republicans in Congress. One of the main accusations against them is that they have made Obama's task easier by passing Corker-Menendez, a bill that allows them to stop the president from lifting the Iranian sanctions unilaterally, but only with a super-majority because Obama could (and indeed would) veto the bill. Then Congress would end up needing a 2/3 majority of both houses to stop him. Why do it that way, critics ask, instead of the simple route of exercising the Senate's treaty power (under Article II Section 2 Clause 2 of the Constitution) to advise and consent? That would require a two-thirds vote before the treaty is approved rather than requiring a two-thirds vote to stop it. But what a great many critics fail to appreciate is how watered-down the Senate's treaty power has already become ever since FDR, and how much the de facto power of the executive to make international agreements without Congress' say-so has expanded. It's well worth your time to listen to an interview on the subject with Elizabeth Chryst, who is a former elected officer of the U.S. Senate and an expert on how Congress works in terms of rules and procedures. In this recording, she speaks on the subject of the Corker-Menendez bill and why conservatives are dreaming if they think there was ever any chance of blocking the Iran deal as a treaty. That's not a reality that Chryst likes, and she knows that her fellow conservatives are very unhappy to hear it; but she thinks it's a reality they need to face.
Accessibility by WAH