Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Nuclear Deal Tag

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.

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:
Accessibility by WAH