Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

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 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 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 Amy Miller on September 09, 2015 11 Comments
Today I attended the much-anticipated Cruz-Trump Iran deal protest on Capitol Hill. It was a scorcher---97 degrees when I finally surrendered to an air conditioned cab---but the rally boasted an impressive turnout. The crowd, for the most part, was focused on protesting not only the specific Iranian nuclear deal, but the path down which Obama's foreign policy has taken us. 100% of the attendees I talked to see the deal as one more foolish, stupid, naive move by the Obama Administration. For most, opposition was apolitical; I spoke to many people who were grateful for the protest votes of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats, even if those announcements came too little and too late to give the White House pause. These signs were floating around everywhere, and for the most part sum up the mood in the crowd: death to america iran rally sign

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 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 Amy Miller on September 02, 2015 43 Comments
Today Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski committed her vote in support of the controversial Iran nuclear deal, bringing the total number of Senators backing the deal to 34---the magic number needed to ensure Democrats can sustain President Obama's veto should Senators opposed to the deal bring forward a resolution of disapproval. More from the AP:
Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the crucial 34th vote in favor of the agreement. "No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime," Mikulski said in a statement. She called the accord "the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal." The backing from Mikulski, who is retiring next year, gives supporters the margin they need to uphold an Obama veto of a congressional resolution of disapproval if Republicans pass such a measure later this month. And it spells failure for opponents of the international agreement who sought to foil it by turning Congress against it. Leading that effort were Israel and its allies in the U.S., who failed to get traction after spending millions of dollars trying.
Reaction on both sides, of course, exploded:

Posted by David Gerstman on August 30, 2015 6 Comments
In a press conference yesterday, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said that he didn't want the Iranian legislature to approve the nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) the Associated Press reported Saturday.
Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily, he said. ... "If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government . it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it," Rouhani said. "Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?" ... The president said a parliamentary vote would benefit the U.S. and its allies, not Iran.
Similarly, Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported, "President Rouhani underlined that the submission of the JCPOA to the Parliament would mean that the president would have to sign the JCPOA, an extra legal commitment that the administration has already avoided." So Iran doesn't want to be bound legally by the JCPOA.

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 Kemberlee Kaye on August 27, 2015 15 Comments
Joining Rep. Trey Gowdy and Sen. Tim Scott at a Presidential town hall forum in South Carolina Thursday, Governor Rick Perry took questions ranging from entitlement reform to national security. During a particularly emotional moment, Governor Perry went off script to discuss his deep-rooted feelings about military service. When asked by an audience member if he would close Gitmo, Perry answered, "listen, I'd keep Guantanamo Bay open. The bad guys don't need be over here. This president does not know how to, and I'm just going to editorialize here just a little bit -- this president does not know how to connect the dots. If he did, we would not be negotiating with Iran today. If he did, we would have the Castro brothers on their knees in Cuba, but we threw them a lifeline." Perry continued, "this president does not understand, either he doesn't have the experience of how foreign policy works, or he is so philosophically out of tune with the vast majority of Americans." When the conversation turned to Iraq, Perry's demeanor changed.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 27, 2015 6 Comments
As the vote on the controversial Iran nuclear deal looms, democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are pushing forward with their efforts to ensure that their caucus stands as intact as possible against Republican attacks. Thus far, their efforts have produced results, if not perfect ones. The defection of powerful Senate democrat Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the high profile split of two freshman House dems, has dinged the optic surrounding the deal, but overall, the White House has every reason to be optimistic. Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that she has more than enough votes to sustain a veto in the House (fewer than 60 House dems have announced their opposition,) and in the Senate, Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) has cast doubts about the future success of opposition efforts. Still, the White House is nervous. Invoking the veto on such a high-profile issue could move voter confidence in the wrong direction, and destroy what little credibility Obama has left on the international stage. More from Politico:

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 David Gerstman on August 23, 2015 8 Comments
A number of stories have been reported since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the nuclear deal with Iran is known, that raise serious questions about its effectiveness to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and even about whether or not it will stop a war.

Syria's Secret Chemical Weapons Stockpile

The Wall Street Journal reported on July 23 (Google link) that Syria, contrary to previous reports, had maintained “caches of even deadlier nerve agents.” Why it's important: The first reason is that Iran is the main sponsor of Assad regime. Given that it has supported the use of WMD in Syria and suffered no consequences for this will likely embolden it. The second reason is more practical. The chemical weapons inspectors were limited by the Assad regime where they could go. They also feared that if they reported something that would displease the authorities they would be barred from other sites. The same problem will exist with Iran. But being able to declare military sites out of bounds for inspections, Iran will limit inspectors' access, compromising the effectiveness of inspections regime.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 20, 2015 11 Comments
Yesterday, the AP revealed the existence of a side agreement between the IAEA and Tehran that would effectively neuter inspection protocols contained in the controversial Iran nuclear deal. Sources revealed a draft of "Separate Agreement II" containing provisions allowing Tehran to use its own inspectors—as opposed to a neutral IAEA-based team—to keep tabs on the Parchin nuclear site in Iran. Although a general agreement regarding inspection protocols between the IAEA and Tehran was expected, the contents of the draft provided to the AP were unprecedented. Today, the AP published the contents of the draft agreement. Reporters weren't allowed to make a copy of the draft, but instead transcribed the complete text here:
Separate arrangement II agreed by the Islamic State of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 July 2015, regarding the Road-map, Paragraph 5 Iran and the Agency agreed on the following sequential arrangement with regard to the Parchin issue: 1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 19, 2015 13 Comments
Just when you thought you couldn't be more ashamed of the past six years of American foreign policy...here comes the onslaught. The AP has gotten its hands on draft documents suggesting that, as part of the controversial Iran nuclear agreement, Tehran will be able to use its own inspectors---as opposed to a neutral IAEA-based team---to keep tabs on the Parchin nuclear site in Iran. This is a separate, side agreement that the Obama Administration endorsed as part of the whole package currently awaiting judgment in Congress. The AP explains what is contained in the draft:
The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn't authorized to discuss the issue. It is labeled "separate arrangement II," indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency's probe of the nuclear weapons allegations. The document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA staff will be reduced to monitoring Iranian personnel as these inspect the Parchin site.

Posted by David Gerstman on August 19, 2015 25 Comments
By now, Sen. Jeff Flake's (R - Ariz.) announcement that he will oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been overshadowed by Sen. Robert Menendez' (D - N.J.) Tuesday announcement of his opposition. Still, I'd like to revisit Flake's announcement because he was viewed by the administration, in the words of one report, as a "gettable" Republican. With Flake's announcement it now appears that President Barack Obama will not be able to claim bipartisan support for the JCPOA. I don't know how "gettable," Flake was. To be sure, at the July 23 Senate Foreign Relations hearing Flake was much less adversarial than most other Republicans on the committee, and that played a role in maintaining the impression that he perhaps looked favorably upon the deal. He also was less adversarial than Menendez. However, he asked Kerry some very solid questions and Kerry's responses were awful. How awful? Early in his question and answer session Flake asked Kerry about language in the JCPOA that allowed Iran to opt out if sanctions were re-imposed.
Accessibility by WAH