Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

Posted by Leslie Eastman on July 28, 2015 6 Comments
When all is said and done, one feature of Obama's presidency that will stand out is the sheer number of citizen protests against his policies. Such protests began in 2009, when regular Americans organized to protest federal fiscal policies, tax increases, and Obamacare. In fact, Professor Jacobson was recently treated to a taste of the zaniness our San Diego Tea Party groups often faced, in the form of progressive demonstrators protesting the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) event he was attending. However, showing that not all Californians are crazy, concerned citizens gathered in Balboa Park this weekend to protest the administration's latest pet project: the proposed nuclear agreement with Iran.
About 500 protesters came together Sunday in Balboa Park to speak out against the pending nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. The Stop Iran Now event was organized by StandWithUs, an international nonprofit organization that is pro-Israel and headquartered in Los Angeles, the site of another rally also held Sunday. Both rallies were part of a larger initiative with the Jewish Rapid Response Coalition, the same group that organized a protest in New York City's Times Square last week that brought out thousands of protesters.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 28, 2015 56 Comments
Today US Secretary of State John Kerry sat alongside Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz for a brutal afternoon of questioning before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the nuclear agreement arranged between the P5+1 and Iran in Vienna earlier this month. Throughout the hearing, Kerry attempted to stand firm on his previous assertions that the deal Congress will be voting on in September is "all or nothing;" republican committee members, however, voiced skepticism about whether or not a "deal" with Iran was even possible. From the Houston Chronicle, via the AP:
"If Congress does not support the deal, we would see this deal die — with no other options," Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday as he testified for the second time in a week, part of the Obama administration's all-out campaign to sell the accord. ... "Iran has cheated on every agreement they've signed," said Rep. Ed Royce, the panel's chairman. With Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew waiting to testify, he asked if Tehran "has earned the right to be trusted" given its history.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 27, 2015 21 Comments
The Obama administration thinks it outsmarted opponents of the Iran deal by running to the U.N. Security Council for international approval before Congress's review period even started. It was a typical Obama F-U to his domestic opponents. Since Congress now needs a super-majority to block the deal, the outcome is uncertain. The Obama team is going all out to pressure Democrats to pledge their loyalty to Obama above all else. Loyalty to Obama is likely to win, though it's possible Congress will grow some backbone before it comes to a vote. Obama even is complaining about Israel Lobby money (hint, hint), while John Kerry for the umpteenth time makes implied threats against Israel. Kerry even is on a trip to the Middle East conspicuously not visiting Israel. Meanwhile, the Ahyatollah and his minions are laughing at Obama, Kerry and the U.S. Not just laughing, mocking and gloating, all the while renewing their vows of death to the U.S. and Israel. Since the federal goverment appears hapless and hopeless, is there anything the states can do to stop this deal? Obama Iran Nuke Deal Announcement Joel Pollak at Breitbart.com was the first, that I'm aware of, to advance a theory of how states can play a crucial role. A reader forwarded the post to me last week while I was in crazyland San Diego, SURPRISE! THE STATES CAN REJECT THE IRAN DEAL:

Posted by Vijeta Uniyal on July 27, 2015 9 Comments
Before the ink could barely dry on the Iran Deal, Germany's Economy Minister Sigmar Garbiel flew to Tehran, making him the first leading Western figure to do so after the nuclear agreement was reached Vienna earlier this month. Gabriel who is also Germany's Vice-Chancellor met with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani and other top Iranian leaders described the moods of the visit as "being with old friends." Germany's leading newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote [translation by me]:
Germans many not have been at the center of the talks, but as go-betweens for Iran, they were considerably important. Amongst all parties working to bring about a negotiated deal, Germans enjoyed [Tehran’s] special trust.
Germany had tremendous economic interest in ending sanction on Iran and it is not making any secrets of it. In June, just as the Iran deal was nearing its final phases, the Bavarian Chamber of Commerce (BIHK) noted in its newsletter[translation by me]:
The German media landscape agrees on one point: lucrative deals worth billions are waiting to be made in Iran. As soon as the sanction are lifted, the run on the markets begins.
Last week, at a press conference in Berlin, Minister Gabriel brushed aside human rights concerns in Iran, saying that the lifting of sanctions were only coupled to Iranian nuclear program and "not related to other matters." He further explained that his task as Economy Minister is to "help the German economy", pointing out that his French and Italian counterparts now heading to Tehran are doing just the same.

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 Mike LaChance on July 21, 2015 14 Comments
John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz appeared on FOX News Sunday this past weekend and answered questions from Chris Wallace on the terms of the Iran Deal. Wallace focused on the 24 day lead Iran will be given for inspections, which Kerry suggested is perfectly acceptable. Moniz also clarified his earlier remarks on the subject. David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Kerry: I Never Sought ‘Anytime, Anywhere’ Inspections in Iran Nuclear Negotiations Secretary of State John Kerry, in a talking point similar to White House official Ben Rhodes earlier this week, claimed on Fox News Sunday he never seen discussed the idea of “anywhere, anytime” inspections in the Iran nuclear deal. Host Chris Wallace mentioned the 24-day period Iran can stave off inspections as part of the agreement and how that hardly constituted meeting those standards before Kerry rebuked him. “Well, that’s not accurate,” Kerry said. “I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime.” Like Rhodes’ statement, this contradicts earlier statements made by the Obama administration, and it also makes it painfully clear the White House never thought this extremely important verification measure was ever realistic. President Obama, in April, said that the world would know if Iran cheated on the deal, and Wallace pointed out he said nothing about 24 days.
Watch the video:

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.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 19, 2015 32 Comments
Today, the State Department sent the Obama Administration's now-infamous Iran nuclear deal to Congress for review. This means that starting now, Congress has 60 days to fully read, analyze, and pass judgment on the bill of goods Obama and Kerry are selling. Will any of that work matter, though? Maybe not. The other parties to the agreement with Iran are putting enormous pressure on the Obama Administration to push this deal through the UN before our Congress has the opportunity to either accept or reject its contents. The Administration, in turn, appears to have decided to take away all of the legitimacy of Congressional review by acquiescing to the demands of the international community---and Congress is not happy about it. Via The Hill:
The battle is uniting Republicans, from conservative firebrand and presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to GOP leadership and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, urged the administration to hold off on the U.N. Security Council vote.

Posted by David Gerstman on July 19, 2015 27 Comments
In his combative press conference last week to defend the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, President Barack Obama issued the following challenge:
So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it; number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues, is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative.
First off it's worth noting that Energy Secretary and MIT nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz said back in April that to be effective the deal would have to include "anytime, anywhere," inspections, so Obama's explanation about why 24 days notice is now good enough fails to convince me. I want Moniz to explain why he changed his position on this AND why 24 days is now acceptable. I would like Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes to explain why he walked back his comments on requiring "anytime, anywhere" inspections. And I want a more convincing explanation than negotiator Wendy Sherman's excuse that the term was just a "rhetorical flourish." (If that was a rhetorical flourish, I'm curious how many other administration comments about the nuclear deal were rhetorical flourishes.)

Posted by AACONS on July 17, 2015 24 Comments
It is not often that I feel compelled to defend President Obama. But in this case I will. The recent nuclear deal with Iran reveals that he is not a poor negotiator but rather an excellent one. The President has been mocked for his negotiation skills throughout his tenure by the Left and the Right - from people ranging from Paul Krugman to Bob Woodward to Donald Trump. And interestingly the reasons both sides give for their assessment are as similar as they are contrary. To the Left, Obama is simply too good to be good negotiator. He’s no mere politician, after all. He’s an ideologue! Too filled with idealism, too pure, too above the taint of politics to be talented at negotiation. The Atlantic for example wrote in its 2011 piece “Why Obama Is So Bad At Negotiations” that “The truth is, that while the president's idealism has made him a very poor negotiator, it is what attracted me and I suspect many others to him in the first place. His lack of cynicism and belief that we could tackle our problems together as one nation was unique, beautiful and stunning in our modern political system.” Similarly, the Right argues that Obama is a poor negotiator because, again, he is an ideologue. As GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorna said on a recent appearance on Hannity “[Obama] has spent a lifetime in politics and ideology. That’s it. That’s his life. If you have no experience in negotiating you don’t negotiate very well. If you have no experience in problem-solving you don’t solve problems very well. If you have no experience in compromising you don’t compromise very well. What’s he good at? Giving a speech and sticking to his ideology.” This perception of Obama as a poor negotiator has been tested by the recently announced Iranian nuclear deal.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 17, 2015 14 Comments
The Obama administration and its supporters try to paint opposition to the Iran nuke deal as a Bibi Netanyahu problem. That's a convenient excuse, because it allows Obama to play the Democrat loyalty card among members still upset about Bibi's appearance in Congress. It also plays into "Israel Lobby" demonization, the bogeyman of the left. The opposition to the Iran nuke deal, however, is bringing together usual political enemies. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic interviews Isaac Herzog, Bibi's primary domestic political opponent, Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East:
Last December, when I interviewed the leader of Israel’s left-leaning Labor Party, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum, he said, in reference to nuclear negotiations with Iran: “I trust the Obama administration to get a good deal.” In a telephone call with me late last night, Herzog’s message was very different. The deal just finalized in Vienna, he said, “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”

Posted by Vijeta Uniyal on July 16, 2015 10 Comments
Indian newspapers generally echoed Western sentiments by welcoming the Iran deal and India's Foreign Office also took a line similar to the one taken by the EU and other Western powers. But behind the scenes, India is  getting ready for the coming nuclear arms race in their Arab neighbourhood. Far from buying President Obama's optimism over the 'peace dividend', Indian defence establishment is building up its nuclear defence capabilities. In recent months, India has invested heavily in ramping up missile defences. With Israeli expertise, India will soon be able to detect and intercept missiles within the range of 5,000 km – double the aerial distance between New Delhi and Tehran. As President Obama was announcing the Iran deal to the world, Indian government was busy clearing new defence deals worth billions. Indian News website Firstpost reports:
Accessibility by WAH