NY Senator will vote in favor of Iran sellout
A New York Democratic Senator announced a short while ago that she will vote in favor of President Hussein Obama's Iran sellout. And while that Senator is Kirsten Gillibrand
- and not the supposedly key Chuck Schumer (who will apparently not announce how he will vote until it doesn't matter anymore) - her vote may indicate which way the wind is blowing for New York's senior Senator (Hat Tip: Red Tulips
Gillibrand discussed her support on the post-what-thou-wilt online forum Medium,
writing that while imperfect, “if we reject this deal, we do not have a
viable alternative for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Here’s Gillibrand’s full post:
Why I’m Supporting an Imperfect Iran Deal
Beginning in 2010, I helped champion in Congress an aggressive and
punitive series of sanctions against Iran because we faced an Iranian
nuclear program that was spinning unchecked and out of control. The
Iranian regime with a nuclear weapon posed – then and now – an
existential threat to the State of Israel, and dangerously threatens our
own national security interests.
Bottom line: Iran possessing a nuclear weapon would be a
game-changing event that cannot and will not be allowed. That was true
then – and it remains true today.
Cannot and will not be allowed? Really? What happens in year 10? In year 15? And that's a best case scenario in which Iran abides by the deal until that point.
The question before us now is whether this deal is the best way to
reach our goal, or whether the best way forward is continued
Congressional sanctions, even as other nations around the world begin to
lift their own. To date, the sanctions the U.S. led the global
community to impose worked: they crippled Iran’s economy and compelled
its leaders to face us at the negotiating table.
Other nations would not be lifting their own if the United States were not lifting their own. Please note that the United States led the global community over the objections
of President Hussein Obama
By including China, Russia, and our European partners, this crushing
economic pressure, combined with diplomacy, has produced an
unprecedented combination of ways to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. Just as important, inspectors will have unprecedented
access to Iran’s facilities, so that we can better understand Iran’s
capabilities, stop a program currently designed to produce a nuclear
weapon, and be better prepared to detect any covert activity. This deal
does not take any military options off the table for the next president
if Iran fails to live up to its end of the agreement. In fact, we will
have better intelligence as a result of this deal should military action
become unavoidable. But rejecting it and leaving only U.S. sanctions in
place without the essential support of the international community will
move us closer to military confrontation. Sanctions worked when the
world community came together, choking off the Iranian economy. In a
meeting earlier this week when I questioned the ambassadors of our P5+1
allies, it also became clear that if we reject this deal, going back to
the negotiation table is not an option.
'Unprecedented access'? With 24 days' notice? Not good enough. As to 'only' leaving US sanctions in place, I would suggest that not being able to access the US financial markets would be a pretty strong incentive for other countries to go along with continuing sanctions.
I have decided to support this deal after closely reading the
agreement, participating in multiple classified briefings, questioning
Energy Secretary Moniz and other officials, consulting independent arms
control experts, and talking with many constituents who both support and
oppose this deal. Here is why I believe this imperfect deal is worthy
of Congressional approval:
- First, Iran made essential concessions in the deal. After the
failure of the 2004 Paris Agreement, Iran was defiant; it refused to
negotiate seriously, it was uncooperative with international weapons
inspectors, and it vowed never to cave to pressure and dismantle its
nuclear production, which increased dramatically during the Bush years.
Actually their nuclear production increased by a heck of a lot more during the Obama years than during the Bush years. Can't pin this one on W.
- Now, Iran has signed on to a sufficiently verifiable and enforceable
deal that cuts off all paths to a bomb and has its entire nuclear
supply chain closely monitored for years to come. A deal like this,
widely supported by independent nuclear arms control experts, was
unimaginable just a few years ago.
Verifiable? Hello? Have you been hearing what the experts
are saying about this?
- Second, this deal will provide international nuclear inspectors with
access that they otherwise would not have had – and never will have if
we reject this agreement. We will begin robust worldwide monitoring of
Iran’s nuclear supply chain – uranium production, plants that convert
uranium into a centrifuge-ready gas, centrifuges, uranium stockpiles,
and spent nuclear fuel that contains plutonium – and inspectors will
retain the right to request access to suspicious sites forever.
On 24 days' notice? Not really much access, is it?
- Third, while I’m skeptical that Iran won’t try to deceive us and our
partners in this agreement, we’ll be in a better position to catch
those attempts due to the monitoring and verification mechanisms that
this deal secures. If Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, international
inspectors and intelligence operations will know faster than ever
before. We will then be able to snap back all of the American and United
Nations sanctions, even unilaterally, and all options – including
military action – will be on the table.
Snap back? Not really
Iran will still be disruptive in the Middle East and fund terrorist
activities. This regime will continue to deny Israel’s right to exist,
the Quds Force will still be listed as a terrorist organization, and
Iran will continue to exacerbate tensions with our allies in the region.
But Iran would be exponentially more dangerous to Israel and the entire
region with a nuclear weapon.
Yes. Then why are you letting them have one?
Israel’s security and America’s national security interests are
fundamentally aligned. Congress must continue its unwavering commitment
to ensuring that Israel retains a qualitative military edge in the
region – an effort I will continue to steadfastly support. I have not
only consistently voted for Israel’s full foreign assistance package,
but have also added funds for innovative and effective defense projects,
such as Iron Dome. I will fight in Congress for a new Israel defense
aid package, because we must continue to fund the new technologies of
tomorrow that will keep families safe from conventional missile and
There are legitimate and serious concerns about this deal. For
example, I would have liked to see a period shorter than 24 days to
resolve disputes over access for inspectors. The U.N. embargoes on the
sales of arms and ballistic weapons to Iran should have remained in
place permanently, instead of lapsing after five and eight years.
Hostages remain in Iranian custody. We will have to work hard to fight
Iran’s malign efforts to wreak havoc in the region. While all of these
issues are important, no issue matters more than ensuring that the
Iranian regime does not have a nuclear weapon at its disposal.
If we reject this deal, we do not have a viable alternative for
preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Without a deal, and
without inspectors on the ground, we will be left in the dark as Iran
resumes its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, with only months to go before
it could enrich enough fissile material for a bomb. Without a deal, our
options will be limited to insufficient unilateral sanctions, an
invasion with yet another massive and costly land war in the Middle
East, or a bombing campaign that offers nothing more than short-term
gain under the best-case scenario.
Our goal has been, and remains, to prevent Iran from developing a
nuclear weapon. We have far more ability to achieve that outcome if we
approve this deal?.
No, we don't. If this deal is approved, we will have signed off - if not now then later - on Iran becoming a nuclear-armed state. I wonder if Gillibrand will still be in the Senate then. What will she say?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charles Schumer, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Kirsten Gillibrand, nuclear weapons, United States Senate