Think tank: P 5+1 secretly allowed Iran to evade nuke restrictions to allow sanctions to be lifted
The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security reports that the United States and its partners agreed "in secret"
to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear
agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief
from economic sanctions.
The group's president David Albright, a
former U.N. weapons inspector, said that, "the exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran."
Among the exemptions were two that allowed
Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU)
it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be
purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
The
exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the
deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is
comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners -- called
the P5+1 -- and Iran.
One senior
"knowledgeable" official was cited by the report as saying that if the
joint commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of
Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the
deal by Jan. 16, the deadline for the beginning of the lifting of
sanctions.
The U.S. administration
has said that the world powers that negotiated the accord -- the United
States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- made no secret
arrangements.
A White House
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the joint commission
and its role were "not secret." He did not address the report's
assertions of exemptions.
The report says that Congress was notified of the exemptions... after they went into effect. But two key Senators - Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Robert Menendez deny being briefed on the exemptions.
But it gets worse. You see, not only was Iran exempted from the requirement to reduce its LEU... but no one even knows by how much.
As part of the concessions that allowed Iran
to exceed uranium limits, the joint commission agreed to exempt unknown
quantities of 3.5 percent LEU contained in liquid, solid and sludge
wastes stored at Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the
report. The agreement restricts Iran to stockpiling only 300 kg of 3.5
percent LEU.
The commission
approved a second exemption for an unknown quantity of near 20 percent
LEU in "lab contaminant" that was determined to be unrecoverable, the
report said. The nuclear agreement requires Iran to fabricate all such
LEU into research reactor fuel.
If
the total amount of excess LEU Iran possesses is unknown, it is
impossible to know how much weapons-grade uranium it could yield,
experts said.
And there's more:
The draft report said the joint commission
also agreed to allow Iran to keep operating 19 radiation containment
chambers larger than the accord set. These so-called "hot cells" are
used for handling radioactive material but can be "misused for secret,
mostly small-scale plutonium separation efforts," said the report.
Plutonium is another nuclear weapons fuel.
The
deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at
its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But
with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the
sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the
material -- which can be used in nuclear weapons production -- to Oman,
where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.
The
shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons
production has already been reported. Albright's report made the new
assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.
Wow....
You can bet that now that it's more than a year and a half later, Hillary Clinton's response will be 'what difference does it make now?' But it still does make a difference. Clinton supports the deal. Trump says he will 'renegotiate' it. Okay, I will grant that renegotiating the deal after all that money is out the door only has a chance of solving the nuclear weapons problem, and not the terror money problem. But at some point, actions have to have consequences.
Unbelievable: Senate may not even vote on Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran
It's come to this: Thanks to Mr. Congeniality, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn), President Hussein Obama's sellout and endorsement of a nuclear armed Iran may never even come to a vote in the Senate. This is Jonathan Tobin.
With only two Senate Democrats announcing their opposition (Chuck
Schumer and Robert Menendez), there now appears to be a chance that the
White House will be able to orchestrate a filibuster of the bill if at
least three more Democrats join a unanimous Republican caucus. That will
make a mockery of the approval process that Congress has been going
through. If it does, the blame will belong to a president who has not
hesitated to use inflammatory rhetoric and heavy-handed tactics to stop
Congress from interfering with a policy of appeasement of Iran. But
Obama didn’t do it alone. He could never have succeeded had he not had
the unwitting help of Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chair of the
Foreign Relations Committee. Without Corker’s foolish belief in working
with the White House and pusillanimous unwillingness to push for an
approval process in line with the Constitution’s provisions about
foreign treaties, the administration might never have been able to get
away with sneaking through the most important foreign policy decision in
a generation.
...
The Tennessee Republican didn’t get much cooperation from the
administration. However, he did listen to a lot of his Democratic
colleagues who were unhappy about confronting Obama but wanted to
preserve some sort of Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.
Thus, hoping to maintain the bipartisan consensus on Iran, Corker
shifted the emphasis in the Senate away from a bill that would toughen
sanctions against Iran that had been proposed by Menendez and Illinois
Republican Mark Kirk. Instead, Corker’s attention was focused on
something else: something that would compel the administration to
present any deal with Iran for a Congressional vote.
Thus was born the Corker-Menendez bill that would be renamed
Corker-Cardin after Menendez was forced out as ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee and replaced by Senator Ben Cardin.
Considering that the administration had openly said that it did feel
compelled to present any agreement with Iran for Congressional approval,
some sort of response was required. But the only thing Corker could get
Corker and other Democrats to sign on to was a bill on an Iran nuclear
deal that would provide for a simple up and down vote in both the House
and the Senate.
What was wrong with that? The Constitution explicitly states that
foreign treaties must be presented to the Senate where they must get a
two-thirds vote to be approved. The impetus for this high bar was the
thought that treaties ought to be a matter of national consensus since
they involve the security of the nation and their impact will be felt
beyond the current Congress or the incumbent president.
Corker’s bill turned that approval process upside down. Instead of 67
votes to pass a deal that would give Iran Western approval for becoming
a nuclear threshold state and a nuclear power once the deal expired in
10 to 15 years, all Obama would now need was 34 votes in the Senate or
one-third plus one vote in the House.
It can be argued that Democrats would never have gone along with a
bill that would have designated the Iran deal as a treaty as it should
have been. The administration knows that there is no legal argument for
not designating the deal as a treaty. As Secretary of State John Kerry admitted in his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the only reason they didn’t present it as a treaty is because it is too hard to pass a treaty.
...
Corker is flummoxed by this prospect, telling the New York Times that he cannot imagine that a Senate will do it.
“Ninety-eight senators voted to give themselves the right
to vote on this,” he said. “Surely they are not going to deny
themselves a final vote on the deal.” …
“To block a vote on the deal would be a fascinating turn of events at a minimum,” Mr. Corker said.
Fascinating isn’t quite the word I’d use for such a turn of events. A
better description of what is happening is that a tough-minded
administration has run rings around an inept Corker. Did he really trust
liberal Democrats who promised that they wanted a vote? If so, he is
clearly not smart enough to be left in the position of influence he has
been given. Far from his accommodating attitude rebuilding the consensus
on Iran that Obama has been busy destroying, Corker’s willingness to
bend over backwards has facilitated Obama’s disastrous policy.
A filibuster will enable the president to say that Congress never
defeated his Iran deal. That’s something that he would have been denied
if he had been forced to veto the bill. Even a complete end run by the
administration around congress where no vote at all would have been held
would have been preferable to a successful Iran deal filibuster. Then
opponents would have been able to point to the extra-legal way the
president was sneaking his treaty with Iran through. A failed effort to
designate the deal as a treaty would also at least have set the record
straight about Obama’s disregard for the Constitution. But now Obama can
say the deal was reviewed and in a sense passed. This will strengthen
his efforts to undermine existing sanctions and make it harder for the
deal to overturn it in the future once he leaves office.
For that he can thank Corker.
By the way, if you're wondering how this pea brain became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... the party was looking for an ideological conservative. Maybe the party ought to be looking for some intelligence before worrying about ideology?
The constitution of the United States is actually a pretty well-written document. According to Mark Dubowitz, it would allow Congress to amend what most Americans see as a very bad deal with Iran.
There is ample precedent to amend the deal. Congress has required amendments
to more than 200 treaties before receiving Senate consent, including
significant bilateral Cold War arms control agreements with the Soviets
like the Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions
Treaty, as well as multilateral agreements like the Chemical Weapons
Convention negotiated with 87 participating countries, including Iran, by President Bill Clinton. And it’s not just Republicans putting up obstacles. During
the Cold War, Democratic senators like Henry Jackson withstood pressure
from Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who insisted that the deals they
negotiated go unchanged. This all happened at a time when Moscow had thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles aimed at America.
Should Congress follow in this proud tradition and disapprove of the
Iran deal, there are three possible scenarios. Each presents challenges.
But each is preferable to this fatally flawed agreement.
...
The power of U.S. financial sanctions always depended on the private
sector’s appetite for risk. In the event of a congressional disapproval,
or a vote in which a simple majority of senators reject the deal, major
European companies likely will hold off on investment until a new
president comes into office in 2017. They will also be concerned about
the legal and reputational risk of doing business with Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (who dominate strategic sectors of Iran’s
economy like finance, energy, construction, and automotive and will
still be designated a proliferation sponsor by the United States).
Treasury has already issued
guidance that international companies should be very circumspect before
reentering the Revolutionary Guards-dominated Iranian market.
This leverage can be used to get a better deal, one that would
require that nuclear, arms, and ballistic missile restrictions don’t
sunset until the U.N. Security Council (where America retains its veto)
votes to lift them. It would remove the Iranian nuclear snap back
language and include Tehran’s explicit acknowledgement that sanctions
can be reimposed for terrorism, human rights abuses, ICBM development,
and on other non-nuclear grounds. It also would include other changes
like the requirement that IAEA weapons inspectors physically enter and thoroughly investigate any suspect military or non-military site, something U.S. lead negotiator Wendy Sherman said in a recent congressional hearing will not always be necessary because soil sampling carried out by Iran will be sufficient.
It won’t be easy getting changes to the deal as it now
stands. It will require additional leverage. But the United States will
never again have the kind of powerful secondary sanctions leverage that
it does today. Congress now has an opportunity to ensure that we
maintain and use that power. The aim should not be to torpedo diplomacy.
Rather, it is to defuse that ticking time bomb by making
critical amendments to this Iran deal that lower the risk of a future
war.
Dubowitz does not consider the potential that Iran will race to
breakout — and for good reason. Iran’s participation in the talks shows
us that Iran wants to get the bomb without risking its regime (by
military strength). So long as it can cajole the West, keep its
infrastructure in place and rebuild its economy, it can be patient. If
it would try to make a dash, it would face the threat of military action
from Israel, and theoretically from the United States. Iran was not
willing to pursue that risky proposition and with the potential to get
partial sanctions relief, there is no reason to believe it would do so.
Ironically, “war” (as in “this deal or war”) is the most far-fetched
scenario.
As Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) argues today,
if the deal goes into effect, we will be in a much worse position in
five or 10 years than we are now. “We have more leverage than we will
ever have, but under this deal that leverage will flip in approximately
nine months, when most major sanctions are relieved. Iran will further
deepen its regional strength,” he argues. “Unfortunately, the agreement
ties our hands in countering Iran’s efforts. If we try to push back,
Iran will threaten to speed up its nuclear development since it already
will have a windfall of money, a rapidly growing economy and alliances
built with our partners, who will feast on the mercantile benefits of
doing business with Iran.” In other words, the deal does not buy us
time; it forfeits our leverage and increases Iran’s hegemonic ambitions
and determination to get its bomb (even if it has to wait 10 years).
Doing the deal, then,
is the risky proposition — by increasing violence in the region in the
short term and practically ensuring major military conflict down the
road (sanctions won’t be available) with a stronger and more confident
Iran. Not doing the deal is the safe move — for it keeps our
leverage, allowing for more effective coercive diplomacy by the next
president. Most important, it would begin the process of reassuring our
Sunni and Israeli allies that we intend to push back on Iran, a
necessary precondition for limiting Iran’s influence and, not
coincidentally, also instilling confidence in the war against the
Islamic State.
Too bad Corker is the guy who led the surrender of Congress' treaty power. That would have made rejecting this deal a whole lot easier.
The Corker-Cardin process was supposed to save President Hussein Obama from having to bring the Iran nuclear sellout for approval by the United States Senate, where it had no chance of winning. But according to Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Obama may have outsmarted himself. The Iranian sellout violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which was ratified and approved by the Senate), and is therefore effectively an amendment to that treaty that requires two thirds approval from the Senate.
The issue is not whether the executive can without a treaty enter into agreements with foreign governments. Of course it can.
That happens often from negotiating minor details of landing rights to
major agreements. But these executive agreements are done consistent
with treaty obligations, or certainly not in conflict with them. The
Iran Deal conflicts with the NPT.
Treaties are the law of the land
and have the status of federal statutes. They do not trump either the
Constitution or subsequently enacted statutes. As a statute, however, a
treaty would supersede a regulation, an executive order, or an
executive-signed agreement. If an executive agency or an independent
agency has the latitude to issue orders or sign agreements that conflict
with treaty obligations, then treaties ratified by the United States
have little if any enforceability.
In the United States, the administration or an independent agency
cannot simply write an order that conflicts directly with a statute. The
rule of law flows insists on no less. Why should a treaty, the NPT have
lesser status?
The Iran Deal will not have the status of even a statute. As
currently planned, it will not be subject to the constitutionally
mandated process for Senate consent for a treaty. Nor will the Iran Deal
become a statute even under the Corker-Cardin process
of Congressional review. Moreover, as seems likely, the Iran Deal will
result in a joint resolution that will have the support of fewer than
half of the members of either house of Congress, hardly the foundation
for a statute.
Congress had not seen the Iran Deal before the Corker-Cardin process
was enacted and had no reason to believe that it would violate the NPT.
On April 27 just before the Corker-Cardin bill was approved, Secretary
Kerry remarked
at the 2015 NPT meeting that “nonproliferation must be non-negotiable.
There is no room under the NPT for a country to negotiate its way into
becoming a nuclear-armed state … “[A]ny deal with Iran will rely not on
promises, non on words, but on proof…verification is at the heart of the
NPT.”
The Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not review a treaty amendment. No one has put
forth an argument that Congress can bind itself in advance to a process
to create or amend a treaty by a process different from that stated in
the constitution.
Senate demands to see Parchin and PMD ('possible military dimensions') deals - UPDATED
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Bob Corker (R-Tn) and Ben Cardin (D-Md) - have demanded from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz - who was deeply involved in the P5+1 negotiations - that the White House demanding to see the secret agreements whose existence was disclosed on Tuesday by the IAEA to Congressman Bob Pompeo (R-Ks) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The Cotton-Pompeo trip is already affecting the debate over the
Iran deal on Capitol Hill. According to The Hill, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker and ranking member Ben Cardin
met with Department of Energy secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday to demand
copies of the side agreements discovered by Cotton and Pompeo. The two
senators also sent a joint letter to President Obama asking for copies
of these documents.
Fred Fleitz (at that first link) also explains the significance of what's being hidden.
Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained in a
July 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed why it is crucial that Iran resolve
the PMD issue. According to Tobey, “for inspections to be meaningful,
Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant
nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.”
According to the Cotton/Pompeo press release, there will be a secret,
opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements.
The press release says:
According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the
Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge
separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military
complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and
how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past
weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any
organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even
to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement].
This
means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public
scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its
legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.
This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the
nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the
requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S.
Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including
all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added],
implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other
understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or
implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented
in the future.”
It also means that Congress will have no way of knowing whether Iran
complied with either side agreement.
...
This is especially troublesome for the PMD issue. I wrote in
National Review on June 15 and June 17 that the Obama administration was
trying to find a way to let Iran off the hook for past nuclear
weapons-related work. It seems to have found a way to do this with a
secret procedure shielded from the American public and the U.S.
Congress.
Still waiting for the Democrats to stand up to Obama on this. Ben Cardin? Chuck Schumer? The only one I'm betting on is Bob Menendez - he has nothing to lose.
On Morning Joe on Wednesday morning, State Department Spokesman John Kirby refused to answer questions regarding the existence of side deals that were not shown to Congress.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has decided to stick out his finger to see which way the wind is blowing before making up his mind how to vote on President Hussein Obama's sellout to Iran.
“This is one of the most serious decisions any member of the House or
Senate is going to have to make,” Schumer told reporters at his weekly
press conference in New York. “I’m going to go over this agreement with a
fine-toothed comb, looking at it extremely carefully.”
Schumer said he was “one of the people who led the
charge to say Congress should get the right to examine this agreement
before it goes into effect” and that he’ll consult with many experts
before deciding. “To not do that now wouldn’t make much sense,” he said.
But which agreement will he examine? It seems there are now three of them - the US version, the Iranian version and the UN version.
Iran neither accepts nor rejects UN resolution on the nuke issue. "Talks needed to remove ambiguities,and on implementation," statement says
In the meantime, Andrew McCarthy argues that Congress should ignore the Corker bill and insist on treating this agreement (whichever one it is) as a treaty.
It is time to end the Kabuki theater.
The Corker Bill and its
ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a
sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you
find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So
should Congress.
Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at
least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed
(piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred
Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding
that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist
regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as
required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution,
however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White
House.
Enough is enough – way beyond enough.
The Congress, particularly the Senate, has not only a clear
justification but a constitutional duty to scrap the legally defective
and, now, factually nigh-irrelevant Corker review process, codified as
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. I am proud of having been
an adamant opponent of the Corker Bill since it was first proposed, but
that is neither here nor there at this point. Even supporters of the
Corker Bill must now see that the legislation anticipated and is
designed to address an international agreement that is fundamentally
different from the one the Obama administration has struck with
America’s enemies.
In the meantime, Schumer claims his vote isn't automatic either.
Schumer dismissed claims that he won’t go against the president in order
to keep his hope of becoming the next Senate Democratic leader. “When I
think the president is wrong, I go against him,” he said, pointing to
his recent opposition to the trade bill (TPA). “There are times when
I’ve broken with the president before, when I really think that I have a
different point of view, and the right thing is not what he is doing.”
Obama trying end-run around Congress to have UN approve Iran deal
President Hussein Obama is trying to do an end-run around Congress by obtaining binding United Nations approval for his Iran deal before Congress has time to vote. This is from an email from Omri Ceren.
Lead negotiator Wendy Sherman confirmed for journalists yesterday that the Obama administration will, over the next few days, pursue a binding United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) that will lift sanctions on Iran. The resolution was circulated yesterday by the U.S. and a leaked text is already online. When asked how the move could be reconciled with the 60 day Congressional review period mandated by the Corker legislation, Sherman sarcastically responded that you can't really say "well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress" because there has to be some way for "the international community to speak." She noted that at least the UNSCR would have a 90 day interim period before its mandatory obligations kick in.
The gambit undermines the Corker bill - to say nothing of American sovereignty - on multiple levels. On a policy level, the UNSCR on its own would compel American action even if Congress rejects the Iran deal. On a political level, the administration intends to take the UNSCR and go to lawmakers while they're considering the deal and say 'you can't reject the agreement because it would put America in violation of international law.'
The pushback from the Hill yesterday was immediate and furious. Corker: "an affront to the American people... an affront to Congress and the House of Representatives". Cardin: "it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution". Cruz: "our Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends". Kirk: "a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and Congressional prerogative". McConnell: "violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law... inconceivable - yet sadly not surprising".
The Washington Post article at the bottom covers some of those statements and has a bunch of background. The story will develop throughout the day and through the beginning of next week. It's going to be particularly brutal given that the Corker legislation was created and passed to stop exactly this scenario.
Remember how we got here. The March 9 Cotton letter, signed by 47 Senators, declared that without Congressional buy-in any deal with Iran would not be binding on future presidents.
Iranian FM Zarif responded with a temper tantrum in which he revealed that the parties intended to fast-track an UNSCR that would make Congress irrelevant and tie the hands of future presidents: "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law". That created a firestorm of criticism from the Hill. Zarif doubled down from the stage at NYU: "within a few days after [an agreement] we will have a resolution in the security council ... which will be mandatory for all member states, whether Senator Cotton likes it or not".
And so Congress responded with the Corker legislation. 98 Senators and 400 Representatives passed the bill with the intention of preventing the Obama administration from immediately going to the U.N. after an agreement and making good on Zarif's boast. President Obama signed the bill. Now the administration is doing exactly what the legislation was designed to prohibit.
In a letter Thursday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and ranking Democrat Sen. Benjamin L.
Cardin (Md.) urged Obama to postpone U.N. consideration of the agreement
until Congress can review it and potentially vote on its own
assessment.
The Republican chairmen of the House Homeland
Security and Foreign Affairs committees sent a similar letter to the
White House on Wednesday.
...
In a compromise reached in May with Congress, Obama agreed not to use
his authority to waive U.S. sanctions against Iran for at least 60 days
after a deal was reached. The review begins when the text of the
agreement is delivered to lawmakers this weekend.
During that
period, Congress has the option of voting, by a simple majority, to
“disapprove” it and permanently bar a sanctions waiver. Obama has said
he would veto such legislation. For the moment, the administration is
certain it has enough votes among Democrats to prevent a veto override,
which requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
If a veto were
overridden — cementing Congress’s official disapproval — a State
Department official said this week that “we don’t have authority to
provide U.S. sanctions relief” and that “the deal won’t proceed.”
White
House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said Thursday that “we will
not begin implementation of the plan until after the congressional
review period is over.” The 90-day delay, officials said, also gives
Iran time to begin taking steps to comply with the deal and allows the
International Atomic Energy Agency to prepare for its inspection and
verification role.
That's not the point. If the UN passes a binding resolution and then Congress says 'no,' then what? The whole point is to give Congress its say - essentially making any US signature on a deal non-binding - until Congress votes up or down. Obama agreed to that in May. Now he's welching on his agreement. Color me unsurprised.
UPDATE 7:09 PM
Please make sure to read the comment posted below. Obama may well be forcing Israel to be the only country in the world that objects to Iran being a nuclear power. Maybe the Saudis would like to object?
Three months ago, the Senate adopted a bill that was negotiated with President Obama that abdicated that right of approval. In essence, under Corker-Menendez, Obama has the right to present his surrender to Iranian nuclear weapons to the Senate not as a treaty, but as an agreement. And if the Senate says no, Obama has the right to veto that no. Unless the Senate comes up with 67 votes to override that veto, the agreement with Iran will stand. That means that 34 votes to sustain Obama's veto are enough for the agreement to go through.
By an overwhelming 98-1 margin the Senate has passed a bill which purports to give Congress a say on President Hussein Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) was the only senator to oppose the bill. He
said in a statement that he objected that the deal was not to be
presented to the Congress as a treaty.
"A nuclear-arms agreement
with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian
regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority
vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution," he said.
Cotton is right of course. But I'm afraid he's closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
The Senate bill would require a competed deal to be submitted to
Congress, which could then vote to approve or disapprove the nuclear
deal within 30 days. Sanctions on Iran could not be lifted during this
consideration.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.), after the vote, suggested that passage of the bill
allows Congress to take "power back" from President Obama. He also said
it ensures the Congress will play "an appropriate role" in the nuclear
talks.
Passage of the legislation clears
the way for U.S. negotiators to continue to work on a nuclear deal with
Iran ahead of a June 30 deadline with little fear of interference from
Congress. Negotiators reached a framework agreement in April.
A
vote to disapprove a nuclear deal with Iran would not kill it. President
Obama could veto such a measure, and the House and Senate would then
need two-thirds majorities to override his veto.
The founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves. They thought they had set out a procedure that ensured a real balance of powers. Now, the United States has become a dictatorship with Senate approval.
The power play that is behind this bill is nothing short of astounding. And you thought the Israeli Knesset was the only deliberative body in the world that was powerless?
Boehner: Congress doesn't have the votes to stop Iran deal
Despite polls showing that the American people overwhelmingly favor Congressional oversight (more on those in a minute), House Speaker John Boehner (R-In) reports that Congress does not have the votes to stop President Hussein Obama from allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. This is from Eli Lake.
Speaking at an off-the-record event Saturday at the Republican Jewish
Coalition's meeting in Las Vegas, House Speaker John Boehner told the
audience that he didn't expect that more than two-thirds of Congress
would vote to overturn a veto from Obama if Congress voted against
a nuclear deal, according to four people who were inside the room for
the private talk.
The resolution of disapproval is provided for in legislation before
the Senate this week, known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act. The deadline for reaching a final nuclear accord between Iran, the
U.S. and five other world powers is June 30.
Proponents of the legislation, such as Republican co-author Senator
Bob Corker, say the bill gives Congress a chance to review an Iran
agreement and could stop Obama from lifting sanctions during the review
process. Critics, however, want to strengthen the bill's mechanisms and
lower the threshold necessary for Congress to disapprove the deal. Their
hope is to be able to ultimately stop Obama from at least lifting those
sanctions created by Congress, as opposed to the ones created through
executive order or the United Nations Security Council. Boehner's
comments this weekend confirm their suspicions that Corker's bill is too
weak to stop Obama from implementing a bad Iran deal.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, confirmed that the speaker
said he did not expect Congress to have the votes to overturn a veto of a
resolution to disapprove the Iran deal. "Obviously, it takes only a
fraction of the House and Senate Democrats to sustain a veto," Steel
told me. "But it is impossible to say whether they will or not until we
know what the final 'deal' looks like."
But here's the weird part: Lake goes on to report on several Republican Senators who plan to offer amendments to toughen the bill so that Obama can't win the game by having a veto sustained. Look who's opposed to that.
Corker and Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has
hinted he may also run for president, are expected to oppose all those
amendments. As Josh Rogin and I reported last week, the amendments are also opposed by Washington's largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Debate on the Corker bill starts on Tuesday.
In the meantime, The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports via email that most Americans want Congressional oversight over any deal with Iran.
Now the poll...
Iran questions - Note though how the debate has shifted. Just two weeks the conversation was between passing or voting down Corker-Menendez. Now the debate is "pass it without amendments" vs. "strengthen it" The White House's original position against oversight is not even in the discussion. There's a reason for that:
60. Would you support or oppose legislation that would make any Iran agreement subject to congressional approval?
AGE IN YRS.......
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom 18-34 35-54 55+
Support 65% 88% 49% 66% 70% 61% 63% 64% 69%
Oppose 24 6 40 25 23 25 25 29 20
DK/NA 10 7 11 9 6 14 13 7 11
It mostly gets worse from there for the administration. A majority of voters disapprove of President Obama's overall handling of Iran (37 approve / 52 disapprove) and an even larger majority doesn't think the agreement announced at Lausanne will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (35 confident / 62 not confident).
The one dim bright spot for the White House is that a majority of voters say they approve of the announced framework (58/33), even though a majority also doesn't think it will work. That's what you'll hear from supporters of the administration's diplomacy, though it might be half-hearted. They know just like everyone else does, that support craters when voters are asked about the specifics of a deal: sunset clause, no shuttering facilities, no Iran coming clear, etc. Polling converges on this point, but if you need something recent McLaughlin just wrapped up a survey (http://mclaughlinonline.com/2015/04/17/san-national-survey-results-american-attitudes-towards-obamairan-nuclear-negotiations/).
I guess when you're in the 'fourth quarter' you don't worry about what the people want. I wish Obama were constitutionally allowed to run for a third term. It might keep him honest and avoid a dictatorship for the next 20 months.
The panel voted 19-0 to approve
legislation worked out between Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.,
and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, who took over as ranking Democrat after
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey was indicted on federal corruption
charges. Menendez was co-author of the legislation with Corker.
The deal shortened the congressional review period for any agreement
from 60 days to 30 days and eliminated a requirement that the president
periodically certify that Iran is keeping to the terms of any agreement
and "has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism
against the United States, or a United States person anywhere in the
world."
That provision was replaced by one
requiring periodic reporting on Iran's support of terrorism. Another
provision aimed at soothing Republican concerns would require the
president to certify that any deal would not harm Israel's security,
replacing a bid by some GOP members to require Iran to accept the Jewish
state's right to exist as part of any agreement.
The compromise makes clear that Obama can waive U.S. sanctions if Congress approves a nuclear deal or if it fails to act.
The Wall Street Journal points out that the nuclear deal is still Obama's one-man deal - he will continue to have free reign over it.
As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry
was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House
finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed
inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Mr.
Obama’s follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was
his idea.
Mr. Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as
long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a
resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats
and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus
vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34
could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its
say and “approved” the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and
Senate voted to oppose it.
My friend Noah Pollak is disappointed.
The way Corker & Graham wrote their bill, Obama will win Congressional approval of Iran deal with only 34 votes. Ponder that.
— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) April 14, 2015
Traitor is strong language, but in the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote on
a bill that was supposed to reaffirm the Senate’s constitutional power
to consent to President Obama’s as yet still undefined and undisclosed
nuclear treaty with Iran there is no other way to describe the actions
of Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations
The bill Corker rammed through the Foreign Relations Committee is worse than no bill at all.
What Corker’s bill does is, in its post-markup form, require the
president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement
reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The
bill does maintain the prohibition on the president waiving
congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.
However, the review period in the measure has been shortened from 60
days to an initial 30 days. If, at the end of the 30 days, Congress were
to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an
additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period.
This could be another 10 days of review if the president vetoed the
resulting sanctions bill.
Corker’s legislation in effect lowers the threshold for approving the
Iran deal from 67 votes to 41 – a craven betrayed of the Senate’s
constitutional role as the final word on whether or not the United
States agrees to a treaty.
...
More importantly, Corker betrayed American interests and the
interests of our allies in the greater Middle East; from Israel, to
Saudi Arabia, to India no nation now within the range of Iran’s fast
growing missile technology is secure from the threat of a nuclear armed
Islamist Iran.
And make no mistake – it is the combination of Iran’s expansionist Islamism and nuclear weapons technology that is the threat.
...
The “growing support” for Senator Corker’s information, was not for
him to cave-in to Obama, but for the Senate to exercise its real
constitutional role in the approval – or disapproval – of Obama’s treaty
to legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And that means “advice”
while the treaty is negotiated and “consent” after the President
concludes the agreement.
Bob Corker has betrayed that constitutional principle and the world
will be a much more dangerous place for his inexplicable failure to
grasp the existential threat a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran
poses to the United States and in that willful blindness he has in
effect betrayed all peoples who share the values of freedom of
conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of speech and will be
threatened by a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Wall Street Journal argues that Corker had no choice.
Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker
deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to
Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to
override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in
deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.
It also has a more nuanced take on what ought to happen.
Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson,
who spoke for (but didn’t offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to
require that Mr. Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under
the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.
Committing
the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the
world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification.
Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.
The
Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted
major national commitments overseas to have a national political
consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.
But
instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the
United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an
executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a
filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning
the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make
it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the
GOP candidates are already promising.
The case for the Corker
bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress
on an Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the
Iranians are on notice that the United States isn’t run by a single
Supreme Leader.
Well yes, unless the next President is - God Forbid - Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.
The Tea Party also has criticism of other Senators.
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), at the request of Corker, agreed to
withdraw an amendment to provide compensation for American victims of
the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from fees collected for violations of Iran
sanctions.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who planned to introduce an amendment that
would have required the president to certify to Congress that Iran
recognizes the state of Israel, wilted and settled for language
asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support
for Israel’s right to exist.
Affirmation of Israel's right to exist is of course is a foundational
principle of American foreign policy that was never questioned until
Obama became president and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill became not
so much the leaders of an opposition party, as a collection of craven
cowards who wish only to avoid the unpleasantness actually having
principles and standing for them would entail.
No, it wasn't questioned. And it's high time the questioning should stop. How many days until Obama's term ends?
Corker says there's a bipartisan deal on giving Congress a voice on Iran
Obama's most trusted adviser
Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn) says that a bipartisan deal has been reached that will ensure that Congress has a say on the Iranian nuclear 'framework.'
“We have reached a bipartisan agreement that keeps the congressional
review process absolutely intact, full of integrity,” Sen. Bob Corker
(R-Tenn.) said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Corker also said it is his understanding that the bill
includes language that addresses concerns over whether Iran should
recognize the state of Israel as part of the agreement. He did not
specify the language.
The bill is set for a 2:15 p.m. committee vote, where it is widely expected to pass.
...
Corker said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision Monday to
lift a ban on missile system deliveries to Iran shows the “significant
complexities” on the nuclear negotiations. Russia and China are both
part of the P5+1 group that reached a preliminary deal with Iran earlier
this month, but they don’t necessarily have the same relationships or
goals as the United States, he said.
“I want us to have, by the
way, a successfully negotiated agreement with Iran,” Corker added, “but
obviously, you know, our partner—quote, quote, quote—Russia, certainly
is making this very, very difficult, as they have in other parts of the
world.”
Regarding comments from the administration that officials
have been working with him on the substance of the bill, Corker
demurred.
Corker believes his Iran bill has veto-proof majority
Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn) believes that his bill requiring Congress to vote up or down on any agreement that President Hussein Obama makes with Iran has a veto-proof majority.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said
Monday he's confident his bill to restrict President Barack Obama's
ability to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran can survive a threatened
presidential veto.
"Look, I don’t ever want to overcommit and
under-deliver,” Corker told reporters Monday evening. “We are moving in a
very positive direction, and we’ve worked through some issues that I
think have given me a lot of hope. ... I think that this weekend has
been very productive.”
Corker's bill, scheduled for markup in the
Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday afternoon, would grant Congress
the final vote on any nuclear agreement the U.S. and its five
negotiating partners reach with Iran. Congress would have two months to
review the deal, and during that time the president would be prevented
from easing economic sanctions on Iran.
“It’s really a resolution of disapproval,” Corker said of the nuclear talks, which face a June 30 deadline.
The
bill is roughly three votes short of the 67 needed to override a veto.
However, members of the committee have filed at least 52 amendments to the legislative text, meaning that the results of the markup may drastically alter the vote count in either direction.
...
Corker ultimately decides which amendments to put up for a committee
vote. On Monday, he seemed unlikely to consider those that would
significantly alter his original text.
“I feel like were going to
present a bill tomorrow that keeps 100 percent of the integrity of the
process relevant to the nuclear agreement in place,” Corker said,
emphasizing the need for Congress to vote on the agreement and to
postpone sanctions relief.
At the same time, Corker acknowledged
the need to woo Democrats, including those hesitant to support to a bill
the White House insists will sabotage peaceful nuclear negotiations.
Three alternatives to Obama's 'historic framework' with Iran
President Hussein Obama believes that every problem is solvable, and when he can't find a good solution, he adopts a bad one and challenges his critics to 'propose something better.' We've heardthisbefore.
But in the case of Iran, there actually are solutions other than the status quo. Here are three of them.
1. Keep the interim deal in place
The idea behind this alternative is that if the November 2013
agreement has worked as well as Obama says it has, then replacing it
with a bad deal would be a step backward. Though the deal was only
supposed to last six months and already has been extended twice, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., suggested in a March 22 interview
with CBS that this option would be preferable to a final deal with
loopholes that allow Iran to ultimately develop a nuclear weapon.
...
2. Tougher sanctions
This option is most closely associated with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu since he offered it in his March 3 speech to a joint
meeting of Congress. But it's also the thinking behind bipartisan legislation in Congress that would impose tougher new sanctions on Iran if the current talks fail.
"Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current
proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a
very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the
price of oil," Netanyahu told lawmakers. "Now, if Iran threatens to walk
away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call
their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more
than you do."
The legislation by Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and
Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey would put that idea into
practice, tightening restrictions on Iran's oil industry and financial
markets in particular to try to force its leaders to give up their
nuclear ambitions.
...
3. Military pressure
Advocates for this approach, such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and
former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, say Iran's Shiite Muslim
theocracy is the real threat, not its nuclear program and note that even
Obama has repeatedly said that the military option remains on the
table. They have offered options ranging from U.S. airstrikes aimed at
destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities to complete regime change.
"The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its
nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep
weapons infrastructure," Bolton wrote in a March 26 New York Times op-ed.
"The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel's
1981 attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007
destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can
accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can
still succeed."
Read the whole thing. It includes a discussion of the downside of each alternative.
Israel's mediabots are tweeting this article by Barak Ravid (and Ravid is retweeting it which is why I have seen it even more times) all over social media. The article cites two 'senior Israeli officials' who claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu told his cabinet recently that 'our biggest fear' is that Iran 'will honor the nuclear deal.'
The meeting of the security cabinet was called on
short notice on April 3, a few hours before the Passover seder. The
evening before, Iran and the six powers had announced at Lausanne,
Switzerland that they had reached a framework agreement on Iran’s
nuclear program and that negotiations over a comprehensive agreement
would continue until June 30.
The security cabinet meeting was called after a
harsh phone call between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama over
the agreement with Tehran.
The two senior Israeli officials, who are familiar
with the details of the meeting but asked to remain anonymous, said a
good deal of the three-hour meeting was spent on ministers “letting off
steam” over the nuclear deal and the way that the U.S. conducted itself
in the negotiations with Iran.
According to the two senior officials, Netanyahu
said during the meeting that he feared that the “Iranians will keep to
every letter in the agreement if indeed one is signed at the end of
June.”
One official said: “Netanyahu said at the meeting
that it would be impossible to catch the Iranians cheating simply
because they will not break the agreement.”
Given that we are between governments, it's kind of hard to say who is in the security cabinet right now, but hopefully it's not Yair Lapid or Tzipi Livni, who were in the security cabinet until Netanyahu fired them, precipitating our most recent election.
In any event, what all the Leftists are leaving out (and Ravid is happy to see them do so) is the second half of the report, which makes clear that Netanyahu's fear is entirely rational.
Netanyahu also told the ministers that in 10 to 15 years, when the
main clauses of the agreement expire, most of the sanctions will be
lifted and the Iranians will show that they met all their obligations.
They will then receive a “kashrut certificate” from the international
community, which will see Iran as a “normal” country from which there is
nothing to fear.
Under such circumstances, the prime minister said,
it will be very difficult if not impossible to persuade the world powers
to keep up their monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program, not to mention
imposing new sanctions if concerns arise that Iran has gone back to
developing a secret nuclear program for military purposes.
Sounds like good reason to fear Iran keeping to the agreement for 10-15 years, doesn't it? And just imagine if they manage to violate the agreement in secret, as they have done so many times before.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the second most senior Democrat in the Senate, has signaled to his counterparts that it's okay to jump ship by supporting the Corker bill giving Congress the right to veto any deal with the Iran over its nuclear capabilities.
The comments Monday by the Democratic leader-in-waiting illustrate
the enormity of the task ahead for Obama and his team: While there’s no
guarantee that Congress would ultimately reject an agreement with Iran,
there’s an increasingly bipartisan consensus that Congress should at
least have the ability to do so.
“This is a very serious issue that deserves careful
consideration, and I expect to have a classified briefing in the near
future. I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove
any agreement and I support the Corker bill which would allow that to
occur,” Schumer said in an emailed statement to POLITICO.
Schumer
had quietly signed on to a bill allowing congressional review of the
Iran deal two weeks ago, but made little fanfare of his co-sponsorship.
In a brief statement on Friday, he said only that he’d review the
agreement. Now that the outlines of an agreement are known, Schumer’s
emphatic statement that Congress has an important role becomes more
significant, signaling to fellow Democrats that it’s safe to jump on
board the review bill.
His comments came as the White House press secretary was panning the
legislation, which was written by Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and would allow Congress to vote to
suspend the lifting of sanctions. A committee vote on the measure is
planned for next week.
Schumer is a potentially
decisive figure in whether the Iran measure will eclipse veto-proof
support in Congress, given his expected ascension to the Democratic
leader’s job in 2017 and the diminished influence of indicted Sen.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who recently relinquished his position as
the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel.
US poll: 'Deal with Iran won't stop the bomb anyway'
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 71% of Americans don't believe that an agreement with Iran will stop the Mullahcracy from developing a nuclear weapon anyway.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say
that the nuclear negotiations, which are backed by the Obama
administration and strongly opposed by most Republicans, will not make a
real difference in affecting Iran's potential production of a nuclear
weapon. About a quarter of respondents - 24 percent - disagree.
Democrats are more
optimistic about the deal, with about a third believing that it would be
effective in preventing the production of an Iranian bomb, compared to
just 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. But majorities of
Americans from all political parties - 58 percent of Democrats, 72
percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans - think that the
deal would not make a major difference.
Perhaps that explains why Republicans are worried that Democrats, whose votes are needed to override an expected Obama veto of any bill that would hinder him from letting Iran go nuclear, may be seeing this in partisan terms (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was
approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but
he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support
for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or
reject an Iran deal.
“I knew it was going to be only Republicans on [the letter]. I just
don’t view that as where I need to be today,” Corker said in an
interview. “My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will
affect the outcome.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) expressed doubt
about her colleagues’ tactic of skirting the White House and trying to
affect foreign policy by going directly to Tehran.
“It’s more
appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president,
to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,” Collins said. “I don’t think
that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter
from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my
distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”
Indeed, the response
from Tehran was the equivalent of an eye roll, with Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif concluding the letter “has no legal value and is
mostly a propaganda ploy.”
Meanwhile some Democrats warned that
Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have
pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile
talks.
...
Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any
deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not
bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s
ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should
Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the
U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany
and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes
needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White
House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks
and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran.
This is an issue where partisanship should not even be showing its face. Unfortunately, with the United States' 'post-partisan' President, there is no issue that is bipartisan anymore.
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the
Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them
on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior
Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between
Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what
was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been
falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source
added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret
meeting must not leak out.”
Pardo denied on Thursday the report – which was carried by Bloomberg news – claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the need to press new sanctions on Iran.
Army Radio: @JoshRogin @EliLake story is Barack's revenge
Israel's Army Radio reports that the story by @JoshRogin and @EliLake in Bloomberg's that many are (falsely) interpreting as showing a split between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad on Iran sanctions is President Obama's revenge for Netanyahu's invitation to address a joint session of Congress.
Sources in Jerusalem told Army Radio Thursday that the story reported in Bloomberg about
disagreement between Netanyahu and the Mossad regarding sanctions on
Iran is US President Barack Obama administration's “revenge” for
Netanyahu's invitation to address Congress.
The invitation was extended by Congress without consulting Obama.
Sorry, but I don't buy this one. If the White House wanted to plant a story, it would have gone to Jeffrey Goldberg or Tom Friedman.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
