Kerry won't commit to US veto of Iran-Russia arms deal
Under the terms of the Iranian nuclear sellout, the United Nations Security Council must approve the sale of certain conventional weapons to Iran. Since the United States has a veto in the Security Council, this means that the United States can veto such sales.
It was recently announced that Iran intends to purchase the latest Sukhoi-30 warplanes from Russia. Those warplanes would need to be approved by the Security Council under the terms of the nuclear sellout. But under questioning before the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Representative Brad Sherman (D-Ca) on Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry refused to commit to the United States vetoing the sale.
This is from an email I received from Omri Ceren of The Israel Project.
The context is the recent Iranian announcement that they intend to
purchase Sukhoi-30 warplanes from Russia. According to UNSCR 2231 that
sale has to go through the Security Council, which means the U.S. can
veto it. The relevant language says weapons sales to Iran need to be
approved by the UNSC "in advance on a case-by-case basis" if the weapons
fall under the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. The
section even explicitly specifies "combat aircraft" [a].
At today's HFAC briefing Rep. Sherman asked Sec. Kerry whether the
U.S. intends to veto the sale. Kerry refused to commit to a veto:
SHERMAN: ... under the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, Russia
can't sell fighter planes to Iran unless the Security Council
specifically approves that. I'll ask you, will we use our veto to
prevent fighter planes from being sold to Iran from Russia?
KERRY:
Well, I don't think you have to use a veto. I think it's a matter of a
committee. There's a committee and it's in approval in the committee,
but we would not approve it.
SHERMAN: And would we use our veto if necessary to prevent the sale?
KERRY:
To the best of my knowledge, Congressman, I don't, I haven't looked at
the specifics of the transaction, etc. In principle, we are very
concerned about the transfer of weapons and so, you know, we would
approach it with great skepticism. But I haven't seen the specific
transfer or what the request is. We have a committee that will analyze
this thoroughly before anything happens and the committee signs off on
it, I assure you. We'll stay in touch with you.
It's not obvious why the Secretary hadn't been briefed about "the
specifics of the transaction." The Sukhois took up a week of press
inquiries about Iran. Nonetheless his answer is part of a pattern - now
several weeks old - of administration officials refusing to commit to
vetoing the warplane sale.
The sale first broke across U.S. wires on Feb 10. Reuters quoted
Iranian DM Hossein Dehghan revealing "we have even decided on the number
of Sukhoi-30 fighter jets" to buy and the AP had him elaborating "we
told them that we need to be involved in the production" of the
warplanes [b][c]. Michael Singh - Washington Institute Managing Director
- quickly tweeted "For the next five years, US or other P5 member could
block this per UNSC Res 2231" [d].
Over the next week the administration went from: denying it could veto to not knowing if it could veto to refusing to answer if it would veto.
For the first few days the administration flat out denied that it had
the ability to block weapons sales. All of that was off the record. Then
reporters started asking questions publicly at briefings, and State's
position shifted: for two consecutive days - Feb 16 and 17 - State
Department spokesman Toner told journalists the administration wasn't
sure if the U.S. could veto [e][f]. Then on Feb 18, more than a week
after the news first broke, the State Department acknowledged the sale
is illegal and falls under UNSCR 2231 [g]. Subsequent coverage that day
indicated the Obama administration did indeed have the authority to
block the sale [h].
But it was still not clear if the White House would actually use its
veto authority, and it's still not clear after today's hearing, with
Kerry expressing ignorance of the details of the sale.
Some skeptics are now suggesting that the administration is trying to
sandbag Congress on the Sukhoi sale. The move would be repeat of what
happened throughout the two years of nuclear negotiations:
administration officials would routinely brush off questions about
specific concessions by declaring that the entire package was made up of
moving parts that all had to fit together, so nothing was final until
everything was final.
Then when all the details were finalized, the
entire package was presented to Congress as a fait accompli: lawmakers
were told that the deal couldn't be reopened and that rejecting it would
lead to war.
If that modus operandi sounds familiar, it should - it's the foreign policy equivalent of how Obamacare was railroaded through Congress. And somehow there are people out there who still think that this administration is pro-Israel....
[a]
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2231(2015)
[b]
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4764457,00.html[c]
http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/10/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iran-russia.html[d]
https://twitter.com/MichaelSinghDC/status/697469439814602752[e]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/02/252539.htm#IRAN[f]
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/02/252582.htm#IRAN[g]
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f8c84e9e573471481e7d737f8b15d73/us-russian-fighter-jet-sale-iran-would-violate-arms-ban[h]
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-could-halt-new-iran-russia-weapons-deals/
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Iran, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Russia, United Nations Security Council, US veto
After being branded a traitor by the White House, why isn't Schumer coming out fighting?
All sarcasm aside, this could be a great moment in Chuck Schumer's history. The real question is, why isn't he pushing to make it one.
Branded a traitor by the Hussein Obama White House (
along with other Jewish legislators who have come out against the Iran sellout), Schumer has remained
curiously silent since announcing his
principled opposition to the Iran nuclear sellout. He wasn't on any Sunday news shows (hard to believe he wasn't invited), and there have been no reports of him trying to influence other Senators to oppose the deal. Why? This is from the second link, by Seth Lipsky in Haaretz.
So why, in the light of all the burning bridges, hasn’t Schumer launched a full campaign to block this deal? Why hasn’t he hit the talk shows and done what the Senate leadership is supposed to do to, well, lead the Senate? That would normally mean twisting arms, bargaining, and trying to get wayward or undecided senators to vote their way. Or even attempting to change the minds of those who have come out on the other side.
The way this is being retailed in New York is that the Senator is prepared to talk to anybody who asks. He himself has characterized it as a vote of “conscience” (unlike the other votes he casts), a situation in which one can’t twist arms in the normal political way. There are those I’ve heard from who find that line unconvincing, to say the least. After all, if it were a matter of conscience and even a life-and-death situation for America and Israel, wouldn’t one feel impelled to spare nothing?
...
Experience suggests, at least to me, that the big danger is a last-minute dodge, like the waiver Congress gave the president to avoid moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv. Schumer was in the thick of that default. Could there be a waiver or some maneuver now to defuse the constitutional crisis between the Senate and the president over Iran? Maybe there’s a good reason for Mr. Schumer’s silence — he’s on vacation, he’s under the weather, he’s plotting. But if he’s really committed on this, the logic would be to re-engage. This just isn’t a time to stand on ceremony.
Or perhaps, Schumer still wants to lead his party in the Senate and has silently cut a deal with the White House that he will not lead opposition to this sellout, and in return the White House will call off its minions when the time comes for the vote on a Minority Leader?
Of course, that vote won't be taken until Obama's last two weeks in office, so Schumer has no way to enforce a deal like that....
And about those other Jewish Democrats who stand accused of treason by the White House, this is from the first link - Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon.
These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have
identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White
House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s
interests than the United States’.
The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies
is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House
will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish
community.
In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.
...
The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.
Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.
Secretary of State John Kerry also said that Israel will be blamed if Congress rejects the deal.
Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this
rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come
out against the deal.
NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the
regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more
loyal to Israel than America.
Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”
In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.)
and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.
J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama
administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those
Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.
“Opposing the #IranDeal
against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+
ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official
Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.
The Daily Kos published a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.
On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.
In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”
In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the
so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”
Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.
And if the vote looks like it's going to be close, it's only going to get worse....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Charles Schumer, dual loyalty, Eliot Engel, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry
Obama to ignore Congress if Iran deal is rejected?
Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman (Calif) fears that if Congress rejects the Iranian nuclear sellout, President Hussein
Obama will attempt to implement it anyway.
The quotations from Sherman come from this article in the Hill:
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who has been one of the
more skeptical Democrats on the agreement, said that Obama appeared
ready to ignore Congress, even if lawmakers vote to kill the deal and
then marshal the two-thirds majorities to override a White House veto.
“The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto,
you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you
get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything
possible to go in the other direction,’” Sherman told reporters off the
House floor after the meeting.
“He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” Sherman added. “At
least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s
allowed by law.”
Sherman suggested that Obama could refuse to enforce the law and
could actively seek to undermine congressional action in other
countries, if Capitol Hill insists on stymieing the plan.
He always wanted to be a dictator. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat
Democrats boycott Cruz, Wiesel panel
Rabbi Shmuely Boteach held a panel in a Senate office building on Monday, which featured Ted Cruz and Elie Wiesel. The panel addressed Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and was intended to be bipartisan. Unfortunately, the Democrat who was supposed to be on the panel
didn't show up.
The Cruz-Wiesel event was intended as a bipartisan dialogue. But Rep.
Brad Sherman, D-Calif., pulled out after the host, Rabbi Shmuley
Boteach, ran a full-page ad in The New York Times accusing White House
national security adviser Susan Rice of turning a blind eye to genocide.
The ad featured a photo of Rice looking away from a stack of human
skulls. Sherman called it vulgar, and Boteach opened the event by
apologizing, insisting his disagreements with Rice are strictly over
policy.
Because after all, what's more important: Stopping an Iranian nuclear weapon or defending what's left of Susan Rice's honor?
Labels: bipartisan, Brad Sherman, Elie Wiesel, genocide, Iranian nuclear threat, Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, Susan Rice, Ted Cruz
