Labels: Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Wikileaks
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:15 AM
1 comments
Kirk, who has consistently spoken out against the deal with Iran, told WRKO’s Financial Exchange radio program on Tuesday that he believes “tens of thousands of people in the Middle East are gonna lose their lives because of this decision by Barack Hussein Obama.”
“This agreement condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf,” Kirk said. “It condemns our Israel allies to further conflict with Iran.”
Kirk added that he thought the agreement will yield “more nukes, and more terrorists, and more irresponsibility by the Iranians,” saying he thought Iran will now increase their influence in Iraq and Yemen.
“This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler,” Kirk continued, saying he believed Obama only went through with the deal because he has a poor understanding of history and did not realize appeasement made war more likely. Kirk said he thought the deal meant that Israel would now have to take “military action against Iran.”
...
“The president will make this a viciously partisan issue, leading most Democrats to standing with the Iranians and hopefully losing the next election on this point,” Kirk said. “He will ask the Democrats all to stand with Iran and make sure that we can’t get two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.”
Asked if any Democrats disagreed with the president, Kirk pointed to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, who he believed “has just been indicted maybe on the crime of being against the Iran deal.”Hope he's right about Schumer - that would be big.
“Under the Bob Corker legislation that recently passed Congress can do a resolution of disapproval and the president can veto it. The only reason that the president supported Corker legislation is because it allows him to get what he wants on Iran which is to get nukes to Iran.”
Kirk added he thought deal was “unremitted garbage.”Other than that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?
Labels: Abraham Lincoln, Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:12 AM
0 comments
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."
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Bob Corker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Bolton, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, Robert Menendez, uranium enrichment
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:08 PM
2 comments
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.
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).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.
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.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, bipartisan, Bob Corker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, partisanship, Robert Menendez, Tom Cotton
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:00 AM
0 comments
52 Republicans (everyone but Flake and Paul)The bill has been moving forward quickly. Consider this:
10 Democrats on the Menendez letter indicating support (Menendez, Schumer, Blumenthal, Peters, Casey, Cardin, Coons, Manchin, Donnelly, Stabenow)
3 Democrats on Banking who voted 'yes' today but weren't on the Menendez letter (Tester, Heitkamp, Warner)
3 Democrats who cosponsored Kirk-Menendez during its last iteration (Booker, Bennett, Gillibrand)
Tuesday: The Senate Banking committee held hearings to discuss the legislation (that was the same day 10 Democrats signed the Menendez letter indicating support).What could go wrong?
Tuesday (night): The legislation was introduced with 16 co-sponsors (7 Democrats and 9 Republicans, including McConnell, indicating that it has a clear path to the floor).
Thursday: The legislation got voted out of committee 18-4.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:36 PM
0 comments
"In acknowledgement of your concern regarding congressional action on legislation at this moment, we will not vote for this legislation on the Senate floor before March 24," said the letter, led by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is the co-author of Iran sanctions legislation.
"After March 24, we will only vote for this legislation on the Senate floor if Iran fails to reach agreement on a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement," they wrote.
The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Chris Coons (Del.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.).
The White House had been pressuring Democrats to hold back on the sanctions bill, warning it could blow up the negotiations and empower hard-liners in Iran who want to walk away from the table.
With Democrats now pledging to hold their fire until March, it could set the stage for a last-ditch push to try and reach the outlines of a deal.It is doubtful that any sanctions deal could be passed before then anyway.
All but two of the signatories — Peters and Stabenow — were co-sponsors of a previous version of the sanctions bill. But two Democrats who had previously sponsored an Iran bill — Sens. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) — did not sign the letter to Obama.Hmmm.
The letter describes the signatories as "supporters" for a new Iran sanctions bill, which could bring the bill closer to a veto-proof majority. If Republicans were united, they would need at least 13 Democrats in order to override a presidential veto.
"We are Democratic supporters of the Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act of 2015 — a bill that would impose sanctions on Iran only if Iran fails to reach a comprehensive agreement by the June 30 deadline," the letter said.
While the Democrats pledged not to vote for the bill on the Senate floor, it says nothing about a Senate Banking Committee vote on Thursday, when some of the Democrats are expected to vote for advancing the bill.
An aide to Menendez said he still plans to co-sponsor and vote for the bill this Thursday.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charles Schumer, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:54 PM
0 comments
The entire episode suggests unseemly cooperation between the White House and Senate opponents of Menendez-Kirk sanctions legislation. “The idea that the Mossad would stake out a position against the prime minister is hard to fathom. The Mossad is actually an arm of the prime minister’s office. That’s why the entire episode strained credulity,” says Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “But even if it were true, leaking an off-the-record statement from a foreign intelligence official strikes me as both dangerous and underhanded.” Especially suspicious is the speed with which the phony Mossad story leaped from a Senate briefing to Secretary of State John Kerry, who actively worked to fan the story. It seems the administration and weak-kneed senators have a common interest in seeking to submarine critical sanctions legislation that commanded a large bipartisan majority just a year ago.
Given this contretemps, it is laughable then that the White House will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in March so as not to interfere with the Israeli elections. Snubbing the prime minister and trying to manipulate his own intelligence service into undercutting Israel’s elected government are far more politically inappropriate than a routine visit between two allies’ leaders. In a bit of sarcastic commentary, the conservative Emergency Committee for Israel sent out a release on Thursday announcing, “In order to do our part to make the Israeli Prime Minister feel welcome in Washington, ECI will host a reception in the Prime Minister’s honor to make clear, in case there’s any doubt, that whatever the president does or says, Americans value our friendship with our ally Israel.”Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was right when he said last week that the Obama administration is peddling talking points from Iran. Netanyahu is coming to Washington to tell the truth. The timing and who invited him are irrelevant.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Fox News, Iran sanctions regime, Jennifer Rubin, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:09 AM
0 comments
"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.Wow.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Yuval Steinitz
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:25 AM
0 comments
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.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:44 PM
0 comments
Reaction of the Mossad Chairman to the new crisis with Washington:Welcome to Washington Prime Minister Netanyahu.
On 19 January 2015, Mossad Chairman Tamir Pardo met with a delegation of American Senators. The meeting took place at the Senators' request, and with the Prime Minister's approval.
Contrary to the report, the Mossad Chairman did not say that he opposes additional sanctions against Iran. In the meeting, the Mossad Chairman emphasized the unusual effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Iran a number of years ago in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.
The Mossad Chairman pointed out that the negotiations with Iran must be conducted using 'carrots and sticks,' and the 'sticks' are currently missing. The Mossad Chairman pointed out that without strong pressure, it will not be possible to bring about significant compromises on the Iranian side.
The Mossad Chairman did not relate to the use of the term 'hand grenade' with respect to the imposition of sanctions, because in his eyes, these are the 'sticks' that will help to obtain a good agreement. He used this term to describe the possibility of creating a temporary breakdown in the talks, at the end of which the negotiations will be restarted under better conditions.
The Mossad Chairman explicitly pointed out that the agreement that is being reached with Iran is bad, and may lead to a regional arms race.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, Mossad, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, Tamir Pardo
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:58 PM
1 comments
Head of Mosad say he didn't say that it is wrong to put more sanctions on Iran
— Udi Segal (@usegal) January 22, 2015
Developing.... Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 3:40 PM
0 comments
Already, the Barack Obama administration and some leading Republican senators are using the Israeli internal disagreement to undermine support for the bill, authored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would enact new sanctions if current negotiations falter.
Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- supported by Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- is pushing for his own legislation on the Iran nuclear deal, which doesn't contain sanctions but would require that the Senate vote on any pact that is agreed upon in Geneva. The White House is opposed to both the Kirk-Menendez bill and the Corker bill; it doesn't want Congress to meddle at all in the delicate multilateral diplomacy with Iran.
Israeli intelligence officials have been briefing both Obama administration officials and visiting U.S. senators about their concerns on the Kirk-Menendez bill, which would increase sanctions on Iran only if the Iranian government can't strike a deal with the so-called P5+1 countries by a June 30 deadline or fails to live up to its commitments. Meanwhile, the Israeli prime minister’s office has been supporting the Kirk-Menendez bill, as does the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, ahead of what will be a major foreign policy confrontation between the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government in coming weeks.
Evidence of the Israeli rift surfaced Wednesday when Secretary of State John Kerry said that an unnamed Israeli intelligence official had said the new sanctions bill would be “like throwing a grenade into the process.” But an initial warning from Israeli Mossad leaders was also delivered last week in Israel to a Congressional delegation -- including Corker, Graham, McCain and fellow Republican John Barrasso; Democratic Senators Joe Donnelly and Tim Kaine; and independent Angus King -- according to lawmakers who were present and staff members who were briefed on the exchange. When Menendez (who was not on the trip) heard about the briefing, he quickly phoned Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer to seek clarification.
Barrasso told us Tuesday that different parts of the Israeli government told the delegation different things. “We met with a number of government officials from many different parts of the government. There’s not a uniform view there,” he said.
In a Wednesday morning hearing on Iran at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Corker talked about the Israel visit and said that his bill (not the Kirk-Menendez bill) was acceptable to all the Israeli officials they spoke with. “Some of us were in Israel this weekend over this very same issue. We have heard no one, no one, say that if Congress were to weigh in on the final agreement it would in any way destabilize the negotiations,” Corker said.Note that the Mossad is not saying 'don't pass new sanctions.' It's saying 'if you do pass new sanctions, Iran is likely to walk away from the talks. If one accepts the proposition that Iran is using the talks as cover to continue its nuclear weapons development program, Iran walking away from the talks would probably not be such a bad thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Eli Lake, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Josh Rogin, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:19 PM
0 comments
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said the country would build two more nuclear plants in the southern city of Bushehr in line with the peaceful use of nuclear energy.A bit later in the day, while the meetings in Geneva were still going on, Iran announced that it would place a Washington Post reporter whom it has been holding for months on trial for undisclosed crimes.
The president made the remarks on Tuesday while visiting the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, Press TV reported.
"The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is different from the power plants of other countries since this power plant is the symbol of a nation's resistance," he said.
"The construction of this power plant and making it operational showed the world that should a nation have a will to attain a goal, it would take steps in that direction, stand up for its rights and attain its goal."
The Iranian chief executive said the plant is an example that shows Iran "is only after peaceful use of nuclear energy and electricity production.
A Washington Post journalist detained in Iran for months has been indicted and will stand trial, Iran's state news agency reported Wednesday, without elaborating on what charges he faced.
The report by the official IRNA news agency came the same day as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif before talks with world powers resume over the Islamic Republic's contested nuclear program.
It wasn't immediately clear if the two events were connected, though Zarif earlier said he hoped the case against reporter Jason Rezaian could be "resolved."
"We will have to wait for the judiciary to move forward, but we will try to provide all the humanitarian assistance that we could," Zarif told journalists in Geneva. "We hope that this issue could be resolved but unfortunately there are judicial issues involved which the judiciary has to deal with."
IRNA quoted Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi saying Rezaian, the newspaper's bureau chief in Tehran since 2012, had been indicted. He was previously charged last month, but the bill of indictment clears the way for his trial.
Given all this 'spirit,' it's not too surprising that Congress is about to defy the Obama administration and take up sanctions.Rezaian, an Iranian-American who holds dual citizenship, has been held since July 22. The IRNA report did not disclose what charges he faces. However, the report says he will stand trial in Iran's Revolutionary Court, which mostly hears cases involving security offenses.
The US House of Representatives has begun working on its own Iran sanctions bill rather than simply agreeing to pass whatever the Senate comes up with, Al-Monitor has learned.
...
"We feel very strongly that the House needs to play an important role, not just rubber-stamp whatever the Senate decides to do," the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs panel, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., told Al-Monitor. "So we're going to put our heads together [with Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif.] and see what's the best way to proceed."
The two lawmakers are expected to hunker down next week to decide on a strategy for moving forward, Engel said. Separately, Royce told Al-Monitor that he was planning to sit down Jan. 15 with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., for an update on the Senate strategy.
...
The Senate bill will largely replicate 2013 legislation from Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., that would trigger new sanctions on Iran's energy sector if the country doesn't agree to a nuclear deal that's acceptable to Congress. The two senators are said to be tweaking their legislation, which never came up for a vote while Democrats controlled the Senate, to try to sign up a veto-proof majority of 67 senators before unveiling it.
In a sign of how quickly things are moving, the Senate Banking Committee, which would have jurisdiction over such legislation, has announced a hearing Jan. 20 on the "perspectives on the strategic necessity of Iran sanctions."
Menendez and Kirk hope to get most of the remaining 10 Democrats who originally co-sponsored their bill back on board as well as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., according to sources close to the issue. One potential change could be a weakening of the bill's ban on uranium enrichment, those sources say; the 2013 version would have prevented President Barack Obama from suspending the bill's new sanctions unless he certified that Iran had agreed to a deal that would "dismantle Iran's illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities."
...
"I believe that sanctions have brought Iran to the bargaining table," Engel told Al-Monitor. "I respect and understand the White House arguing that sanctions — even triggered sanctions — could be counterproductive or even harmful. That's their judgment. It's not necessarily mine."
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eliot Engel, Hassan Rohani, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, Mohammad Javad Zarif, P 5+1, Robert Menendez, United States Congress
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:37 PM
0 comments
Labels: Arak heavy water production plant, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, plutonium, Robert Menendez, uranium enrichment, Wendy Sherman
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:23 AM
0 comments
We commend 42 Senators for their strong letter demanding a vote on S. 1881, the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which has been cosponsored by more than half of the Senate. The bill is simple and reasonable. It would reimpose existing sanctions suspended under the interim agreement if Iran cheats; it would ensure that a final agreement requires Iran to dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure; and it promises to impose additional economic sanctions in the future should Iran fail to agree to a final deal that dismantles its nuclear infrastructure.Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the direction in which we are headed. The 'pro-Israel community' is being made into a fetish of bipartisanship, and a nuclear Iran is likely to result.
As the Senators put it in their letter to the Majority Leader, “Now we have come to a crossroads. Will the Senate allow Iran to keep its illicit nuclear infrastructure in place, rebuild its teetering economy and ultimately develop nuclear weapons at some point in the future?”
The answer to this question must be no. The Senate should act now to deliver that answer. It would be nice if there were universal bipartisan support for acting now to stop a nuclear Iran. But there apparently is not. And it would be terrible if history's judgment on the pro-Israel community was that it made a fetish of bipartisanship -- and got a nuclear Iran.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Emergency Committee for Israel, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Mark Kirk, National Democratic Party, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:26 PM
1 comments
The Huffington Post on Monday quoted spokespersons for Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and David Price (D-N.C.), who said they have more than 70 signatories on a letter urging Congress to "give diplomacy a chance."
The lawmakers also expect more Democrats to sign on, their offices said.
Under an interim agreement, Iran has agreed to halt most of its uranium enrichment in exchange for relief from international sanctions. Nuclear talks with several Western powers, including the U.S., continue.
The interim deal went into effect last week, and on Saturday, Iran received the first installment of $4.2 billion in frozen assets.
"A bill or resolution that risks fracturing our international coalition or, worse yet, undermining our credibility in future negotiations and jeopardizing hard-won progress toward a verifiable final agreement, must be avoided," the letter states, according to The Huffington Post.
"Iranian hard liners may ultimately obstruct a meaningful permanent agreement, but Congress should not give them a pretext for doing so," said Doggett in a statement quoted by the website.
"The support for this letter from a broad and growing coalition of more than 70 Members sends a strong signal that Democrats stand for peace and diplomacy," he added.Yeah, sure, Iranian hardliners (are there any in a position of power who are not?) may ultimately obstruct a meaningful permanent agreement... and develop a nuclear weapon while 'negotiating,' but hey - what does it matter anyway?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:16 AM
0 comments
"Let me be clear," Obama said: "If this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it."
The speech marked the first time Obama personally threatened to veto sanctions legislation against Iran. Senior White House aides have issued similar veto threats since the end of December, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez, a Democrat, introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013.
The bill— which would trigger new sanctions tools against Iran should negotiations fail to reach a comprehensive agreement in twelve months time— has since garnered 59 public cosponsors in the upper chamber across party lines. The bill also has the aggressive backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
"For the sake of our national security," Obama said Tuesday night, in his State of the Union address, "we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed."
The president noted in his speech that negotiations toward a treaty over Iran's nuclear program, now a decade old, would be difficult and "may not succeed." In prior remarks, Obama has put the odds of success in negotiations with Iran at less than 50 percent.
"If Iran’s leaders do not seize this opportunity, then I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon," Obama continued. "But if Iran’s leaders do seize the chance, then Iran could take an important step to rejoin the community of nations, and we will have resolved one of the leading security challenges of our time without the risks of war."So it will take 100-0 vote in the Senate like in 2011? Senator Mark Kirk (R-Il) - one of the two main co-sponsors - is ready.
"The American people – Democrats and Republicans alike – overwhelmingly want Iran held accountable during any negotiations," Kirk said in a statement. Polls show that while most Americans don't prioritize foreign policy matters, they view Iran with deep distrust, and support more sanctions over less.
"While the president promises to veto any new Iran sanctions legislation, the Iranians have already vetoed any dismantlement of their nuclear infrastructure," Kirk added, calling his bill an "insurance policy" for Congress.I wouldn't take Obama too seriously. Get a load of this:
CNN noted that Obama failed to get any of his top 2013 State of the Union priorities -- a jobs program, gun control and sweeping immigration reform -- through Congress. He went into this year’s speech with only a 43% job-approval rating.True. But the sanctions may be all that Congress can do. They cannot force the President to go to war.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:11 AM
0 comments
Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence and is considered pro-Israel, but her remarks, which echo those of anti-Israel critics, have provoked outrage. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) called on her to apologize, noting that the bill includes a proviso that: "Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran."
Adding that the Kirk-Menendez bill's language on Israel is the same as that in another bill that Feinstein co-sponsored, RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks blasted Feinstein: "We are deeply troubled to see Senator Feinstein making such incendiary and inaccurate remarks on the Senate floor. We call on her to retract this reckless and false charge and apologize to her colleagues and to the millions of Americans who support a comprehensive, robust strategy to prevent the Tehran regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability."
In her speech, Feinstein said that "a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse," arguing that the six-month deal reached in Geneva and finalized on Sunday represented "the best opportunity in more than 30 years to make a major change in Iranian behavior." The deal provides some sanctions relief in return for suspending parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program and allowing limited international inspections.
The Kirk-Menendez bill provides for tighter sanctions in the event that Iran fails to comply with the Geneva agreement. Yet the Obama administration has vowed to veto the bill regardless, believing that it sends a message of confrontation. Supporters of the legislation, including former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, believe that it will actually strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations.
The legislation currently has 59 co-sponsors in the Senate, eight shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. Almost every Republican Senator supports the bill, while only a minority of Senate Democrats are co-sponsors. Some Democrats, including Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have been caught both opposing and supporting the legislation to different audiences.
Feinstein warned that hard-liners in Iran would use the bill to "argue that the United States is not interested in nuclear diplomacy--we are interested in regime change." That, however, is what they argue already. Scholar Kenneth Pollack, who is opposed to war in Iran and favors negotiations and "containment," says in his new book on Iran that the Obama administration's failure to pursue regime change in 2009 was "reprehensible."
Democrats who wish to support the Obama administration's line are praising Feinstein's speech, and it will likely provide political cover to those who wish to oppose the bill but wish to do so without appearing to oppose Israel. Her incendiary remarks about Israel are not likely to be forgotten by Republicans, either.I don't see how anyone who is pro-Israel can oppose this bill. All it does is lay out what the next steps against Iran will be in the event that it continues its nuclear program. Oh wait... the Geneva agreement allows them to keep upgrading their centrifuges anyway....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:52 PM
0 comments
The basic storyline in recent days has been that the pro-sanctions-bill side is gaining in numbers, while the anti-sanctions-bill side hasn’t — even though the White House has been lobbying Dems very aggressively to back off on this bill, on the grounds that it could imperil the chances for a historic long-term breakthrough with Iran. As Josh Rogin puts it, “the White House’s warnings have had little effect.”
We’re very close now to the 60 votes it needs to pass. The Dem leadership has no plans to bring it to the floor, but there are other procedural ways proponents could try to force a vote. And if the numbers in favor of the bill continue to mount, it could increase pressure on Harry Reid to move it forward. Yes, the president could veto it if it did pass. But we’re actually not all that far away from a veto-proof majority. And in any case, having such a bill pass and get vetoed by the president is presumably not what most Democrats want to see happen.
So it’s a bit puzzling that we’ve heard so little from Senate Dems who might be inclined to support the White House in holding the line against the sanctions bill right now.Curiously, Sargent ignores one factor that might have a lot to do with the silence: A fear of antagonizing the White House, on the one hand, balanced against a fear of losing a reelection bid on the other hand. How many of those 30 Democrats are up for reelection this year? Anyone care to check?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, midterm elections, Peter Beinart, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:53 PM
0 comments
The Iran sanctions bill – which would level tougher sanctions on Tehran if it refuses to comply with the parameters of a recently signed nuclear accord— has garnered the support of 59 senators, including 43 Republicans and 16 Democrats.
A senior Senate aide additionally confirmed to the Free Beacon a CNN report that a veto-proof threshold of 77 senators now support the sanctions measure.
Senate sources said there are signs that at least 34 Democrats will vote in favor of the bill when it finally comes up for a vote.
Paul and Flake remain the only Republicans who have avoided taking a firm stand.Breitbart.com reports that the key to Democratic support is none other than New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is bucking Barack Obama’s plans to table sanctions on Iran in the wake of the Geneva deal reached late last year. He is pushing fellow Democratic Senators to support sanctions on Iran.
Schumer has been rumored to be the leading candidate to replace Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) when he retires. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who wrote the new sanction bill with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ), said, “He's an original cosponsor. I would say he probably has the greatest sway inside his conference.”Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Charles Schumer, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, Robert Menendez
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:32 AM
0 comments
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
Like what you see? Please hit my tip box below!
Jerusalem |
 |
 |
