.@APDiplowriter takes on State Department spox on state sanctions against Iran
In case you haven't heard yet, the State Department sent letters to all 50 US State Governors that apparently demand that they suspend any remaining sanctions that the States have against Iran.
At the State Department briefing on Monday, the AP's Matt Lee took on State Department spokesman John Kirby regarding the letters.
Much of the rest of this comes from an email I received from The Israel Project's Omri Ceren.
More than two dozen U.S. states have sanctions against Iran. Different states established their sanctions for different combinations of reasons: nuclear work, terrorism, human rights violations, ballistic missiles, etc. For example the Illinois law cited Iran's "support [for] international terrorism," the California law cited terrorism plus "egregious violations of human rights," the New York law cited both of those plus "unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles," and so on. [a][b][c].
Earlier today Bloomberg View revealed that the Obama administration has sent letters to all 50 governors suggesting that states will need to review their Iran sanctions as a result of last summer's nuclear deal. The letters were prompted by paragraph 25 of the deal, which requires the federal government to "take appropriate steps" against state laws that may prevent "the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA."
Associated Press reporter Matt Lee raised several questions about the letters in today's press briefing with State Department spokesman Kirby. The full video is below (the exchange runs from about 4:30 to 9:10), but there are two specific questions which Kirby declined to definitively answer.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
Here are those two questions:
1. Are states being asked to dismantle non-nuclear sanctions? - This question is potentially problematic for the administration. The JCPOA is supposed to be a nuclear agreement that provides relief from only nuclear sanctions in exchange for concessions on only nuclear work. But state-based sanctions are based on concerns related to both Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear behavior. If the administration pushes states to dismantle their sanctions, they'll be providing Iran with non-nuclear relief in excess of the deal, but if they don't push states to dismantle their sanctions, Iran will claim the U.S. is violating the deal's paragraph 25 requirements.
Kirby wouldn't provide a definitive answer. First he suggested that non-nuclear sanctions weren't being discussed, then Lee pushed for an explicit clarification, then Kirby added that states would get pushed on anything that conflicted with the JCPOA:
LEE: All right. Last one. Does it mention anything about sanctions that state and local authorities might have put in place against Iran for reasons other than non -- other than nuclear reasons?
KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.
LEE: So it only applies to nuclear-related sanctions?
KIRBY: And the JCPOA specifically, yes.
2. Will the administration take states to court to try to force them to dismantle sanctions? - This question is also potentially problematic for the Obama administration. If it taked states to court, it might very well lose. The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) provides states with the authority to divest from Iran so long as any U.S. sanctions - not just nuclear sanctions - remain in place in response to Iranian behavior [d]. A few months ago Rep. DeSantis introduced legislation that would tighten up CISADA in order to further bolster states' sanctioning authority regarding Iran [e]. Last December both the Senate and the House reaffirmed bipartisan congressional support for state and local sanctions against Iran: H.Con.Res.100 (introduced by Rep. Roskam and cosponsored by Reps. Deutch, Lipinski, Pompeo, Sherman, and Zeldin) and S.Con.Res.26 (introduced by Sen. Kirk and cosponsored Sens. Manchin and Rubio) [f] [g].
This time Kirby simply punted:
LEE: Right. But so, would the administration be willing to take state and local governments to court to force their compliance with what it believes to be this...
KIRBY: I won't engage in a hypothetical.
Earlier today, the New York Times announced that it opposes a bill introduced by Senators Kirk and Rubio to try to 'fix' the Iran deal. It may yet be an interesting summer on Capitol Hill.... The Obama administration is likely to agree with the Times.
State Department spokesman John Kirby: 'We don't have to accept reality'
.@apdiplowriter (Matt Lee) demolishes State Department spokesman John Kirby at last Wednesday's State Department briefing. The subject was North Korea but it could as well have been Iran or the 'Middle East peace process.'
Let's go to the videotape.
If you had any doubts that the Obama administration is living in Fantasyland, this should resolve them.
MUST SEE: @APDiplowriter schools the State Department on hypocrisy
Shana Tova, a good year to all of you. While the holiday has not yet ended in much of the world, here in Israel it is over.
And now, for your entertainment pleasure, the AP's Matt Lee schools the State Department spokesperson on the hypocrisy of last summer's criticism of Israeli operations in Gaza v. the excuses for the US bombing a civilian hospital in Afghanistan last week.
Video: Matt Lee owns new State Department spokesperson John Kirby on Jerusalem
John Kirby just became State Department spokesperson last month and I can already tell you that he's no better than Marie Harf.
Watch him squirm as he tries to figure out US policy on Jerusalem while under questioning from @APDiploWriter Matt Lee about Monday's Supreme Court decision that Congress overstepped its bounds in trying to require the State Department to register Jewish children born in Jerusalem (like four of mine) as having been born in Israel.
Let's go to the videotape.
Keep making them feel uncomfortable Matt! They'll find a policy one of these days.
And again: AP's Matt Lee PWN's State Department's Marie Harf
You will recall that Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an article by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz that called President Obama's Iran deal a disaster. As you might imagine, the article came up during Wednesday's State Department briefing. The questioner was the always entertaining Matt Lee, and he once again made Marie Harf look like a birdbrain, with Harf dismissing the article as 'lots of big words and big thoughts.'
Let's go to the videotape.
Harf has become a symbol of blind, clueless support for this administration's policies. More here.
Defending an emerging nuclear deal, President Barack
Obama said Iran would be kept a year away from obtaining a nuclear
weapon for more than a decade, but conceded Tuesday that the buffer
period could shrink to almost nothing after 13 or more years.
Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal
to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal fails to
eliminate the risk because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He
told NPR News that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms —
not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they
have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at
that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,”
Obama said.
Iraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on
Tuesday that a potential nuclear deal being negotiated by major powers
including the United States “paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
Netanyahu, who vehemently opposes the Obama administration’s ongoing
negotiations with Iran, said that world leaders must instead work to
“stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”
“It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb,” he said of the potential
deal as he appeared at the Capitol in front of hundreds of American
lawmakers. “It paves Iran’s path to the bomb. ”
“For over a year we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad
deal,” he added. “Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We are
better off without it.”
Quizzed on Obama's interview later Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf was saved by a power outage. Start watching at the 9:05 mark of that video.
Meanwhile, a French fact sheet seen by the Times of Israel on Tuesday took a very different view of the agreement with Iran than the US view.
A French government fact sheet on the Iran framework deal, which has not
been made public by Paris but which has been seen by The Times of
Israel, provides for Iran to gradually introduce the use of advanced
centrifuges to enrich uranium after 12 years, in contrast to the US
official parameters, which make no such specific provision.
The use of the more advanced IR-2 and IR-4
centrifuges, as permitted according to the French fact sheet, would
enable Iran to more rapidly accumulate the highly enriched uranium
needed to build nuclear weapons, accelerating its breakout time to the
bomb.
The French fact sheet also specifies that Iran
will be allowed to continue R&D work on the advanced IR-4, IR-5,
IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges, the last of which can enrich uranium at
20-times the speed of Iran’s current IR-1 centrifuges, whereas the
American parameters are less specific.
Differences between the texts issued by Paris
and Washington also extend to the question of inspection and supervision
of Iran’s activities, with the French document indicating that the
IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, will be able to visit any
suspect site in Iran — so-called “anywhere, anytime” access — whereas
the US document is less far-reaching.
The two documents also differ in their terminology as regards the scale and timing of sanctions relief as the deal takes effect.
I guess once they sign the deal, we can all read the deal. What could go wrong?
#SecKerry on murder of #Palestinian teen: "There are no words to convey adequately our condolences to the Palestinian people."
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) July 2, 2014
I hope the Secretary realizes that this kid was mostly likely murdered by other 'Palestinians' - probably family members.
Oh wait - that wouldn't make a good story, would it? Time to change the narrative.
State Dept. spox can't remember name of US citizen kidnapped by Hamas
Here's a clip from Wednesday's State Department briefing in which State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki can't remember the name of the US citizen kidnapped by Hamas.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Israellycool). Transcript and more follow.
Transcript:
QUESTION: Palestinian and Israeli –
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
QUESTION: — issues. As the search for the
three teenagers goes into its sixth day, the Israelis are arresting
hundreds of Palestinians, rounding up some or re-arresting in some cases
many of the ones that were released. They’re having a clampdown, a
lockdown. It’s really causing a very difficult humanitarian condition.
Are you talking with the Israelis to sort of lighten – but I asked you
this yesterday. Are you asking them to lighten up their heavy hand in
their search?
MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, we’ve been in touch
with both the Israelis and the Palestinians throughout the course of the
last several days since these teenagers were kidnapped. We know this is
a difficult time obviously on the ground. We’ve urged continued
security cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the
search for the kidnapped teenagers. We were encouraged by President
Abbas’s strong statement to the Arab and Islamic foreign ministers today
in Saudi Arabia. But – and certainly as the search continues and in our
conversations, we urge both sides to exercise restraint and avoid the
types of steps that could destabilize the situation. And that’s a
message that we are conveying in all of our conversations as well.
QUESTION: So it would be more prudent for
the Israelis to sort of search selectively and work and coordinate with
the Palestinians rather than subject the whole Palestinian population to
collective punishment?
MS. PSAKI: Well, our understanding is that there is security cooperation that’s ongoing –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — and we encourage that to continue.
QUESTION: Well, wait. So I’m going to
re-raise the questions I asked yesterday, which he kind of got – what –
you do not believe at this moment that what the Israelis – that the
Israeli operation to free – to find and free these teenagers is –
amounts to collective punishment of Palestinians in the West Bank? Is
that correct?
MS. PSAKI: Nothing has changed since what I said yesterday.
QUESTION: So no. But you have expressed
concern to the Israelis that – I just want to make sure I understand.
Have you expressed to the Israelis concern that an operation might
become some form of collective punishment?
MS. PSAKI: I would not state it in those
terms. We’ve – know this is a difficult and sensitive time and we’ve
urged both sides to exercise restraint.
QUESTION: In the Secretary’s statement from
Sunday he talked about how there are many signs that point to Hamas
involvement in this.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Is that – are you now confident that Hamas is responsible for this, as confident as the Israelis say they are?
MS. PSAKI: No conclusion has been made on
our end since the statement on Sunday, so we remain in the same place we
were in the Secretary’s statement.
QUESTION: So you do not know or you do know that these teenagers are being held by Palestinian militants?
MS. PSAKI: We don’t have any other independent information.
QUESTION: Okay. You said that you had offered assistance to Israel.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Has that happened? Do you know?
And do you know – if it has or even if it hasn’t – what specific kind of
assistance you have offered?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details.
I’m happy to see if it’s been accepted or if there are any specifics
about what we may be able to offer on this front in the search for the
three teenagers.
QUESTION: All right. And then I just want
to draw a fine point of it. Is the U.S. – is the Administration
concerned or not concerned about the Israeli operation and the impact
that it’s having on the Palestinians?
MS. PSAKI: I think we recognize this is an incredibly sensitive –
QUESTION: Right.
MS. PSAKI: — and difficult circumstance on the ground, and we feel all sides should exercise restraint. So –
QUESTION: And thus far you believe that all sides have exercised restraint? Is that –
MS. PSAKI: We wouldn’t say all sides should exercise restraint if we felt all sides were at this point.
QUESTION: Oh. Okay. So which side, or maybe both have not –
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have much more to add on this particular topic, Matt.
QUESTION: I – well, but it sounds as though
you – you’re not convinced that – it sounds as though you think that
either one side or both sides have been acting without restraint.
MS. PSAKI: I think it’s just important, given the circumstances, that they do moving forward. And I’m going to leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can I ask you about –
MS. PSAKI: Said.
QUESTION: The spokesman for Hamas said
today, to the suggestion that they kidnapped these young Israelis, it’s
stupid. Doesn’t that amount to sort of denying that they have done it?
MS. PSAKI: They may have. There’s obviously
an investigation going on. There’s lots of accusations. I don’t have
any other conclusion from here.
Go ahead, Jo.
QUESTION: Can I ask if you have a privacy waiver for the – one of the teenagers?
MS. PSAKI: We do, yes. So we can confirm that one of the kidnapped was an American citizen.
QUESTION: Which one?
MS. PSAKI: I believe his name has been reported. I don’t have it in front of me right now.
QUESTION: And what is the – is it the
Consulate General in Jerusalem or the Embassy in Tel Aviv that’s
involved in trying to provide consular services to the family and –
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that level of
detail. I’m happy to check and see which entity on the ground is in
touch with the family. But we certainly are.
QUESTION: In your opinion, has Israel taken
advantage of the situation to sort of break – tear down the
infrastructure for this national unity government in its infancy?
MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to have much more to add on that front, Said.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: On this at all, I just want to make sure that – yesterday, again, you were asked this question as well.
MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: But there’s – numerous Israeli
officials have said that the U.S. decision to work with and continue to
fund the Palestinian government, the new unity government, is –
contributes – contributed to this incident with the three – is it – am I
correct in thinking that you still would reject such an allegation?
MS. PSAKI: Yes, that is correct.
QUESTION: All right.
MS. PSAKI: Do we have a new topic? Are we done?
Say it real slowly Ms. Psaki so that it will sink into your goyishe kop: N-A-F-T-A-L-I F-R-A-E-N-K-E-L.
AP's Matt Lee hits Jen Psaki on Kerry's apartheid comments
At Monday's State Department press briefing, the AP's Matt Lee hit State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Secretary of State Kerry's apartheid comments. Psaki owned them and warned that 'many' have used similar terms to describe Israel's future.
Let's go to the videotape.
Someone needs to get Matt Lee the figures on the true population of Israel (Jews v. Arabs) and how there really is no demographic threat to the future of Israeli democracy.
In the meantime, the rest of the Obama administration has gone silent on Kerry's comments.
Speaking with The Jerusalem Post, multiple officials in the
Obama administration declined to either defend or condemn the most
recent remark. Members of his team believe that kernels of truth exist
in his controversial statements— that, should a two-state solution fail
to come to pass, efforts to undermine Israel's legitimacy may be
emboldened, and Israel's Jewish population might come to rule a majority
of Arabs and Palestinians in its borders.
His communications
staff has made a concerted effort to discipline the secretary's message:
the State Department maintains that, without peace, Israel will
struggle to remain both Jewish and democratic.
But Kerry has, on several occasions, diverged from that message, to the frustration of his aides.
And American Jewish groups have condemned Kerry's statement across the board.
All
major American Jewish or pro-Israel organizations weighed in on the
reported comments, including the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, with a rare statement released on Monday.
"Any
suggestion that Israel is, or is at risk of becoming, an apartheid state
is offensive and inappropriate," the AIPAC statement read. "Israel is
the lone stable democracy in the Middle East, and protects the rights of
minorities regardless of ethnicity of religion."
Israel Radio had an interview this evening with a government official who said that Kerry isn't anti-Israel but has gone overboard with love for Israel. Kerry wants his Nobel peace prize and he wants an 'achievement' as Secretary of State. The Obama administration believes that Israel is low-hanging fruit - we're the only foreign country who pays attention to them and who cares at all about what they have to say. But they hate us and treat us with contempt. This administration cannot come to an end soon enough.
State Department places ball in 'Palestinian' court
The State Department's press briefing is still going on, but in response to questions by the persistent Matt Lee, spokeswoman Jen Psaki has placed the ball in the 'Palestinian' court for continuing negotiations.
Let's go to the videotape. This is a live broadcast....
I'm still waiting to see what happened on the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation today, but here's Matt Lee embarrassing State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki on Tuesday.
Let's go to the videotape.
You just know this will be a campaign commercial if Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016.
US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Congress can decide that Jerusalem is Israel's capital
Maybe by Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky's Bar Mitzva they'll resolve it. Zivotofsky v. Kerry (formerly Clinton and several others) is going back to the Supreme Court again.
Now at the high court, the case will examine a constitutional question
of checks and balances: whether the president of the United States is
the sole authority able to declare US foreign policy, or whether
Congress may pass law overriding the policy.
Congress attempted to pass such a law in the 2003 Foreign Relations
Authorization Act , which declared that “the Secretary [of State]
shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian,
record the place of birth as Israel " in that citizen's passport.
The
legislation had wide support among major American Jewish
organizations, such as the Jewish Federations of North America and the
American Jewish Committee. But over the summer, a federal appeals
court struck down key provisions of that law, ruling the president
retains the ability to determine Jerusalem's sovereignty over
Congress based on constitutional grounds.
...
Congress has pushed against the White House on this matter
through several administrations. However, the State Department, through
both Democratic and Republican administrations, has refused to directly
declare Jerusalem the Israeli capital or indirectly declare the city
Israeli territory through passport listings.
Asked on Monday to
comment on the ruling, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that
the government's position on Jerusalem's status had not changed.
For those who have forgotten, here's AP's Matt Lee taking apart Jen Psaki's predecessor, Victoria Nuland on this issue.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki loves Klingons (and Kerry)
You might recall US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's offer to build a 'new wall' on the beach to replace the Western Wall, which he wants to give to the 'Palestinians.'
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is questioned about the offer by the inimitable Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
MATT LEE: I mean, clearly, the secretary does not believe that Jerusalem is the holy city for hobbits and klingons, right?
JEN PSAKI: Well, I have not seen the video, Matt. So perhaps –
LEE: Well, that’s one of the things that’s in there, so, you know –
PSAKI: Perhaps — now you’ve sold it very
well. I will watch the video. I’m making a broad point about all the
different reports that are out there.
LEE: So, I mean, this is just — I mean,
it’s a parody. Although it may have, you know, a serious point, you
know, it is in itself ridiculous.He does not believe that Jerusalem is a
holy city to fictional –
PSAKI: To hobbits?
LEE: To fictional–
PSAKI: I think that’s fair to run as an AP headline.
LEE: Klingons?
PSAKI: Mmm?
LEE: They’re affectionate too.
Klingons.
PSAKI: I love klingons but–
Q: So it could be it.
PSAKI: But nothing having to do with the peace process.
Video: AP's Matt Lee pwn's State Department's Mark Toner for the last time this year
You all remember the AP's Matt Lee, the reporter who has pwn'ed State Department spokespersons over Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, among other things, right? Well, this time he goes after the State Department's Mark Toner (at Toner's last press briefing of the year) over the Obama administration excluding Israel from the counterterrorism conference (again). Watch the entertainment starting around the 35:42 mark until around the 41:20 mark.
So we’ve gotten the [Global Counterterrorism Forum] GCTF, which we co-formed and co-chair, to agree to
an agenda item that does not mention Israel; does not anticipate Israel
becoming a member; will not be the occasion for pushing Israel for
membership; is simply a discussion about how 163 non-member countries,
at some point in the future, might get involved in “some of the
activities” of the GCTF; and we have announced this as a success.
At the State Department on Monday, Lee, among other things, took Nuland to task for not responding to Turkish and other attacks against Israel over Operation Pillar of Defense.
Unfortunately, once again, this one goes on automatically.
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
