Can Obama be stopped from locking in Iran deal
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens reports that despite
German intelligence reports last week that Iran has attempted to purchase nuclear technology in Germany since signing the JCPOA, the Obama administration appears determined to '
lock in' the Iran deal to prevent a future President from unraveling it.
All this was enough to prompt Angela Merkel
to warn the Bundestag last week that Iran “continued to develop its
rocket program in conflict with relevant provisions of the U.N. Security
Council.” Don’t expect German sanctions, but at least the chancellor is
living in the reality zone.
As for the Obama administration, not
so much. For the past year it has developed a narrative—spoon-fed to
the reporters and editorial writers Ben Rhodes publicly mocks as dopes and dupes—that Iran has met all its obligations under the deal, and now deserves extra cookies in the form of access to U.S. dollars, Boeing
jets, U.S. purchases of
Iranian heavy water (thereby subsidizing its nuclear program), and
other concessions the administration last year promised Congress it
would never grant.
“We still have sanctions on Iran for its
violations of human rights, for its support for terrorism, and for its
ballistic-missile program, and we will continue to enforce those
sanctions vigorously,” Mr. Obama said in January. Whatever.
The administration is now weighing whether
to support Iran’s membership in the World Trade Organization. That
would neutralize a future president’s ability to impose sanctions on
Iran, since WTO rules would allow Tehran to sue Washington for
interfering with trade. The administration has also pushed the Financial
Action Task Force, an international body that enforces
anti-money-laundering standards, to ease pressure on Iran, which FATF did last month by suspending some restrictions for the next year.
And then there’s the Boeing deal to sell $17.6 billion worth of jets to Iran, which congressional Republicans led by Illinois’s Pete Roskam are trying to stop. Iran uses its civilian fleet to ferry weapons and fighters to its terrorist clients in Syria and Lebanon.
“The
administration is trying to lock in the Iran deal and prevent a future
president from doing anything, including pushing back on Iran’s malign
behavior,” says the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Mark
Dubowitz, who knows more about Iran sanctions than anyone in Washington.
“Instead of curbing Iran’s worst behavior, the administration
effectively facilitates it.”
Last night, the House of Representatives voted to
ban US aircraft sales (i.e. Boeing's) to Iran.
The first amendment [to the Appropriations Bill] prevents the Office of Foreign Assets Control from using funds to authorize the license necessary for the aircraft to be sold to Iran. The second one blocks loans from U.S. financial institutions for the purchase of planes that can be adapted for military use.
"Iran systemically uses commercial aircraft to spread death, destruction and mayhem, and we can do something about it," [Representative Peter] Roskam [R-Il] said on the House floor.
...
Airbus had reached an agreement in January to sell Tehran 118 planes. Because some of the aircraft components are made in the U.S., the deal was awaiting approval from the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control.
The day after the approval of the amendments, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said step was "incompatible" with the country's nuclear deal with the U.S. Under the deal, America lifted the economic sanctions previously levied on Iran in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear ambitions.
“We have nothing to do with U.S. internal affairs,” Bahram Ghasemi was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency. “We consider the government of the United States to be responsible for implementing the country’s commitments” under the accord.
Of course, the bill still has to pass the Senate, which effectively approved the Iran deal last year in a
party-line vote. And then it might have to override an Obama veto. And Obama doesn't need Congressional approval to approve Iran joining the WTO, although Congress can make it difficult for him according to Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontorovich, whom I asked that question.
My bet is that sometime between November 8 and January 20, Obama will allow those jet sales to go ahead and announce US support for Iran's application to join the WTO. After all, it's part of his legacy.
Labels: Airbus, Angela Merkel, Barack Hussein Obama, Boeing, German-Iranian trade, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Peter Roskam
Two thirds of Americans oppose Iranian nuclear sellout
A new Quinnipiac poll shows that
two thirds of the American people oppose the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran.
“American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support
from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and
independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran,” the release from
Quinnipiac states. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the deal by an 86%
to 3% margin, and only a slim majority of Democrats support it. The
poll of 1,644 registered voters has a margin of error of 2.4%.
Opposition to the Iran deal has widened as Congress has probed the
details of the agreement in televised hearings on Capitol Hill. One
major issue is the existence of secret side deals between the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran governing nuclear
inspections, which the administration has not read or provided to
Congress, in violation of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act (the
Corker bill).
Congress is
starting to get it.
At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a
resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which
would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while
enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear
research.
The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.
Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come
out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit
Iran’s nuclear program.
Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will
ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on
the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.
...
At least three members of the House leadership, as well as 18 of 22
House committee chairmen and 23 of the 25 GOP members of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, have already signed on to back the
resolution, according to figures provided by congressional sources.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Republican Study
Committee Chair Bill Flores (R., Texas) also back the measure.
I'm not so impressed by this. Aren't the Republicans the majority party in Congress? Don't they chair all the committees? Who are the four chairmen who have not come out against the deal? Who are the two GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have not come out against the deal? These people need to be named and shamed.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the effort said the administration is failing to convince lawmakers to back the deal.
“It appears the administration’s sales pitch for this deal is falling
on deaf ears. Closed-door briefings and public hearings have apparently
left Members with more questions than answers, and the administration’s
decision to circumvent Congress by first bringing the deal to the UN
infuriated key Democrats who are otherwise loyal to the president,” the
source said.
“This level of opposition so early in the review period indicates
that Congress really has a chance of killing the agreement. What
Congressman Roskam has done—securing 218 commitments from Members vote
against the deal in just two weeks—is a rather remarkable feat. He still
has more work to do, but this is an impressive start,” the source
added.
Remarkable? Look, I love Roskam - he's one of Israel's strongest supporters. But he shouldn't have to work this hard to defeat a deal that is so obviously and blatantly a disaster.
I also don't get why Congress has not claimed the Senate's power to advise and consent to treaties - if not by
classifying this agreement as a treaty (which is what it really is) then at least by classifying it as an
amendment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would require a two thirds affirmative vote in the Senate which will never happen.
Labels: Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Peter Roskam, polls, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate, US House of Representatives
The Obama-Kerry State Department comes out in favor of BDS
Read the statement in the tweet below, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama administration has come out in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel.
No, this administration is different than previous administrations. Previous administrations (with the exception of Carter) may have referred to Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria as 'unwise' and may have called it 'illegitimate.' But only the Obama and Carter administrations have called it 'illegal.' (Which it's not). And the Bush administration did support some Israeli 'settlement' and did issue a letter saying that it expected that some of those 'settlements' would be made apart of Israel as part of a final agreement with the 'Palestinians.' But then came the Obama administration and
disavowed the letter.
More importantly, every administration until the Obama administration has said that peace between Israel and the 'Palestinians' must come about as a result of a negotiated solution. Only the Obama administration - in a mad rush for a 'Palestinian state' that would immediately be consumed by terrorists - has attempted to impose a solution on Israel. Only the Obama administration has forced Israel to release terrorist murderers from its jail. And only the Obama administration has forced a 'settlement freeze' on Israel.
No, this is not the same as every other US administration.
Here's more on the
State Department statement quoted above:
The U.S. State Department on Tuesday punched a big hole in Israel-led
efforts to induce the Obama administration to regard boycotts of
settlements as identical to boycott
of Israel proper. In doing so, it provided the Israeli government and
the pro-Israel lobby with yet another painful lesson in the pitfalls of
being too clever by half and biting off more than one should chew.
A special statement issued by the State Department
Press Office on Tuesday afternoon made clear that while the
administration “strongly opposes” any boycott, divestment or sanctions
against the State of Israel, it does not extend the same protection to
“Israel-controlled territories.” Rather than weakening efforts to
boycott Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, as Israel
supporters had planned, the State Department was actually granting them
unprecedented legitimacy.
The statement came in the wake of President Obama’s
signing of the Trade Promotion Authority bill, which grants him the
authority he had sought to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership
accord. But as the bill deals with free trade agreements in general, a
clause was inserted in the Senate by Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and
Republican Senator Rob Portman and by Representative Peter Roskam in the
House of Representative that instructs American diplomats to include
opposition to any boycott of Israel - or of persons from “territories
controlled by Israel” - in their free trade negotiations with the
European Union.
The State Department statement, however, makes clear
that the bill will not change U.S. policy towards the settlements. “The
U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements or
activity associated with them, and, by extension, does not pursue
policies or activities that would legitimize them,” it said. It went on
to note: “Administrations of both parties have long recognized that
settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine
the goal of a two-state solution.”
This anti-Israel administration cannot end soon enough. 'Most pro-Israel administration evah' my tuches.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, BDS, boycott divest sanction, free trade, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Peter Roskam, settlement product boycott, settlements, settlements are legal, US State Department
Prominent Republicans call for aid cutoff to 'Palestinian Authority'
Republicans Eric Cantor (Va) and Peter Roskam (Il) have called on the Obama administration to
cut off aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' due to its partnership with Hamas.
With this agreement, it has made an unequivocal decision that its route to a potential state cannot include peace with Israel. Nor will it include negotiations with Israel; a disavowal of and crackdown on terrorism or any official recognition of the Jewish state — a set of conditions demanded by the U.S. and its allies but fiercely opposed by Hamas. What a slap in the face to the Obama administration.
Don’t be fooled by Hamas apologists in the West, who refuse to accept Hamas at its word. Let us not blind ourselves to Hamas’s genocidal outlook. This reconciliation does not mean Hamas will moderate itself. It means the PA is dealing a death blow to a troubled peace process, in which it has seldom demonstrated the courage to engage.
Terror in the Palestinian territories has taken a decisive step forward. Peace is in retreat.
Under the new accord, for the first time, Hamas’s TV broadcasts are to be sent into the West Bank. Shows designed to poison the minds of young Palestinians by lauding the ways of jihad and perpetuating hateful lies about Israel, Jews and the U.S. will likely further radicalize the West Bank.
Remember, these are the same broadcasts that notoriously aired a Mickey Mouse-like cartoon character teaching children to “annihilate the Jews.”
...
Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel’s security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.
Indeed.
The question is why this piece was published in Politico and not in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Well, thanks to Jennifer Rubin, it's at least
linked and discussed in the Washington Post.
For reasons that have more to do with the administration’s aversion to drawing lines and its phobia about being at odds with the countries that populate the U.N., the Obama administration has not yet publicly delivered a forthright message to the Palestinians. The administration has said that Hamas needs to renounce terror, recognize the Jewish state, and abide by past agreements (not even Abbas is willing to do that now) in keeping with the Quartet’s conditions. But Obama has yet to say what will happen if Hamas doesn’t do this. He’s not delivered an unequivocal statement that the unity government and Abbas’s renunciation of past agreements are unacceptable. In short, the PA should be identified as an international lawbreaker, not rewarded with statehood.
Well, it's probably expecting too much for Obama to announce a cutoff in aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' on Thursday night. But we can dream, can't we?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Cantor, Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, Peter Roskam
