Think tank: P 5+1 secretly allowed Iran to evade nuke restrictions to allow sanctions to be lifted
The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security reports that the United States and its partners agreed "in secret"
to allow Iran to evade some restrictions in last year's landmark nuclear
agreement in order to meet the deadline for it to start getting relief
from economic sanctions.
The group's president David Albright, a
former U.N. weapons inspector, said that, "the exemptions or loopholes are happening in secret, and it appears that they favor Iran."
Among the exemptions were two that allowed
Iran to exceed the deal's limits on how much low-enriched uranium (LEU)
it can keep in its nuclear facilities, the report said. LEU can be
purified into highly enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
The
exemptions, the report said, were approved by the joint commission the
deal created to oversee implementation of the accord. The commission is
comprised of the United States and its negotiating partners -- called
the P5+1 -- and Iran.
One senior
"knowledgeable" official was cited by the report as saying that if the
joint commission had not acted to create these exemptions, some of
Iran’s nuclear facilities would not have been in compliance with the
deal by Jan. 16, the deadline for the beginning of the lifting of
sanctions.
The U.S. administration
has said that the world powers that negotiated the accord -- the United
States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany -- made no secret
arrangements.
A White House
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the joint commission
and its role were "not secret." He did not address the report's
assertions of exemptions.
The report says that Congress was notified of the exemptions... after they went into effect. But two key Senators - Republican Bob Corker and Democrat Robert Menendez deny being briefed on the exemptions.
But it gets worse. You see, not only was Iran exempted from the requirement to reduce its LEU... but no one even knows by how much.
As part of the concessions that allowed Iran
to exceed uranium limits, the joint commission agreed to exempt unknown
quantities of 3.5 percent LEU contained in liquid, solid and sludge
wastes stored at Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the
report. The agreement restricts Iran to stockpiling only 300 kg of 3.5
percent LEU.
The commission
approved a second exemption for an unknown quantity of near 20 percent
LEU in "lab contaminant" that was determined to be unrecoverable, the
report said. The nuclear agreement requires Iran to fabricate all such
LEU into research reactor fuel.
If
the total amount of excess LEU Iran possesses is unknown, it is
impossible to know how much weapons-grade uranium it could yield,
experts said.
And there's more:
The draft report said the joint commission
also agreed to allow Iran to keep operating 19 radiation containment
chambers larger than the accord set. These so-called "hot cells" are
used for handling radioactive material but can be "misused for secret,
mostly small-scale plutonium separation efforts," said the report.
Plutonium is another nuclear weapons fuel.
The
deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at
its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But
with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the
sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the
material -- which can be used in nuclear weapons production -- to Oman,
where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.
The
shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons
production has already been reported. Albright's report made the new
assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.
Wow....
You can bet that now that it's more than a year and a half later, Hillary Clinton's response will be 'what difference does it make now?' But it still does make a difference. Clinton supports the deal. Trump says he will 'renegotiate' it. Okay, I will grant that renegotiating the deal after all that money is out the door only has a chance of solving the nuclear weapons problem, and not the terror money problem. But at some point, actions have to have consequences.
Cheney: 'I know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of another nation'
Former Vice President Dick Cheney will have some very blunt things to say about the sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday. And they are not about Israel.
The nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and six world powers
earlier this year is "madness" and an "intricately crafted capitulation"
on the part of President Barack Obama's administration, former Vice
President Dick Cheney will say Tuesday during a speech to the American
Enterprise Institute in Washington.
The deal "will give Iran the means to launch a nuclear attack on the
U.S. homeland. I know of no nation in history that has agreed to
guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of
another nation, particularly one that is hostile," Cheney will tell
attendees at the center-right think tank's event, according to excerpts
provided to POLITICO Playbook.
"What President Obama is asking the United States Congress to do is
unique—historically and dangerously unique. The results may be
catastrophic," Cheney will say. "It is not, as President Obama claims,
the only alternative to war. It is madness."
"Charles Krauthammer has written that it took Nazi Germany 7 years to
kill 6 million Jews. It would take a nuclear-armed Iran one day,"
Cheney will say of the possible consequences.
The deal will allow Iran " to modernize and expand its military
capabilities while the United States military suffers from devastating
Obama-era defense cuts and the effects of sequestration," Cheney will
say. As such, he will add, the United States "will be in a far worse
position" to defend its interests and prevent a nuclear Iran when the
deal expires, contrary to statements from Obama and Secretary of State
John Kerry.
Making reference to New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the
second-highest ranking Democrat to come out against the deal, Cheney
will say that his Democratic colleagues would do well to take notice.
"When a former ranking Democrat on Senate Foreign Relations says that
he fears that Iran will gain such a weapon and that he doesn't want his
name on it, his colleagues should pay very close attention. That man is
dealing in reality," Cheney will say.
Too little, too late? How many opponents are not being reported on by the uber-Leftist media?
Timing of Schumer announcement shocked White House, Senate colleagues now not sure an Obama veto would be sustained
In case you missed it earlier this week, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has serious doubts that the Senate has the votes to override an inevitable veto of a resolution disapproving President Hussein Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran. McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and as such should be the guy leading the fight to override that veto. Forgive me for saying this but if the Senate fails to override the veto, McConnell should be removed as Senate Majority Leader.
It seems that the Senate Democrats and the White House are in a panic over Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) announcing his opposition to the sellout. It's not that they didn't expect it - they did. It's the timing that got to them. And the announcement that Schumer will vote to override the Presidential veto. And the hints that Schumer will - despite his calling it a vote of conscience - work to convince his Senate colleagues to vote against Obama.
But the White House and some of Schumer’s Democratic colleagues strongly
urged him not to announce his opposition until late August or early
September. Republican leaders have set a vote in mid-September on a
resolution to disapprove of the deal. Should that resolution pass, Obama
has vowed to veto it. In a move that also surprised his colleagues,
Schumer said that he would vote to override Obama’s veto as well. As
another Senate staff member told me, “It is protocol, if you’re a member
of the leadership who is going to oppose your President on a major
issue like this, that you not do so in a way that is going to undercut
the President and give the President’s opponents fodder to use against
him.” Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, responded in an e-mail,
“Senator Schumer was pressed both on the right and the left on the
timing of his decision, but said from the very beginning that after
careful deliberation, when he made up his mind, he would announce his
decision publicly and explain the reasoning. He finished deliberating on
that Wednesday afternoon, wrote his statement that evening, and
published it soon after.”
...
After Gillibrand’s announcement, pro-deal forces were ebullient. The tide was strong. Some enjoyed imagining a panic at AIPAC.
According to several Senate aides, they believed they were close to
having enough votes to block Republicans on the resolution of
disapproval itself, so that it would never reach the President and he
wouldn’t have to exercise his veto. But hours later Schumer posted his
decision online, in the form of a sixteen-hundred-word essay. “What
Schumer has done now, unfortunately, is that he has made what was within
realistic reach super-difficult,” the first Senate aide said. “By
coming out so early, before recess, it’s been really detrimental to the
cause of the President and other Senate Democrats who want to be in
favor of this deal, because now he’s given a lot of time for senators on
the fence to be hit with political attacks like, ‘Why aren’t you where
Schumer is? He’s leading; why are you so weak?’ ” The aide continued,
“If he wanted to be helpful, as future leader of the caucus, he could
have waited. He personally would have had to withstand pressure back
home, in exchange for helping out his colleagues. Instead, he said, I’m
going to take the pressure off myself and put the pressure on my
colleagues.”
On Saturday, that dynamic played out in a full-page ad in the Times—the
first, but surely not the last. Featuring side-by-side images of
Schumer and Senator Cory Booker, the ad demanded, “Senator Cory Booker:
Will you join Senator Schumer and reject the catastrophic Iran deal?” It
implored Booker to do so “before Iranian nukes kill millions of
Americans.” Among those who funded the ad was the World Values Network,
whose executive director, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, is a longtime close
friend of Booker but, evidently, not loath to exert intense public
pressure. Booker is viewed as undecided.
As of
today, twenty Democratic senators have come out in favor of the deal; a
total of thirty-four are needed to sustain the President’s veto. “It’s
still very much an open question whether we can sustain a veto,” a third
Senate aide said. “It will depend on how hard the deal is whipped
against within the caucus.” Schumer, by nature an aggressive whip, known
for his “full Chuck Schumer” style, is working against Durbin, who
chose not to try to contest Reid’s endorsement of Schumer for leader.
Schumer’s statements on the subject of his whipping, or not, have been
ambiguous. A relentless phone canvasser, he has acknowledged he is
making calls to members. “I will certainly share my view and try to
persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one,” he said, in
what might constitute a definition of whipping, but he added that, in
the Senate, members make up their own minds—“especially in matters of
conscience and great consequence, like this.”
And in case you missed it, no great surprise here but on Tuesday Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), the co-sponsor of all the sanctions legislation, came out against the sellout.
Undecided Democrats in the House and Senate will determine the
outcome on the Iran deal. To the chagrin of the White House, they are
nowhere near lining up enough votes to sustain a presidential veto. Sen.
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) will deliver a speech on Tuesday, one that
critics of the deal expect will announce his disapproval and lay out the
arguments against the deal.
What is going to sway fence-sitting Democratic lawmakers?
The
intellectual argument in favor of the deal on the merits has in essence
collapsed. A Swiss cheese inspection regime, a snapback mechanism that
ends Iran’s obligations under the deal, the lifting of the arms and
missile embargoes and leaving Iran with Fordow and the rest of its
nuclear infrastructure are not what the administration was promising as a
“good” deal. The overall structure of the deal — Iran gets sanctions
lifted upfront, inspections are weak and the remedies for violation are
exceptional — makes sense only if you believe Iran has “changed” (not
even President Obama says that), will not use every opportunity to cheat
and will not use sanctions money to aid its quest for regional
hegemony.
So why aren’t Democrats lining up to vote no? As a
preliminary matter, let me say that many may have already decided to
vote no, but seeing the assault on Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), they are
going to wait until the end to cast their vote, figuring there is
safety in numbers from White House wrath.
The “this deal or war”
argument is the administration’s last straw, but that makes little
sense. To begin with, this administration is not about to go to war. It
sees Iran as a new regional power, remember. Moreover, the idea that
Iran would dash to make a bomb if Congress votes no (thereby compelling
U.S. or Israeli action) makes no sense, Robert Satloff explains:
While
it’s impossible to predict with certainty how Iranian leaders would
react to congressional disapproval of the agreement, I’d argue chances
are high that they would follow through on their commitments anyway,
because the deal is simply that good for Iran. After Iran fulfills its
early obligations, all United Nations and European Union nuclear-related
sanctions come to an end. They aren’t just suspended like U.S.
sanctions — they are terminated, presenting Iran with the potential for
huge financial and political gain.
The “deal or war” thesis
propounded by supporters of the agreement suggests that Iran, in the
event of U.S. rejection of the deal, would prefer to bypass that
financial and political windfall and instead put its nuclear program
into high gear, risking an Israeli and American military response.
Well, at least an Israeli response, since the risk Obama will act is minimal.
That all sounds as good as can be expected, but truthfully I feel like I need a scorecard to know what's going on - who's committed to what and who is not committed at all - and I'd like to see some proof that the Democrats who are sitting on the sidelines really are going to vote with us when push comes to shove.
Senate demands to see Parchin and PMD ('possible military dimensions') deals - UPDATED
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Bob Corker (R-Tn) and Ben Cardin (D-Md) - have demanded from Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz - who was deeply involved in the P5+1 negotiations - that the White House demanding to see the secret agreements whose existence was disclosed on Tuesday by the IAEA to Congressman Bob Pompeo (R-Ks) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
The Cotton-Pompeo trip is already affecting the debate over the
Iran deal on Capitol Hill. According to The Hill, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker and ranking member Ben Cardin
met with Department of Energy secretary Ernest Moniz yesterday to demand
copies of the side agreements discovered by Cotton and Pompeo. The two
senators also sent a joint letter to President Obama asking for copies
of these documents.
Fred Fleitz (at that first link) also explains the significance of what's being hidden.
Former Department of Energy official William Tobey explained in a
July 15 Wall Street Journal op-ed why it is crucial that Iran resolve
the PMD issue. According to Tobey, “for inspections to be meaningful,
Iran would have to completely and correctly declare all its relevant
nuclear activities and procurement, past and present.”
According to the Cotton/Pompeo press release, there will be a secret,
opaque procedure to verify Iran’s compliance with these side agreements.
The press release says:
According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the
Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge
separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military
complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and
how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past
weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any
organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even
to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement].
This
means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public
scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its
legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.
This means that two crucial measures of Iranian compliance with the
nuclear agreement will not be disclosed to Congress despite the
requirements of the Corker-Cardin bill (the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act), which requires the Obama administration to provide the U.S.
Congress with all documents associated with the agreement, including
all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements [emphasis added],
implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical, or other
understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or
implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented
in the future.”
It also means that Congress will have no way of knowing whether Iran
complied with either side agreement.
...
This is especially troublesome for the PMD issue. I wrote in
National Review on June 15 and June 17 that the Obama administration was
trying to find a way to let Iran off the hook for past nuclear
weapons-related work. It seems to have found a way to do this with a
secret procedure shielded from the American public and the U.S.
Congress.
Still waiting for the Democrats to stand up to Obama on this. Ben Cardin? Chuck Schumer? The only one I'm betting on is Bob Menendez - he has nothing to lose.
On Morning Joe on Wednesday morning, State Department Spokesman John Kirby refused to answer questions regarding the existence of side deals that were not shown to Congress.
Wow: Kirk calls Iran deal 'unremitted garbage' warns tens of thousands will lose their lives because of 'Barack Hussein Obama'
Senator Mark Kirk - the cosponsor of the 100-0 Senate approved sanctions against Iran - has blasted President Obama's Iran nuclear deal as 'unremitted garbage' and has actually taken the politically incorrect step (which I do all the time) of using the name 'Hussein' when referring to Obama (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
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?
Three alternatives to Obama's 'historic framework' with Iran
President Hussein Obama believes that every problem is solvable, and when he can't find a good solution, he adopts a bad one and challenges his critics to 'propose something better.' We've heardthisbefore.
But in the case of Iran, there actually are solutions other than the status quo. Here are three of them.
1. Keep the interim deal in place
The idea behind this alternative is that if the November 2013
agreement has worked as well as Obama says it has, then replacing it
with a bad deal would be a step backward. Though the deal was only
supposed to last six months and already has been extended twice, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., suggested in a March 22 interview
with CBS that this option would be preferable to a final deal with
loopholes that allow Iran to ultimately develop a nuclear weapon.
...
2. Tougher sanctions
This option is most closely associated with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu since he offered it in his March 3 speech to a joint
meeting of Congress. But it's also the thinking behind bipartisan legislation in Congress that would impose tougher new sanctions on Iran if the current talks fail.
"Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current
proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a
very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the
price of oil," Netanyahu told lawmakers. "Now, if Iran threatens to walk
away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call
their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more
than you do."
The legislation by Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and
Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey would put that idea into
practice, tightening restrictions on Iran's oil industry and financial
markets in particular to try to force its leaders to give up their
nuclear ambitions.
...
3. Military pressure
Advocates for this approach, such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and
former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, say Iran's Shiite Muslim
theocracy is the real threat, not its nuclear program and note that even
Obama has repeatedly said that the military option remains on the
table. They have offered options ranging from U.S. airstrikes aimed at
destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities to complete regime change.
"The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its
nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep
weapons infrastructure," Bolton wrote in a March 26 New York Times op-ed.
"The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel's
1981 attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007
destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can
accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can
still succeed."
Read the whole thing. It includes a discussion of the downside of each alternative.
And then there were three: McCain tells Obama 'get over your temper tantrum' over Netanyahu
For the third time since Thursday, a United States Senator has blasted President Hussein Obama for his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. This time, it's John McCain (R-Az) on CNN's State of the Union.
Notice what he said at the end about re-examining United Nations funding. That's long overdue anyway.
Still waiting for the first Democratic Senator to publicly attack Obama over his tantrum. Anyone want to take bets on who will go first? I'm betting on Robert Menendez (NJ). He has nothing to lose anyway.
US poll: 'Deal with Iran won't stop the bomb anyway'
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 71% of Americans don't believe that an agreement with Iran will stop the Mullahcracy from developing a nuclear weapon anyway.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say
that the nuclear negotiations, which are backed by the Obama
administration and strongly opposed by most Republicans, will not make a
real difference in affecting Iran's potential production of a nuclear
weapon. About a quarter of respondents - 24 percent - disagree.
Democrats are more
optimistic about the deal, with about a third believing that it would be
effective in preventing the production of an Iranian bomb, compared to
just 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. But majorities of
Americans from all political parties - 58 percent of Democrats, 72
percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans - think that the
deal would not make a major difference.
Perhaps that explains why Republicans are worried that Democrats, whose votes are needed to override an expected Obama veto of any bill that would hinder him from letting Iran go nuclear, may be seeing this in partisan terms (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was
approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but
he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support
for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or
reject an Iran deal.
“I knew it was going to be only Republicans on [the letter]. I just
don’t view that as where I need to be today,” Corker said in an
interview. “My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will
affect the outcome.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) expressed doubt
about her colleagues’ tactic of skirting the White House and trying to
affect foreign policy by going directly to Tehran.
“It’s more
appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president,
to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,” Collins said. “I don’t think
that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter
from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my
distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”
Indeed, the response
from Tehran was the equivalent of an eye roll, with Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif concluding the letter “has no legal value and is
mostly a propaganda ploy.”
Meanwhile some Democrats warned that
Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have
pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile
talks.
...
Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any
deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not
bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s
ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should
Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the
U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany
and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes
needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White
House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks
and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran.
This is an issue where partisanship should not even be showing its face. Unfortunately, with the United States' 'post-partisan' President, there is no issue that is bipartisan anymore.
Democratic Senators won't say whether they're attending
Josh Rogin and Eli Lake report that many Democratic Senators, who feel caught between their loyalty to Barack Hussein Obama and their duties to their voters, are not saying whether they will attend Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to a joint session of Congress next Tuesday.
We spoke with almost a dozen Democratic Senators Tuesday who said
they still haven’t decided. Among them is Senate Intelligence Committee
ranking member Dianne Feinstein of California, who wrote a letter (with
Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois) Monday to Netanyahu
asking him to meet Democrats separately in their offices while he is
Washington.
“I won’t make a decision on that for a while,” she told us, insisting
there was no organized Democratic boycott. “But it does mean that I
would like an opportunity to sit down and talk to him rather than
listening to a speech of red lines. It isn’t a boycott, it's individuals
making up their own minds. There is no boycott.”
...
Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee that covers the Middle
East, told us Tuesday he also is still weighing whether to attend the
speech and he acknowledged that he is getting calls from his supporters
in Connecticut encouraging him to go.
“I haven’t decided yet. This is a breach of protocol not a breach of
policy, so I’m still trying to make sure I’m not making more of this
than it deserves to be,” he said. “A lot of us are very angry and I
think we’ve got to figure out how serious of an issue this really is.”
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia declined to say whether he
would attend: “I think the speech should be postposed. I’m just going to
leave it there for now.”
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey wouldn't say anything on the
matter. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said he was “expecting to” attend
but wasn’t 100 percent sure. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said he
would make up his mind after meeting with the Israeli ambassador.
Nonetheless, many Democratic leaders have signaled they will attend.
The list includes House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority
Whip Steny Hoyer and, if he is physically able while recovering from
surgery, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Chuck Schumer of New
York, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Democrat Robert
Menendez of New Jersey and Senate Armed Services Committee member Bill
Nelson of Florida will also be there.
It's tough having to answer to your constituents, isn't it? Here's a prediction: In the end, other than the Congressional Black Caucus and some of the more virulent J Street recipients, every last one of the Democrats will show up. They're not going to risk their seats to satisfy an unpopular President who is in the second half of his second term.
Here's a pretty strong indicator that the Senate has had enough with President Obama's dithering on Iran. The Senate Banking Committee on Thursday reported out the Kirk-Menendez bill that would increase sanctions on Iran. It wasn't even close. The vote was 18-4.
The Banking Committee vote suggests that the a veto-proof 68 Senators now support the Kirk-Menendez bill. Here's how that calculation comes about:
52 Republicans (everyone but Flake and Paul) 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)
The bill has been moving forward quickly. Consider this:
Tuesday:
The Senate Banking committee held hearings to discuss the legislation
(that was the same day 10 Democrats signed the Menendez letter
indicating support). 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.
Ten Senate Democrats have sent a letter to President Hussein Obama threatening to vote for time-triggered sanctions if Iran does not agree to a framework by March 24.
"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.
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.
Video: Fox News' Chris Wallace goes ballistic over Netanyahu visit
Fox News' Chris Wallace is not very happy that Prime Minister Netanyahu plans to 'sneak' into Washington to speak to Congress about a subject that's an existential threat to Israel.
Let's go to the videotape.
Meanwhile, with all of this week's events, the poll numbers moved slightly (putting Likud and Labor in a tie for the lead), with the Right still leading the Left overall. The only Israeli politician who seems upset over Netanyahu's move is the insufferable Tzipi Livni.
Sorry. There's a lot I don't like about Netanyahu, but he's 100% right about this. As Jennifer Rubin wrote on Friday:
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.
"The fraudulent claims against the Mossad Head were raised by the
Americans yesterday, despite a message that had been transmitted to them
on Tuesday by Intelligence Minister [Yuval] Steintz,” the senior
Israeli source told Channel 2 news.
He added that Israel had gone over the minutes of the meeting between
Pardo and the delegation of senators, and that Pardo had not said what
was attributed to him.
"Leaking the Mossad Head's statements, even if they had not been
falsified, is a serious breach of all the rules,” the senior source
added. “Friends do not behave like this. Information from a secret
meeting must not leak out.”
Pardo denied on Thursday the report – which was carried by Bloomberg news – claiming that the Mossad disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu about the need to press new sanctions on Iran.
Army Radio: @JoshRogin @EliLake story is Barack's revenge
Israel's Army Radio reports that the story by @JoshRogin and @EliLake in Bloomberg's that many are (falsely) interpreting as showing a split between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad on Iran sanctions is President Obama's revenge for Netanyahu's invitation to address a joint session of Congress.
Sources in Jerusalem told Army Radio Thursday that the story reported in Bloomberg about
disagreement between Netanyahu and the Mossad regarding sanctions on
Iran is US President Barack Obama administration's “revenge” for
Netanyahu's invitation to address Congress.
The invitation was extended by Congress without consulting Obama.
Sorry, but I don't buy this one. If the White House wanted to plant a story, it would have gone to Jeffrey Goldberg or Tom Friedman.
The above was just posted on TwitLonger by Israel Radio reporter Chico Menashe. Here's my translation:
Reaction of the Mossad Chairman to the new crisis with Washington:
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.
In an earlier post reviewing an article by @JoshRogin and @EliLake, I argued that the Mossad never recommended not putting additional sanctions on Iran.
It looks like I was right.
Head of Mosad say he didn't say that it is wrong to put more sanctions on Iran
— Udi Segal (@usegal) January 22, 2015
No, the Mossad didn't say new Iran sanctions are a bad thing
@JoshRogin and @EliLake report on disagreements between Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Mossad about the impact of new US sanctions on Iran. Many are taking the report as a reason (excuse?) to vote against the Kirk-Menendez bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran. But notice what's left unsaid.
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.
Moreover, as Rogin and Lake admit, no one really knows for sure what Iran would do if the Kirk-Menendez bill is passed. If Iran walks away from the talks, it risks isolating itself in the international community. While Russia and China might prevent the Security Council from acting against Iran, if Iran is isolated, it is less likely that Israel - for example - would be inhibited from acting. After all, the West would no longer be able to argue that we have to give negotiations a chance. There would be no negotiations.
Iran's argument that new sanctions would violate the 'spirit of the negotiations' ought to fall on deaf ears. Iran has violated any spirit that ever existed.
Saying that passing Kirk-Menendez might cause Iran to walk away from the talks is a no-brainer. But it also might not. And even if it did cause Iran to walk away, that might not be such a bad outcome.
For months now, President Obama has been appealing to Congress not to impose additional sanctions on Iran because it would spoil the 'Spirit of Geneva.' Well, just what is the 'Spirit of Geneva'? This will give you some idea.
On Wednesday morning, while US Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, Iranian President Rohani announced that Iran will build two more nuclear power plants. For 'peaceful' purposes, of course.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Given all this 'spirit,' it's not too surprising that Congress is about to defy the Obama administration and take up sanctions.
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."
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
