Israel Matzav

Did they lie or did they just bow to Iran?

The Israel Project's Omri Ceren sent around an email this afternoon reporting that Congress is looking into whether Obama administration officials lied to Congress in their testimony about the Iran deal last summer, or whether they have just totally bowed to Iran.

Last week reporters confirmed that the Obama administration has reversed itself on a number of commitments made to Congress during last summer's push to get support for the Iran deal. Specifically the AP confirmed that the administration intends to give Iran indirect access the U.S. financial system and Reuters confirmed that Washington is no longer labeling Iranian missile launches a "violation" of the U.N. ban [a][b].
White House, State Department, and Treasury officials testified to Congress last summer that exactly the opposite would happen. Last Friday Bloomberg View published a roundup how lawmakers are reacting. It noted that these were not the first two bait-and-switches the administration has pulled, and catalogued statements of opposition from both parties in both chambers. I sent around the article last night with a bunch of links and background, so let me know if you didn't get it.
Now this morning lawmakers are sharpening the question into: did the administration deliberately mislead lawmakers last summer or is the deal still open so that the Iranians have been extracting more concessions since then? The full story from the Washington Free Beacon is pasted below, but the key quote comes from Rep. Pompeo:

"When multiple officials — including Secretary Kerry, Secretary Lew, and Ambassador Mull — testify in front of Members of Congress, we are inclined to believe them," Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) told the Washington Free Beacon. "However, the gap between their promises on the Iran nuclear deal and today’s scary reality continues to widen. We are now trying to determine whether this was intentional deception on the part of the administration or new levels of disturbing acquiescence to the Iranians"

Now the transcripts. In case you're reporting out this story, this is some of the testimony Pompeo was probably referencing:

Sec. Lew testimony on Iran being "denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market" due to the dollarization prohibition:

LEW: But a number of key sanctions will remain in place... Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks. Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market. The JCPOA makes only minor allowances to this broad prohibition. (SFRC, July 23, [c]) 

Amb. Mull testimony on ballistic missile launches being a "violation":

THE CHAIRMAN: There is some weird language in the UNSCR that this refers to. It says "they're called upon." Out of curiosity, after the implementation if they launch these types of missiles, is it or is it not in violation of the agreement?
AMB MULL. It is not in violation of the JCPOA. It is a violation of Security Council resolutions.
THE CHAIRMAN: So the called-upon language from your perspective makes it clear that going forward it will continue to be a violation?
AMB MULL. The calls-upon language, it would violate that part of the U.N. Security Council resolution... (SFRC, Dec 17, [d @ 34:55])

There's other problematic testimony floating around on both of these issues, as well as on other bait-and-switches such as IAEA access to military sites, which the Agency was refused when it tried to enter the Parchin base where Iran conducted tests related to nuclear warheads.
On non-nuclear relief and dollarization, Treasury Undersecretary Szubin testified to Senate Banking that "no Iranian banks can access the US financial system; not to open an account, not to purchase a security, and not even to execute a dollarized transaction where a split second's worth of business is done in a New York clearing bank" [e]. On missiles, Sec. Kerry somewhat notoriously insisted to Sen. Menenedez that old language banning Iranian ballistic missile launches had been imported unchanged into the new UNSCR [f]. On IAEA access to military sites, Sec. Kerry told HFAC that failure to provide access would put Iran "in material breach of the agreement and the sanctions will snap back" [g]. Etc.
Omri.

---
[a] http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_IRAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
[b] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-missiles-exclusive-idUKKCN0WV2HD
[c] http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-23-15%20Lew%20Testimony.pdf
[d] http://www.c-span.org/video/?402200-1/hearing-iran-nuclear-agreement-implementation&start=3615
[e] http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/9/nomination-hearing
[f] http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/072315
[g] http://www.c-span.org/video/?327359-1/secretaries-kerry-moniz-lew-testimony-iran-nuclear-agreement

You don't think Obama instructed his people to lie to the Senate, do you?

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Jacob Lew, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:48 PM 2 comments

IAEA: Iran deal gutted agency's ability to monitor Iran

IAEA Director General Yukio Amano disclosed on Monday that the Obama-Kerry-Sherman sellout to a nuclear Iran effectively gutted his agency's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. Here's an email from The Israel Project's Omri Ceren.

On February 26 the IAEA released its first report on Iran's nuclear activity since Implementation Day, when Iran was said to have met all of its nuclear requirements under United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231, and the international community duly began dismantling the sanctions regime in response.

The IAEA report was supposed to confirm that Iran had indeed met all of its commitments and continued to be in compliance with the nuclear deal. Instead it had several gaps in places where the IAEA had - for years and years previously - reported precise details and numbers.

Nuclear verification experts immediately and heavily criticized the report. That same day - on February 26 - the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) published an assessment detailing how Iran might be cheating, given what was not reported by the IAEA [a]. The list is wonkish but includes: production of parts for advanced centrifuges, chemical conversion of 5% low enriched uranium (LEU) to put it temporarily beyond use for weapons, and stockpiling of 20% LEU. Then last Friday Olli Heinonen - a decades-long IAEA veteran and the former head of the Agency's verification shop - came out with another assessment of the IAEA report [b]. It listed additional underreported areas of potential Iranian noncompliance, including ways Iran might be resisting verification and monitoring commitments.

This morning IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano - who was giving a briefing in Vienna - got the question about the report gaps. He described the criticism as a "clear misunderstanding." He then declared that the nuclear deal significantly reduced what the IAEA is supposed to report publicly about Iran:

Question [16:07]: ... After this first report for the JCPOA is released, many international nuclear verification experts has made analysis and comment saying that the IAEA, compared to the past report, is not giving enough details for the international community to follow the process and review, and I think it'ss not only the JCPOA that the IAEA is responsible, because much of the money comes from the IAEA and will be funded in the future for the regulatory budget as well, so for that sake as well: how do your respond to that criticism that the IAEA this time did not provide enough information?

...

Amano [17:42]: Regarding the reporting. There is a clear misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is that the basis of reporting is different. In the previous reports the bases were the previous UN Security Council Resolutions and Board of Governors. But now they are terminated. They are gone. The bases of our report is the resolution of the United Nations Security Council 2231 and the Board of Governors resolution adopted on the 15th of December. These two resolutions and the other resolutions of the Security Council and Board are very different. And as the basis is different, the consequences are different. What we are doing with that? We are requested by the Resolution 2231 and the Board of Governors resolution on the 15th of December to monitor and verify the nuclear related commitments under JCPOA and report to the Board of Governors and in parallel the Security Council. So I will continue to report based on these resolutions factually and objectively and including the details which the agency considers necessary. (http://iaea-archiv.streaming.at/download/20160307_720p.mp4)

When nuclear negotiations began in late 2013, the administration asked Congress to stand down on pressuring the Iranians, and promised to force the Iranians to dismantle significant parts of their nuclear program if Congress gave negotiators space. U.S. negotiators eventually caved on any demands that would have required the destruction of Iran's uranium infrastructure, and instead went all-in on verification and transparency: yes the Iranians would get to keep what they'd built, and yes their program would eventually be fully legal, but the international community would have full transparency into everything from uranium mining to centrifuge production to enriched stockpiles.
Now Amano has revealed that the nuclear deal gutted the ability of journalists and the public to have insight into Iran's nuclear activities. In critical areas it's even not clear that the IAEA has been granted the promised access.

#ThanksObama #ThanksDuplicitousDemocrats

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate, Wendy Sherman

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:39 AM 0 comments

Can the Iran deal still be beaten?

As I'm sure most of you have heard, the Iran disapproval resolution died in a cloture vote in the Senate last night, which means that the deal is assured that it can go ahead. Or is it? This is Thomas Lifson.

Speaker Boehner has announced that he may sue. Jake Sherman writes in Politico:

Speaker John Boehner said Thursday he might sue President Barack Obama again.

The Ohio Republican said Obama has not turned over the entirety of the Iran agreement for congressional review as mandated by law. Boehner said legal action is “an option that’s very possible.”

“If you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said Thursday during his weekly news conference. “Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement — including those that do not directly involve us — must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he’s complied.”

The speaker said the agreement is "worse than anything I could’ve ever imagined."

Although the courts have generally been reluctant to become involved in disputes between the legislative and executive branches, a recent Obamacare decision gives some hope.

Northwestern University constitutional law professor Eugene Kantorovitch explains in the Washington Post:

In fact, there are at least two paths to invalidating any sanctions relief implemented by the president – a lawsuit by a House of Congress, or action involving state sanctions laws.

Yesterday a D.C. Federal district court issued a landmark ruling in House of Representatives v. Burwell, upholding the House of Representatives standing to challenge Executive action under the Affordable Care Act. The question of institutional legislative standing is a fairly novel one, and thus this is an important decision.

Whether it survives on appeal, the decision creates a major and previously unanticipated opening for a congressional lawsuit challenging the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The constitutional argument would focus on the non-transmission of documents required under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (the Corker-Cardin deal), which would seem to satisfy the standing test established by the district court.

Omri Ceren, in an email, summarizes the complex argument:

It begins in the usual place: the 60 day review process hasn't started because the Iran-IAEA side deals haven't been transmitted to Congress. But the injury isn't just that waiving sanctions is illegal, which is the way the argument usually proceeds. Instead the Kontorovich argument is that Congress has been denied its Article I prerogative to exercise its legislative authority: since binding action on the JCPOA can only occur between Day 1 and Day 60 of the Corker "period of review," and since that clock hasn't started so we're not in Day 1, Congress has been denied the ability to act on the JCPOA. (snip)

White House spokesperson Earnest was asked about possible Congressional litigation at today's White House press briefing. His answer: "we've been clear that the [transmitted] documentation included all the documentation that was in the possession of the United States government" [b].

That answer is unlikely to satisfy Congress and may not pass judicial scrutiny. The White House appears to have intentionally not called for the side deals, lest they have to transmit them. Olli Heinonen - a 27 year IAEA veteran who sat atop the agency's verification shop - has explained that the U.S. could very easily call for the side deals because the U.S. is a member of the IAEA Board: "According to the IAEA rules and practices such documents could be made available to the members of the IAEA Board... If a board member asks it and others resist the distribution ... this can be overcome by a vote... Simple majority is enough, and no vetoes exist in the IAEA system."

... Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz recommends two more steps, in addition to noting the lack of complete documentation mentioned above:

Leader McConnell should schedule a vote on a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that, if the agreement had been introduced as a treaty, it would not be ratified. This will put senators on record and will make clear that there is insufficient support in the Senate for approving the agreement as a treaty.

Third, given President Obama’s regrettable history of lawlessness, it is reasonable to assume that he will simply ignore the law and declare that he is lifting sanctions under the agreement anyway. On that assumption, we should make clear to the CEOs of banks holding frozen Iranian funds that their misplaced reliance on the president’s lawlessness would not necessarily excuse them from the obligation to comply with existing federal sanctions laws. And if they release billions in funds to Khamenei, they risk billions in civil (and possibly even criminal) liability once President Obama leaves office. Having spent years advising major corporations in private practice, I can say that their general counsels will likely tell them their legal exposure is real, which could well result in the banks deciding not to release the funds to Iran, despite the president’s actions.

The real Rubicon to be crossed in the Iran deal is the release of financial assets to Iran. Once they are gone, they cannot be gotten back, and based on statements from Iran as late as yesterday, it is certain they will be employed in part to rain down death and destruction on Israel, the United States, and all who do not adhere to the mullahs’ version of Islam. One can imagine Obama’s fury of banks decline to release funds based on liability worries.

Hmmm.

Shabbat Shalom everyone. 

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eugene Kontorovich, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Senate's treaty powers, Ted Cruz, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:15 PM 0 comments

Barbara Mikulski completes the betrayal of America (and Israel)

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md), who will never have to face the consequences of her vote, announced on Wednesday that she will vote for the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran. Her vote gives President Hussein Obama 34 votes - enough to sustain a veto if the sellout ever comes to a vote at all. This is from the first link.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski announced Wednesday she’s supporting the international agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. In doing so, the Maryland Democrat gives the Obama administration a veto override-proof list of 34 Senate supporters, all from the Democratic caucus.

“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime,” Mikulski wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have concluded that this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”

The announcement from the Appropriations ranking member came as the top Democrat on Foreign Relations, her colleague on “Team Maryland” Benjamin L. Cardin continued to weigh his options. Cardin met Tuesday with college students at Johns Hopkins University.

Regardless what Cardin decides, it is a big victory for the Obama administration to get the necessary votes locked up before Labor Day weekend, and it is made all the more significant because Republicans and outside groups opposed to the agreement have been beating the drum against it, including on the airwaves. Opponents led by Trump and Cruz are set to gather outside the Capitol one week from today to warn of consequences.

...

Mikulski joined the list of supporters one day after two Democratic senators who had been seen as having among the most significant concerns made detailed presentations to explain their support.

Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wrote a 17-page memo to explain his analysis, and Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, who has already developed into a key voice at the Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech at the University of Delaware and spoke to reporters about his decision.

For Senate Democrats, party loyalty takes precedence over all other considerations. When will they pay the price?

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, nuclear weapons, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:31 PM 4 comments

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

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:25 PM 6 comments

It's come to this: Iran demands Senate not be given access to its agreement with IAEA, 'just like the Obama administration'

Iran is demanding that the United States Senate be denied access to its agreement with the IAEA... just like the Obama administration.

Iran's Envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency Reza Najafi objected to the US Senate's demand for being briefed about the contents of the recently signed roadmap of cooperation between Tehran and the IAEA, warning the UN nuclear watchdog to avoid disclosing its secret agreements with Tehran.

"The agreements signed between a member country and the IAEA are definitely secret and cannot be presented to any other country at all," Najafi said in an interview with the Iranian students news agency on Saturday.

Referring to the discussions at the US Congress during which the US officials elaborated on the nuclear agreement between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), he said, "The discussions revealed that the secret texts between Iran and the Agency have not even been provided to the US administration."

"For the very same reason, they cannot be presented to the Senate members either," Najafi added.

Elsewhere in an interview with another Iranian news agency, the envoy said Tehran has already warned the IAEA chief against the repercussions of a disclosure of its agreement with the UN nuclear watchdog agency.

"Iran has clarified it to Amano that the text of its understanding with the IAEA cannot be presented to the Senate," Najafi reiterated.

He further warned that "the Agency knows what it means to disclose a secret document".

This is worse than Obamacare. The Congress was told it could read about Obamacare once they signed the bill. This time, they cannot even do that.

What could go wrong?

Labels: Ali Akbar Salehi, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate, Yukia Amano

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:30 PM 0 comments

Obama outsmarts himself on Iran

The Corker-Cardin process was supposed to save President Hussein Obama from having to bring the Iran nuclear sellout for approval by the United States Senate, where it had no chance of winning. But according to Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Obama may have outsmarted himself. The Iranian sellout violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which was ratified and approved by the Senate), and is therefore effectively an amendment to that treaty that requires two thirds approval from the Senate.

The issue is not whether the executive can without a treaty enter into agreements with foreign governments. Of course it can. That happens often from negotiating minor details of landing rights to major agreements. But these executive agreements are done consistent with treaty obligations, or certainly not in conflict with them. The Iran Deal conflicts with the NPT.

Treaties are the law of the land and have the status of federal statutes. They do not trump either the Constitution or subsequently enacted statutes. As a statute, however, a treaty would supersede a regulation, an executive order, or an executive-signed agreement. If an executive agency or an independent agency has the latitude to issue orders or sign agreements that conflict with treaty obligations, then treaties ratified by the United States have little if any enforceability.

In the United States, the administration or an independent agency cannot simply write an order that conflicts directly with a statute. The rule of law flows insists on no less. Why should a treaty, the NPT have lesser status?

The Iran Deal will not have the status of even a statute. As currently planned, it will not be subject to the constitutionally mandated process for Senate consent for a treaty. Nor will the Iran Deal become a statute even under the Corker-Cardin process of Congressional review. Moreover, as seems likely, the Iran Deal will result in a joint resolution that will have the support of fewer than half of the members of either house of Congress, hardly the foundation for a statute.

Congress had not seen the Iran Deal before the Corker-Cardin process was enacted and had no reason to believe that it would violate the NPT.   On April 27 just before the Corker-Cardin bill was approved, Secretary Kerry remarked at the 2015 NPT meeting that “nonproliferation must be non-negotiable.  There is no room under the NPT for a country to negotiate its way into becoming a nuclear-armed state … “[A]ny deal with Iran will rely not on promises, non on words, but on proof…verification is at the heart of the NPT.”

The Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not review a treaty amendment. No one has put forth an argument that Congress can bind itself in advance to a process to create or amend a treaty by a process different from that stated in the constitution.

Read the whole thing. He goes through the treaty and lists several violations.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Ben Cardin, Bob Corker, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Senate's treaty powers

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:09 PM 2 comments

New York police ordered to keep anti-Iran rally from getting 'too big'?

Could the Stop Iran rally in Times Square last Wednesday have been much bigger? Yes, says Merrill W, whom I have known for more than 40 years.

Hi, Carl,

I was at the rally last night, standing at 7th and 42nd, and I can tell you that it would have been substantially bigger if the police had let it. The sound system faced to the south down 7th Avenue, and those north of the speakers were unable to hear. The police insisted on keeping 7th Avenue between 41st and 42nd open to traffic through the use of metal barriers, and as a result the sidewalks became too crowded to walk on. When the street lights changed to permit pedestrians to cross 7th, they were pulled along by police tape and a police officer yelling at them through an electronic megaphone to hurry across the street. I also saw many people between 42nd and 43rd streets on Broadway before the rally who seemed to be looking for it, and three (!) separate people asked me if I knew where it is (I have a beard and wear a kippah so they assumed I might know).

I assume -- without knowing this to be a fact -- that the police were under orders to suppress crowd size so no dramatic aerial photos could be taken to show the enormity of the crowd and thereby put more pressure on Schumer. He was the focus of many of the speeches, at least the parts that I was able to hear, and of many of the signs held by the crowd. As one speaker said, Schumer will go down in Jewish history due to this vote. The question is whether he will be Queen Esther, placed in this position for just such an occasion as this, or Haman, doing the bidding of the Persian (Iranian) leadership against the Jewish people, and the whole world.

You don't think uber-Leftist New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio would order the police to keep a lid on the rally, do you? Just sayin'....

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a message on Instagram to the pro-Israel crowd (Hat Tip: Jack W).

As 10,000 demonstrators thronged the Stop Iran Now rally in Times Square chanting “Where’s Chuck? Kill this deal!” — and top Obama officials pitched the agreement to lawmakers in DC — Schumer posted an inane comment and a photo of bagels on Instagram.

“Really missing New York bagels in Washington this week; they’re simply the best. #bagels #iloveny,” wrote the leading candidate to replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, who organized the rally against what he calls Obama’s “terms of surrender” to Iran, told me, “Good to know our senator takes some days more seriously than others.”

A little smug, isn't he? 

Labels: Charles Schumer, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, New York City, Senate's treaty powers, Times Square, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:02 PM 1 comments

Thousands rally in New York to stop Iran, put Schumer on the spot

If you get your news solely from the New York Times, you may not know this, but thousands rallied in New York's Times Square on Wednesday night to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

As CBS2’s Jessica Schneider reported, some 10 thousand are rallying in solidarity with signs and voices raised against the nuclear deal.

Protest organizers proclaim: “Washington is prepared to give Iran virtually all that it needs to get to the bomb. To release $150 billion to Iran will result in the expansion of worldwide terror.”

...

The Stop Iran Rally Coalition — which claims to be a bi-partisan group — is also calling out Sen. Charles Schumer, saying he “has the votes as presumptive leader to override this deal….If this deal is not stopped, New York voters will know whom to blame.”

Sen. Schumer said in a statement Wednesday that he wasn’t ready to make a decision on the deal yet.

“I’ve read the agreement and I’m seeking answers to the many questions I have. Before I make a decision, I’m going to speak at length with experts on both sides,” the lawmaker said.

Schumer is on the spot.

For once, Schumer must choose. But the question is not only what choice will he make but also whether his attempts to keep his feet firmly planted in both the pro-Israel camp and that of the administration can possibly succeed.

Though the administration is seeking with the assistance of left-wing groups to promote the notion that the Iran deal is good for Israel that flimsy argument is deceiving no one. The pact grants Western approval for Iran’s status as a nuclear threshold state enriches it via the collapse of sanctions and provides few safeguards (a 24-day warning period for inspections makes promises about monitoring cheating a joke) against its eventual acquisition of a nuclear weapon once the deal expires. The deal will not only enable Iran to give more support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists but will assist Tehran’s goal of regional hegemony.

It is one thing for those whose support for Israel has always been secondary to their left-wing ideology or pro-Obama partisanship (such as the J Street lobby or the National Jewish Democratic Council) to endorse this brazen act of appeasement. For Schumer, a man who has staked his career on being the shomer (Hebrew for guardian) of Israel’s security in Congress, it would be a stunning betrayal that he would never live down.

I'd rather see Schumer make the right decision than squirm. But either way, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being pro-Israel and a Democrat is not easy these days.

It may be that the administration will give Schumer a pass for voting against the deal provided that he ensures that other Democrats give the president the votes he needs. But Schumer must also know that his succession as minority leader may be threatened by a vote against Obama. The Senate may be the world’s most exclusive club, but it is entirely possible that his vote will be reason enough for some liberal colleague to challenge him. Any senator that does so will be counting on the active support of the party’s increasingly ascendant left wing that regards Schumer as an ally of Wall Street.

On the other hand, the cost of doing Obama’s bidding could be even higher for Schumer. New York has become a virtual one-party state and Schumer faced only token opposition from Republicans while gaining re-election in 2004 and 2010. But if he were to vote for the Iran deal, it would virtually guarantee that his 2016 re-election race would become very interesting if not competitive. While there is no obvious formidable challenger on the horizon, Schumer knows that the GOP wouldn’t have much difficulty finding one and that such a person would have no trouble raising all the money needed for a race that would become a referendum of Schumer’s possible betrayal of Israel on the Iran nuclear threat.

...

But the real problem for Schumer and other Democrats goes beyond the danger of alienating pro-Israel donors. Only those so blinded by their support for Obama fail to see that the Iran deal vote is one of those rare Congressional decisions that present a clear moral choice. If Schumer sticks with Obama, that may secure his future as the Democrats’ Senate leader. But if will come at the cost of his reputation as a defender of Israel and make his seat a lot less safe than it might otherwise be.

 And if he isn't reelected in 2016, he never will be the party leader in the Senate.

Labels: Charles Schumer, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:11 PM 6 comments

Schumer won't commit on Iran sellout voting

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has decided to stick out his finger to see which way the wind is blowing before making up his mind how to vote on President Hussein Obama's sellout to Iran.

“This is one of the most serious decisions any member of the House or Senate is going to have to make,” Schumer told reporters at his weekly press conference in New York. “I’m going to go over this agreement with a fine-toothed comb, looking at it extremely carefully.”

Schumer said he was “one of the people who led the charge to say Congress should get the right to examine this agreement before it goes into effect” and that he’ll consult with many experts before deciding. “To not do that now wouldn’t make much sense,” he said.

But which agreement will he examine? It seems there are now three of them - the US version, the Iranian version and the UN version.

Iran neither accepts nor rejects UN resolution on the nuke issue. "Talks needed to remove ambiguities,and on implementation," statement says

— Amir Taheri (@AmirTaheri4) July 20, 2015

Iranian statement after UN vote: Islamic Republic has the right to apply or not apply any part of the nuclear deal announced in Vienna.

— Amir Taheri (@AmirTaheri4) July 20, 2015

Iranian statement in 14 sections is an alternative to the text of the UN resolution and SUBSTANTIALLY different.

— Amir Taheri (@AmirTaheri4) July 20, 2015

With Iranian statement,and UN resolutions we have 3 versions of Vienna accord. Which one is Obama going to sell to the Senate? A BIG MESS!

— Amir Taheri (@AmirTaheri4) July 20, 2015

In the meantime, Andrew McCarthy argues that Congress should ignore the Corker bill and insist on treating this agreement (whichever one it is) as a treaty.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Charles Schumer, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:28 PM 1 comments