Democrats about to abandon Obama on Iran?
Democrats are about to
abandon President Obama on Iran according to this report from the Washington Post (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The worry is that Dem Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Dem,
may join with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor on a resolution or bill that will
either criticize the current temporary deal with Iran, or call for a new
round of sanctions, or set as U.S. policy some strict parameters on a
final deal with Iran, such as opposition to any continued
uranium enrichment, House Democratic aides say. House Dems and outside
foreign policy observers have communicated such worries to Hoyer’s
office, sources add.
Hoyer’s office confirmed to me that Cantor had produced a bill and
shared it with him, but declined to discuss details. “Cantor has a bill,
and it’s being reviewed by our office,” Hoyer spokesperson Stephanie
Young said. “No decisions have been made.” Spokespeople for Cantor
didn’t respond.
Any resolution or bill along these lines that has the support of any
House Dem leaders would increase the pressure on Senate Democrats to
pass a measure of their own, which the White House opposes. And some
fear that a measure in the House itself — even if the Senate didn’t act —
could have an adverse impact on international talks.
According to reports in the Hill and National Journal,
Cantor and House GOP leaders are looking for a way to express
opposition to, and put obstacles in the way of, the deal the Obama
administration is pursuing. But now that a bill has been produced,
and could be joined by Hoyer, that significantly ratchets up worries
that Congress could very well act in a way that scuttles hopes for a
long term deal.
Those wary of a possible Hoyer-Cantor measure point out that the two
have previously collaborated on measures relating to U.S. policy in the
middle east.
...
If the GOP-controlled House passes something with the support of someone
like Hoyer, it could make it harder for Senate Dems to resist pressure
to act. Indeed, it could exacerbate divisions among Senate Dems over how
to proceed. It could strengthen the hands of those — such as Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez — who want to pass
something right now. Senator Harry Reid appears to want to grant the
White House the flexibility it has asked for, but bipartisan movement in
the House could intensify the pressure on him to allow a vote on
something the White House doesn’t want.
To get an idea of just how bad the current deal is, consider this: Iran is continuing to
advance more efficient uranium enrichment technology... and that's completely okay with the current six-month deal.
Spokesman Behrouz
Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing
on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed,
underlining Iran's determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is
work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.
Although
the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck
between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless,
as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched
to a high degree.
"The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a
higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have
completed initial tests," Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.
"The
production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian
atomic energy) agency's approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines
and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure
facilities".
Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) had been informed of the development.
Iran's development of a new
generation of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase
the ratio of the fissile isotope - could enable it to refine uranium much
faster.
Things sure have changed a lot since JFK's days, haven't they? What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Eric Cantor, Harry Reid, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Steny Hoyer, uranium enrichment
Good cop, bad cop
The 'Palestinians' tried to play the good cop, bad cop game with Congress this week, with unelected Prime Minister Salam Fayyad playing the good cop and
'moderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen playing the
bad cop.
The Palestinian leadership sent mixed messages to a Democratic Congressional delegation visiting Ramallah, with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad saying that no decision on the UN bid in September has been finalized, while PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave the impression that going to the UN was a done deal.
"Fayyad said that the decision to go to the UN had not been made, in other words had not been finalized, which we were pleased to hear," US Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MA), the head of the delegation, told The Jerusalem Post shortly after the talks.
"Then we met with Abbas for about an hour and a half, and the discussions were different from Fayyad in the sense that he talked throughout as if the decision had been made, and that they were going to the UN," Hoyer said.
Hoyer, who co-authored a Congressional resolution last month with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) against a Palestinian unilateral move at the UN, said that he and some other members of the delegation told Abbas they felt a move at the UN would be a "destabilizing effort," and that both Israel and the Palestinians agreed in the past that the only way to solve difference was through bilateral negotiations.
Hoyer said that the delegation "indicated" that a PA decision to go to the UN "would be unwise and that the Congress would be very concerned about that happening, and might take action."
When asked what kind of action, Hoyer said "funding."
Hoyer held out the possibility that while budgetary funding to the PA might be stopped, it might not be stopped for security training. A judgment would have to be made, he said, whether cutting off funding for security might not be "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Undermining security in the West Bank may have an adverse consequence in Israel."
Abbas, according to Hoyer, said that there are no negotiations now because Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has placed pre-conditions, specifically a demand that there be an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley.
That last bit is a load of nonsense. Israel hasn't demanded anything as a precondition to coming to the table. It's the 'Palestinians' who have demanded preconditions before they come to the table: a 'settlement freeze,' using the 1949 armistice lines as a basis for 'negotiations,' etc. Those are the preconditions here. Israel sets out what its goals are at the negotiating table but is more than willing to talk regardless of whether the 'Palestinians' accept them.
Abu Bluff knows the difference. He also knows that he cut off negotiations because Israel refused to comply with his precondition by extending the ten-month 'settlement freeze,' the first nine months of which he wasted. Does Congress see through this? We can only hope.
I'm also uncomfortable with Hoyer saying that Congress might continue 'security aid' because if they're not going to cooperate with us (and after September they may well not cooperate with us), we are better off sending the IDF back in and not having an armed 'Palestinian' force there.
But let's give Hoyer some credit: He had something good to say on Jerusalem.
Hoyer, the House of Representative's Democratic Whip, said that Wednesday night's decision to approve 1,600 units in Ramat Shlomo came up only "tangentially" in the talks. "They made a reference to it, and very frankly did not spend much time on it."
Regarding his own view of the decision, Hoyer said "it is not reasonable to believe that a city over 44 years does not grow and need housing for its people. So I am not surprised that additional housing units are provided for." Hoyer said that while this complicated "to some degree the continuing attempts to resolve the differences, over 44 years populations grow."
At least someone has some common sense. Now, if only he could talk some sense into the Executive branch....
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Abu Mazen, negotiations without preconditions, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, Salam Fayyad, settlement freeze, Steny Hoyer, unilateral declaration of statehood
Cantor and Hoyer call on Obama to veto Security Council resolution
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md) have issued a joint statement calling on President Obama to
veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's 'settlement construction.'
“As we wrote to the President last month, the Palestinian leadership’s decision to reject the difficult but vital responsibility of making peace with Israel through direct negotiations, and instead to advocate for anti-Israel measures by the United Nations Security Council is counterproductive and unacceptable. Successive Israeli governments have proven Israel’s steadfast commitment to peace and our Secretary of State has noted that the current Israeli government took an ‘unprecedented’ step in pursuit of peace with its ten-month moratorium on Israeli housing construction in the West Bank. Furthermore, since the beginning of the current Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for direct negotiations with the Palestinians anytime and anywhere, without preconditions.
“Instead of negotiating directly with Israel to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, Palestinian leaders continue to seek to circumvent the negotiating process by advocating anti-Israel measures at the U.N. Security Council, U.N. General Assembly, and U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.S. should not condone or reward this behavior by supporting their resolutions. We strongly urge the Administration to veto this resolution and to uphold our longstanding commitment to Israel’s security.”
Amen.
Labels: Barack Obama, Eric Cantor, Jerusalem construction, Judea and Samaria construction, Steny Hoyer, UN Security Council, US veto
Senior members of House urge Obama to veto Security Council resolution on 'settlements'
A group of senior members of the US House of Representatives has sent a letter to President Obama urging him to
veto the 'Palestinian'-sponsored resolution condemning Israeli 'settlements' that is to be voted upon in the UN Security Council next month.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and five fellow senior Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter today to the President, requesting that the Administration take a number of steps to advance security and peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including to pledge to veto a pending United Nations Security Council resolution that condemns Israel. The letter also calls on the President to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for their actions that undermine opportunities for peace and security. In addition to Ros-Lehtinen, the letter was signed by: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor; House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer; Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Howard L. Berman; and U.S. Reps. Steve Chabot and Gary L. Ackerman, the Chairman-designate and Ranking Member-designate, respectively, of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
The more I see of Ros-Lehtinen, the more I hope she'll run for higher office some day.
Labels: Eric Cantor, Gary Ackerman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Politics, Steny Hoyer, Steve Chabot, US Politics, World Politics
