Netanyahu thanks Congress for slapping Obama in the face
Shavua tov everyone.
On Friday afternoon, just before the Sabbath started, Prime Minister Netanyahu released a video thanking Congress for slapping President Obama in the face. No, Obama's name isn't mentioned, but it's pretty obvious. He thanked Congress for reflecting the will of the American people.
Republican US Presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump
is strongly considering a visit to the Temple Mount when he comes to
Israel for the first time at the end of the month.
A source closely connected to organizing the trip to Israel confirmed to The Jerusalem Post
on Wednesday that Trump's staff is looking into the logistics of
visiting the holy site and point of conflict between Israel and the Arab
world.
The planned visit follows Trump's call for "a total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our
country's representatives can figure out what is going on" in light of
"great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim
population."
Palestinians have often used Israeli politicians'
visits to the Mount as an excuse for violence, falsely claiming Israel
is changing the status quo.
The government maintains the status
quo, in that non-Muslims may visit, but not pray on the Temple Mount,
which is administered by the Jordanian Islamic Trust (Wakf). Jewish
visitors are often harassed at the holy site, and earlier this year, a
delegation of US Congressmen visiting the plaza also complained of harassment by Wakf guards.
Palestinian claims about the Temple Mount reached a fever pitch in
recent months, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
claiming Jews' feet defile the site, and contributed to sparking the
current wave of terrorism, during which police found explosives hidden
in the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Mount.
MK Taleb Abu Arrar (Joint
List) said of Trump's plan to visit the Temple Mount: "If Trump the
racist plans to visit Al-Aksa, the holiest place in the world for
Muslims, to harm the sensitivities of people against whom he incites, he
and Netanyahu will be responsible.
"Such a visit will set the whole region on fire, I am warning," Abu Arrar added.
Yes, but neither of those Congressmen (Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David McKinley (R-WV)) were a particular target for the Arab world, and they visited 'undercover.' Trump is very recognizable and is now a lightning rod for the Arab/Muslim world. While I believe it's wrong to allow only Muslims access to the Mount, I don't believe that Israel needs to give the 'Palestinians' an excuse for suicide bombings and murder by allowing Trump onto the Mount.
I don't know when on Thursday this press release from IAEA director Yukia Amano was posted - it only has a date, but no time on it. But as I've reported already, the IAEA's agreement with Iran has been posted by AP despite Amano. Here's what the IAEA director had to say (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given
responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements
misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important
verification work.
The separate arrangements under the Road-map agreed between the IAEA
and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to
make them public – the same obligation I have for hundreds of such
arrangements made with other IAEA Member States.
However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and
consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise
our safeguards standards in any way.
The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement,
with strict timelines, which will help us to clarify past and present
outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.
If I were sitting in a press conference with Mr. Amano, here's what I would ask:
Mr. Amano, can you name another country aside from Iran in which the IAEA relies solely on photos, videos and soil samples provided by the country under inspection?
Can you name any other country in which an IAEA inspection is merely a 'courtesy visit'?
If Olympic athletes were allowed to provide urine samples without anyone ensuring that they were their own, would you consider that reliable? How could you ensure their authenticity?
How can you ensure the authenticity of a soil sample that you did not watch being taken?
Unbelievable. This whole 'inspection' is a farce. And Amano has been caught with his pants down (I will assume he released that statement before AP released the agreement).
When I went to sleep last night, a Max Fisher piece attacking that report was trending. Fisher's report was largely based on conversations with Jeffrey Lewis, a guy known on Twitter as @ArmsControlWonk.
"If true" turns out to be a major issue here, as upon closer
examination the inflammatory headline, as it has been widely
interpreted, appears to largely not be true.
In fact, the text of the article said something much more modest. It
said that in a one-time set of inspections at one military facility
known as Parchin, Iranians, rather than nuclear inspectors, would take
"environmental samples" (such as soil samples). It said that nuclear
inspectors would not be permitted to visit, and that Iran would not
provide photos or videos of the site. But still, it was concerning.
"The story was the Iranians would take the samples under some kind of
IAEA monitoring," Jeffrey Lewis, the arms control expert, told me. "The
details of that monitoring were not provided, so it's hard to say how
weird that is. Some IAEA officials say that it's not unusual to let a
country physically take the samples if there's an IAEA inspector
present."
The sourcing in the story, though, seemed to water it down a bit
more. The report was not based not on an actual agreement, but rather on
a copy of a draft agreement. The anonymous source who showed AP the
document said there was a final version that is similar, but
conspicuously refused to show AP the final version or go into specifics.
"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said.
"And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided
account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using
that to advance a particular policy agenda."
1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
2. Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including
those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed
between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.
3. Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from
points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed
by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be
agreed between Iran and the Agency.
4. The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the
activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be
carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment, consistent with
technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency's
containers and seals.
5. The above mentioned measures would be followed, as a courtesy by
Iran, by a public visit of the Director General, as a dignitary guest of
the Government of Iran, accompanied by his deputy for safeguards.
6. Iran and the Agency will organize a one-day technical roundtable on issues relevant to Parchin.
For the International Atomic Energy Agency: Tero Varjoranta, Deputy Director General for Safeguards
For the Islamic Republic of Iran: Ali Hoseini Tash, Deputy Secretary of Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs
What I want to know is, why can the AP get this stuff when Congress couldn't?
One of President Hussein Obama's first acts in office was to return to England a bust of Winston Churchill that had adorned the Oval Office during the Bush administration. Churchill was the anti-Obama.
President Obama has described himself as a 'citizen of the world.' In
doing so, he is characterizing himself as what we would call a
multi-culturalist. But he's not just someone who is tolerant of other
cultures - he's a dogmatic multi-culturalist and his 'tolerance' extends
to different forms of government. In Obama's world, all forms of
government and all governments are equal. None is any better than the
others.
Winston Churchill (Obama's anti-hero in more ways than
one) is known to have quipped that liberal democracy is the worst form
of government except for all the others. Obama disagrees with that
statement. He would argue that democracy is a form of government that is
no better nor worse than the others. Once one accepts that statement,
there is no advantage to be gained by promoting democracy. Each form of
government is to be treated as equally meitorious and is to be dealt
with on its own terms.
President Obama is as wrong about American history as he is about
policy. Many foreign leaders have tried to influence US foreign policy
when their national interests are involved. Lafayette tried to get the
United States involved in the French Revolution, as the early colonists
sought support from France in their own revolution. Winston Churchill
appeared in front of Congress and lobbied heavily to have America change
its isolationist policy during the run up to the Second World War. Nor
can President Obama claim ignorance about recent events, when he himself
sent David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to lobby
Congress in favor of the Iran deal. Recently, Shinzo Abe, the prime
minister of Japan, lobbied us with regard to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's nation has a far greater stake in the Iran
deal than most of the countries that negotiated it. But Israel was
excluded from the negotiations. Any leader of Israel would and should
try to exercise whatever influence he might have in the ongoing debate
over the deal.
There can be no question that Israel is the primary intended target
of Iran's quest for a nuclear arsenal. Recall that Hashemi Rafsanjani,
the former president of Iran, has described Israel as a one-bomb state
that could be destroyed instantaneously, and that even if Israel
retaliated, it would not destroy Iran or Islam. No similar threats have
been made against Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia or China.
Although the United States is still regarded by Iran as the "Great
Satan", the U.S. has less to fear from an Iranian nuclear arsenal than
does Israel.
Does President Obama really believe that Israeli leaders are required
to remain silent and simply accept the consequences of a deal that puts
its population at risk? As Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly
said, Israel is not Czechoslovakia. In 1938, Czechoslovakia too was
excluded from the negotiations that led to its dismemberment, but it had
no ability to influence the policies of the negotiating nations. Nor
did it have the ability to defend itself militarily, as Israel does.
The United States would surely not accept a deal negotiated by other
nations that put its citizens at risk. No American leader would remain
silent in the face of such a deal. Israel has every right to express its
concern about a deal that has crossed not only its own red lines, but
the red lines originally proposed by President Obama.
Hypocrite: As Euro ambassadors lobby Congress, Obama whines Israeli 'interference' is 'unprecedented'
In an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria to be broadcast later Sunday, President Hussein Obama whines about Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'unprecedented interference' in lobbying Congress against the Iranian nuclear sellout.
Let's go to the videotape.
There's a big IF there, isn't there?
If in fact my argument is right – that this is the best way for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon – then it's not just good for the U.S., but it's also very good for Israel.
Obama was interviewed by CNN's Zakaria last Thursday, hours before Chuck Schumer, the Senate's leading Jewish Democrat, announced he would oppose the agreement. Congress is expected to vote in September on a measure disapproving the deal, which Obama has promised a swift veto. Lawmakers would then have to find enough votes to override the president.
The interview is set to air as Obama vacations on the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard.
He was not expected to spend much, if any, time reaching out to lawmakers on the Iran nuclear deal while he is away from Washington. "I think most of the president's time on Martha's Vineyard will be spent with his family or on the golf course or a bit of both," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
In the interview, Obama did not answer directly when asked whether he would have to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if the deal falls through.
"I have a general policy on big issues like this not to anticipate failure," Obama said. "And I'm not going to anticipate failure now because I think we have the better argument."
Can't wait to see the full interview. I'll bet Zakaria didn't ask him why the European ambassadors interfering was okay while Netanyahu interfering was not. It's not Zakaria's style.
Kerry also said that his chief Iranian interlocutor, the foreign
minister, Javad Zarif, and Zarif’s boss, the (relatively) reformist
president, Hassan Rouhani, would be in “serious trouble” at home if the
deal falls through. Zarif, Kerry told me, explicitly promised him that
Iran will engage with the United States and its Arab allies on a range
of regional issues, should Congress approve the deal. “Zarif
specifically said to me in the last two weeks, ‘If we get this finished,
I am now empowered to work with and talk to you about regional
issues.’” Kerry went on, “This is in Congress’s hands. If Congress says
no, Congress will shut that down, shut off that conversation, set this
back, and set in motion a series of inevitables about what would happen
with respect to Iranian behavior, and, by the way, the sanctions will be
over.”
You mean that if Congress says yes to the Iran sellout, Iran will want a seat at the table on the 'peace process,' and if Congress says no, Iran will stay away. Sounds to me like another reason to say no.
After accusing Prime Minister Netanyahu of interfering in US domestic affairs for addressing a joint session of Congress to speak out against the Iranian nuclear sellout back in February (before we knew how bad it really was), President Hussein Obama is calling upon the ambassadors of the United Kingdom, France and Germany to the United States, to lobby Congress to pass the sellout.
Obama administration officials flooding Congress to sell the pact are
now working in tandem with ambassadors from the three European nations —
Great Britain, France and Germany — that also signed off on the July 14
agreement.
The diplomatic trio, whose countries are known
together as the “E3,” echo administration talking points and parries
specific concerns from skeptical members of Congress. They also push a
signature message: that the Iran deal is an international agreement, not
just the handiwork of a Democratic president scorned by the GOP.
“We
think it’s important that people who will vote on the bill understand
that it’s not just about this administration and the Iranian government.
The other governments who are part of the deal, what we call the P5+1,
also have views on it and also think it’s the right way to go,” British
Ambassador Peter Westmacott told POLITICO just after meeting with
senators on Tuesday.
Of course. And that would explain why the US has no role to play in the inspection regime. Because in the new age of no superpowers, we let Russia and China run the world and farm enforcement out to the Euroweenies. You know, the people who ran away from Gaza in 2007.
European officials hope that by reminding members of Congress about
support for the deal from British Prime Minister David Cameron, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, they
can defuse any partisan impulse to oppose President Barack Obama’s
signature foreign policy achievement.
“Especially when it comes
to addressing Republican members of Congress, it is good to add in the
E3 perspective because it might not be regarded as biased, or as much
like a partisan issue,” said Markus Knauf, a spokesman for the German
Embassy in Washington.
Let them focus on the Republicans. It's a waste of time. Other than the Pauls, I doubt there's a single Republican in Congress who would even consider voting with the administration on this. The real battle is over the Democrats.
Can someone please explain to me why the Europeans lobbying Congress is okay but Netanyahu lobbying Congress wasn't?
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said that he insisted
during the negotiations that Iran be able to purchase and ship military
hardware at any time and from any place, according to the comments made
on state-controlled television.
Araghchi vowed “to buy weapons from wherever possible, and [said that
Iran] is to provide weapons to whomever and whenever it considers
appropriate,” according to a translation of his comments made by the
Open Source Center.
...
“When they [the P5+1] said that they were not going to lift weapons
and missiles sanctions, or at least not immediately, we explicitly told
them that there could be no agreement because we will not sacrifice our
national security for anything,” Araghchi was quoted as saying during
the interview with an Iranian television network.
“With regards to our national security, our defense systems, and our
missiles systems, we are not even willing to negotiate, let alone
compromise,” Araghchi claimed he told the global powers in the
negotiating room.
Araghchi went on to insist that “if you want to have an agreement in
which sanctions imposed on us for weapons and missiles will continue,
then we will not agree.”
He continued: “Whenever we consider it necessary for our own
security, [or] to help our allies in the region we will provide weapons.
… We don’t feel shy. We will provide weapons to whomever and whenever
we consider appropriate. And we will buy weapons from wherever we can.”
This demand “was made clear to the other party,” according to the Open Source Center’s analysis.
...
Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes,
expressed concern that less than a week after the deal was announced,
Iran is already challenging U.S. claims about what the agreement does.
...
“This nuclear accord will not bring peace; rather, it has simply opened
the floodgates to murder and mayhem on a scale the region hasn’t seen in
decades,” Rubin said. “The Iranians are basically saying they will
provide rocket-propelled grenades and explosively-formed projectiles
anytime, anywhere. Only when they say anytime, anywhere, they actually
mean it.”
So which version of the 'agreement' will be presented to Congress? The US one that the Iranians have disavowed, the UN one that the Iranians have disavowed, or the Iranian one that is a moving target?
And you thought John Kerry had taken an oath to uphold the US constitution
US Secretary of State John Kerry went on the US Sunday news magazines on Sunday to defend the Iranian nuclear sellout. The results have to make you question whether Kerry still believes that he took an oath to uphold the United States constitution when he became Secretary of State.
Say, what? The UN may have the right to vote but the US still provides 22% of the UN budget, still has a veto right in the UN and has the right to say that the UN will not hold a vote until the US has decided it's ready for the UN to have that vote.
Under the US constitution, this agreement should be going to the Senate as a treaty, where it would undoubtedly fail to gain the required two thirds margin.
Instead, Congress agreed to have a vote where it will be almost impossible for it to reject Hussein Obama's and FN Kerry's sellout.
Obama and Kerry could at least make sure the vote still has meaning.
They ought to be impeached, tried for treason and hung. As should have happened to Kerry 45 years ago.
Walter Russell Mead rips the President's attempt to exclude Congress from any say in approving the Iranian nuclear deal.
Dissing Congress is a risky move for American presidents. There have
been widespread reports that many Democrats on Capitol Hill would like
to support the President’s Iran policy, but are worried about the
political fallout among voters back home. In the end, many of these
waverers would probably support the President on the Iran deal in a
straight up Congressional vote, but if the President does an end run to
the Security Council, the waverers could—and many will—oppose him on
procedural grounds. Both the Senate and the House are jealous of their
Constitutional prerogatives, and voting to uphold the powers of Congress
is a much easier vote for Democrats than voting against the President
on an important foreign policy issue.
This is not likely to end well.
President Obama was stretching both his Constitutional powers and his
political mandate when he decided to short circuit the treaty process
for one of the most important decisions that American foreign policy has
taken in many years. There is precious little doubt that the Founders
would have considered this a threat to the system of checks and balances
they wrote into the Constitution. In modern times, presidential
authority has expanded, largely because American foreign relations have
become so complex and the world moves so quickly that it would be
impractical to subject every significant agreement between the United
States and other countries to the treaty process. But given the length
of this negotiation process and the enormous stakes involved, the Iran
agreement really ought to have been framed as a treaty. The President,
to be fair, knew very well that he could never get a two thirds vote in
the Senate for this agreement, and, believing as he does that this step
is necessary to the safety of the United States, he framed the deal as
an executive agreement to avoid exactly the scrutiny and vote that the
Constitution requires.
Congress grudgingly went along with that, passing the
Corker-Menendez law as a way of regularizing the President’s irregular
choice. This tilted the playing field toward the President, as opponents
would need a two thirds majority in both houses (instead of only a one
third majority in the Senate) to block the deal for good.
That the President is blowing off this concession by
Congress is a serious matter—more serious perhaps than the White House
realizes. He is really requiring Congress to accept a permanent and
significant diminution in its power for the sake of an Iran deal that
few members view with enthusiasm. The precedent he is setting changes
the Constitution, essentially abrogating the treaty power of Congress
any time a President can get a Security Council resolution to
incorporate the terms of an executive agreement.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Iran deal,
this is the wrong way to proceed. If President Obama chooses to go this
route, he is provoking a constitutional crisis in order to get sanctions
relief to Iran sixty days faster than would otherwise happen. The
Congressional Democrats calling on President Obama to refrain from this
mischievous and foolhardy course are quite right; this is a bridge too
far.
Why would Obama do this? The only reason I can think of is that he is afraid of how clear it could become within 60 days that this is a bad deal, and therefore he's taking the chance that the same Supreme Court majority that slashed Congress' powers in the Zivotofsky case and upheld his overreaching on Obamacare will also let him get away with this. Even impeachment would be too late to prevent the deal from standing with a binding UN Security Council resolution.
Obama trying end-run around Congress to have UN approve Iran deal
President Hussein Obama is trying to do an end-run around Congress by obtaining binding United Nations approval for his Iran deal before Congress has time to vote. This is from an email from Omri Ceren.
Lead negotiator Wendy Sherman confirmed for journalists yesterday that the Obama administration will, over the next few days, pursue a binding United Nations Security Council resolution (UNSCR) that will lift sanctions on Iran. The resolution was circulated yesterday by the U.S. and a leaked text is already online. When asked how the move could be reconciled with the 60 day Congressional review period mandated by the Corker legislation, Sherman sarcastically responded that you can't really say "well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress" because there has to be some way for "the international community to speak." She noted that at least the UNSCR would have a 90 day interim period before its mandatory obligations kick in.
The gambit undermines the Corker bill - to say nothing of American sovereignty - on multiple levels. On a policy level, the UNSCR on its own would compel American action even if Congress rejects the Iran deal. On a political level, the administration intends to take the UNSCR and go to lawmakers while they're considering the deal and say 'you can't reject the agreement because it would put America in violation of international law.'
The pushback from the Hill yesterday was immediate and furious. Corker: "an affront to the American people... an affront to Congress and the House of Representatives". Cardin: "it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution". Cruz: "our Administration intended all along to circumvent this domestic review by moving the agreement to the UN Security Council before the mandatory 60-day review period ends". Kirk: "a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and Congressional prerogative". McConnell: "violates the spirit of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which the President signed into law... inconceivable - yet sadly not surprising".
The Washington Post article at the bottom covers some of those statements and has a bunch of background. The story will develop throughout the day and through the beginning of next week. It's going to be particularly brutal given that the Corker legislation was created and passed to stop exactly this scenario.
Remember how we got here. The March 9 Cotton letter, signed by 47 Senators, declared that without Congressional buy-in any deal with Iran would not be binding on future presidents.
Iranian FM Zarif responded with a temper tantrum in which he revealed that the parties intended to fast-track an UNSCR that would make Congress irrelevant and tie the hands of future presidents: "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law". That created a firestorm of criticism from the Hill. Zarif doubled down from the stage at NYU: "within a few days after [an agreement] we will have a resolution in the security council ... which will be mandatory for all member states, whether Senator Cotton likes it or not".
And so Congress responded with the Corker legislation. 98 Senators and 400 Representatives passed the bill with the intention of preventing the Obama administration from immediately going to the U.N. after an agreement and making good on Zarif's boast. President Obama signed the bill. Now the administration is doing exactly what the legislation was designed to prohibit.
In a letter Thursday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and ranking Democrat Sen. Benjamin L.
Cardin (Md.) urged Obama to postpone U.N. consideration of the agreement
until Congress can review it and potentially vote on its own
assessment.
The Republican chairmen of the House Homeland
Security and Foreign Affairs committees sent a similar letter to the
White House on Wednesday.
...
In a compromise reached in May with Congress, Obama agreed not to use
his authority to waive U.S. sanctions against Iran for at least 60 days
after a deal was reached. The review begins when the text of the
agreement is delivered to lawmakers this weekend.
During that
period, Congress has the option of voting, by a simple majority, to
“disapprove” it and permanently bar a sanctions waiver. Obama has said
he would veto such legislation. For the moment, the administration is
certain it has enough votes among Democrats to prevent a veto override,
which requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
If a veto were
overridden — cementing Congress’s official disapproval — a State
Department official said this week that “we don’t have authority to
provide U.S. sanctions relief” and that “the deal won’t proceed.”
White
House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz said Thursday that “we will
not begin implementation of the plan until after the congressional
review period is over.” The 90-day delay, officials said, also gives
Iran time to begin taking steps to comply with the deal and allows the
International Atomic Energy Agency to prepare for its inspection and
verification role.
That's not the point. If the UN passes a binding resolution and then Congress says 'no,' then what? The whole point is to give Congress its say - essentially making any US signature on a deal non-binding - until Congress votes up or down. Obama agreed to that in May. Now he's welching on his agreement. Color me unsurprised.
UPDATE 7:09 PM
Please make sure to read the comment posted below. Obama may well be forcing Israel to be the only country in the world that objects to Iran being a nuclear power. Maybe the Saudis would like to object?
Three months ago, the Senate adopted a bill that was negotiated with President Obama that abdicated that right of approval. In essence, under Corker-Menendez, Obama has the right to present his surrender to Iranian nuclear weapons to the Senate not as a treaty, but as an agreement. And if the Senate says no, Obama has the right to veto that no. Unless the Senate comes up with 67 votes to override that veto, the agreement with Iran will stand. That means that 34 votes to sustain Obama's veto are enough for the agreement to go through.
'Look, the alternative is unacceptable, and this is actually a good deal'
It's party over country for Hillary Clinton as she passes on a chance to lead by coming out with 'full-throated support' of Obama's Iran sellout (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Democrats who met with Clinton said she strongly endorsed the nuclear accord during their meeting with her.
"She
endorsed it — full-throated — and described her own role in helping to
build the coalition … that led to this," Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.)
said leaving the closed-door meeting in the Capitol. "She laid out,
'Look, the alternative is unacceptable, and this is actually a good
deal.' That's her words."
"She was not equivocal at all in her support for the agreement as she understands it," Connolly added.
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who voiced his own skepticism, also said Clinton is backing the agreement.
"She
did say the core elements are worth supporting," Israel said. "She
believes that we have an obligation to review all the details."
...
Congress now has 60 days to review the accord.
Israel
said Clinton's position on the issue will hold great sway among
congressional Democrats ahead of that vote. He described her influence
as second only to President Obama on the issue.
"There's no question that her opinion is critically important," he said.
One
House Democrat, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss the private
conversation, suggested Clinton's message to the Democrats carried
stronger tones of support than her cautious public remarks.
"She
was highlighting the positives within the report, and it sounded to me
as if she would be more inclined to support it," the lawmaker said.
Israel's 'loyal opposition' responds to the Iran deal
It was just Monday (yesterday) that Israel's opposition expressed its opposition to the then-impending deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Now that the deal has been signed, Israel's opposition is opposed to it, and has blasted the excessive concessions made to reach it. There's one small problem.
Instead of circling the wagons to oppose the sellout to Iran, and blaming the Obama administration and the Europeans for it, Israel's opposition is placing all the blame on a man who wasn't even in Vienna this week or month. Can you guess whom they're blaming?
“In the next month, we need to work vis-employ a different tactic
vis-a-vis Congress. We should not ask our friends in the Senate and
Congress to try and topple all the sections in the agreement, because
then they don't listen to us, but to concentrate on the matter of
inspection, which is the Achilles heel, the weakest point in the
agreement.”
"I started to conduct talks with them on this matter in my visit to
Washington last month,” [Yair] Lapid said, “and on this issue they are willing
to listen. We have to ask them to insist only on this point and to say
that without real inspection they will not approve the remval of
sanctions.”
Lapid argued that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not the man
who should lead the campaign vis-avis the US administration, because
“the White House's door is closed before him, half of Congress won't
listen to him.” He called on Netanyahu to resign.
Like it or not, Netanyahu is Prime Minister for the next month - in fact for the next three months - even if the government were to fall tomorrow. Congress has 60 days to vote up or down on this agreement. This is not the time to undermine Israel's elected leader in that fight.
But Yair Lapid is all about self-promotion. Always was and always will be. It's kind of like Obama blaming Bush for everything when Bush has had no connection to the US government for six and a half years.
The panel voted 19-0 to approve
legislation worked out between Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.,
and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, who took over as ranking Democrat after
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey was indicted on federal corruption
charges. Menendez was co-author of the legislation with Corker.
The deal shortened the congressional review period for any agreement
from 60 days to 30 days and eliminated a requirement that the president
periodically certify that Iran is keeping to the terms of any agreement
and "has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism
against the United States, or a United States person anywhere in the
world."
That provision was replaced by one
requiring periodic reporting on Iran's support of terrorism. Another
provision aimed at soothing Republican concerns would require the
president to certify that any deal would not harm Israel's security,
replacing a bid by some GOP members to require Iran to accept the Jewish
state's right to exist as part of any agreement.
The compromise makes clear that Obama can waive U.S. sanctions if Congress approves a nuclear deal or if it fails to act.
The Wall Street Journal points out that the nuclear deal is still Obama's one-man deal - he will continue to have free reign over it.
As late as Tuesday morning, Secretary of State John Kerry
was still railing in private against the bill. But the White House
finally conceded when passage with a veto-proof majority seemed
inevitable. The bill will now pass easily on the floor, and if Mr.
Obama’s follows his form, he will soon talk about the bill as if it was
his idea.
Mr. Obama can still do whatever he wants on Iran as
long as he maintains Democratic support. A majority could offer a
resolution of disapproval, but that could be filibustered by Democrats
and vetoed by the President. As few as 41 Senate Democrats could thus
vote to prevent it from ever getting to President Obama’s desk—and 34
could sustain a veto. Mr. Obama could then declare that Congress had its
say and “approved” the Iran deal even if a majority in the House and
Senate voted to oppose it.
My friend Noah Pollak is disappointed.
The way Corker & Graham wrote their bill, Obama will win Congressional approval of Iran deal with only 34 votes. Ponder that.
— Noah Pollak (@NoahPollak) April 14, 2015
Traitor is strong language, but in the aftermath of Tuesday’s vote on
a bill that was supposed to reaffirm the Senate’s constitutional power
to consent to President Obama’s as yet still undefined and undisclosed
nuclear treaty with Iran there is no other way to describe the actions
of Senator Bob Corker, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations
The bill Corker rammed through the Foreign Relations Committee is worse than no bill at all.
What Corker’s bill does is, in its post-markup form, require the
president to submit for congressional review the final nuclear agreement
reached between Iran, the U.S. and its five negotiating partners. The
bill does maintain the prohibition on the president waiving
congressionally enacted sanctions against Iran during the review period.
However, the review period in the measure has been shortened from 60
days to an initial 30 days. If, at the end of the 30 days, Congress were
to pass a bill on sanctions relief and send it to the president, an
additional 12 days would be automatically added to the review period.
This could be another 10 days of review if the president vetoed the
resulting sanctions bill.
Corker’s legislation in effect lowers the threshold for approving the
Iran deal from 67 votes to 41 – a craven betrayed of the Senate’s
constitutional role as the final word on whether or not the United
States agrees to a treaty.
...
More importantly, Corker betrayed American interests and the
interests of our allies in the greater Middle East; from Israel, to
Saudi Arabia, to India no nation now within the range of Iran’s fast
growing missile technology is secure from the threat of a nuclear armed
Islamist Iran.
And make no mistake – it is the combination of Iran’s expansionist Islamism and nuclear weapons technology that is the threat.
...
The “growing support” for Senator Corker’s information, was not for
him to cave-in to Obama, but for the Senate to exercise its real
constitutional role in the approval – or disapproval – of Obama’s treaty
to legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And that means “advice”
while the treaty is negotiated and “consent” after the President
concludes the agreement.
Bob Corker has betrayed that constitutional principle and the world
will be a much more dangerous place for his inexplicable failure to
grasp the existential threat a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran
poses to the United States and in that willful blindness he has in
effect betrayed all peoples who share the values of freedom of
conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of speech and will be
threatened by a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran.
The Wall Street Journal argues that Corker had no choice.
Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker
deserves credit for trying, but in the end he had to agree to
Democratic changes watering down the measure if he wanted 67 votes to
override an Obama veto. Twice the Tennessee Republican delayed a vote in
deference to Democrats, though his bill merely requires a vote after the negotiations are over.
It also has a more nuanced take on what ought to happen.
Our own view of all this is closer to that of Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson,
who spoke for (but didn’t offer) an amendment in committee Tuesday to
require that Mr. Obama submit the Iran nuclear deal as a treaty. Under
the Constitution, ratification would require an affirmative vote by two-thirds of the Senate.
Committing
the U.S. to a deal of this magnitude—concerning proliferation of the
world’s most destructive weapons—should require treaty ratification.
Previous Presidents from JFK to Nixon to Reagan and George H.W. Bush submitted nuclear pacts as treaties. Even Mr. Obama submitted the U.S.-Russian New Start accord as a treaty.
The
Founders required two-thirds approval on treaties because they wanted
major national commitments overseas to have a national political
consensus. Mr. Obama should want the same kind of consensus on Iran.
But
instead he is giving more authority over American commitments to the
United Nations than to the U.S. Congress. By making the accord an
executive agreement as opposed to a treaty, and perhaps relying on a
filibuster or veto to overcome Congressional opposition, he’s turning
the deal into a one-man presidential compact with Iran. This will make
it vulnerable to being rejected by the next President, as some of the
GOP candidates are already promising.
The case for the Corker
bill is that at least it guarantees some debate and a vote in Congress
on an Iran deal. Mr. Obama can probably do what he wants anyway, but the
Iranians are on notice that the United States isn’t run by a single
Supreme Leader.
Well yes, unless the next President is - God Forbid - Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren.
The Tea Party also has criticism of other Senators.
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), at the request of Corker, agreed to
withdraw an amendment to provide compensation for American victims of
the 1979 Iran hostage crisis from fees collected for violations of Iran
sanctions.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who planned to introduce an amendment that
would have required the president to certify to Congress that Iran
recognizes the state of Israel, wilted and settled for language
asserting that the nuclear agreement would not compromise U.S. support
for Israel’s right to exist.
Affirmation of Israel's right to exist is of course is a foundational
principle of American foreign policy that was never questioned until
Obama became president and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill became not
so much the leaders of an opposition party, as a collection of craven
cowards who wish only to avoid the unpleasantness actually having
principles and standing for them would entail.
No, it wasn't questioned. And it's high time the questioning should stop. How many days until Obama's term ends?
Corker believes his Iran bill has veto-proof majority
Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn) believes that his bill requiring Congress to vote up or down on any agreement that President Hussein Obama makes with Iran has a veto-proof majority.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said
Monday he's confident his bill to restrict President Barack Obama's
ability to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran can survive a threatened
presidential veto.
"Look, I don’t ever want to overcommit and
under-deliver,” Corker told reporters Monday evening. “We are moving in a
very positive direction, and we’ve worked through some issues that I
think have given me a lot of hope. ... I think that this weekend has
been very productive.”
Corker's bill, scheduled for markup in the
Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday afternoon, would grant Congress
the final vote on any nuclear agreement the U.S. and its five
negotiating partners reach with Iran. Congress would have two months to
review the deal, and during that time the president would be prevented
from easing economic sanctions on Iran.
“It’s really a resolution of disapproval,” Corker said of the nuclear talks, which face a June 30 deadline.
The
bill is roughly three votes short of the 67 needed to override a veto.
However, members of the committee have filed at least 52 amendments to the legislative text, meaning that the results of the markup may drastically alter the vote count in either direction.
...
Corker ultimately decides which amendments to put up for a committee
vote. On Monday, he seemed unlikely to consider those that would
significantly alter his original text.
“I feel like were going to
present a bill tomorrow that keeps 100 percent of the integrity of the
process relevant to the nuclear agreement in place,” Corker said,
emphasizing the need for Congress to vote on the agreement and to
postpone sanctions relief.
At the same time, Corker acknowledged
the need to woo Democrats, including those hesitant to support to a bill
the White House insists will sabotage peaceful nuclear negotiations.
Obama says he'll veto bill giving Congress a say on Iran
Maybe this will make all those people who think they can compromise with Obama think again. The White House announced on Saturday night that the President will veto a bill currently making its way through Congress which would stop Der Fuhrer from suspending sanctions against Iran without Congressional vote.
"The president has been clear that now is not the
time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran. If this bill
is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a
spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.
...
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act would
require to submit to Congress the text of any agreement within five days
of concluding a final deal with Iran. The bill would also prohibit
Obama from suspending or waiving sanctions on Iran passed by Congress
for 60 days after a deal.
Meehan said United States "should give our negotiators the best chance of success, rather than complicating their efforts."
...
Republican Senator Bob Corker, one of the
bipartisan group of sponsors of the bill, said it was "disappointing
that the president feels he is the only one who speaks for the citizens
of our country."
The questions are whether the Democrats will also recognize Obama's arrogance and whether the Congress will stand up to him and override the veto. There is no compromising with this President - at least not if you're the US Congress or a putative US ally.
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
