Iran Deal Will Pass ! (Ezekiel 17)

 
Mikulski Hands Obama Iran Deal Victory

The support of at least 34 senators ensures that Congress cannot block the nuclear agreement.

By Gabrielle Levy Sep 2, 2015

Democrats in the Senate have guaranteed a victory for President Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, creating a firewall of support for an agreement aimed at preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., on Wednesday became the 34th member of the caucus to support the deal struck in July between Iran and the U.S., China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. The pact aims to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for relief from crippling international economic sanctions.

Where Democrats Stand on the Iran Deal

“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.”
Because Republicans, who hold majorities in both the House and Senate, are in nearly unanimous opposition to the agreement, the White House has worked to win over skeptical Democrats to ensure Congress can’t block it.

Both chambers have been expected to vote on resolutions of disapproval upon return from August recess this month. If the resolution of disapproval passes, the 34 senators in favor of the deal guarantee that the Senate cannot get to the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. In the House, at least 44 Democrats would have to join with Republicans for a veto override, but without a path forward in the Senate, the vote would just be for show.

The Obama administration has grown more confident in recent weeks as the number of lawmakers supporting the deal grew steadily throughout August. While even some Democrats have acknowledged flaws in the agreement – such as its failure to address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism or its limitations on inspections of undeclared or military sites – most have agreed the value of the deal outweighs any alternatives.

“Thirty-four votes are obviously enough votes for the president’s veto to be upheld,” Secretary of State John Kerry said on CNN Wednesday. “That is not satisfactory for us. We do want to try to go further. We’ll continue to persuade.”

Republicans, however, slammed the development Wednesday.

“Forcing a bad deal, over the objections of the American people and a majority in Congress, is no win for President Obama,” said Cory Fritz, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. “The White House may have convinced just enough Democrats to back an agreement that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program, trusts the regime to self-inspect and offers amnesty to terrorists, but this deal is far from being implemented.”

“When I’m president, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran,” Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said on Twitter.
Some Republicans have proposed new economic sanctions that they hope would force Tehran to back out of its side of the deal, but such legislation would face similar, likely insurmountable, hurdles.
For its part, the White House would prefer to have the support of at least 41 of the 46 members of the Senate Democratic caucus. That would mean members could block the resolution of disapproval from coming to a vote in the first place and spare Obama the need to break out the veto pen.
With just 10 Senate Democrats undeclared, only two have decided to oppose the deal: Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey.

Obama Losing Democrats On Iran Deal

  

In break with Obama, Ted Deutch oppposes Iran nuclear agreement

By Anthony Man
Sun Sentinel

U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch said Tuesday he would vote against President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

Before entering politics, Deutch was active in Jewish philanthropic efforts and in pro-Israel activities. His northwest Broward/southeast Palm Beach County district has one of the largest Jewish populations of any congressional district in the country. Israel strongly opposes the nuclear deal.
South Florida Republicans quick to trash Iran nuke deal; Democrats waiting to review details
South Florida Republicans quick to trash Iran nuke deal; Democrats waiting to review details
Deutch is the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.

“Too many issues I have long raised as essential to any nuclear deal with Iran are not adequately addressed in this agreement. I will vote against it when Congress reconvenes in September,” Deutch wrote in an op-ed article for the Sun Sentinel. “There are different predictions about what will happen if Congress rejects this deal. But the consequences of approving it aren’t up for debate. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports, and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money for Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter in Syria, and more violence worldwide.”

Also on Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee introduced legislation Tuesday to block the nuclear agreement.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said Tuesday he would support the nuclear agreement.
 

In a speech delivered on the Senate floor, Nelson described himself as “a strong supporter of Israel.” Like Deutch, Nelson referred to Coral Springs resident Robert Levinson, the longest held civilian hostage in American history. 

 

“I wish that the 3 Americans jailed in Iran and Bob Levinson, a former FBI agent missing in Iran for eight years, had been a part of an agreement to return them. The Levinson family in Florida is anxious for information and help to return Bob. This is personal for me.”

“Unless there is an unexpected change in conditions and facts before the vote is called in September, I will support the nuclear agreement,” Nelson said. “The goal of the two-years of negotiations culminating in this deal was to deny Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This objective has been fulfilled in the short term….

“Would I prefer a deal that dismantles their entire program forever and ends all of Iran’s bad behavior? Of course I would. But how do we get the “better deal” that the opposition wants? We don’t if the sanctions fall apart. And that is exactly what would happen if we reject this deal. Iran will emerge less isolated and less constrained to build a nuclear weapon….

“This joint agreement declares that Iran will never ever be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. If they break their agreement, even in 10 or 15 years, every financial and military option will still be available to us and those options will be backed by ever improving military capabilities and more and better intelligence.”

Russia And Babylon Will End Nuclear Treaty (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear Treaty with Russia May Be Breaking Down

The Fiscal Times

March 11, 2015

 

A high-level Russian official on Wednesday asserted again that the Kremlin has the right to move nuclear weapons into the disputed Crimean peninsula, which Russian troops invaded last year — and suggested that a key nuclear arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia is in danger of breaking down.

On the question of sending nuclear weapons into Crimea, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted Mikhail Ulyanov as saying, “I don’t know if there are nuclear weapons there now. I don’t know about any plans, but in principle Russia can do it.” It’s a position that other Russian officials have articulated in the past. Ulyanov’s boss, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, made similar comments in December.

More surprising was Ulyanov’s warning about the status of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Treaty, signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 1987. The deal was designed to eliminate the two countries’ stocks of nuclear and ballistic missiles with ranges of between 300 and 3,400 miles.
The escalating rhetoric over nuclear weapons comes as tensions continue to rise in Europe. On Tuesday, Russia formally withdrew from a different treaty limiting conventional armed forces in Europe. Over the weekend, the president of the European Commission called for a Pan-European Army specifically to serve as a counterweight against Russia’s aggression.

The U.S. has repeatedly called on Russia to admit to violations of the nuclear treaty. The Kremlin, not surprisingly, has declined to do so.

The government-owned news agency ITAR-TASS reported on comments made by Ulyanov Wednesday morning. “Some actions by our U.S. colleagues cause great surprise,” he reportedly said. “In their scheme of things we are expected to say voluntarily what we have violated and to confess violations. This kind of approach does not look serious to us.”

Ulyanov charged that the U.S. is undermining global stability and making progress toward nuclear disarmament more difficult, TASS reported. Ulyanov reportedly said the presence of U.S. anti-ballistic missiles in Europe and “development of high-precision strategic non-nuclear weapons” are damaging the prospects for continued cooperation on nuclear arms issues.

“In such circumstances, the continuation of the nuclear disarmament process seems problematic,” he said.

“The discussion with the United States on this subject will go on. Its outcome is anyone’s guess,” he added before concluding with the backhanded assurance that “at this point it would be wrong to say that the treaty is falling apart.”

U.S. officials have already accused Russia of repeatedly violating the nuclear treaty by developing new weapons of the kind it specifically banned. Last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, that in the face of continued violations, “U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance, our responses will make them less secure than they are today.”

– See more at: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/11/Nuclear-Treaty-Russia-May-Be-Breaking-Down#sthash.c1LnyeCP.dpuf

Saudi Arabia The Tenth Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear Nuances of Saudi-Pakistan Meeting

Saudis’ Parade Nuclear Bomb

By Simon Henderson on February 12, 2015 at 10:00 AM

 

Tuesday’s meeting in Riyadh between King Salman and Pakistan’s top military commander will revive speculation of a secret nuclear agreement to counter any Iranian nuclear threat.

The visit by the chairman of Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee will likely prompt concern in Washington and other major capitals that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have reconfirmed an arrangement whereby Pakistan, if asked, will supply Saudi Arabia with nuclear warheads. The main meeting on Gen. Rashid Mahmoud’s itinerary was with King Salman — the topics discussed were reported as “deep relations between the two countries and…a number of issues of common interest.” General Rashid also saw separately Defense Minister Prince Muhammad bin Salman — who presented him with the King Abdulaziz medal of excellence — as well as Deputy Crown Prince and Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayef and Minister of the National Guard Prince Mitab bin Abdullah. The only senior Saudi absent from the meetings appears to have been Crown Prince Muqrin.

For decades, Riyadh has been judged a supporter of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, providing financing in return for a widely assumed understanding that, if needed, Islamabad will transfer technology or even warheads. It has been noticeable that changes in leadership in either country have quickly been followed by top-level meetings, as if to reconfirm such nuclear arrangements. Although Pakistani nuclear technology also helped Iran’s program, the relationship between Islamabad and Riyadh has been much more obvious.

In 1999, a year after Pakistan tested two nuclear weapons, then Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan visited the unsafeguarded uranium enrichment plant at Kahuta outside Islamabad — prompting a U.S. diplomatic protest. Last year, as Riyadh’s concern at the prospect of Iranian nuclear hegemony in the Gulf grew, Pakistan’s chief of army staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif, was a guest of honor when Saudi Arabia publicly paraded its Chinese CSS-2 missiles for the first time since they were delivered in the 1980s. Although now nearly obsolete, the CSS-2 missile once formed the core of China’s nuclear force. Pakistan’s first nuclear devices were based on a Chinese design.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, visited the kingdom January 23 for the funeral of King Abdullah and had also been there a couple of weeks earlier to pay his respects to the ailing monarch. The civilian leader and his military commanders have an awkward relationship — in an earlier term of office, Nawaz Sharif was overthrown in a military coup and sent into exile in Saudi Arabia — but Pakistan’s nuclear program seems above any civil-military partisanship.

The visit by General Rashid comes a day after Pakistan announced the successful flight-testing of its Raad air-launched 220-mile-range cruise missile, which reportedly is able to deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with pinpoint accuracy.

While chairing his first cabinet meeting as prime minister yesterday, King Salman announced there would be no change in Saudi foreign policy. In its own way, today’s top-level meetings with the Pakistani military delegation seem to confirm this statement, adding perhaps an extra awkward complication to the Obama administration’s effort to secure a diplomatic agreement with Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program.

Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute. 
Originally Posted on February 3, 2015
©2015 The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Reprinted with permission.

Obama Visit Isolates Pakistani Horn (Daniel 8:8)

India, U.S. Reach Nuclear Deal

By Jameel Khan, David Sterman
January 26, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday announced a landmark nuclear deal amid Obama’s historic three-day visit to New Delhi, where expectations have been high for a revival of bilateral relations between the world’s largest democracies (BBC, VOA News, White House, Times of India, Post). “Today we achieved a breakthrough understanding on two issues that were holding up our ability to advance our civil nuclear cooperation,” Obama said on Sunday at a joint conference with Modi in New Delhi. “And we are committed to moving towards full implementation,” he said (Post). Replying in English, Modi said, “I am pleased that six years after we signed our bilateral agreement, we are moving toward commercial cooperation consistent with our law, our international legal obligations, and technical and commercial viability.” The deal makes it easier for U.S. and foreign firms to invest in India’s nuclear industry (Post).

Other milestones include a renewal of the 10-year Defense Framework Agreement in which both countries will agree to joint development and production of defense systems; an expressed commitment to reducing carbon emissions and a “strong climate change agreement” in Paris later this year; and a host of other bilateral efforts which both countries detailed in a joint statement released on Sunday (DNA News, White House). On Monday, Obama will join Modi to attend India’s 66th Republic Day Parade, where he will become the first U.S. president to attend the occasion. Obama is also expected to join Modi for meetings on Monday at the U.S.-India CEO Forum, where they will discuss trade, investment, and visa issues with India’s leading business leaders (NDTV). Despite the trip’s grand nature, not all was smooth. Obama’s trip was cut short by the White House’s decision for him to travel on Tuesday to Saudi Arabia, where he will pay his condolences to the late King Abdullah and meet the new monarch (Guardian). On policy specifics, India and the United States fell short of a China-like climate change deal to specify goals on cutting carbon emissions (Times of India). And on stage presence, Obama was caught chewing gum during the Republic Day Parade according to media reports (Times of India). The recent revival of ties follows a year of strained relations after the 2013 arrest of senior Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade in New York. Commenting on better relations today, Obama said, “the United States and India have declared a new declaration of friendship that elevates and formalizes our partnership” (Post). Deplaning Air Force One, Obama and Modi on Sunday greeted each other on the tarmac with hugs and handshakes.

China’s official state-run news agency Xinhua in a commentary report on Sunday said that U.S. President Barack Obama’s “shortened three-day [India] visit is more symbolic than pragmatic, given the long-standing division between the two giants, which may be as huge as the distance between them” (Hindustan Times, Xinhua). While acknowledging the apparent “closeness between the two countries,” the report pointed out past quarrels and a “superficial rapprochement” amid the warming ties, saying: “After all, only one year ago, U.S. diplomats were expelled from New Delhi amid widespread public outrage over the treatment of an Indian diplomat in New York and Narendra Modi, India’s Prime Minister and then chief minister of Gujarat, was still banned from entering the United States” (Xinhua). Liking Obama’s trip to a needed foreign policy win to report progress back to the U.S. Congress, the report also said the bilateral meetings would not see agreement on the pressing issue of climate change — a priority of the Obama administration — saying that “India is heavily dependent on coal-fueled plants” and that “economic growth and eradication of poverty is more urgent for Indian officials than cutting carbon emissions” (Xinhua).

Across India’s border, Pakistan on Sunday sent its Army Chief Raheel Sharif to Beijing on a two-day visit to meet senior Chinese military officials to discuss defense and security issues (India Today, Zee News). Sharif’s trip comes amid recent pressure from India and the United States to reign in extremism within its borders. Meeting with defense counterpart General Qi Jianguo and General Fan Changlong, vice chairman of China’s powerful Central Military Commission (CMC), the bilateral talks touched on a range of regional security issues including long-term defense collaboration, counterterrorism cooperation, intelligence sharing and training exchanges. Infiltration by Uygur militants in China’s restive Xinjiang region remains a shared security concern between the two countries. “China will, as always, give firm support to Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism,” General Fan was quoted saying in a Xinhua report (Zee News).

First Lady Michelle Obama is expected to receive a gift of 100 hand-woven banarasi saris — a traditional Indian silk garment worn by women — from the holy city of Varanasi, according to several news outlets and local businessman Pervez Matin (Al Arabiya, Economic Times, Deccan Chronicle, Indian Express, NDTV). “We have used pure gold and silver threads for the sari that we have prepared for Michelle,” said Pervez Matin, whose family has been in the weaving business for three generations (Deccan Chronicle). Months of painstaking preparations have gone into the saris, which normally cost around 150,000 Indian rupees ($2,400). Some reports suggest that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made the request to gift the saris.

Banarasi saris are those specifically made in Varanasi, where the city has earned a reputation for weaving India’s finest garments with the staple embroidery of gold and silver. Varanasi’s 40,000 weavers are mostly Muslim and have been in the craft for generations (NDTV). Despite its fame, India’s centuries-old sari industry is facing competition from countries like China, where garments are increasingly made with cheaper costs. Ahead of the Obama’s visit, an excited Indian media doled out fashion pleas for the First Lady to sport a sari during her trip (Hindustan Times). While the verdict is still out on the First Lady’s remaining outfits, one saving grace was Michelle Obama’s choice to wear a tailored dress and matching jacket made by Indian-American designer Bibhu Mohapatra as she stepped off Air Force One with husband and U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday in New Delhi (Economic Times).

— Jameel Khan

UK Is One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear weapons deal with US renewed in secret, UK confirms

UK Trident Nuclear Missile

 

Richard Nort-Taylor | Defence and Security Blog

 

• UK tables amendments to Mutual Defence Agreement
• Proper scrutiny and Commons debate needed

The British government has just published amendments updating a treaty that goes to the heart of the UK’s special relationship with the US.

They relate to the Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) first signed in 1958, which, according to the government, enables the UK and the US “nuclear warhead communities to collaborate on all aspects of nuclear deterrence including nuclear warhead design and manufacture”.

One amendment refers to potential threats from “state or non-state actors”. But the amendments are for the most part arcane and their significance cannot be understood in the absence of information which is kept secret.

The MDA does not have to be debated or voted on in parliament, as I have remarked before. Though the agreement is incorporated in US law, it has no legal status in Britain.

Yet the matters covered by the treaty, which is renewed only at 10 year intervals, are hugely important. Successive British governments have made clear a proper debate on the issues involved would not be welcome.

“A debate on the renewal of the MDA would be used by some as an opportunity to raise wider questions concerning the possible renewal of the nuclear deterrent…and our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,” notes an internal MoD paper, dated 2004. The paper was released only earlier this year through a freedom of information act request by the independent Nuclear Information Service.

The Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn has applied for a backbench business debate on this latest renewal of the MDA.

Yet it should be given much greater priority, and subjected at least to scrutiny by the Commons crossparty defence committee.

In an “explanatory memorandum for MPs, the government says the MDA “does not (a word it underlines) provide for the transfer of nuclear weapons…or control over such weapons or nuclear devices.”

It suggests that, as far as the UK is concerned the advantages are purely economic – the agreement allows the UK “to significantly reduce costs while maintaining an operationally independent deterrent”.

Yet a report this summer by the all-party Trident Commission set up by the thinktank BASIC (the British American Security Information Council) suggests that Britain’s nuclear weapons system is far from independent.

Without the cooperation of the US, the life expectancy of the UK’s nuclear capability could be measured in months, it said.

A document obtained by the Nuclear Information Service refers to “enhanced collaboration” between the two countries on “nuclear explosive package design and certification”.

Another document describes the MDA as an agreement that enables the British and American “nuclear warhead communities to collaborate on all aspects of nuclear deterrence including nuclear warhead design and manufacture”.

Paul Ingram, BASIC’s executive director, says: “In governing exceptional nuclear weapon collaboration between the US and UK that has contested legal basis, the MDA is the manifestation of the deep political, cultural and philosophical relationship between the two states.”

He adds: “How can it possibly be effective to criticise North Korea for allegedly supplying nuclear and missile technology to states like Syria and Iran when we trade between ourselves technologies directly relevant to constructing nuclear warheads, missiles and submarines?”

Kate Hudson, general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) says the UK-US agreement flew in the face Britain’s commitments as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“It is appalling that David Cameron is signing secretive nuclear deals behind Parliament’s back. In no other area of government would such a sinister sidestepping of democratic process be tolerated.”