The Final Block Of Iran Deal Is Blocked (Ezekiel 17)

White House opposes bill to block implementation of the Iran nuclear deal

Sep 30, 2015
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House votes Thursday on a bill aimed at blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear deal until Tehran pays more than $43 billion in damages that U.S. courts have awarded to victims of Iranian-sponsored terror.

The White House said Wednesday that President Barack Obama would veto the bill, saying that the Iran nuclear deal addresses only nuclear issues. It said the bill would result in the collapse of the international agreement aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The bill, written by Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Patrick Meehan, would prohibit the president from lifting sanctions on Iran until it pays the victims billions in compensation. “Not one cent has been paid by Iran toward those damages,” Meehan said.

The bill legislation has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House. Its prospects are uncertain in the Senate where Democrats stood behind the president and recently blocked a vote to disapprove of the deal.

Kenneth Stethem, a former Navy Seal and brother of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, who was killed by Hezbollah during the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847, gave an impassioned plea Wednesday in favor of the bill. The Stethem family was awarded more than $300 million in damages in 2002 by the U.S. District Court in Washington, but Stethem said his family did not lobby for the bill and learned about it less than 24 hours before he spoke to reporters.

“The people who perpetrated these acts on my brother and hundreds of other victims should and can be held accountable with the passage of this bill,” Stethem said, fighting back tears.

“For those who remember the smell of the World Trade Center. For those who have lost loved ones or seen their parents lose children, you can never forget,” said Stethem, who has a younger brother who was in the Pentagon on 9-11. He said if the president and Congress do not fight for the victims now “When will they?”

California Republican Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Obama should have made the deal contingent on Iran paying the victims’ claims. The accord will provide Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions in exchange for a decade of constraints on the country’s nuclear program.

“Why we would not want our citizens compensated, but allow this tranche of funds to go into the hands of the IRGC is certainly beyond me,” Royce said referring to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard.

Last GOP Attempt To Block Iran Deal Fails

  
Last attempt by Republicans to block Iran nuclear deal fails

Big News Network.com
Thursday 17th September, 2015

WASHINGTON – Republican senates suffered their third defeat on Thursday when Democrats successfully blocked a legislation meant to kill the Iran nuclear deal, thus securing a major diplomatic victory for President Barack Obama

It was the last the Republican’s last bid to stop the implementation of the pact that the United States and five other major world powers — Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany – inked with Iran in July to limit its ambitious nuclear activities in return of lifting economic sanctions against the Islamic republic.

The legislation was blocked by a vote of 56-42. The Republican-majority Senate thus fell short of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member chamber to advance the legislation.

All but four of Obama’s fellow Democrats backed the nuclear pact announced in July.
With no more Senate votes this week, the result ensured Congress will not pass a resolution of disapproval that would have crippled the deal by eliminating Obama’s ability to waive many sanctions.

A disapproval resolution would have had to pass both the Senate and House of Representatives by midnight Thursday, and survive Obama’s veto, to be enacted.

The Senate’s Republican majority leader, Mitch McConnell, earlier held two votes trying to advance the disapproval measure, but failed to lure any more Democrats into voting for it after it first came up in the Senate a week ago.

McConnell on Thursday introduced an amendment to the measure that would bar the president from lifting sanctions on Iran unless it recognized Israel’s right to exist and released American prisoners.
Democrats have argued for months that the agreement should not be tied to non-nuclear issues.
With Democrats objecting to adding non-nuclear issues to consideration of the nuclear deal, the procedural vote was 53-45, meaning the measure failed to attract the 60 votes it would need to advance.

The White House has been fighting a tough campaign in the legislative branch to convince lawmakers to support the pact. Lawmakers had until Thursday to evaluate the contents of the accord. Obama had already warned that he will use his veto if Congress passes any legislation designed to scotch the deal.

Democrats Block GOP Block Against Iran Nuclear Deal

 
Senate Blocks GOP Measure Against Iran Nuclear Deal

Move ends opponents’ chances of unraveling international agreement
By KRISTINA PETERSON

Updated Sept. 10, 2015 7:40 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama won the biggest foreign-policy fight of his second term Thursday when supporters of his nuclear accord with Iran thwarted an effort to cripple it, paving the way for the deal’s implementation.

The victory was sealed in a procedural vote, as the Senate voted 58-42, short of the 60 votes needed, on a measure aimed at derailing the international agreement. The vote effectively ends a bitter, partisan fight in Congress over the accord, and spares Mr. Obama from the need for a veto to safeguard the deal.

“Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said in a statement after the vote. “This vote is a victory for diplomacy, for American national security, and for the safety and security of the world.”

The House has yet to conclude its own series of votes on the nuclear deal, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) indicated the Senate would repeat its vote next week. But with Democrats unlikely to change their positions, the deal’s opponents now have no shot at passing legislation capable of unraveling the international accord.


The agreement reached on July 14 in Vienna imposes strict curbs on Iran’s nuclear program, which will start to be eased after 10 years. In exchange, the U.S., the European Union and the United Nations will lift tight international sanctions on Tehran, contingent on Iran’s compliance with the deal.

All Republicans and a handful of Democrats in Congress are opposed to the deal, worried that its terms, particularly after 10 years, would leave a more economically secure Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon quickly.

“This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary limitations on its nuclear program,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), a former Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said on the Senate floor Thursday.

In the weeks leading up to Thursday’s vote, Democrats faced competing pressures from liberal groups urging them to back Mr. Obama’s diplomacy and critics in a divided Jewish community, who feared Iran would deploy its new resources to fund acts of terrorism against Israel. The pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee had leaned on Democrats to oppose the deal and urged them to refrain from blocking it on a procedural motion.

After the vote, Mr. McConnell made clear that he wouldn’t let Democrats bring up legislation that he said would make them look tough on Iran unless they had enough support for it to become law.
“We’re not interested in using floor time for get-well efforts over on the other side to try to fool their constituents into thinking, ‘I really was serious about Iran, in spite of the fact that I voted for the deal that you hate,’ ” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday.

Public opinion of the nuclear accord has slipped over the summer, according to the Pew Research Center. In early September, just 21% of adults polled by Pew approved of the agreement, down from 33% in mid-July. Nearly half now disapprove of it, up slightly from 45% in July.

Some Democrats who said they reluctantly endorsed an imperfect deal have already called for renewing the 20-year-old Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016. The law prohibits investments of more than $20 million by U.S. or foreign firms in much of Iran’s energy industry. Lawmakers from both parties have said such sanctions must be reauthorized to ensure that Iran can be punished if it cheats on the nuclear deal or commits other terrorism or human-rights violations.
The White House hasn’t said whether it would support or block the renewal of the sanctions act, but wants to make sure Congress doesn’t make sanctions moves that would prompt Iran to say the U.S. reneged on the deal.

Although Mr. Obama has known for more than a week that he had the support to win a veto fight, suspense remained for days over whether the Senate, narrowly controlled by the GOP, would be able to pass a resolution disapproving the deal, setting up a veto. Republicans hold 54 of the chamber’s 100 seats, but most measures need 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles, enabling Democrats to retain leverage.

Some Democrats had been wary of taking a vote that could be perceived as thwarting an up-or-down vote on a monumental foreign-policy agreement. But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) told Democrats that the procedural vote would become the final referendum on the nuclear deal. He later stood behind the table where Democrats cast their votes, watching as all 42 members of the Democratic caucus who backed the deal stuck together.

All Senate Republicans and four Senate Democrats voted to advance the disapproval resolution. The four Senate Democrats who oppose the nuclear accord are Mr. Menendez and Sens. Charles Schumer of New York, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

The House, meanwhile, passed a measure on party lines Thursday accusing Mr. Obama of failing to comply with legislation enacted in May giving lawmakers 60 days to review and vote on the Iran deal. Republicans have said the clock hasn’t started because the administration didn’t submit two confidential side deals reached between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. agency that will be policing the nuclear deal.

IAEA officials have said they don’t release the confidential agreements the agency strikes with any country, including the U.S. White House officials said they have fully complied with the review law, including briefing any member of Congress who asked to learn more about the IAEA accords.
House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters Thursday that it was “very possible” that House Republicans would sue Mr. Obama over what they see as his failure to comply with the May review law.

“This is a bad deal with decadeslong consequences for the security of the American people and our allies,” Mr. Boehner said. “We’ll use every tool at our disposal to stop, slow and delay this agreement from being fully implemented.”

Separately, a resolution approving the deal is expected to fail in the GOP-controlled House Friday.
—Carol E. Lee contributed to this article.

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.

Republicans Resolution To Block Obama’s Iran Deal

 

House Republicans introduce resolution to block Obama’s Iran deal

By PETE KASPEROWICZ • 7/17/15 2:32 PM

More than two-thirds of all House Republicans have signed onto a resolution disapproving of the Iran nuclear agreement, language that is likely to get a vote in early September after members spend weeks pouring over the deal.

The resolution from Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., has the potential to block the deal that most Republicans oppose, but only if it can pass the House and Senate, and then if both chambers can override an expected veto from President Obama.

Roskam’s resolution was introduced Thursday with 171 House Republican cosponsors, and was expected to be supported by nearly every House Republican once it gets a vote. No Democrats are on the bill.

The resolution argued that Iran has been trying since the 1980s to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that the United Nations has adopted several resolutions demanding Iran lower its ambition in this area.
It also argued that “Secretary of State John Kerry has publicly stated that the United States does not recognize Iran’s self-proclaimed right to enrich uranium,” and says the Iran nuclear deal fails in several areas to rein in Iran.

But the final deal announced this week “fails to require Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear program” and allows “key restraints on Iran’s nuclear program to expire within 10 to 15 years,” according to Roskam’s resolution.

The deal also allows international sanctions on conventional and ballistic missiles to be lifted, and doesn’t address Iran’s broader terrorist activities.

“[T]he Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action fails to address Iran’s egregious human rights record, Iran’s role as the world’s leading state-sponsor of international terrorism and Iran’s unjust imprisonment of innocent United States citizens,” the resolution said.

The measure ended by saying the House “expresses its firm disapproval” of the deal, and “reaffirms its commitment to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.”

GOP Ready To Block Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

 

GOP Leaders: Any Nuclear Deal With Iran Will Face Deep Opposition in Congress

By KRISTINA PETERSON

Republican leaders signaled Sunday that any final nuclear deal struck with Iran will face deep opposition in the GOP-controlled Congress.

For weeks, Republicans have called for President Barack Obama and his team of U.S. diplomats to walk away from negotiations aimed at curbing Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons. As top officials entered what they labeled a “decisive” phase of talks with Iran and five other global powers on Sunday, GOP leaders said they doubted a final deal would pass muster with most Republicans.
“It’s going to be a very hard sell — if it’s completed — in Congress,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said on Fox News Sunday. Mr. McConnell said he worried that any deal would still leave Iran capable of producing a nuclear weapon on relatively short notice.

“We already know that it’s going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state,” Mr. McConnell said. “It appears as if the administration’s approach to this was to reach whatever agreement the Iranians are willing to enter into.”

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that he is willing to abandon the talks if the agreement under consideration won’t prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said the administration did not look likely to produce a deal that met the standards they had pledged to meet. In early April, Iran, the U.S. and five other global powers agreed to the broad parameters of a deal aimed at establishing strong controls and constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

“From everything that’s leaked from these negotiations, the administration’s backed away from almost all of the guidelines that they set up for themselves,” Mr. Boehner said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

Some Democrats have said they are optimistic that the administration would only agree to an accord that would effectively monitor and enforce constraints on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

“He fully realizes his legacy will not be the next 18 months and whether or not he gets a deal signed. It will be whether any deal, if there is one, endures and is effective and actually blocks Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview Friday.

Under legislation passed by Congress in May, Mr. Obama will not be able to ease any sanctions on Iran during a 60-day period designated for lawmakers to review the deal, beginning once the finalized deal’s full text has been submitted to Congress.

Lawmakers will have to decide whether to try to pass a resolution through both chambers disapproving or approving the deal, either of which would require at least 60 votes to clear the Senate. Congress could also opt not to vote on it at all.
 
Mr. McConnell said he thought a resolution disapproving the deal could get more than 60 votes in the Senate, but acknowledged that it may be harder for Republicans to find the veto-proof majority in the Senate that would be needed to stop the deal’s implementation. Republicans hold 54 of the Senate’s 100 seats.

For Democrats, “I know there’ll be a strong pull not to go against the president on something as important as this is to him,” Mr. McConnell said.

Republicans will try to block Iran deal (Eze 17)

 

Can Republicans Block an Iran Deal?
Congress is on ‘high alert’ for word of a nuclear agreement, but might find it difficult to blow it up
RUSSELL BERMAN
6:01 AM ET
As Congress awaits word from Vienna about a nuclear agreement with Iran that may—or may not—come this week, the Obama administration has all but given up on winning Republican support for the deal. The question now is whether GOP leaders can muster enough votes to block it.
Whether the U.S. and five other global powers can even finalize an accord with Iran after two years of painstaking talks is anyone’s guess. The original June 30 deadline has already been been extended, and the latest indications are that negotiators could blow past Tuesday’s due date as well. As of Monday, “very difficult decisions” had yet to be made, administration spokesmen said, and Secretary of State John Kerry warned that he would walk away from the deal—crutches and all—in the face of “absolute intransigence” by the Iranians. “At this point, this negotiation could go either way,” Kerry said Sunday.
The framework agreement announced in April would put in place restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program for a decade and subject the regime to inspections and certifications from international monitors, in exchange for the removal of sanctions. But negotiators have been jousting for the last three months over the crucial details: How frequent would the inspections be? When would the sanctions be lifted? How quickly could they be put back in place if Iran fails to comply?
If Kerry does manage to seal a historic deal in the next few days, attention will immediately turn back to Congress, which voted earlier this year to give itself a say in the matter. Under the terms that lawmakers set for themselves (after some bargaining with the administration), it won’t be easy for Congress to stop the agreement, and the precise timing of the accord could have a significant impact on the outcome. If the administration submits the signed deal to Congress by Thursday, the House and Senate would have just 30 days to review and vote on it—a window that, in actuality, becomes even shorter since lawmakers are scheduled to leave for their sacred summer recess by the end of the month. If the Thursday deadline slips, then under the law Congress would have 60 days to consider the agreement.
“They’re rushing,” said Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation. Corker’s implication? That the administration wants to jam Congress because the longer that lawmakers have to review the deal, the more likely they’ll be to oppose it. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, scoffed at that suggestion, telling reporters that the fact that it has taken two years even to get to this point “indicates that nobody’s been in a rush.”
The administration’s critics say that Obama and Kerry, in their desperation for a legacy achievement, have conceded far too much and crossed many of the red lines they once set. Inspections, critics worry, won’t be frequent enough, much less “anytime, anywhere”; sanctions would be lifted too quickly and would be harder to “snap back” into place than Obama has suggested; and Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon would merely be delayed, not eliminated. Reports on Monday indicated that Iran was pushing for a U.N. arms embargo to be lifted as part of the deal, which the U.S. has opposed. Still, because of the compromise Congress and the administration agreed to in the spring, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to block the deal, and that would require a large number of Democrats deserting the president. To that end, Obama has largely cleared his schedule this week in anticipation of an announcement, and he’s invited Senate Democrats to the White House on Tuesday night—possibly to lobby them on the agreement.
Lawmakers like to talk about asserting their prerogatives a lot more than they actually assert them, as Congress demonstrated by its inaction on a resolution authorizing Obama’s war against ISIS. It’s entirely possible that neither the House nor Senate will hold a vote on the Iran deal, in which case the deal would take effect after the 30- or 60-day window ends. But both chambers are getting ready to act. The House is “on high alert,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, and a hearing is already scheduled for Thursday in the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the Senate, Corker has been convening briefings for members ahead of an announcement. The party leadership could decide to hold votes just to put Democrats in a tough spot. “If this is a bad deal, Democrats are not going to be able to hide,” Smith told me.
Republicans might not be able to stop an agreement that they see as a capitulation to a dangerous regime, but it looks like they’re going to try.

 

Can Republicans Block an Iran Deal?

Congress is on ‘high alert’ for word of a nuclear agreement, but might find it difficult to blow it up

RUSSELL BERMAN

6:01 AM ET

As Congress awaits word from Vienna about a nuclear agreement with Iran that may—or may not—come this week, the Obama administration has all but given up on winning Republican support for the deal. The question now is whether GOP leaders can muster enough votes to block it.

Whether the U.S. and five other global powers can even finalize an accord with Iran after two years of painstaking talks is anyone’s guess. The original June 30 deadline has already been been extended, and the latest indications are that negotiators could blow past Tuesday’s due date as well. As of Monday, “very difficult decisions” had yet to be made, administration spokesmen said, and Secretary of State John Kerry warned that he would walk away from the deal—crutches and all—in the face of “absolute intransigence” by the Iranians. “At this point, this negotiation could go either way,” Kerry said Sunday.

The framework agreement announced in April would put in place restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program for a decade and subject the regime to inspections and certifications from international monitors, in exchange for the removal of sanctions. But negotiators have been jousting for the last three months over the crucial details: How frequent would the inspections be? When would the sanctions be lifted? How quickly could they be put back in place if Iran fails to comply?

If Kerry does manage to seal a historic deal in the next few days, attention will immediately turn back to Congress, which voted earlier this year to give itself a say in the matter. Under the terms that lawmakers set for themselves (after some bargaining with the administration), it won’t be easy for Congress to stop the agreement, and the precise timing of the accord could have a significant impact on the outcome. If the administration submits the signed deal to Congress by Thursday, the House and Senate would have just 30 days to review and vote on it—a window that, in actuality, becomes even shorter since lawmakers are scheduled to leave for their sacred summer recess by the end of the month. If the Thursday deadline slips, then under the law Congress would have 60 days to consider the agreement.

“They’re rushing,” said Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in a Sunday appearance on Face the Nation. Corker’s implication? That the administration wants to jam Congress because the longer that lawmakers have to review the deal, the more likely they’ll be to oppose it. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, scoffed at that suggestion, telling reporters that the fact that it has taken two years even to get to this point “indicates that nobody’s been in a rush.”

The administration’s critics say that Obama and Kerry, in their desperation for a legacy achievement, have conceded far too much and crossed many of the red lines they once set. Inspections, critics worry, won’t be frequent enough, much less “anytime, anywhere”; sanctions would be lifted too quickly and would be harder to “snap back” into place than Obama has suggested; and Iran’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon would merely be delayed, not eliminated. Reports on Monday indicated that Iran was pushing for a U.N. arms embargo to be lifted as part of the deal, which the U.S. has opposed. Still, because of the compromise Congress and the administration agreed to in the spring, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to block the deal, and that would require a large number of Democrats deserting the president. To that end, Obama has largely cleared his schedule this week in anticipation of an announcement, and he’s invited Senate Democrats to the White House on Tuesday night—possibly to lobby them on the agreement.

Lawmakers like to talk about asserting their prerogatives a lot more than they actually assert them, as Congress demonstrated by its inaction on a resolution authorizing Obama’s war against ISIS. It’s entirely possible that neither the House nor Senate will hold a vote on the Iran deal, in which case the deal would take effect after the 30- or 60-day window ends. But both chambers are getting ready to act. The House is “on high alert,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner, and a hearing is already scheduled for Thursday in the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the Senate, Corker has been convening briefings for members ahead of an announcement. The party leadership could decide to hold votes just to put Democrats in a tough spot. “If this is a bad deal, Democrats are not going to be able to hide,” Smith told me.

Republicans might not be able to stop an agreement that they see as a capitulation to a dangerous regime, but it looks like they’re going to try.

Why New Zealand Is A Nuclear Horn (Dan 7:7)

  

‘Tsunami bomb’ tested off New Zealand coast

By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney
2:50PM GMT 01 Jan 2013

The United States and New Zealand conducted secret tests of a “tsunami bomb” designed to destroy coastal cities by using underwater blasts to trigger massive tidal waves.

The tests were carried out in waters around New Caledonia and Auckland during the Second World War and showed that the weapon was feasible and a series of 10 large offshore blasts could potentially create a 33-foot tsunami capable of inundating a small city.

The top secret operation, code-named “Project Seal”, tested the doomsday device as a possible rival to the nuclear bomb. About 3,700 bombs were exploded during the tests, first in New Caledonia and later at Whangaparaoa Peninsula, near Auckland.

The plans came to light during research by a New Zealand author and film-maker, Ray Waru, who examined military files buried in the national archives.

“Presumably if the atomic bomb had not worked as well as it did, we might have been tsunami-ing people,” said Mr Waru.

“It was absolutely astonishing. First that anyone would come up with the idea of developing a weapon of mass destruction based on a tsunami … and also that New Zealand seems to have successfully developed it to the degree that it might have worked.” The project was launched in June 1944 after a US naval officer, E A Gibson, noticed that blasting operations to clear coral reefs around Pacific islands sometimes produced a large wave, raising the possibility of creating a “tsunami bomb”.

Mr Waru said the initial testing was positive but the project was eventually shelved in early 1945, though New Zealand authorities continued to produce reports on the experiments into the 1950s. Experts concluded that single explosions were not powerful enough and a successful tsunami bomb would require about 2 million kilograms of explosive arrayed in a line about five miles from shore.

“If you put it in a James Bond movie it would be viewed as fantasy but it was a real thing,” he said.
“I only came across it because they were still vetting the report, so there it was sitting on somebody’s desk [in the archives].”

Forty years after the joint testing, New Zealand faced a dramatic breakdown in its security ties with the US after it banned the entry of nuclear-armed ships from entering its territory during the 1980s. The dispute led to the US downgrading its relationship with New Zealand from an “ally” to a “friend”.

What Will Really Happen With Iran (Dan 8:8)

Iranian centrifuges

Iran vows nuclear enrichment ‘without limits’ unless sanctions end

Zarif warns world can choose ‘path of confrontation’ or ‘path of cooperation’ 
By AFP April 17, 2015, 11:21 pm

PARIS, France — Iran is ready to resume nuclear enrichment “without any limitations” unless sanctions are totally and immediately removed at the end of negotiations, Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif said Friday.

Speaking to TV channel Euronews in Lisbon, Zarif said: “We can have the path of confrontation or we can have the path of cooperation, we cannot have a little bit of each.”

“If we take the path of confrontation, the US and the UN will continue with their sanctions, and Iran will continue with its enrichment programme. Without any limitations,” Zarif said.

“Unfortunately the United States started… using the phrase ‘phased sanctions’,” Zarif added.

“If you go through the joint statement you will not even see the word ‘suspension’ and you will not see the word ‘phase’. It’s clear that all sanctions, all economic and financial sanctions will be terminated.”

Global powers reached a framework agreement for a nuclear deal with Iran on April 2.

They must now resolve a series of technical issues by a June 30 deadline for a final deal, including the steps for lifting sanctions on Iran, and remaining questions over the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

Zarif told Euronews that there were discrepancies between the framework agreement and the “fact sheet” released by the United States to explain what had been decided.

“On the day that we agree we will go to the Security Council and the Security Council will adopt a resolution which will terminate all the previous resolutions and will set the stage for termination of all sanctions. This is very clear, there won’t be phased, there won’t be suspensions, it is very clear in the agreement that we announced,” he told Euronews.

Zarif said negotiations were at times difficult because Western powers had “come to believe that sanctions were an asset, were something that they should not relinquish so easily”.

“Now we start the difficult part, the difficult path of negotiating and writing the final agreement,” he said.

Congress To Block Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

 Senators Focusing on Bill to Limit Nuclear Deal With Iran

By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Apr 11, 2015, 8:32 AM

WASHINGTON — A bill calling for Congress to have a say on an emerging nuclear agreement with Iran has turned into a tug of war on Capitol Hill, with Republicans trying to raise the bar so high that a final deal might be impossible and Democrats aiming to give the White House more room to negotiate with Tehran.

Senators of both parties are considering more than 50 amendments to a bill introduced by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Bob Menendez, D-N.J. The bill would restrict Obama’s ability to ease sanctions against Iran without congressional approval.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday is to debate the amendments and vote on the bill, which has pitted the White House against the GOP-led Congress on a critical foreign policy issue that President Barack Obama wants etched in his legacy. Obama administration officials, who are expected to continue lobbying lawmakers next week, don’t want Congress to take any action before a final deal could be reached by the end of June.

There is strong support, however, from lawmakers of both parties who think they should be able to weigh in on any agreement aimed at preventing Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its program is for civilian purposes, but the U.S. and its partners negotiating with Tehran suspect Iran is keen to become a nuclear-armed powerhouse in the Middle East, where it already holds much sway.

There have been intense negotiations on Capitol Hill for the past several days about ways to amend the bill. Advocacy groups and congressional staffers provided details about amendments, which still might be withdrawn or rewritten.

Under the bill as it is currently written, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential action. But the bill would prohibit him for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions Congress levied on Iran. During that 60-day period, Congress could hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on any final nuclear agreement with Iran.

If Congress passed a joint resolution approving a final deal — or took no action — Obama could move ahead to ease sanctions levied by Congress. But if Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving it, Obama would be blocked from providing Iran with any relief from congressional sanctions.

In an effort to give the president more negotiating room, Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the new ranking Democrat on the foreign relations committee, and a few of his Democratic colleagues have proposed letting Obama waive congressionally imposed sanctions if not doing so would cause the U.S. to be in violation of a final agreement.

Several Democratic senators also have proposed shortening the congressional review period to 30 days or even 10 days that Congress is in session. Democrats also want to strike a part of the bill that requires the Obama administration to certify that Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or an American anywhere in the world.

On the Republican side, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a likely presidential candidate, has proposed an amendment that would require the Obama administration to certify that Iran’s leaders have publicly accepted Israel’s right to exist. That’s a tall order. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned the U.S. about making a deal with Iranian leaders, whom he distrusts.

Dylan Williams, a lobbyist for the liberal Jewish group J Street, argues that Rubio’s proposed amendment puts Republicans in a “lose-lose” position. Adopting the amendment would kill the Corker bill, Williams said, because many senators would vote against a provision they know the Iranians would never accept. Defeating the amendment, he said, would be seen as a slap at Netanyahu, whom GOP leaders have strongly supported on the Iran nuclear matter.

Republican senators also are contemplating amendments that would require that any final agreement be a treaty. That’s also a high hurdle because treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate.

Before any sanctions are eased, one of four amendments drafted by Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming would require the president to certify that any funds Iran received as a result of sanction relief would not facilitate Iran’s ability to support terrorists or build nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles. He says he will formally introduce the amendments only if Democrats try to weaken the bill, which he supports.

And Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., has filed amendments to the bill to require Congress to address the issue of compensation for 52 Americans held hostage in Iran from November 1979 to January 1981 before any deal is finalized, any sanctions are eased or diplomatic relations with Iran are normalized.

Kazakhstan remains the world’s largest uranium producer

• Wednesday, 28 January 2015 10:32
• Written by TCA

ASTANA (TCA) — Kazakhstan has maintained its leading position as the world’s largest uranium producer. At year-end 2014 uranium production in Kazakhstan amounted to 22,829 tons which corresponds to the planned figures, the country’s state atomic company Kazatomprom announced yesterday. 

Taking into account the participatory interests in its subsidiary and affiliated enterprises, Kazatomprom produced 13,156 tons of uranium in 2014.  

In 2013, Kazakhstan produced 22,548 tons of uranium.

In 2014, Kazatomprom continued its prospecting and exploration works aimed at increasing resource base of uranium in the territory of Kazakhstan. During the year more than 986 exploration wells were drilled.

CJSC Uranium Enrichment Center in 2014 shipped the end product in the amount of 4,986.5 tons, 0.2 percent more than planned.

Tantalum production was 154,458 tons, niobium output was 72,228 tons, and beryllium output was 1,776 tons.

Kazatomprom’s JV SARECO LLP produced 240.4 tons of bulk concentrate of rare earth metals in 2014, which was shipped to Russia.

In 2014, Astana Solar LLP produced 51,069 solar panels, which corresponds to 12,706 MW of electrical energy, 13,338 MW (53,979 panels) of which were contracted by Kazakhstan companies.

Kazatomprom is the national operator of Kazakhstan for the import and export of uranium, rare metals, nuclear fuel for power plants, special equipment technologies and dual-purpose materials.

According to the World Nuclear Association, Kazakhstan has 12% of the world’s uranium resources and an expanding mining sector, producing about 22,550 tons in 2013, and planning for further increase until 2018. In 2009 Kazakhstan became the world’s leading uranium producer, with almost 28% of world production, then 33% in 2010, 36% in 2011, 36.5% in 2012, and 38% in 2013.

Kazakhstan has a major plant making nuclear fuel pellets and aims eventually to sell value-added fuel rather than just uranium.

This entry was posted in Fire of Judgment - Nuclear Holocaust, Ten Horned Beast, The Prophecy and tagged Andrew the Prophet, andrewtheprophet, block, coiuntry, eastern, kazakhisrN, revelation 15, Russia, The Prophecy, theprophecy, Uranium, Yellowcake. Bookmark the permalink.

Why Australia and New Zealand Are Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Nuclear Weapons Ban: Secret Documents Reveal Australia Blocking New Zealand-Led Campaign

By Reissa Su | March 10, 2014 5:18 PM EST

Reuters

The Australian government was reportedly leading secret attempts to block New Zealand’s push for nuclear disarmament based on the released documents under the freedom of information laws.

The documents contained declassified information on ministerial communications, cables and emails from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and revealed the efforts of Australian diplomats working in secret. The documents said that the Australian government relies on U.S. nuclear forces to prevent a nuclear attack in the country.

In October 2013, shortly after the Coalition won the seat of power, Australia had refused New Zealand in its request to endorse a joint statement signed by 125 countries at the United Nations which highlighted the effects of nuclear weapon use.

Australia had reportedly found the statement declaring that it is in the best interest of mankind not to use nuclear weapons “under any circumstances.” Reports said that 16 countries including New Zealand, Malaysia, Mexico and South Africa are working together to put the spotlight on the use of nuclear weapons and its humanitarian consequences.

The nuclear disarmament campaign will lay the foundation for negotiating an agreement to ban nuclear weapons. The diplomatic campaign seeks to put nuclear weapons in the same category as chemical and biological weapons which are already considered illegal under international law.
According to Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop, the New Zealand-led approach was “counterproductive.” The idea of banning nuclear weapons may appeal emotionally but nuclear disarmament “cannot be imposed this way.”

According to the recently declassified documents, Australia’s concern is centred on the idea that a nuclear weapons ban might “cut across” the country’s dependence on U.S. nuclear deterrent as part of its defence.

Ms Bishop had endorsed the argument that Australia relies on its American allies to deter a nuclear attack in the face of nuclear weapons threat.

Among the documents revealed included Foreign Affairs and Trade head Peter Varghese’s statement that New Zealand’s push for nuclear disarmament goes against the security interests of Australia.

The diplomatic image of Australia has been hit with the Japan’s consent to sign the New Zealand-led initiative through Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida. Australian diplomats had conferred with the U.S. State Department over the matter. Declassified information revealed the email exchanges between the two parties, including Washington reprimanding Tokyo for its decision to sign the nuclear disarmament statement.

To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com