Babylon In A No Win Situation (Rev 15:2)

No, the Iran Nuclear Deal Will Not Be Good for the U.S.

Aaron David Miller
June 18, 2015

Once Iran learned how to make a nuke, there wasn’t much chance for a really good and reassuring deal on the nuclear issue. The agreement being negotiated now may well be the least bad of the terrible options available to slow Iran’s nuclear program. But we should be clear-eyed about what else we may be getting from this deal: a richer and stronger Iran, one pushing for a Middle East more hostile to the U.S.–and one that will still retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

It’s the cruelest of ironies that this issue is now the pathway offering Iran a way in from the cold. It would be fine if the agreement could truly end Iran’s ability and motivation to have a nuclear-weapons option. But it hardly lays to rest those concerns.

Iran will agree to what will likely be a smaller, more easily monitored nuclear program. But there can be no real assurance, let alone guarantee, that this will be the “forever” deal Secretary of State John Kerry referred to. What is guaranteed–what will be the new normal in the Middle East–is that Iran will emerge as a state with the right to enrich uranium and continue R&D while maintaining some nuclear infrastructure. Iran has played us and its card well, profiting from sanctions relief without abandoning its nuclear-weapons aspirations, let alone its repressive policies at home or its expansionist aims abroad.

The Obama Administration argues that regardless of Iran’s behavior in the region, constraining Tehran’s nuclear program is important in its own right. But Iran is not Japan, a nuclear threshold state that respects international principles. It’s impossible to separate the nuclear issue from Iran’s regional aspirations. Keeping the world on edge about Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity and ensuring that the U.S. remains an adversary are still vital for the regime’s survival–and this agreement isn’t going to make Iran a moderate anytime soon.

The nuclear deal will bring Iran money and legitimacy in a turbulent region. Iran has influence on just about every issue the U.S. confronts in the Middle East: Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, ISIS, Yemen. And while Tehran is prepared to cooperate when that serves its interests, its view of the region is not Washington’s. Far from constraining Iran’s power, the deal may well enhance it as it directs more resources to its Iraqi Shi’ite, Yemeni Houthi, Syrian Alawite and Hizballah allies and surrogates. And the opening to Iran has alienated Saudi Arabia and Israel, U.S. allies who fear Iran’s rise.

Were there alternatives to the deal? Tougher sanctions and negotiating? A more compelling threat to use force or more aggressively confront Iran’s allies? We’ll never know. The deal may succeed in slowing Iran’s nuclear program. But sooner or later, some future U.S. President is bound to confront a richer, stronger, more influential Iran, one with nuclear weapons still within its reach.

Miller is a former Middle East negotiator and adviser in Democratic and Republican administrations

Iranian horn making no concessions (Dan 8:4)

 

Iran Never to Allow Interviews with Nuclear Scientists
TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran will never allow foreigners to interview its nuclear scientists, an Iranian lawmaker reiterated.
Speaking to Tasnim, Mohammad Saleh Jokar also noted that Tehran has twice rejected US bids to include interviews with Iranian scientists in a possible final nuclear deal.
Americans had drawn up a list of 23 Iranian people they wanted to interview about the country’s nuclear program, but after Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei’s outright rejection of any interviews with the Iranian scientists, Washington proposed a list with 15 names, he stated.
“That list of 15 individuals was also rejected. We will never accede to the Americans’ excessive demands and will never let our (nuclear) scientists be interviewed,” added Jokar, a member of the Iranian parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission.
Back on April 9, Ayatollah Khamenei had categorically rejected foreign access to the country’s “security and defensive” sectors under the pretext of nuclear monitoring.
Later on May 20, the Leader ruled out any request for interviews with Iranian nuclear scientists, describing it as an instance of “interrogation”.
“I would not let foreigners come (here) and talk to the Iranian nation’s dear scientists…, who have expanded this wide knowledge to this stage,” Imam Khamenei stressed.
Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) are in talks to hammer out a lasting accord that would end more than a decade of impasse over Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Khamenei Refuses To Concede To Babylon

  

Ayatollah Khamenei Rejects Future Inspections
June 1, 2015 by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks live on television after casting his ballot in the Iranian presidential election in TehranThe Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader and theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in domestic and foreign policy issues of Iran, delivered a commencement speech recently to the graduates of the Imam Hussein Military University in Tehran.

He drew on the topic of nuclear negotiations between the six world powers (known as the P5+1; the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China), primarily lashing out at the United States and its demands.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has pitched and sold us a nuclear deal using a different narrative arguing that Iran’s nuclear sites, which are suspected to have military dimensions, will be thoroughly and frequently inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

This is Obama’s own narrative, or at least what he has chosen to sell to the public.

On the other hand, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly pointed out in his recent speech that “[r]egarding inspections, we have said that we will not let foreigners inspect any military center.”

So, Iran’s paramount leader, a person whose approval is needed for a final nuclear deal, is clearly announcing to President Obama and the world that he will not allowed anyone to enter the Islamic Republic and inspect his country’s military sites.

The crucial question is where are President Obama’s comments on this critical statement of Iran’s Supreme Leader? Rationally speaking, Obama is supposed to address these statements from Iran’s top leader, which contradict his promises and the narrative of the nuclear deal.

But, President Obama is silent.

It appears that from President Obama’s perspective, what Iran’s paramount leader is clearly articulating is not really crucial. For President Obama, the nuclear deal is already a done agreement. In other words, he will accept the demands of the Iranian leaders, and he will have his name on the nuclear deal.

When it comes to the American people, President Obama will pitch a different story than what the reality and terms of the deal truly are. He will not draw on the fact that Iran’s Supreme Leaders is not going to allow IAEA inspectors to investigate and monitor Iran’s nuclear activities.

He will tell the American people that everything with regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s regional hegemonic ambitions, and Iran’s behavior are resolved.

He will argue that Iran’s nuclear threat has been eliminated, thanks to his efforts. He will argue that Iran is going to comply with all the terms of the deal. And after that, Obama will claim Iran deserves to have the sanctions lifted against it.

In another statement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated on his official website that “[t]hey say the right to interview nuclear scientists must be given….This means interrogation. I will not let foreigners come and talk to scientists and dear children of the nation who have developed this science up to this level.”

President Obama has chosen to be silent about this crucial matter as well.

The Supreme Leader has also reasserted the Islamic Republic’s interventionist policies in the region, reconfirmed Iran’s unwillingness to change its behavior and instigate chaos in the Middle East and other Arab countries.

The Ayatollah stated, “I have some news that enemies in cooperation with some stupid officials in the region intend to bring proxy wars close to the borders of Iran,” and he added, “They should know that if they cause mischief, Iran’s reaction will be very harsh.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Quds Force, which operate on the behest of the Supreme Leader, continue to arm Shiite militia groups in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. They continue to sponsor terrorism and express their clear anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

President Obama has chosen to ignore these critical developments. The White House has decided to ignore what Ayatollah Khamenei is stating, and it has chosen to view the nuclear deal as a done deal.

Nevertheless, President Obama did make one comment when he was recently interviewed, defending the Islamic Republic. In his interview, he projected the Islamic Republic as a rational actor. Referring to Iran’s Supreme Leader, he pointed out that the “fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival… and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

So, now instead of criticizing the ayatollah, President Obama is defending him as a rational political figure. Yet, President Obama did have some criticism to express. Not for Iran, but for Israel. instead of criticizing the Supreme Leader or addressing the ayatollah’s comments regarding IAEA inspections, President Obama has chosen to criticize Israel, and primarily Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He pointed out that Netanyahu’s message regarding Arab voters was “contrary to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence” and warned of “foreign policy consequences.”

“I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody … what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium….The same values that led to the end of Jim Crow and slavery. The same values that led to Nelson Mandela being freed and a multiracial democracy emerging in South Africa.”

While President Obama seems proficient at preaching and criticizing Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu and Israel’s values, he has chosen to totally be silent about the anti-Semitic statements issued recently by Ayatollah Khamenei and the Ayatollah’s remarks regarding foreign inspections. These are the real issues that President Obama needs to address.

By Signing Responsibility Falls Into GOPs Lap (Eze 17)

  
Obama Signs Congress Review of Iran Nuclear Deal Bill Into Law
NBC News

President Barack Obama signed into law on Friday legislation giving lawmakers a chance to review any nuclear deal the White House seeks to hammer out with Iran.

The U.S. and five other world powers have crafted a delicate framework with Iran to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. The nuclear deal with Iran is a key part of the president’s foreign policy legacy, a fact he underscored during an interview this week with The Atlantic.

The law gives Congress at least a month to review the details of an agreement. During the review, the president would be prevented from lifting congressionally imposed sanctions on Iran.

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” the president said in The Atlantic interview with took place on Tuesday and was published on Thursday. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

The president’s signing of the legislation into law comes a week after Obama met with leaders of Gulf nations at Camp David. During the summit, the president stressed to leaders from such countries as Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, that a nuclear deal with Iran is the best way to help shore up security in the region.

“Here at Camp David, we agreed that a comprehensive, verifiable solution that fully addresses the region’s and international concerns about Iran’s nuclear problem is in the security interests of the international community, including our (Gulf nation) partners,” Obama said during a press conference last week.

— Halimah Abdullah

House GOP Slows Down Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

U.S. House passes Iran nuclear review legislation

WASHINGTON | By Patricia Zengerle

Reuters/Gary Cameron

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to pass legislation giving Congress the right to review, and possibly reject, an international nuclear agreement with Iran.
The 400-25 vote sends the legislation to the White House, where administration officials have said President Barack Obama will sign it into law.
The Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015 passed the Senate last week after lawmakers reached a compromise removing some of its toughest provisions, and Obama dropped his threat to veto the measure as a threat to continuing negotiations between the United States and other world powers and Iran.
The bill gives Congress 30 days to review a final nuclear deal after international negotiators reach such an agreement, and during that time bars Obama from temporarily waiving any U.S. sanctions on Iran that were passed by Congress.
The Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, said the legislation was the only way Congress would be able to stop a bad deal, saying that Americans, and U.S. allies, are worried that Obama’s White House “will do anything to get one.”
Some conservative Republican lawmakers had objected to the bill, originally authored by Republican Senator Bob Corker, saying it did not impose strict enough conditions on Iran in a possible nuclear agreement.
To appease those conservatives in the House, the chamber’s leaders arranged a vote on a measure that would tighten U.S. sanctions against the Shi’ite Muslim group Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was founded with Iranian help in the 1980s to fight Israel in Lebanon. It has grown into a powerful political and military force and is fighting alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s army in Syria’s civil war.
That sanctions measure passed by 423-0. “Passing the Iran and Hezbollah bills today is a one-two punch against terrorist-backing Iran’s nuclear weapons drive,” said U.S. Representative Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.
The sanctions bill has not yet been taken up in the Senate so would not be sent to Obama’s desk for his signature.
The House voted on the measures as Obama hosted a Gulf Cooperation Council summit on Thursday at which he sought to reassure Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies of Washington’s commitment to their security despite their deep concerns about efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Tehran.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Eric Beech, Doina Chiacu and Jonathan Oatis)

GOP Stops Obama And Kerry (Ezekiel 17)

Senate approves Iran nuclear bill

Erin Kelly, USA TODAY 4:49 p.m. EDT May 7, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 98-1 Thursday to approve bipartisan legislation that would require President Obama to let Congress review – and possibly reject – any final nuclear deal with Iran.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., an outspoken opponent of the administration’s efforts, voted against the bill.

“The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act offers the best chance for our constituents, through the Congress they elect, to weigh in on the White House’s negotiations with Iran,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said before the vote to end debate on the bill. “And make no mistake, they need to have that opportunity.”

The bill still must be approved by the House, where Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he will urge its passage.

“This important bipartisan legislation will ensure that Congress has a role in reviewing any potential agreement regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” Boehner said after the Senate vote. “Our goal is to stop a bad agreement that could pave the way to a nuclear-armed Iran, set off a regional nuclear arms race, and strengthen and legitimize the government of Iran – which threatens Israel and other allies in the region, as well as supports terrorism throughout the Middle East.”

Negotiations on the deal between Iran, the USA and five other nations are scheduled to continue in Austria next week. Diplomats are trying to reach a final agreement by June 30 on a deal aimed at stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
The legislation would prevent Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions against Iran for at least 30 days to give lawmakers a chance to weigh in on the deal.

Senators – especially Republicans – remain skeptical that Iran will live up to any deal to restrict its nuclear capabilities. McConnell made it clear that he doesn’t like the interim agreement that has been reached.

“Rather than meaningfully roll back Tehran’s enrichment capability and dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, the interim agreement would actually permit Iran to become a ‘nuclear threshold’ state poised right at the edge of obtaining a nuclear weapon,” McConnell said.

He added that “a bad agreement seems far more likely to eventually lead to the kind of military conflict everyone wants to avoid than no agreement at all.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who is leading the team of U.S. negotiators, told Israeli TV last weekend that the U.S. “will not sign a deal that does not close off Iran’s pathways to a bomb.”

Obama initially opposed any legislation that could derail a deal. However, he later said he would support the Senate bill after it became clear that it had bipartisan support. The compromise legislation from Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., was unanimously approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 14.

The White House has warned that it could withdraw its support of the bill if the legislation is changed significantly.

The bill stalled last week when Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, a presidential candidate, and Cotton tried to force a vote on amendments to require Iran to publicly support Israel’s right to exist and end its nuclear program entirely as part of any final deal. Democrats and some Republicans objected to the amendments, saying they were designed to derail a deal. McConnell moved Tuesday to end the stalemate by setting a vote on Thursday to end debate on the bill. That vote was followed by final passage.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said “poison pill” amendments aimed at preventing an agreement would only hurt efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“What we must do is not turn this bill into an instrument…to pave the path to war,” he said.

Follow @ErinVKelly on Twitter

Cruz Is Finally Right About Something (Rev 15:2)

 

Ted Cruz On Iran Nuclear Negotiations: ‘This Deal Makes War A Certainty’

Posted: 05/05/2015 6:01 pm EDT Updated: 05/06/2015 6:59 pm EDT

WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Tuesday that if the nuclear deal with Iran being negotiated by the U.S. and five other countries is approved, the result will be war.
“This deal makes war a certainty,” promised Cruz, a Republican contender for president in the 2016 election.

Cruz has repeatedly insisted that Congress require any nuclear deal with Iran to include recognition of Israel’s right to exist. The Obama administration has held firm to the position that the negotiations should be narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

The effort to tie the nuclear deal to Iran’s recognition of Israel is currently pending as an amendment, authored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), to a bill aimed at granting Congress oversight of the final nuclear agreement. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Thursday pulled an unusual procedural move to force a vote on this amendment.

Democrats and a handful of Republicans committed to preserving bipartisan support of the bill have balked at voting on the amendment, describing it as a “poison pill” that would ensure a presidential veto if included in the legislation.

Democrats are afraid to vote, Cruz told reporters in the Capitol. “They are terrified of casting a vote on whether the legislation would require Iran to recognize Israel’s rights to exist as a Jewish state, and rather than have to go on record and make clear the Democratic senators’ opposition to supporting Israel, they’re blocking every amendment on the Iran deal instead,” he said. “This should be a matter that brings us together in unity, because a nuclear Iran represents the single greatest national security threat to America. Unfortunately, far too many Senate Dems are playing politics with this rather than focusing on the grave national security threats we face.”

Cruz’s comments came as Republican members indicated that the Iran oversight bill was likely to come to a vote on Thursday — without the controversial amendment on Iran recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.

In the days following Cotton’s attempt to force a vote on the Israel amendment, Democrats called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to end debate and schedule a vote on the legislation in its current form.

While Democrats and their Republican allies could likely defeat the amendment, Democratic lawmakers have expressed frustration with being put in the position of publicly voting against pro-Israel legislation in order to preserve the Iran oversight bill.

On Tuesday, The Huffington Post asked Cruz to elaborate on what recognition of Israel had to do with eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. “In the midst of these negotiations, a senior Iranian general said the annihilation of Israel was, quote, non-negotiable. One cannot negotiate with theocratic zealots who are explicit in their desire to murder you,” Cruz said. “There is no common ground or middle ground on whether or not you are murdered. In the midst of these negotiations, Ayatollah Khamenei is leading the masses in chanting death to America.”

If negotiations were impossible, does Cruz see any alternative other than war?

“This deal makes war a certainty,” he said. “Because what President Obama is doing, if this goes forward, is unraveling the international consensus in favor of sanctions. That means the next president who enters the White House in January of 2017 is likely to encounter a world with Iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons where sanctions will have been taken off the table by Barack Obama, because they cannot be placed back with our allies in any reasonable period of time to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which means in all likelihood the next president will face a binary choice: Either allow Iran to have nuclear weapons or use military force to prevent it.

“That’s the consequence of this Obama-Iran deal, is it makes military conflict a certainty,” Cruz said.

Khamenei To Get More Concessions From The US (Dan 8:3)

Khamenei says U.S. military threats against Iran endanger nuclear talks

ANKARA | By Parisa Hafezi
(Reuters) – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday U.S. military threats made in the last few days may scupper nuclear talks as Tehran and six major world powers try to meet a June 30 deadline for a final deal.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, said two U.S. officials have threatened Iran with military action if the talks fail. He gave no further details on the threats.
“Holding nuclear talks (with major powers) under shadow of threat is unacceptable for Iran … Our nation will not accept it … Military threats will not help the talks,” he said in a speech to a gathering of teachers broadcast live on state TV.
“In the past days, two U.S. officials have threatened to take military action against Iran if Iran refuses to accept this or that nuclear condition. What does negotiation mean under the shadow of threat,” he said to chants from the crowd of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.
“I am against holding (nuclear) talks under the shadow of threat.”
Khamenei repeated his cautious support for the nuclear talks but said that the country’s “red lines” should be respected by the Iranian negotiators.
“Our negotiators should continue the talks with respect to our red lines… But they should not accept any imposition, humiliation and threat,” he said.
Iran says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and rejects allegations from Western countries and their allies that it wants the capability to produce atomic weapons. It says all sanctions are illegal.
Iran and the six world powers, which struck a tentative nuclear agreement on April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland, wrapped up nearly a week of talks in New York on Tuesday.
However, Western diplomats told Reuters that Iran and the powers were struggling to overcome deep divisions on two major sticking points: reimposing U.N. sanctions if the Iranians violate the agreement and how Tehran can buy atomic technology.
The two sides still disagree on other big issues including how quickly international sanctions would be lifted under a final deal.
Khamenei has demanded all sanctions be lifted at the same time as any deal is concluded. The U.S. and its European allies in the talks have made it clear that sanctions against Iran would be removed gradually.
The U.S. and EU sanctions have choked off nearly 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian oil exports since early 2012, reducing its oil exports by 60 percent to about a million barrels a day.
“We want the sanctions to be removed, but it does not mean that if they are not lifted, we cannot manage the country,” Khamenei said.
“Of course it will be easier to run the country if the sanctions are lifted.”
The negotiations between Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union will resume in Vienna next week to pave the way for the final deal.
(Editing by Louise Ireland)

Rubio is wrong: war IS guaranteed (Dan 8)

Bad Nuke Deal With Iran ‘Almost Guarantees War,’ Rubio Warns

Ken McIntyre / @KenMac55 / May 01, 2015

The Senate must review whatever deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran to delay its gaining a nuclear weapon, Sen. Marco Rubio said this morning, arguing that “a bad deal almost guarantees war.”

The Florida Republican said Israel won’t accept an agreement that doesn’t recognize its right to exist, and shouldn’t have to, provoking applause.

“The argument the White House uses [to garner Democrats’ support] is that if you are not in favor of this agreement, you are in favor of war,” Rubio said. “I would argue a bad deal almost guarantees war because Israel is not going to abide by any deal that they believe puts … their existence in danger.”

Rubio, who announced April 13 that he is running for president, said other Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia will want their own nuclear weapon if they see Iran’s getting one as only a matter of time.

The Senate must review whatever deal the Obama administration strikes with Iran to delay its gaining a nuclear weapon, Sen. Marco Rubio said this morning, arguing that “a bad deal almost guarantees war.”

The Florida Republican said Israel won’t accept an agreement that doesn’t recognize its right to exist, and shouldn’t have to, provoking applause.

“The argument the White House uses [to garner Democrats’ support] is that if you are not in favor of this agreement, you are in favor of war,” Rubio said. “I would argue a bad deal almost guarantees war because Israel is not going to abide by any deal that they believe puts … their existence in danger.”

Rubio, who announced April 13 that he is running for president, said other Middle East nations including Saudi Arabia will want their own nuclear weapon if they see Iran’s getting one as only a matter of time.

Attention Coffee Drinkers, meet the Morning Bell, your new best friend.

A snap to consume the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary, and original reporting that respects your time…and your intelligence. Sorry, donuts.

He also said the final deal “has to mirror the fact sheet” the administration put out when a framework was struck with the Iranians. It is “incredibly worrisome,” he said, that the White House rejects that idea.

Asked whether there is any chance Iran won’t cheat on a final deal, Rubio quickly replied: “No.”
The greatest obstacle to a legitimate deal, he said, is that Iran is controlled by “radical Shia clerics who believe that it is morally acceptable to lie” and “accept the benefits of any deal but don’t necessarily feel bound by any of its restrictions.”

Iran’s “play,” Rubio said, is to win the lifting of billions of dollars worth of international sanctions, stall inspections, increase its ability to attack the West through proxies such as Hezbollah, strengthen its military capability and stabilize internally.

Then, he predicted, banking on the West’s “very short attention span,” Iran will announce within eight years or so that it has been forced by the actions of its enemies to build a nuclear weapon.

By that time, Rubio said, European nations will not want to upend business deals by re-imposing sanctions and the U.S. at home and abroad will be more vulnerable to attack by a stronger Iran.

GOP Threatens Iran Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Congressional review of Iran nuclear deal is threatened by GOP amendments

Mitch McConnell, Tom Cotton

Sen. Tom Cotton, right, brought two amendments on the Iran nuclear review bill to the floor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, left, may have to shut down debate or withdraw the legislation for now. (Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call)

By PAUL RICHTER AND LISA MASCARO

Laws and Legislation Middle East Iran Politics and Government Israel Republican Party U.S. Senate
A bipartisan bill for Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran faced new danger Thursday as Republican senators sought to force votes on controversial amendments that leaders had hoped to avoid.

Senate Republican and Democratic leaders have worked all week to shield the bill from politically sensitive changes that are likely to drive away some Democratic supporters and sink its chances for passage.

Presidential campaign politics have complicated the process. One such amendment, from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a presidential candidate, would require Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist, something all senators would like to see, but that Iran is unlikely to do. The issue was not on the table during more than 10 years of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republican senators pressed hard for their proposals, arguing that the legislation needed to be tough enough to protect U.S. and Israeli security.

Negotiators from the United States and five other world powers are seeking to complete a comprehensive deal with Tehran by June 30 that would lift sanctions on Iran if it accepts restrictions and inspections designed to prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Senate debate was interrupted Thursday as Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), in an unusual move, brought two amendments to the floor — including the amendment on Israel — over the wishes of lawmakers who have managed the deliberations.

Cotton said the proposals were not “poison pills,” as critics claim, but “vitamin pills” that will strengthen the legislation.

The clash raised the possibility that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would need to shut down debate or withdraw the legislation for a few days, if not indefinitely.

“We’re all balled up,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Senate Republican.

He said that he hoped the legislation could move ahead but that “it’s going to take a while for everybody to cool down.”

The bill, sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), sets a procedure for Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran over a period of at least 30 days, and then vote on whether to lift economic sanctions that Congress has imposed on Iran.

The White House, which had previously threatened to veto legislation that would insert the Senate into the nuclear deal, backed down and agreed to support the proposed bill, which passed unanimously in the committee. President Obama has warned that he will veto the measure if it is revised in ways he believes could threaten the delicate negotiations.

Republican senators have proposed 67 amendments, including some politically sensitive ones that Democrats have been reluctant to vote against.

One Republican amendment, from Cotton, Rubio and fellow presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) would require the United States to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and to move the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv. Washington considers Tel Aviv the capital under long-standing policy.

Democrats, who fear that such amendments are meant to sink the bill, are reluctant to allow votes on them unless GOP leaders agree that some Republicans will also vote against them. Otherwise, they worry that “no” votes could be used against them in future campaigns.

But negotiations have not yielded a deal on how to approach sensitive amendments. And the debate has put McConnell in an increasingly awkward position. He is wary of resisting fellow Republicans after promising “robust” deliberations over the legislation.

McConnell faces tough choices. He could call for a vote on the legislation without allowing further changes. That would probably allow the bill to advance, but it could anger colleagues who would be denied the chance to amend the bill.

It would also put McConnell in the politically uncomfortable position of relying on Democrats, rather than on fellow Republicans, to move legislation that the White House accepts on a national security priority.

He could also try to negotiate a deal to put forth fewer amendments.

If the Corker bill fails, other legislation would likely be proposed, but chances for passage would be dim. And it is not clear that tougher bills could attract enough Democratic support to override a presidential veto.

Some top Republican lawmakers, as well as diplomats from U.S. allies, have said privately that despite the unfolding drama over the bill, they doubt Congress will be able to stop or radically reshape the deal with Iran.

GOP Presents Bill To Block Iran Deal (Eze 17)

US Senate to Debate Bill to Allow Review of Iran Nuclear Deal

April 27, 2015 11:13 AM
Associated Press
The U.S. Senate begins debate this week on a bill empowering Congress to review and potentially reject any Iran nuclear deal.

President Barack Obama grudgingly backed the bill when Democrats joined Republicans in demanding a say on any final agreement, but even with widespread support in the Senate, proponents must first win a battle with some colleagues determined to change the legislation in ways that could cost them the Democratic support needed for passage.

The high-profile debate comes as negotiators from the U.S. and five other nations are rushing to finalize an agreement by the end of June requiring Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart plan to meet Monday for the first time since they laid out the framework for a nuclear deal earlier this month. The State Department said Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are to meet in New York where the two are attending a conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The bill before the Senate would block Obama from waiving congressional sanctions for at least 30 days while lawmakers weigh in. If 60 senators vote to disapprove of the deal, Obama would lose his waiver power altogether.

The president is betting that won’t happen. Even if Congress disapproves, Obama will almost certainly respond with a veto, which could prove hard to override.

The bill’s backers are trying to keep lawmakers focused on how it would give Congress a say on a critical national security issue. They say the measure is not meant to be about how Iran increasingly is wielding influence in the Middle East, its support of terrorist groups or human rights violations.

Some senators are proposing amendments to pressure Iran to end its support of extremist groups, stop threatening to destroy Israel and recognize its right to exist, and release U.S. citizens held in Iran.

Such amendments could scuttle an eventual deal and be difficult for Democrats to support.

If there is a final deal with Iran, Obama can use his executive authority to ease some sanctions on his own and work with the European Union and the United Nations to lift others.

The Irany Of The Nuclear Framework (Daniel 8:3)

The Folly of Applying Cold-War Lessons to Nuclear Talks with Iran

April 24, 2015

Pursuing a changed relationship with the United States, Mikhail Gorbachev eventually made the major concession of allowing inspectors into Soviet nuclear facilities. Iran, Michael Mandelbaum writes, is quite a different case:

As the result of Gorbachev’s policies, the Soviet-American rivalry was ebbing. Because the Soviet government sought better relations with the United States, it cooperated with the inspectors. The Iranian government cannot be counted on to adopt a similar attitude: while it is seeking relief from internationally-imposed economic sanctions, unlike Gorbachev it does not want to improve its relationship to the United States. Unlike Gorbachev, it shows no sign of reconsidering, let alone discontinuing, the policies that have put it at odds with America.

During the cold war, American arms-control policy was linked to Soviet foreign policy. When that policy waxed aggressive, it became politically impossible to gain the necessary political support in the United States for an arms-control accord. . . . The Obama approach to the Iranian nuclear program has had, if anything, the opposite effect. As the negotiations have proceeded, the Iranian regime has expanded rather than pulled back from the initiatives that threaten the security of countries aligned with the United States. . . . Iran also continues to proclaim its intention to destroy Israel, a project that an Iranian nuclear arsenal would make horrifically feasible. By the terms of the agreement that have been revealed thus far, Iran will get relief from economic sanctions without having to modify any of these policies. . . .

Even if the talks do produce an accord that all parties sign, with the resulting removal of economic sanctions and with the theoretical option to re-impose them being almost certainly unworkable in practice, the mullahs will have no incentive other than the threat of bombardment to exercise nuclear restraint. . . . Asserting [as many do] that the United States should not stop the Iranian program by force because that will only buy time is like saying that medical care is pointless because everyone ultimately dies.

GOP Trying To Block Nuclear Deal (Eze 17)

 GOP: Stop Iran From Getting Nuclear Weapons

04/21/2015 6:00 am PST

Mark Truppner, MML Reporter 

 

In this week’s Republican address, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois spoke of the ongoing need to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Kirk was Tuesday’s KVML “Newsmaker of the Day”. Here are his words:

“Hello, I’m Senator Mark Kirk, I’m honored to represent the people of Illinois in the Senate.

I’m here today to talk about my work to ensure that the next generation of Americans never has to hear about a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf.

Iran is the world’s biggest state sponsor of terror.

Iran’s Aytatollah’s are now trying to build their own nuclear weapons.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to annihilate Jewish families across the state of Israel.

Four years ago I authored a bipartisan Iran sanctions Legislation that passed the Senate by a vote of 100-0.

These sanctions forced Iran back to the negotiating table.

They were so effective that they dropped the value of Iran’s currency by ¾.

This was probably the entire reason why the Iranians even showed up at the negotiations.

Lately, Iran has tried to backtrack on the promises they made to President Obama.

Iran now wants sanctions immediately lifted which would fund Iran’s terror subsidiaries with billions.

Secretary Kerry recently testified before the Senate and said it would only take two more months for Iran to build a bomb.

We must use strong economic pressure on Iran to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.
Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is the greatest challenge to peace in our time.

After the Holocaust we promised ‘never again.’

We must keep terrorists from hurting our allies and our nation.

Thank you for listening and God Bless the United States of America.”

The “Newsmaker of the Day” is heard every weekday morning on AM 1450 KVML at 6:45, 7:45 and 8:45 AM.

Graham Is Correct: Iran Deal Won’t Happen (Eze 17)

Lindsey Graham: there’s a ‘snowball’s chance in hell’ for congressional OK of Iran nuke deal

BY Adam Edelman

A prominent Senate Republican said Sunday there’s not a “snowball’s chance in hell” that President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal would get congressional approval.

“It is so weak in a time we need to be strong,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a possible 2016 contender, said on Fox News Sunday of the draft agreement between the U.S., Iran and other world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program.

“I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell this framework will get approved by Congress after review,” he added. “I don’t think any Republican or Democrat is going to allow that to become final.”

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, on the other hand, maintained that he was “withholding judgment” on the draft agreement until he receives more information.

Asked about his position Sunday, Schumer said: “I’m in the process of being briefed. It’s a very difficult situation. It’s a situation that requires a lot of care and I’m withholding judgment until I learn both sides very carefully.

“There are a whole lot of things we don’t know yet. When do sanctions go into effect? How rigid is the inspections regime? What will be done on the military bases? So I think it’s premature to give an answer one way or the other right now,” he said.

International negotiators have been working to reach a deal that would prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, Tehran would get relief from economic sanctions that are crippling its economy.

Congress has pushed for weeks for the ability to approve any final deal reached with Iran and last week, President Obama assured lawmakers that he would sign a bill that would give legislators a chance to block an international agreement to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.

But, in another sign any final deal faces an uphill battle, a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said Sunday that inspectors would be barred from military sites under any nuclear agreement with world powers — setting up a possible standoff.

Gen. Hossein Salami, the Guard’s deputy leader, told Iranian state television that allowing foreign inspection of military sites would be tantamount to “selling out,” raising the stakes as talks between Iran and the six-nation group are to resume April 22 in Vienna.

“We will respond with hot lead (bullets) to those who speak of it,” Salami said. “Iran will not become a paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.”

In addition, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told military commanders Sunday that U.S. negotiators had created the “myth” of nuclear weapons to portray Iran as a threat, hardening his rhetoric before nuclear negotiations resume this week.

“They created the myth of nuclear weapons so they could say the Islamic Republic is a source of threat,” Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, said in a televised address to a hall of several hundred military commanders. “The source of threat is America itself, with its unrestrained, destabilizing interventions.”

With News Wire Services

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.

Chasm In Nuclear Deal Widens (Ezekiel 17)

Iran-U.S. differences over nuclear deal widen

Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

Two weeks after world powers and Iran announced a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, widening gaps between the two sides are emerging.

As negotiators prepare to start working on a final agreement in Vienna next Wednesday, the United States and Iran are at odds on key issues that form the basis of the deal unveiled April 2 in Switzerland.

Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is one of the facilities that would be covered by a comprehensive agreement Iran is negotiating with world powers. Negotiations restart next week.

They include when economic sanctions on Iran will be lifted, the number of machines Iran can keep to process uranium and length of the final agreement.

The six world powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — and Iran have set a deadline of June 30 for a comprehensive deal that would curb Iran’s nuclear program and ensure it is for peaceful uses, as Iran claims. In return, sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy would be lifted.

That will not be an easy task, given the sizable differences that must be resolved.

“There is a difficult path ahead of us towards the final deal,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in the northern Iranian city of Rasht, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported Thursday. But there seems to be an international “will” to conclude a deal, he said.

Tuesday, The U.S. Senate agreed on a bipartisan bill that would give it the final say on any deal, adding a further complication to the negotiations. The White House said President Obama would sign that bill, which would require a two-thirds vote to kill a final agreement.

During a press conference on Friday, President Obama said he thought that Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Ben Cardin, D-Md., reached a “reasonable compromise.”

The president said he had two concerns. One was to make sure congressional actions did not derail chances for the best deal possible, and that Secretary of State John Kerry would not be “hobbled” by lawmakers’ actions. He said he believes the process will not be tripped up in this way, “so that checked off one box.”

The second concern arose from suggestions that a president as a rule of thumb must get approval from Congress to negotiate political agreements.

“That is not the case,” Obama said. “This is not a formal treaty being envisioned. And the President of the United States, whether Democrat or Republican, traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval.”

The president said that if neither senator makes any additional provisions or amendments, he will sign it.

Many U.S. lawmakers are skeptical of negotiations with Iran because they don’t trust it to abide by the terms of any agreement it signs. Likewise, Iranian politicians in Tehran accuse the U.S. Congress of trying to sabotage an agreement and say Iran’s actions to satisfy a deal should be reversible if world powers fail to live up to their obligations.

Based on recent comments from U.S. and Iranian leaders, as well as fact sheets on the interim deal issued separately by the United States and Iran, glaring differences appear. The main ones:

•Sanctions: The fact sheet issued by Iran’s parliament Wednesday said that when the comprehensive deal begins, “all the U.S. and (European Union) sanctions will be terminated, and Iran will start fulfilling” its obligations under the deal. The White House said sanctions would be suspended in phases as Iran meets the terms of the deal and its actions are verified by United Nations inspectors.

•Centrifuges: Iran’s fact sheet said Iran should keep operating about 10,000 centrifuges used to process uranium fuel. The White House said the framework agreement calls for Iran to scale back to 5,060 operating centrifuges to make it more difficult to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb.

•Fordow: Iran’s fact sheet said a bunkered facility under a mountain in Fordow would continue uranium enrichment and research and development activities to prepare for more advanced machines in five years. The White House said Fordow would be converted to R&D that does not involve uranium enrichment.

•Inspections: The White House said U.N. inspectors would have access to “all of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” including undeclared sites. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei flatly rejected inspections of military sites.

•Duration: Iran’s parliament called for a five-year limit on the nation’s nuclear program. The White House said some aspects of the deal would last 10 years, and others would last 25 years.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a skeptic of an emerging deal, expressed worries that Obama will make new concessions to Iran to reach an agreement. “President Obama wants a deal and will back ‘creative negotiations,’ in his own words, to bridge remaining gaps on these issues,” he said.

Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, which supports a deal with Iran, said the Iranian fact sheet was produced by a hard-line opposition in response to the planned U.S. Senate review of the agreement and does not reflect the position of Iran’s negotiators or Khamenei.

“These are tough decisions for the negotiators to make,” she said, “because each side needs to be sure they can sell a final agreement back home.”

GOP May Not Be Able To Block Iran Nuclear Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Senate’s Iran Nuclear Bill Misses the Point

By Michaela Dodge, Steven Groves and James Phillips

Two days ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) unanimously passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, a bill that attempts to bolster the congressional role in the Obama Administration’s negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. While the effort is well intentioned, the bill sets up Congress to allow the Administration to act as if it had congressional approval while a substantive oversight of the agreement is lacking. The bill paves a path to lifting sanctions and congressional approval of what has emerged as a flawed and dubious deal with a notoriously untrustworthy regime.

The bill allows the Obama Administration’s future agreement with the Iranian leaders to go forward unless it is disapproved by enactment of a new law. To halt a bad agreement then, Congress would need to pass a joint resolution disapproving the agreement, which the President could then veto, as a result of which it would not become law unless two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to override the veto. Thus, in essence, under the SFRC bill, the Obama agreement with Iran will automatically go forward unless two-thirds of Congress disapproves of it. In contrast, in the normal treaty process, a President cannot make a treaty unless two-thirds of the Senate votes to approve the treaty.

The President knows that he would not be able to achieve Senate ratification of a nuclear deal with Iran, which is why he is choosing to pursue a deal as a sole executive agreement and not as a treaty. The SFRC bill gives the Administration a vehicle to gain congressional sanction that it neither sought nor was able to obtain in the first place through the standard treaty process.

 The Administration’s Bad Deal

The Obama Administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action makes clear that the United States will be left with a risky deal that will not halt Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts, but only slow the pace of its advance temporarily, while allowing Iran to stage a nuclear breakout from a much-improved position after restrictions on uranium enrichment expire in 10 years to 15 years.

Iran is allowed to maintain more than 6,000 operational centrifuges for 10 years, after which it will be free to build a much bigger program that will greatly shorten the time it needs for a nuclear breakout. Despite six U.N. Security Council Resolutions that called for a halt in its enrichment efforts, the Administration has essentially accepted Iran’s self-proclaimed “right” to enrich uranium. Since the global market provides more than enough enriched-uranium fuel for civilian nuclear reactors at much lower prices than Iran can produce it, Iran’s claim that its enrichment efforts are due to necessity is suspicious at best.

Iran is not required to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or clarify previous questions regarding military dimensions of its nuclear program. Particularly worrisome is the continued operations of its illicit nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz, as well as the heavy water reactor at Arak that has been described as a plutonium bomb factory. All of these facilities, which were built covertly by Iran in violation of its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments, would now be legitimized by the agreement.

The Administration undermined its own bargaining leverage by prematurely relaxing sanctions on Iran to reach the 2013 interim agreement. Once sanctions are lifted under this latest deal, they will be very hard to re-impose, given the U.N.’s history of coming in a day late and a dollar short in crisis situations. Other members of the U.N. Security Council, Russia in particular, cannot be counted on to fully cooperate on re-imposing sanctions in a timely and effective manner. Just this week, Moscow announced that it intends to sell its advanced S-300 air-defense system to Tehran, despite successive U.S. Administrations’ efforts to prevent the sale.

U.S. allies, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have expressed alarm at the prospect for a deal that only temporarily slows down, and does not stop, Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. They fear that a nuclear deal will lead to a rapprochement between Iran and the United States that will come at their expense.

 Conclusion

The well-intentioned legislation has negative consequences because it diverts attention from what should be the goals of an acceptable nuclear agreement:

• A permanent halt in Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium production;
• A robust and long-term verification program with extensive real-time monitoring of all nuclear facilities; snap inspections on an “anytime, anywhere” basis; and full Iranian cooperation in interviewing scientists and other personnel involved in all aspects of the nuclear program;
• Iranian admission and detailed accounting for all past research and development of the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and full cooperation with the investigations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which Tehran has stonewalled repeatedly;
• A gradual and phased lifting of sanctions linked to Iranian fulfillment of its obligations to retain leverage over Iran to ensure compliance;
• A clear and rapid process for re-imposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating; and
• The final outcome must strengthen long-term nuclear nonproliferation efforts, rather than encourage other nations to demand the same nonproliferation concessions as Iran.

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is likely to lead nervous countries in the region to seek their own nuclear weapons, fueling a cascade of nuclear proliferation that will undermine U.S. security interests in the volatile Middle East and provide Iran with even more resources to fund its many terrorist activities around the world.

The SFRC bill gives the President an easier path to obtaining the very congressional imprimatur that he would probably be unable to obtain through the traditional treaty process. The bill has become a distraction. Congress and the Administration should be focusing on the serious flaws of the Iranian deal rather than on procedural and congressional prerogative issues.

—Michaela Dodge is Senior Policy Analyst for Defense and Strategic Policy in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, of the Davis Institute. James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Allison Center.

GOP Delays Iran Deal Encouraging Nuclear Iran (Ezekiel 17)

 

 Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and PETER BAKER

APRIL 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — The White House relented on Tuesday and said President Obama would sign a compromise bill giving Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear accord with Iran as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in rare unanimous agreement, moved the legislation to the full Senate for a vote.

An unusual alliance of Republican opponents of the nuclear deal and some of Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters demanded a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. White House officials insisted they extracted crucial last-minute concessions. Republicans — and many Democrats — said the president simply got overrun.

“We’re involved here. We have to be involved here,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before the committee’s vote on Tuesday. “Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime.”

The essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose, allowing Secretary of State John Kerry to tell his Iranian counterpart that the risk that an agreement would be upended on Capitol Hill is limited.

As Congress considers any accord on a very short timetable, it would essentially be able to vote on an eventual end to sanctions, and then later take up the issue depending on whether Iran has met its own obligations. But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail.

The bill would require that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions pending a 30-day congressional review, and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.

Why Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute of what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, but had decided that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes to make it acceptable.

“We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the committee’s chairman, had a far different interpretation. As late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry was urging senators to oppose the bill. The “change occurred when they saw how many senators were going to vote for this, and only when that occurred,” Mr. Corker said.

Mr. Cardin said that the “fundamental provisions” of the legislation had not changed.

But the compromise between him and Mr. Corker did shorten a review period of a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran’s ending support for terrorism.

The agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this month, and House Republican leaders have promised to pass it shortly after.

“Congress absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal,” the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Tuesday. “We shouldn’t just count on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost.”

White House officials blitzed Congress in the days after the framework of a nuclear deal was announced, making 130 phone calls to lawmakers, but quickly came to the conclusion that the legislation could not be blocked altogether.

Moreover, officials increasingly worried that an unresolved fight could torpedo the next phase of negotiations with Iran.

“Having this lingering uncertainty about whether we could deliver on our side of the deal was probably a deal killer,” said a senior administration official, who asked for anonymity to describe internal deliberations.

Under the compromise legislation, a 60-day review period of a final nuclear agreement in the original bill was in effect cut in half, to 30 days, starting with its submission to Congress. But tacked on to that review period potentially would be the maximum 12 days the president would have to decide whether to accept or veto a resolution of disapproval, should Congress take that vote.

The formal review period would also include a maximum of 10 days Congress would have to override the veto. For Republicans, that would mean the president could not lift sanctions for a maximum of 52 days after submitting a final accord to Congress, along with all classified material.

And if a final accord is not submitted to Congress by July 9, the review period will snap back to 60 days. That would prevent the administration from intentionally delaying the submission of the accord to the Capitol. Congress could not reopen the mechanics of a deal, and taking no action would be the equivalent of allowing it to move forward.

Mr. Corker also agreed to a significant change on the terrorism language.

Initially, the bill said the president had to certify every 90 days that Iran no longer was supporting terrorism against Americans. If he could not, economic sanctions would be reimposed.

Should the negotiations falter and yet another protracted war results the burden will once again shift to the Republican controlled Congress

Under the agreement, the president would still have to send periodic reports to Congress on Iran’s activities regarding ballistic missiles and terrorism, but those reports could not trigger another round of sanctions.

The measure still faces hurdles. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, fresh off the opening of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, dropped plans to push for an amendment to make any Iran deal dependent on the Islamic Republic’s recognition of the State of Israel, a diplomatic nonstarter.

“Not getting anything done plays right into the hands of the administration,” Mr. Rubio said.

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, abandoned an amendment to make any Iran accord into a formal international treaty needing two-thirds of the Senate for its ratification, but he, too, said it could be revived before the full Senate.

Mr. Earnest said the president also wanted no more changes. “We’re asking for a commitment that people will pursue the process that’s contemplated in this bill,” he said.

Democrats had implored Mr. Obama to embrace the legislation.

“If the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad agreement,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “That’s the threshold.”

Russian Horn About To Enable Iranian Horn

 

 US, Israel express concern as Russia lifts ban on missile deliveries to Iran 

Published April 13, 2015
FoxNews.com

Russia’s move Monday to lift its ban on delivery of sophisticated air defense missiles to Iran drew criticism from Israel and raised U.S. concerns, as world powers continue to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear program.

In a clear sign that he wants to strengthen economic ties with Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree Monday lifting his country’s ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-missile rocket systems to the Islamic Republic.

Russia signed an $800 million contract to sell Iran the S-300 missile system in 2007, but later suspended their delivery in 2010, after strong objections from the U.S. and Israel.

Monday’s developments follow the interim deal between Iran and several world powers — including the U.S. and Russia — to lift sanctions on Iran if it limits its nuclear program. Western nations suspect Iran’s nuclear aspirations were aimed at developing an atomic weapons capability. Iran insists the program is for purely peaceful purposes.

At a briefing in Washington Monday, acting State Department spokesperson Marie Harf said the U.S. has reservations about Iran receiving new missile systems.

“We think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region in places like Yemen and Syria or Lebanon, this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them,” Harf told reporters.

When asked whether talk of a missile deal between Tehran and Moscow would jeopardize nuclear negotiations with the group of six world powers, Harf said Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated U.S. concerns in a phone call with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Monday.

“We don’t believe it’s constructive at this time for Russia to move forward with this but we’ve worked very closely with the Russians on the P5+1 negotiations. We don’t think this will have an impact on unity in terms of inside the negotiating room,” Harf said.

Israel reacted swiftly to Russia lifting the ban on selling missiles to Iran, saying it is a “direct result” of the international community’s framework nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Israeli cabinet minister Yuval Steinitz said Monday that the framework agreement helped legitimize Iran and cleared the way for a Russian deal.

“This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from the emerging nuclear deal,” he said. Steinitz added that the arms deal shows that Iran plans to use the relief from economic sanctions to buy weapons, not improve the living conditions of its people.

Israel has harshly criticized the U.S.-led nuclear deal, saying it would give Iran relief from sanctions while leaving its nuclear program largely intact. Israel believes Iran still intends to develop a nuclear weapon.

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said Monday that Russia lifting the ban on missile sales to his country could lead to an expansion of cooperation and help stability in the region,
Reuters reported, citing Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.

“This order shows the political will of the leaders of the two countries for developing and promoting the levels of cooperation in all fields,” Dehghan said.

“The expansion of the two-way cooperation and the development of cooperation with other neighboring countries in various fields can be effective in establishing stability and security in the region,” Dehghan said.

Meanwhile, a senior Russian government official said Monday that Russia has entered a barter deal — starting to supply equipment, construction materials, and grain to Tehran, in exchange for crude oil.

Iran is the third largest buyer of Russian wheat, and Moscow and Tehran have been negotiating the barter deal for more than a year.

A deal worth up to $20 billion was on the table with Tehran, which had Russia buying up to 500,000 barrels of Iranian oil a day, in exchange for Russian equipment and goods, sources told Reuters more than a year ago.

The status of that deal has been unclear as officials from the two countries issued contradictory statements on whether a barter deal had been signed. But Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov suggested one was already being implemented.

“I wanted to draw your attention to the rolling out of the oil-for-goods deal, which is on a very significant scale,”

Ryabkov told a briefing with members of the upper house of parliament on the Iran talks.

“In exchange for Iranian crude oil supplies, we are delivering certain products. This is not banned or limited under the current sanctions regime,” Ryabkov said.

Ryabkov did not elaborate and Russia’s Agriculture Ministry declined comment.

Iran has made no comment on news of a possible deal.

The next deadline to work out a detailed technical agreement under which Iran would limit its nuclear program and permit international control in exchange for a lifting of economic sanctions is in June.

“It takes two to tango. We are ready to provide our services and I am sure they will be pretty advantageous compared to other countries,” Ryabkov said. “We never gave up on Iran in a difficult situation… Both for oil and gas, I think the prospects for our cooperation should not be underestimated.”

He also reiterated Moscow’s line that an arms embargo on Iran should be lifted once a final nuclear deal is sealed.