Obama Losing His Own Party’s Support On Iran Deal

 

President Obama has Difficult Time Selling Iran Agreement
August 13, 2015
By John Ubaldi

Contributor, In Homeland Security

After last week’s address at American University, President Obama is now facing opposition from his own party as New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer came out against the nuclear agreement with Iran.Iran nuclear deal

Other Democrats have joined Schumer in his opposition to this agreement, including the ranking House Democrat on the foreign affairs committee, Rep. Eliot Engel, and top Democrat Rep. Nita Lowery of the appropriations committee, and other Democratic representatives such as Reps. Grace Meng and Kathleen Rice.

At American University, President Obama laid out his vision of why this agreement is in the best interests of the U.S.

Obama tried to link the two periods of history with Kennedy’s test ban to his recent nuclear deal with Iran. One has to be careful in utilizing a historical period to compare contemporary times, far too often politicians over use history to fit their present day narratives.

The president has to be careful how this is placed in historical context, as Kennedy’s atmospheric nuclear test ban was also in the back drop of the Berlin crisis and the Cuban missile crisis, which had the world on the brink of nuclear war.

President Kennedy had broad based support for his effort, unlike today where opposition is fierce against the nuclear agreement with Iran, mostly coming from Republicans and now some key Democrats, who have signaled their opposition to the agreement.

On Thursday, during the Republican presidential debate, Sen. Schumer issued a statement detailing his opposition of the agreement, while the White House immediately began to marginalize the senator, commenting how he supported the Iraq War, and is now wrong with the president on foreign policy.

The president did not help his cause when he stated last week, and continued to double down on his comments in various media interviews that, “In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

The president is not winning friends to his side by his linkage of the opposition to the leaders of Iran. First he did it with Republicans, now he is adding Democrats to the mix. This linkage will not build bipartisan support for this agreement; it will just harden their position even more.

Invoking the legacy of the authorization to use force in Iraq, one has to remember that both Republicans and Democrats voted to go into Iraq, including Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and incidentally, both voted against the first Persian Gulf War and then voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Even former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, to include Senate minority leader Harry Reid, so one has to be careful when placing events in historical content.

Schumer’s opposition stems from Iran’s nuclear ambitions that might be thwarted in the first 10 years, but after that it is open-ended.

On Tuesday, Schumer stated, “That means the United States and all the governments in the world say it’s OK for Iran to be a threshold nuclear state.” Schumer also mentioned that the agreement allows $50 billion in sanctioned money to be released, allowing its usage to be sent to terror groups around the Middle East.

Schumer continued to lay out his objections to the agreement, with the Wall Street Journal reporting his concerns over the 24-day delay of inspecting suspected nuclear facilities during the first 10 years of the deal. He also complained that the U.S. couldn’t unilaterally demand inspections, and instead would be dependent on building support from a majority of an eight-member bloc that includes Russia, China and Iran—essentially forcing the European members of the group to agree.
 
“It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections,” Mr. Schumer said.

An additional concern of Schumer is the billions of dollars which would flow to Iran once sanctions are lifted, to be used by Tehran to give to its proxy forces across the Middle East, since the U.S. has identified Iran as a state sponsor of Terror. Schumer is concerned that the Islamic Republic “would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.”

If the president is going to secure this deal, he and his administration are going to have to do a better job of lobbying Congress, otherwise he will lose.

Even Obama’s Party Is Skeptical Of Iran Deal (Eze 17)

  

Democrats Skeptical of Iran Nuclear Deal, GOP Mostly Hostile

Jul 14, 2015
Associated Press | by Deb Riechmann

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats expressed skepticism Tuesday about the landmark Iranian nuclear deal the U.S. and its partners just reached with Tehran.
Under the historic accord, Iran’s nuclear program would be curtailed in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions. The agreement aims to avert the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and another U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

“I was skeptical at the beginning of this process, and I remain skeptical of the Iranians,” said Rep. Steve Israel, the highest ranking Jewish Democrat in the House. “In the fall, there will be a vote on this deal, and my obligation is to review every word, sentence and paragraph of the deal to ensure it satisfies my continued concerns. Until then, you can continue to count me in the ‘skeptical’ column.”
Many Republicans, as expected, are vehemently opposed to the agreement. That’s not surprising since the GOP-led House invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint meeting of Congress earlier this year. Netanyahu assailed the negotiations with Iran, which has threatened to destroy Israel.

“It’s like giving an alligator more teeth and thinking now they may be nice to you,” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Florida.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the agreement was flawed because “the Obama Administration approached these talks from a flawed perspective: reaching the best deal acceptable to Iran, rather than actually advancing our national goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program.”

Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, minced no words in expressing his skepticism of what he said would be a “tough sell” in Congress. “Iran won’t even have to cheat on this agreement to be a small step away from the bomb, dominate the region and boost its oppressive regime at home,” he said.

After receiving a copy of the agreement, lawmakers will have 60 days to read the fine print, vote yea or nay — or take no action.

If Congress votes to disapprove it, President Barack Obama is expected to veto the decision in defense of the deal. He reiterated Tuesday he would do just that, if necessary. A two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate would be needed to override a veto.

However, even if Congress votes to disapprove, it doesn’t scuttle the agreement. The only way Congress can thwart the Iran deal is by passing new sanctions legislation or stripping away the authority Obama currently has to waive those sanctions that were imposed earlier by Congress. Moreover, even if Congress rejects the deal with Tehran, Obama could use his executive pen to offer a hefty portion of sanctions relief on his own. He could take unilateral actions that — when coupled with European and U.N. sanctions relief — would allow him to implement the deal. Obama can’t lift the congressionally mandated sanctions; only Congress can do that.

“I am confident that this deal will meet the national security interest of the United States and our allies,” Obama said in announcing the deal at the White House. “So I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

Expect the deal to be dissected and turned inside out in both the House and Senate.

Lawmakers will scan its pages to find out: Does it call for anytime, anywhere inspections of Iranian nuclear and military sites? What sanctions against Iran will be lifted and when? Can sanctions be reinstated if Iran cheats? Did Iran come clean regarding its past nuclear activities? How long will Iran be prevented from developing nuclear weapons? And that’s just for starters.

The foreign relations committees in both chambers — and possibly other panels on intelligence and the armed services — are expected to quickly schedule hearings. It appears unlikely, though, that Congress will take any formal action before the August recess, when they most certainly will hear from constituents on the issue. Secretary of State John Kerry, the lead U.S. negotiator of the deal, could be called to testify and probably will be asked to give lawmakers classified briefings on the deal.

When it comes to a vote, all eyes will be on Democrats to figure out whether they will back the deal brokered by the administration or turn their back on the president, as many of his fellow Democrats did in a recent battle involving trade negotiating authority for presidents.

Key senators to watch:

— New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber. Like some other Democrats, he has strong ties to Jewish constituents worried about emboldening Iran.

— Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who was instrumental in getting legislation passed giving Congress a chance to weigh in on any agreement.

— New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat who has bucked the White House by voicing skepticism that Iran can be trusted to abide by terms of any deal.

They have not yet commented on the agreement.

Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, and various Jewish advocacy groups have heavily lobbied lawmakers against signing any agreement with Iran.

“He is a very informed and persuasive advocate for the Israeli perspective and he is a persistent and thorough critic of the context of these negotiations and he made some very strong points,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “We got to teasing each other. I ran into him three times as he was coming in or out of other offices.”

Coons and other Democrats plan to dive deeply into the text of the agreement.

“If it really does put Iran in a place where 11 or 12 or 13 years from now they have a complete nuclear enrichment infrastructure and we have virtually no means to restrain them from racing to a bomb, that is a grave concern,” said Coons, who trained as a chemist. “I’m a supporter of the administration, but my job as a senator is to independently review the deal in detail.”

Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, called on Congress to review this deal “with the thoughtful, level-headed process an agreement of this magnitude deserves.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “If this agreement is what the administration says it is, it is a major, historic diplomatic breakthrough.”

No Change In Iraq Government

Uprooting the Shia Dawa Party after the Baath

Haifa Zangana

Sunday, 09 November 2014 15:14

While the world is busy rallying politically and militarily against ISIS, I believe that in Iraq and America the blame is mainly put on ex-Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. He is regarded as the source of all corruption, ethnic cleansing and killing in Iraq during his eight years in government. The same world, however, is meeting the current corruption, ethnic cleansing and killing that is taking place daily under the current government with a deafening silence, apparently blind to what is happening.There is a hidden agreement between Iraqi politicians collaborating with the US administration to be quiet about the government and its ministers and officials, even though they are the same as those of the Maliki government, with a small difference: Al-Maliki is now Vice President and Haider Al-Abadi is prime minister; the latter is one of the leaders of the Dawa Party, of which Al-Maliki is Secretary General. There is a campaign by ministers of Al-Abadi’s government to deny responsibility for anything that took place during the past eight years and to accuse Al-Maliki, as if they were not members of his government. Hoshyar Zebari, the ex-minister of foreign affairs and now the minister of finance, was very evasive in a recent interview, outdoing the leader of the Sadrist movement Muqtada al-Sadr in his ambiguity, blaming everyone but himself for the looting, corruption and collapse of law and order. Viewers are justified in wondering how this politician demonstrating such honesty and patience could accept one position after another in a government that he describes as corrupt.

In any case, Al-Maliki is not that innocent, and continues to have a hand in everything going on, with his own “special forces” and expanding influence through his eldest son, family and relatives. This means that he and the party he belongs to, the Shia Islamic Dawa Party, has succeeded in committing all of the sins of successive Iraqi governments for the past 90 years put together, and in record time. What draws our attention to the current Iraqi situation includes the media silence on the national, Arab and international levels, regarding the ongoing crimes of the regime, despite the killing of ever more citizens. The UN mission in Iraq, (UNAMI), announced this week the death and injury of 4,100 Iraqis during the month of October, which is the highest monthly toll of 2014, although it does not include victims in the Anbar province.

Furthermore, rewarding Al-Maliki by promoting him to vice president has gone ahead even though everyone insists that he is to blame for the disasters in Iraq in recent years. His name is no longer mentioned unless accompanied by adjectives such as foolish, lazy and short-sighted. Anyone who has seen the documentary about the Howayha massacre, when Al-Maliki, as general commander of the armed forces, gave orders to shoot and kill demonstrators, knows full well that this man deserves to be put to trial rather than get promoted.

We also have to take into account the “loss” of billions of dollars from Iraq’s Developmental Fund. The latest news on the money is that on 13 October this year between $1.2 and $1.6 billion, which was stolen during the American invasion of Iraq and transferred to Lebanon for safe keeping, has been found in a Lebanese basement. According to Stuart Bowen, US special inspector general for the investigation of corruption and wasting money in Iraq, he spoke to Al-Maliki about the missing funds and the discovery of the basement but the then prime minister did not take any action. More recently, they’ve been talking about the disappearance of $11 billion from Iraq’s currency reserves during the month that preceded the appointment of Al-Abadi; this is a scandal that has still to be made public about funds that are equal to the entire budgets of many countries.

Does rotating ministers and presenting them in new offices, in a government headed by a leader in the Dawa Party called Al-Abadi, mean that they are absolved of responsibility for crimes committed during the government that was headed by the Dawa Party’s Secretary General Al-Maliki? Doesn’t the logic of accountability and justice, which is being applied in order to uproot the Baath Party, require us to demand the same policy to uproot the Dawa Party? This is especially important given that the balance for measuring crimes was broken many years ago, under the heavy weight of crimes committed (and still being committed) by the Dawa Party and its allies and the militias that were planted, nurtured and grown under its sectarian patronage.

It has to be said that Al-Abadi’s position is no less sectarian than Al-Maliki’s. They speak with one sectarian voice when they say: “We applaud Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani in these days in which Iraqi forces are having consecutive victories which would not have been possible without the historic fatwa on ‘Ulkipaúa jihad’ in defence of Iraq, its people and their sanctities.” The Dawa Party knows very well that this fatwa was addressed to the Shias only and not the entire Iraqi people. It is well known that only the Shias are the ones who follow such reference points and not the Sunnis, Christians or Yazidis. Writer Taleb Ramahi made this important point in a letter addressed to Al-Sistani in August: “We failed in marketing the fatwa correctly, so it seemed like a sectarian rally against the Sunni component, and it was our duty, especially the state media, to work on the involvement of the Sunni component in the fatwa.” Ramahi though, like the Dawa Party, has welcomed the fatwa, describing it as a “pure step”, and stressing, at the same time, that it addresses followers of the Shia sect, because it is “obedience to the imam Alhuja, may God speed his reappearance, believing that what comes out from Grand Ayatollah is not far from the desires of the hidden imam.” The timing of the fatwa was in sync with the success of the Dawa Party, led by Al-Maliki, in the consolidation of the idea of linking Sunnis with terrorism, or that terrorism is a Sunni phenomenon. This in turn means legitimising the bombing and displacement of residents of Sunni areas as collective punishment against ISIS terrorism, although the latter is aimed against all those who disagree with their opinions and beliefs.

Finally, if we manage, for any reason, to overlook all of the points relating to political and moral decline mentioned above, can we overlook the opening of the borders for Iranian death squads and summoning them with America and its allies to occupy Iraq for the second time? This is happening under the pretext that “all we need from our friends in weapons and support”, according to Al-Abadi and his party, who are overlooking the fact that those who lose the support of their people may benefit for a short while from the occupation. However, will they turn against them when there are no more interests to protect? Will the future of Iraq be one uprooting after another?

Translated from Al Aquds Al Arabi, 3 November, 2014