Democrats Cracking Under Iran Deal (Ezekiel 17)

Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal

‘He’s got the toughest vote of his career coming,’ a colleague says of the New York Democrat, who insists he’s undecided.

By Manu Raju and Burgess Everett
8/2/15 5:44 PM EDT
`
NEW YORK, NY – MARCH 31: U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) attends a press conference announcing federal funding for Super Storm Sandy recovery efforts on March 31, 2015 in New York City. The FEMA grant is the largest single grant in U.S. history for disaster relief. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Chuck Schumer is getting an earful from opponents of the Iran nuclear deal.

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office line the past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Another group has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer and other lawmakers to vote against the plan. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee has put its muscle behind an effort to lobby the New Yorker against it.

And Dov Hikind, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn, was arrested for disorderly conduct while protesting the deal outside Schumer’s office.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September. The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against it?

Schumer is one of about 15 Democratic senators who will decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in Congress. The president can afford to lose no more than a dozen Democrats on the Senate floor, and as the next Democratic leader, Schumer may be the most critical of them all.

In an interview with POLITICO, Schumer insisted he’s still weighing his vote. He said he would decide based on the merits of the deal, not lobbying from either side.

“I haven’t made up my mind,” said Schumer, who is in line to be the first Jewish Senate leader next Congress. “There are expectations all over the lot. I’m doing what I’m always doing when I have a very difficult decision: Learning it carefully and giving it my best shot, doing what I think is right. I’m not going to let pressure or politics or party get in the way of that.”

He wouldn’t say if he would forcefully advocate his position once he makes his stance clear.
“I’ve got to first decide how I’m voting,” Schumer said.

Opponents have been much louder than supporters. If that trend continues over the break at town hall meetings, it will only amplify pressure on swing Democrats to vote against the deal.

Sen. Chris Coons, who was personally lobbied by President Barack Obama and national security adviser Susan Rice to back the deal during a trip to Africa in July, said the view of the accord was about evenly split in his home state of Delaware in the first few days after the announcement. But the Democrat now says telephone calls against the deal outnumber those in favor by 10-to-1 in his state, an avalanche of opposition he has no choice but to listen to.

“I am a Democrat, and I would like to be able to support this agreement,” Coons said. “But I have serious reservations about it.”

Schumer does as well. As an Israel hawk who will be the next Democratic leader after Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) retires in January 2017, Schumer is seen as a bellwether among the handful of fence-sitting Democrats who may buck the White House and try to kill the sweeping accord. That leaves Schumer stuck between pro-Israel forces who have long been a key base of support and who are trying to kill the deal — and the White House and its progressive allies who are eager to secure a centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy legacy and stave off a potential war.

Schumer will be criticized no matter what he does. If he tries to lobby members against the deal, he’ll be lashed by the left for undermining both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and precipitating another conflict in the Middle East. If he quietly opposes the deal, he’ll be criticized by his hawkish Israel supporters for not doing enough to scuttle the agreement.

And if he supports it, he’s bound to get slammed by powerful Jewish donors and constituents who have long been among his staunchest supporters.

“Boy, I’m glad I’m not Chuck Schumer, I’ll tell ya,” said a smirking John McCain (R-Ariz.), a friend of the New York Democrat. “He’s got the toughest vote of his career coming.”

Congress has 60 days to consider the Iran nuclear agreement, which was reached between the United States, five world powers and Iran, meaning decisive votes will occur no later than September 17th. The agreement seeks to pare back Iran’s nuclear program, opening its facilities to inspections and monitoring, in exchange for lifting sanctions.

Congress vote is on whether to lift legislative sanctions, which have been key to bringing Iran to the negotiating table and would provide major economic relief if Congress lets the deal go through. Republicans will need a veto-proof, two-thirds majority to scuttle the deal, a high bar that will require a sizable bloc of Democratic opposition.

Skeptics in both parties fear the plan will make Iran richer but do little to curtail the country’s nuclear ambitions. Nowhere is that feeling more prevalent than in New York, with one of the most politically active Jewish populations. Last week, Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) announced her opposition to the deal, and one New York Jewish Democrat, Eliot Engel, expressed deep skepticism of the agreement.
“There are a number of parts of the deal that trouble me,” Engel said in an interview. “The main problem I have is that this deal will give a lot of money to Iran. Iran will be awash in cash, and they will be able to use it to fund their terrorist activities.”

The New York and New Jersey delegations have been the top focus of groups trying to kill the agreement, and there’s evidence they are making headway. In New Jersey, Sen. Robert Menendez sounds like a “no” vote, while Sen. Cory Booker is undecided. In New York City, the group Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran spent $1.6 million on broadcast television and $119,500 on cable betw
een July 16-July 30 advertising on the issue, according to a media tracking source. Secure America Now, a hawkish group trying to kill the deal, has organized the call-in campaign to Schumer.

“You will always get phone calls when you’re from New York,” Schumer said. “Hundreds of them on every issue.”
Indeed, Schumer is feeling heat to support the deal, too. The National Iranian American Council bought a full-page New York Times ad in support of the deal in July and is delivering petitions to his local offices and hoping to blunt efforts of opponents at town halls this month. J Street, a liberal Jewish group, is also pressing Schumer to back the nuclear pact.

Schumer will “have the support of the majority of American Jews” if he backs the deal, said Jessica Rosenblum, a spokeswoman for J Street.

Schumer has long sought to avoid alienating large segments of his caucus by taking vocal positions on divisive issues; when he has to take a stand, he typically keeps it low-key. Many expect him to wait to announce his opposition, possibly until the end of the process, and to do little to advocate internally for others to join him.

Iran deal? Still a long way to go (Ezekiel 17)

 

Congress promises rough ride for any nuclear deal with Iran

By Richard Cowan and Douwe Miedema
WASHINGTON | Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:28pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top Republican in the U.S. Senate cast doubt on Sunday on whether President Barack Obama would be able to win approval in Congress for any nuclear deal with Iran, and some Democrats also expressed reservations.

“I think it’s going to be a very hard sell, if it’s completed, in Congress,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told “Fox News Sunday”. “We already know it’s going to leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state.”

The U.S. Congress could play a key role in the future of any deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, with negotiations reaching a critical juncture in Vienna on Sunday.

Obama can enter a deal with Iran, which Congress would review. If the review went against him, Obama could veto the disapproval legislation. Congress could then try to reverse his veto, which is difficult. But if it succeeded, its disapproval would take away Obama’s ability to temporarily waive many U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a leading foreign policy voice among Senate Democrats, said the prospect of a deal made him “anxious,” saying the talks had moved from preventing Iran from having a nuclear capability, to managing it.

Western diplomats say the goal of the deal is to increase the time it would take for Iran to produce enough enriched uranium fuel for a weapon to at least one year, from current estimates of 2-3 months. In return for curbs on its nuclear activities, Iran would get relief from economic sanctions.
Menendez, interviewed on ABC’s “This Week” program, did not rule out supporting a deal.
Many congressional Republicans, including McConnell, have criticized the negotiations, saying the United States should be increasing economic sanctions against Iran. Tehran maintains its nuclear work is solely for peaceful purposes.

Referring to the congressional review process, McConnell said: “He (Obama) will have to get at least 34 votes” in the 100-member Senate to sustain his veto, adding that he hoped Democrats would resist a “strong pull” not to buck Obama.

The debate in Washington over any deal would happen with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign already under way.

One Republican candidate, Senator Lindsay Graham, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” the negotiations should be left to the next president, who would take office in January 2017.

“I think a good outcome is to basically leave the interim deal in place” with Iran until then, Graham said.

House Speaker John Boehner said failure of the talks would not be a bad outcome.

On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Boehner said: “If, in fact, there’s no agreement, the sanctions are going to go back in place,” prodding Iran to “abandon their efforts to get a nuclear weapon, and stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”

(Editing by Ruth Pitchford and Robin Pomeroy)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Iranian Nukes Now The GOPs Responsibility (Daniel 8:3)

WORLD VIEW: REPORT: IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER HAS ALREADY VETOED ANY NUCLEAR DEAL

by JOHN J. XENAKIS Mar 2015

A report in Debka’s subscriber-only newsletter (sent to me by a subscriber) says that its intelligence sources have learned that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, after vacillating over the nuclear negotiations with the United States for months, has now come down firmly against any deal. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif have been working to complete a deal by the March 31 deadline, but Khamenei has now rejected the entire framework that they were developing. The intelligence sources say that Iran may shut down nuclear negotiations completely, unless the West first removes all sanctions, a request that will not be satisfied.

A major reason given is that dissent within Iran itself has been increasing. The dissent is spilling over from government critics to broad sections of Iranian society, such as academics and op-ed writers.
From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, none of this is surprising. As I have said many times, it is a core principle of generational theory that, even in a dictatorship, major decisions are made by masses of people, by generations of people, and that politicians are irrelevant except insofar as they are implementing the wishes of the masses of people.

This is a good time to review Iran’s strategy with regard to the nuclear issue, which I have stated many times in the last few years, based on a relatively straightforward analysis of Iran’s history in the last century.

First, Iran will not be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has already been victimized by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, and is now surrounded by potential enemies — Pakistan, Russia, Israel — that have nuclear weapons, with Saudi Arabia planning to obtain nuclear technology from Pakistan. The Iranian people overwhelmingly feel that they need nuclear technology for self-defense.

Secondly, however, Iran has no intention at all of using a nuclear weapon on Israel. If you look at Iran’s major wars in the last century — the Constitutional Revolution of 1908-09, the Great Islamic Revolution of 1979, and the Iran/Iraq war that climaxed in 1989 — Iran did not attack any other nation, and takes pride in not having done so.

Another reason why Iran could not use a nuclear weapon on Israel is that doing so would kill millions of Palestinians, and Iran knows that the Arab backlash would be enormous, irrespective of what happened to Israel.

Furthermore, the younger generations of Iranians, the ones that grew up after the war, do not hate Israel, and do not wish Israel harm, and they would be particularly opposed to any Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

The collapse of the Iran nuclear negotiations would be a major blow for the Barack Obama administration. The foreign policy of Obama and his clownish Secretary of State John Kerry has been one blunder and reversal after another, and they were hoping for a nuclear deal to burnish their legacies, and possibly to get Nobel Peace Prizes as a result. Look for them to blame it on the Republicans, but preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was never a possibility.

By the way, Debka is also predicting that Benjamin Netanyahu’s defeat in Tuesday’s election is a foregone conclusion, and that unless something spectacular happens, Israel’s next prime minister will be Yitzhak Herzog.

The Writing On The Wall (Daniel 5:25)

Obama asks Congress to hold off Iraq sanctions

AFP Jan. 17, 2015 at 09:05pm

US President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress not to impose new sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, threatening to veto any such legislation that lands on his desk.

Obama told a joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron that Iran was already chafing under existing sanctions and had not accelerated its program, and that he would strongly urge Congress not to torpedo the ongoing talks with Tehran.

 “Congress needs to show patience,” Obama said.

“We’ll see how persuasive I am. But if I’m not persuading Congress, I promise you, I’m going to be taking my case to the American people on this,” he warned.

Obama has faced mounting calls from Republican critics for tougher new sanctions on Iran, with lawmakers saying a debate on more stringent measures could take place in the US Senate within weeks.

But new sanctions would “jeopardize the possibility of… providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems that we’ve faced in a very long time,” Obama said.

“I will veto a bill that comes to my desk.”

Cameron also spoke out against calls for further sanctions on Iran, saying negotiations needed “space” to succeed.

“We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon,” Cameron said.

“The best way to achieve that now is to create the space for negotiations to succeed. We should not impose further sanctions now.”

Iran and major world powers have given themselves until late June to reach a comprehensive agreement that would prevent Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb, a goal it denies having, in return for an easing of punishing economic sanctions.

A flurry of talks have been held this week, including meetings in Paris on Friday between Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his French and US counterparts.

Both sides have remained relatively tight-lipped about whether any progress is being made, but France said Friday that “significant” questions must be answered before a deal can be struck.

Sunday will see fresh talks in Geneva between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group—the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia—seeking to break a stalemate that has seen two earlier deadlines pass without an accord.

However, Republicans in the United States are seeking to shape US policy on Iran by two paths being crafted in Congress.

One tactic envisages adoption of a bill requiring Obama to submit any nuclear accord reached with Iran to Congress for approval.