An amendment requiring President Obama to guarantee Iran hasn’t committed terrorist acts against the U.S. or U.S. citizens was removed before the Senate Foreign Relation Committee voted on an agreement to require Congressional approval of any Iran nuclear deal.
If you still wonder why our nation’s politics are so divided, look no further than Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s half-witted attempt to accuse Republicans—and Israelis—of hypocrisy in opposing the Iran deal. The same neocons and Likudniks who opposed any Iran deal, Milbank says, now want to stick with the interim deal, or argue for a “better deal” than the one President Barack Obama is proposing. Conclusion: they are liars, warmongers, and above all, Obama-haters.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to pass Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sending the legislation to the full Senate for final approval. The bill gives Congress time to review
President Barack Obama’s White House is beginning to show signs it may fold under congressional pressure on the deal it struck with Iran over nuclear arms.
The opportunity for Congress to have a say in the Iran deal faces a big test Tuesday afternoon. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will debate and vote on the bipartisan measure put forth by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN).
President Barack Obama met on Monday with a group of Jewish leaders at the White House in an effort to win their support for the Iran deal–and for passing that deal without approval from Congress. The details of the meeting were not posted, but The Hill reports that the Obama administration sees the outreach as a key part of its effort to prevent the Corker bill, which would require congressional approval of an Iran deal, from reaching the two-thirds majority threshold.
A series of polls makes the case that voters support President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, despite the objections of Republicans in Congress. The latest is the Quinnipiac swing state poll, which finds that voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia support a deal with Iran by a 3-to-1 margin. They also support letting Congress decide by a 3-to-1 margin, so the case against the administration’s position is solid. But the poll’s support for the deal is entirely dependent on bad wording that covers up what is actually going on.
Sen. John Barrasso plans to introduce amendments if necessary to strengthen the Iran sanctions measure the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider this week.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider Sen. Bob Corker’s measure to secure congressional approval on the Iran deal Tuesday afternoon.
Russia announced Monday that it will sell Iran advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The decision, which ends an embargo dating back to 2010, shows that President Barack Obama is rapidly losing control of the international consensus on Iran.
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made public suggestions as to how a “bad deal” on Iran’s nuclear program could be improved. He suggested shutting down all of Iran’s underground facilities, and lifting sanctions only when Iran stops carrying out terror and aggression in the region. It was at least the fourth time Netanyahu had proposed clear alternatives to the Iran deal–though U.S. President Barack Obama persists in pretending he has never proposed any.
In its lead editorial Sunday, the New York Times plays the race card, accusing Republicans of criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy because he is black. The editors, like many on the left, refuse to acknowledge that it is Obama’s own radical policies,
President Barack Obama attempted on Saturday to dismiss harsh criticism by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had accused the American president last week of “lying” about the terms of the nuclear framework reached in Lausanne, Switzerland earlier this month. Obama tried to explain that Khamenei’s remarks were intended for domestic political purposes: “Even a guy with the title ‘Supreme Leader’ has to be concerned about his own constituencies,” Obama said.
Iranians living in California are deeply skeptical of the emerging nuclear deal announced last week by the Obama administration. Many fled Iran for Southern California during and after the 1979 revolution–some after suffering human rights abuses, and many leaving property and relatives behind in uncertain circumstances.
Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei said in a speech on Thursday that he has neither endorsed nor rejected the basic framework for an agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program, which had been reported as agreed upon by both the P5+1 world powers and the Iranian regime.
A war of words–and fundraising emails–has erupted between Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) over the Iran deal. The fight began when Schakowsky objected to Kirk’s remark to Politico that “Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than [U.S. negotiator] Wendy Sherman got out of Iran.” Schakowsky said it was “appalling” for Kirk to “equate the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Nazi appeasement.” Kirk then used her attack in a fundraising email.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act appears to be the most effective way for Congress to stop President Barack Obama from appeasing the Iranian regime with a bad nuclear deal. The “Corker-Mendez-Graham” bill, or the “Corker Bill,” would require President Obama to submit the final Iran deal to Congress. Yet the text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve–and would do so by gutting the Senate’s constitutional power over treaties.
On Wednesday, David Horovitz, the liberal editor of the Times of Israel called the emerging Iran deal: “A bad deal. Far, far worse than no deal at all.” Also on Wednesday, the liberal editorial board of the New York Times called the Iran framework “a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal,” and claimed that Israel had offered “offers no workable options.” In order to arrive at that conclusion, however, the Times had to rely on a different set of facts from Horovitz–facts it invented.
Rand Paul may be “closest to Obama in his view on foreign policy,” as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put it on Tuesday, but he is facing stiff competition from Jeb Bush in that category.The former Florida governor praised Obama’s initial negotiating efforts with Iran on Tuesday, telling an audience in Denver that “we need to give him credit” for “bringing other people along and making it tougher.” The puzzling statement suggests the influence of James A. Baker III on the Bush campaign.
Israel Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s promise to have Israel’s back is meaningless if he allows Iran to procure a nuclear weapon.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is a candidate to succeed retiring Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as Senate Minority Leader, has reiterated his support for a bipartisan proposal to require President Barack Obama to submit to Congress any nuclear deal with Iran. Because President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation–known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act–Schumer’s position is seen as a rare moment of dissent. However, there may be less here than meets the eye.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is providing rapid response, after President Obama made disparaging remarks about Walker’s potential foreign policy.
President Barack Obama has granted an interview to National Public Radio in an attempt to sell the Iran “framework” to a skeptical public. In the process, he compares the agreement to a real-estate deal–a poor analogy for a man who called his own last property purchase deal “boneheaded” after involving indicted (now convicted) bag Chicago man Tony Rezko. Obama also provided at least five big reasons that Congress–whose opposition is growing–should reject the Iran deal.
President Obama appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition with host Steve Inskeep and took a jab at potential GOP presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s statements on the Iran deal, according to the Daily Mail.
For days, lefties like Chris Matthews of MSNBC and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic have been fuming that conservative critics of the Iran “framework” have referred to it as the sequel to the Munich agreement of 1938—the deal that defined “appeasement.” Yet President Barack Obama proved his critics correct on Monday when he rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion that Iran be required to accept Israel’s right to exist as a condition of a final deal.
