On Tuesday, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivered a strident speech on the Senate floor supporting the Iran nuclear deal. The speech is very important, for three reasons. First, Durbin is one of the Senate’s most powerful Democrats. Second, Durbin owes
President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a “non-nuclear” issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama’s brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely “called upon” to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.
Secretary of State John Kerry told Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya television on Monday that Iran’s repeated threats to the United States in the aftermath of the Iran nuclear deal were “very disturbing,” but that they did not necessarily mean that Iran intended to attack America. He also suggested that despite the $150 billion in sanctions relief that Iran will receive, the Arab states of the Gulf region can unite to resist Iran.
The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.
In sum: as a purely nuclear deal, the Iran agreement is very weak but debatable, depending on whether you believe it can be enforced. The non-nuclear part of the deal, however, concerning the arms and ballistic missile provisions, is a complete disaster.
Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz once promised “anywhere, anytime” access to Iran’s nuclear sites, known and unknown. In the end, he and the rest of the crack Obama administration negotiating team gave up on that pledge. Instead, they accepted a limited inspections system that will allow Iran to delay disputed inspections by at least 24 days. On Sunday, Moniz made the rounds of the talk shows, claiming that 24 days would be sufficient to detect whatever traces were left of nuclear activity. That is partially true, but does not actually solve the problem.
There are defensible reasons for such reluctance–such as the virtual certainty that such a decision would lead Iran to withdraw from a deal, and the fact that constant reversals of U.S. foreign policy from one administration to another undermine America’s international credibility. But neither of those were the reasons that Bush gave to an audience in Nevada.
The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), an organization that exists to boost Jewish support for Democrats, has announced its “strong support” for the nuclear deal with Iran. Not “cautious support,” or even “support.” Strong support.
This weekend, I shed tears over the Iran deal–literally, and publicly. It happened during a discussion among congregants at my synagogue about President Barack Obama’s capitulation to the Iranian regime.
President Barack Obama’s announcement that he will approach the UN Security Council to approve the nuclear deal with Iran, and rescind past resolutions and international sanctions, before Congress approves the agreement, came as something of a surprise to many. When Congress passed Sen. Bob Corker’s Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, and President Obama signed it into law in May, the public understanding was that Congress would have the final say.
A new poll published by the Israeli newspaper Maariv and cited by the Times of Israel reports that a plurality of Israelis support a military strike against Iran in the wake of the lopsided agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama’s team with Iran in Vienna this week.
Garrett asked President Barack Obama a real question. And the Iran deal demands more questions than his colleagues have cared to ask, thus far. Why, for example, is Obama going to the UN Security Council before going to Congress, as promised?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had strong words for British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond at a joint news conference in Jerusalem on Thursday, telling him that western powers had failed to achieve a deal that prevented Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
“I believe that we can get a veto-proof majority,” he told Breitbart News. “Yesterday [Tuesday] was the best day that his deal will have. And I don’t believe it was a very good day.” He said that in addition to a handful of Democrats who already opposed the deal, others are expressing misgivings.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most influential pro-Israel group in the U.S. and one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington, told key leaders on a conference call Wednesday that it would fight the Iran deal “with the entirety of our institutional resources.” AIPAC had said the day before that it needed time to study the details of the 159-page Iran nuclear agreement.
It might seem odd that 15 years after 9/11, the U.S. seems determined to surrender to terrorists and the radical regimes that support them. Yet that is what the Iran deal represents–the latest in a string of lopsided deals, from the Bergdahl swap with the Taliban to the one-sided détènte with the Castro regime.
The nuclear deal reached with Iran on Tuesday is clouded by uncertainty about whether the Iranian regime will live up to its relatively weak commitments. One outcome is almost certain, however: Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, hoping to weaken the regime and stop, or slow, its nuclear program.
Late last month, several Middle East policy experts–including prominent former Obama administration officials–warned that negotiations with Iran were heading in the wrong direction. “The agreement will not prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability,” they said, and warned that the terms would “fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement.” They suggested that any Iran deal would have to cover five crucial elements–each of which, they suggested, were lacking in the emerging terms of the agreement.
Secretary of State John Kerry has called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction to the Iran deal “way over the top,” even as others in the region have chimed in with their own criticisms of the deal, the Times of Israel reports.
In defending the nuclear deal reached with Iran in Vienna today, President Barack Obama said that the agreement cut off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. In fact, it does the opposite. The deal makes it far easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons for four basic reasons. First, it allows Iran to continue hiding much of its nuclear research. Second, its main restrictions last for only eight years. Third, it lets Iran continue developing ballistic missiles. And third, it provides billions of dollars in sanctions relief that Iran will use to further its nuclear aims.
The Associated Press reports that world powers will announce a formal deal with Iran in Vienna on Monday. Though there are still minor details to be finalized, the two diplomats who spoke to the AP confirmed that a deal will be reached, though they “cautioned that final details of the pact were still being worked out and a formal agreement still awaits a review from the capitals of the seven nations at the talks.”
SANTA CLARA, California — Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren recently addressed a packed crowd at the Jewish Community Center (JCC) in Santa Clara where he discussed his latest book Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide and the damaged U.S.-Israel relationship under President Barack Obama’s leadership.
A source at the international nuclear talks in Vienna indicates that a deal with Iran is likely on Friday, probably due to a U.S. collapse on a new Iranian demand that an international arms embargo be lifted as part of the deal.
A convicted felon who went to federal prison in 2006-7 is leading a White-House backed effort to lobby Congress to pass whatever nuclear deal emerges from ongoing talks with Iran in Vienna. Robert Creamer, who served time for fraud and tax charges, and who is married to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), is coordinating pro-Iran efforts through the liberal Ploughshares group, which held a conference call with President Barack Obama’s aides earlier this week, as reported by Adam Kredo of the Washington Free Beacon.
As the list of Western concessions to the Iranian regime continues to grow, Iran is demanding the lifting of a worldwide arms embargo as a condition of any nuclear deal. Thus far, the U.S. is resisting, but Russia and China have already agreed in part.
