iran deal - Page 14

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.

In the weeks before the Iran deal, a bipartisan group of policy experts–including several former Obama administration officials–issued an open letter stating that the negotiations “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a “good” agreement.” They laid out five criteria for a deal to meet, and White House spokesman Josh Earnest promised the deal would meet them. After the deal was done, the White House issued talking points along those lines, which Democrats are citing widely. Unfortunately, these talking points are false.

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.

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?

On Tuesday, President Obama signed an agreement that equates to a $1,300 impact on every family in America — one of the largest stimulus packages in history.

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.

During Wednesday’s national press conference about his Iran deal, President Obama played the media like a fiddle. It was a situation where the media was so compliant the questioners were hand-picked by the White House beforehand, the president filibustered throughout,

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.

Several Republican presidential candidates have already reacted to the Iran deal by declaring that they will “terminate” it immediately upon reaching office. That may be an effective way of conveying the depth of GOP opposition to an agreement that facilitates Iran’s emergence as a regional hegemon and potential nuclear power. It is also a constitutionally valid policy, since President Barack Obama has absurdly declared that the Iran deal is an executive agreement, and not a treaty, to minimize scrutiny and opposition. It is not, however, the best response.

Following the news that the United States had reached an agreement with Iranian negotiators regarding the production of nuclear power, pictures from Tehran emerged on social media that show Iranians dancing in the street and even, surprisingly, praising the United States. The deal, which includes a lifting of most sanctions on Iran, is expected to greatly benefit the nation’s economy.

Isaac Herzog, the leader of Israel’s political opposition, whose visceral dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is well-known, has declared that he supports Netanyahu in his efforts to oppose the Iran deal, which the U.S. Congress is about to consider. “I had a meeting yesterday where I learned about the deal and I think it is bad for Israel. [Netanyahu and myself] will certainly cooperate when it comes to the security of Israel. As an Israeli patriot, this deal is dangerous,” Herzog said in an interview quoted by the Times of Israel.

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.

While some Arabic speakers applauded Iran’s nuclear deal with America on Twitter, there are some who blasted the country for negotiating with the United States at all. Saudi Arabia, a natural enemy of Iran, is also displeased about the deal, specifically the release of sanctions.

After years of negotiations and repeated concessions, the Obama administration has now concluded an agreement that leaves Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, as a nuclear threshold state.

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.

GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said the Iran deal announced Tuesday was “another heaping dose of false hope.” which is almost certain to be a historic mistake that could have deadly consequences.

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.

Arabic speakers around the world have taken to Twitter to congratulate Iran on their historic nuclear deal with the United States. Using the hashtag for “Nucleal Deal” in Arabic script, many are seeing the victory as one for Shia Islam generally against the infidel West.

“A careful review of the 100-plus pages is in order to fully understand the lengths to which the negotiators were willing to stoop to secure a deal at any cost with the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and a regime dedicated in word and deed to bringing Death to America,” Dr. Ben Carson’s statement reads.

When world powers reached a provisional deal with Iran in Lausanne, Switzerland, the Obama White House released a “fact sheet” to sell the deal to the American public. Iran disputed the details at the time, and indeed the final deal is significantly worse than Obama advertised.

On CNN’s “The Situation Room” on Monday, former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), also the former House Intelligence Committee chairman, explained to host Wolf Blitzer why the Iran nuclear deal, which was announced Tuesday, would have portions that would have to

GOP presidential candidates are slamming the Obama Administration’s deal with Iran that was announced Tuesday. The deal now goes to Congress which has 60 days to review and either approve or reject the final deal with Iran.

Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel said in reaction to the nuclear deal the Obama administration announced this morning with Iran  “There’s a lot of anger”  in Israel and “many capitals in the Arab

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.

As Breitbart News reported, world leaders announced the deal from Vienna on Tuesday. The 159-page deal drops all financial and economic sanctions against Iran, and imposes a special dispute resolution process before the United States or European Union can impose any new sanctions. Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear enrichment activities for eight years, its stockpile of enriched uranium, and its research and development efforts.

Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, reacted to the nuclear deal reached with Iran in Vienna on Tuesday morning by warning that the terms of the deal violated the conditions laid down by 367 members of Congress in a letter earlier this year.

On Tuesday, world powers reached a nuclear agreement with Iran after nearly two years of intense talks, and a decade of confrontation. U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the deal, and threatened to veto any attempt to stop it. The Iranian regime, too, celebrated it as a victory for diplomacy. Israel, meanwhile, panned a “terrible deal” and a “mistake of historic proportions.” So who is right?

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.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued an angry warning Sunday about an impending nuclear deal between the world’s major powers and Iran, as negotiators drew close to a final agreement on Sunday. “We will not pay the price for this,” Netanyahu said, in a statement recalling the manner in which the West had abandoned Czechoslovakia to the Nazi regime at the Munich negotiations in 1938.

GOP presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee released a new campaign video that highlights the threat of a nuclear Iran. It encourages Americans to sign Huckabee’s open letter to Secretary John Kerry.

Diplomats at nuclear talks in Vienna failed to reach an expected deal on Friday, as Iran balked at signing an agreement with the Western powers on “Quds Day,” an annual day of virulent protest against the U.S. and Israel that the Iranian regime stages throughout the world.

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.