The price of trusting Iran If President Obama has a strategy in the Middle East, he should reveal it

  Obama pauses as he speaks about the mall shooting in Munich, Germany,

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES - Tuesday, July 26, 2016
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Barack Obama may be the last man in America who actually trusts the holy men in Iran, and a secret codicil, or amendment, he made to his infamous nuclear agreement with them reveals just what happens when a president has no understanding of “the art of the deal,” or the people he makes deals with.
On the first anniversary of the signing of the agreement, Mr. Obama repeated his claim that the deal he made succeeded in “avoiding further conflict and making us safer.” The president refused to make the deal a treaty, which would have included Congress in the making of it. Almost everything the administration said about the deal is turning out to be false.
The agreement was signed by five countries that joined the United States in trying to keep the mullahs from building a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. By Mr. Obama’s leave, the mullahs can proceed with various aspects of their bomb-making in a much shorter time than was originally claimed. Iran can begin to replace its crucial and necessary centrifuges to produce fissionable material in 2027, 11 years earlier than the date the president told the public he had established.
These new centrifuges could be up to five times more efficient than the 5,000 machines it is now permitted to use. That would permit Tehran to produce nuclear fuel at twice the current rate. The mullahs and their scientists could produce a weapon in six months, not the earlier estimate of a year as needed for the “break out.”
The U.N. Atomic Energy Agency insists that Tehran is living up to the agreement so far, but this is the same U.N. agency that failed earlier to make an accurate assessment. The clandestine activity at the Iranian installations was reported by Iranian exiles in Iraq and only then confirmed by the U.N. Atomic Energy Agency.

News - Iran News 15 US Senate Dems call on Obama for more transparency on Iran nuclear inspections

Sen. Gary Peters

Fifteen Senate Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to secure more transparency from the inspectors tasked with verifying Iran's compliance with last year's controversial nuclear deal, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO.
Led by Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the Democrats are asking Obama to use the federal government to push the International Atomic Energy Agency to publish details about Iran's nuclear program to ensure independent verification that they are following the terms of the deal, which relaxed sanctions on Iran in return for a drawdown of its nuclear arms program.
The IAEA has found that Iran is in compliance with the deal, but is not fully disclosing the amount of centrifuges Iran is using to enrich Uranium nor the amount of enriched Uranium that Iran currently has, the Democrats said,
'In addition to lacking vital information on the status of Iran’s uranium stock and enrichment capabilities, the report leaves out vital details on Iranian facilities. The report does not comment on the progress made in transitioning Fordow to a research facility or provide updates on the redesign of the Arak heavy water research reactor. This data is critical for ensuring the ability to independently verify Iran’s compliance,' reads the letter.
'Providing additional situational awareness of Iran’s nuclear program is vital for the long-term health of this agreement,' the letter continues. 'We urge your administration to ensure that the IAEA releases all relevant technical information so that we may continue to make our own judgments about the status of Iran’s nuclear program.'
In addition to Peters, the letter is signed by Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Warner (Va.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
All of them supported the deal, which is now a year old and is facing renewed attacks from Republicans.
Source: Politico, 15 July 2016

Obama and his summer of love for the mullahs in Iran

President Obama can change tack, and he should, but for now he has mired foreign policy in an unsustainable one-way deal with Iran that he owns entirely

One year after President Obama struck his nuclear deal with Iran without congressional approval, it has become clear that it was sold with a slew of falsehoods.
The misrepresentations to Congress were multitudinous. Secretary of State John Kerry promised that the ayatollahs would be prohibited from testing ballistic missiles. But when Iran did test such missiles, the administration acquiesced, choosing to harrumph about it being 'inconsistent' with the agreement rather than declaring it a 'violation' that undid the deal.
Obama promised that the International Atomic Energy Agency would be allowed to complete its investigation into Iran's past nuclear work, so it would be possible to verify the deal by knowing the true baseline of Tehran's nuke development. But IAEA inspectors have not been given necessary access, and as of this week remain unable to explain or account for evidence strongly suggesting secret nuclear development activities.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew was among those who promised that Washington would keep up pressure on Iran's economy. This hasn't happened either. Lew testified last summer that Iran 'will continue to be denied access' to the U.S. market, and that sanctions against Iranian dollar access and Americans importing and exporting into Iran would remain in place.
But the administration has bent over backwards to allow deals through, including the purchase of Iranian heavy water and a big deal with Boeing now under discussion on Capitol Hill.
Worse yet, the administration has used the Iran deal as an excuse to weaken American laws aimed at punishing the mullahs for their continued sponsorship of terrorism. This too contradicts promises now a year old.
Treasury Undersecretary Adam Szubin testified last summer that the nuclear deal 'in no way limits' Congress' ability to pass such laws. In December, Obama signed such a law related to travel to countries that sponsor terrorism. But as soon as Iran declared this a violation of the deal, Obama responded by waiving the law's provisions with respect to Iran, which the law itself explicitly forbids.
There were other lies used to dupe Congress. The list above is not intended as an exhaustive indictment, just a sampler menu.
The deal, as it has turned out — it seems to bind only Obama and his administration rather than the Iranians — probably could not have survived the weak stamp of supermajority disapproval that Congress was allowed.
And it did violence to the Constitution, for it was a treaty in all but name, and treaties require ratification in the Senate, which this one did not have. But after decades during which one presidency after another has arrogated power to the executive and upset the fine balance put in place by the Founding Fathers, one cannot be surprised by Obama's unilateralism and selective enforcement of laws and deals.
Congress has allowed its rights, privileges and duties to be usurped, and it and the rest of the country are now paying the price.
But that does not mean it must sit pathetically and wring its hands. It should put some substance back into this deal that makes it less damaging. There are many pieces of legislation already drafted to try to make the Iran deal resemble what Obama promised. For example, one would stop the Boeing deal, or at least prevent the Export-Import Bank financing it.
Naturally, the administration, with Iranian and legacy interests closest to its heart, is resisting legislative efforts to haul the deal back into alignment with Obama's promises. His resistance indictates to the tyrants that they need not moderate their behavior, and suggests that he never intended to keep his promises. There was just so much snakeoil to ease the deal's passage up and over Capitol Hill.
Obama can change track, and he should, but for now he has mired foreign policy in an unsustainable one-way deal that he owns entirely. It was negotiated with great deference to the Iranian regime and without appropriate majority support of the public's elected representatives.
His successor will be forced to clean up this mess. One hopes it will not be a radioactive blast zone.

Boeing Comes Under Bipartisan Criticism Over Controversial Jet Sale to Iran

Obama administration should block the $17.6 billion sale for 80 planes

Boeing’s recently announced multi-billion dollar deal with Iran has drawn stinging rebukes from influential members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D – Calif.) wrote in a letter this week that the Obama administration should block the $17.6 billion sale for 80 planes, The Hill reported on Thursday.
“Iran Air’s aircraft will undoubtedly be used in the future to continue to funnel lethal assistance to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, to Hezbollah, and to other terrorist entities,” argued Sherman, a top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sherman also noted that although Iran Air — the Islamic Republic’s national carrier — is no longer sanctioned as part of last year’s nuclear deal, it still maintains close ties with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its elite Qods Force, which is sanctioned for support of terrorism.
Sherman’s letter indicates that “there is Democratic opposition” to the deal in Congress, The Hill noted. Rep. Pete Roskam (R – Ill.), one of the more vocal Republican opponents of the deal, also slammed Boeing while addressing thousands of U.S. veterans on Thursday, The Weekly Standard reported.
“Iran is the central supplier for terrorism around the world,” Roskam said while rebuking the Illinois-based company. “The regime has killed American soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and all around the world,” he added. “It’s shameful for Boeing to even consider doing business with the Iranians, let alone agree to sell airplanes to the same regime-owned companies running their terror supply routes throughout the Middle East.”
Roskam and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R – Texas) called on Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg to walk away from the deal in a letter last month, warning that it could further destabilize the Middle East.
Iran has a history of using civilian aircraft for military purposes, with a Western intelligence report seen by Reuters in 2012 confirming that Iran continued using such aircraft to transport large amounts of arms and personnel to aid Assad.
Iran’s continued support of Assad could jeopardize the Boeing deal, the Associated Pressreported last week. If Iran Air, which was initially sanctioned by the Treasury Department in 2011 partially due to its transport of “missile or rocket components” to Syria, is found to be supporting Assad, it could be put back on the sanctions list and the Boeing deal will be suspended or cancelled as a result.
Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who tracks Iranian flights, recently noted that Iran Air flew to Damascus earlier this month, possibly to transport troops and materiel to Assad.
The Daily Beast reported last week that Thomas Pickering, a veteran U.S. diplomat who vocally supported the nuclear deal, never revealed that he received payments from Boeing, even when he testified before Congress in favor of the agreement.

Truth behind the Iran lobby in US

Trita Parsi and its Iran lobby NIAC funded by the clerical regime in Iran

In the weeks since the Obama administration announced the perilous international Iran nuclear deal, growing attention has been paid to the network of organizations and foundations that have been actively lobbying in an effort to normalize relations between Washington and Tehran.
Rightly, that network is being referred to as the “Iran lobby.” The welcome and much-needed scrutiny of its workings and contacts provides a salutary lesson in how to identify enemies who present themselves as friends.
At the head of the pack is the Washington, DC-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Led by Trita Parsi, a Swedish-Iranian immigrant, NIAC has artfully worked itself into the center of the Iran policy debate. The organization has close relations with many liberal Democrat legislators and progressive outfits like J Street, the small Jewish-but-anti-Israel advocacy group, as well as minted foundations including the Ploughshares Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, both of which have donated generously to NIAC’s coffers. Some of its alumnae, like Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, have even made it into the White House—in her case, as desk officer for Iran.
NIAC presents itself as a moderate, thoughtful organization. It also claims to advocate on behalf of human rights in Iran, but check the page on its website ostensibly devoted to the subject, and you will see the odd press release urging the release of Iranian-Americans currently incarcerated by the mullahs interspersed with plenty of propaganda defending the nuclear deal. Executions, torture, repression of religious minorities, systemic anti-Semitism and homophobia are all staples of the Iranian regime’s outlook and behavior—but in NIAC’s airbrushed world, such matters don’t even exist.
Indeed, NIAC’s repeated denials that it is formally connected to the Iranian regime sound increasingly hollow. As the investigative journalist Lee Smith reported a few months ago, when writing about NIAC’s legal campaign against Hassan Daioleslam, an emigre Iranian who has doggedly exposed the truth about the organization, “The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in 2012 the work of NIAC, which wasn’t registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, ‘not inconsistent with the idea that he was first and foremost an advocate for the regime.’”
Last week, The Daily Beast published a further expose on NIAC authored by “Alex Shirazi,” an Iranian dissident who wrote pseudonymously out of the fear that his family back in Iran might be targeted for reprisals. Shirazi chronicled NIAC’s evolution within the broader ambitions of the Namazis, a little-known but influential Iranian family that first rose to prominence under the Shah and returned to Iranian public life following the death of Khomeini in 1989. Among the consultants affiliated with Atieh Behar (AB) Consulting, a company with strong institutional ties to influential elements within the regime, was Trita Parsi.
According to Shirazi, “While serving as president of NIAC, Parsi also wrote intelligence briefings as an ‘affiliate analyst in Washington, DC’ for AB, focusing on such topics as whether or not the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would revive its anti-Iran campaigning on the eve of the Iraq war, or on efforts by the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MeK), the Iranian opposition group that exposed Natanz in 2002 would get itself de-listed as a terrorist entity by the U.S. State Department.”
A good insight into NIAC’s slipperiness was gleaned from an interview with Carl Gershman, the president of the Congressionally-financed National Endowment for Democracy. Expressing regret at his decision to fund NIAC and its Iranian partner Hamyaran, a regime-sanctioned NGO, to the tune of $200,000 between 2002 and 2006, Gershman said that NIAC had misrepresented itself: “We weren’t aware when these grants were made that NIAC were presenting themselves as a lobby...We were trying something that might be a way to help people on the inside [of Iran]. But that quickly became unworkable; the grant didn’t work. Then NIAC showed itself as a lobby organization, so we have nothing to do with them anymore.”
Better late than never. Now that the truth about NIAC is emerging, one has to ask why anyone who seeks respectability in Washington would have anything to do with Parsi and his cohorts.
NIAC’s overarching aim is to strengthen the Iranian regime by boosting its ability to trade with America and its allies. That’s accompanied by lots of airy, disingenuous talk about how economic openness leads to more accountable government, but there is precious little sign of the regime reforming itself. If anything, the nuclear deal has persuaded the mullahs that they achieve better results by doing the exact opposite!
What is really irksome is NIAC’s presentation of its agenda as somehow in accord with the national interests of the U.S. Moreover, NIAC flaks, like its Research Director Reza Marashi, have even indulged in a bit of good ol’ Jew-baiting—after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) came out against the deal, Marashi accused him of putting “Israel’s interests before America’s interests.” Students of anti-Semitism will immediately recognize this deployment of the familiar “dual loyalty” smear; what makes this example especially rich is that it comes from the stooges of a regime whose slogan is “Death to America!” and whose military interventions across the region have claimed the lives of hundreds of American personnel. NIAC even insults America by claiming that it works for “human rights” in Iran and “civil rights” in the U.S., insinuating that this country is on the same moral level as one of the darkest, most repressive regimes in recent history.
When the time comes to reckon with Obama’s legacy on Iran, the role of NIAC will be understood as more than a mere footnote. Yet we shouldn’t make the same mistake as the enemies of the Jews by assigning any lobby group a mystical power. read more

Delusion of finding Iran mullahs becoming liberals and moderates is long dead

Rest assured that nothing will come out of these talks

Some western leaders are trying to induce this perception that mullahs ruling Iran, be it the so called ’hardliners’ or supposedly ’moderates’!!, will eventually have to change their mind-set and adopt a civilized and democratic approach to both domestic and international issues. What a delusion!
The argument that the advocates of Obama nuclear deal with the mullahs invest on is that the deal will have positive effects on Iran’s politics; that Iran’s rulers will become more moderate and democratic in 10 or 15 year as a result; therefore, one should not be too concerned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities then.
The argument asserts that the deal reduces threats to the fundamentalist rulers, which in turn will result in a reduction of repression.  The removal of sanctions and the reduction of repression will allow the middle class to grow and thus strengthen pro-democracy forces and human rights activists.  These forces will compel the fundamentalist rulers to moderate their behavior in domestic and foreign realms.
The above argument ignores the history, logic, and nature of the Shia fundamentalist oligarchy that rules Iran.  The Iran-Iraq war provides an excellent precedent to analyze the nuclear conflict.  The same arguments were made in 1988 that with the end of the war, the regime would reduce repression, allow democratization, and integrate into the international community as a responsible actor.  In actual reality, however, the reverse became true.  During the war, the regime had held large numbers of political prisoners.  In late August 1988, a few weeks after the end of the war, the regime mass executed about 4,000 political prisoners who were supporters of the PMOI, many of whom had been arrested as teenagers whose sole crime was distributing leaflets of the group, and the revolutionary courts had given them prison sentences.  And in September the regime mass executed about 1,000 Marxist political prisoners, who had been merely jailed and tortured before the end of the war.  The prisoners were asked whether they regarded the Koran as the word of God.  Those who refused to answer or replied in the negative were executed as apostates.  Then in February 1989, Khomeini issued his death fatwa against Salman Rushdie for apostasy. The Rushdie controversy arose in early 1988, and Khomeini had remained silent throughout the war while there were numerous protests in the Islamic world causing many deaths.  Khomeini’s attack on Rushdie occurred not during the war but after the war ended.  Even more significant, whereas the regime tolerated many moderate political figures during the war, the regime launched a massive campaign of assassinations and repression of these respected figures in what became known as the “Chain Murders.”  For example, Dr. Kazem Sami, a well-respected liberal Islamist, who had served as Minister of Health in the Provisional government was murdered on November 23, 1988.  One of the leaders of the Iran National Front, Dr. Shamsaldin Amir-Alaee -- who had served in Mossadegh’s cabinet in the 1951-53 period as Minister of Interior -- was murdered in 1994.  The National Front’s top leader, Dr. Ali Ardalan, was so severely tortured that he suffered two heart attacks under torture. 
The reason that the regime increased repression after the war was that it feared that the people who had endured hardships during the war would demand freedom.  If the regime reduced repression, then the pro-democracy forces would have utilized the opening to demand democracy.  Therefore, the logic of survival demanded that the regime increase repression.more

NO “moderates” in Iran stop the nuke deal with them

 

they all think about just one single thing

 The following is an article written by Majid Sadeghpour, a political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities (OIAC-US), and published in The Hill on Monday, August 24th: i have changed its title! He sais“I think we all share a simple, basic premise, which is that the United States must not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten our national security,” so said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), adding that he would support the nuclear deal struck between the P5+1 and Iran, “only if I’m convinced it sufficiently freezes every Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapon.” He could not have said it any better.
Although the administration insists that this agreement is not based on trust but on verification, the supreme leader Ali Khamenei and his underlings have already rejected inspections of military sites, a critical part of the inspections regime envisioned in the comprehensive long-term deal with Iran.  Tehran’s interlocutors, it appears, have made a series of unnecessary concessions in the agreement. Meanwhile, the regime has sensed that it can win even more compromises if it digs in deep enough.
As part of their sale’s pitch to unconvinced and concerned lawmakers and the public at large, President Obama and others in the administration have highlighted comments by “hardliners” in Tehran in opposition to the deal. It seems that they have bought into the myth of moderation, believing that the “moderates” will create a better future.
Indeed, the theatrics by “hardliners” in Iran’s parliament, or the anti-negotiation demonstrations by “ultra-hardliners” in Tehran’s street, coupled with the supreme leader’s rejection of military site inspections made it sound like the mullahs really did not need a deal as bad as the West. At the very least, it seemed like a “faction” of the mullahs is against the deal, while the “moderates”, including the regime’s foreign minister Javad Zarif and president Hassan Rouhani , are trying to convince the “ultra-hardliners” and Khamenei to accept some sort of agreement....more

News - Categorized News A Letter to Chuck Schumer: Convince Your Democrat Colleagues Iran Deal Is Bad

 
 

Dear Sen. Schumer,
Or may I call you “Chuck”? About 30 years ago, when I first met you, you were an informal kind of guy. You had recently been elected to the House from a district in Brooklyn and Queens. I was a New York Times reporter. I remember you were sharing a row house with two other House members—Leon Panetta was one—and I wrote a story about that. I always thought it could be the premise for a situation comedy. (“Friends with Entitlements”? Just kidding.)
I had no better source than you. You’d call to give me a heads-up on a bill or to explain some Hill battle so my editors would think I knew what I was talking about. It was nice of you, but it was also smart. You are smart: A perfect score on the SAT. On to Harvard College and Harvard Law. Elected to the New York Assembly at 23. Never losing a single election.
I’ve been thinking about writing you for a while regarding your vote on President Obama’s Iran deal. I knew you’d recognize that, from a policy perspective, this deal doesn’t get a passing grade. But from a political perspective, I understood that voting to disapprove would not be easy. Then, last week, you announced your decisions in an incisive 1,670-word essay. Kudos to you.
You pointed out that there won’t be “anywhere, anytime” inspections—which Obama himself had said was a necessity. American demands for inspections will be reviewed by a commission—on which Iran gets a seat. Iran’s rulers have flatly ruled out “entry into our military sites”—hardly an unlikely place for weapons research and development.
You grasp that sanctions, once lifted, cannot be “snapped back.” Then there is the curious decision to “sunset” restrictions on a regime whose supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, continues to call for “death to America!” As for Hassan Rouhani , Iran’s “moderate” president, he has said Iranians need “to express ‘death to America’ with action.” Like this deal?
Both Gen. Ray Odierno, U.S. Army chief of staff, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been clear: Iran has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. The United States, as you point out, has designated Iran as “one of only three nations in the world who are ‘state sponsors of terrorism.’ “...more

Obama preserved Iran’s nuclear program

Obama’s message to progressive activists  in the united states is warning his supporters He said  'You will hear a lot of arguments out there about why this is a ’bad deal’ from people who, frankly, would be opposed to any deal with Iran.'
ُThe real policy makers in the world believe that Obama deal   just preserves Iran’s  nuclear program. Until last month, the west’s position was that Iran couldn’t be allowed to become a nuclear threshold state. Our position now is that it can be allowed provided that Iran does Barack Obama a favor by waiting 10 years to install the advanced equipment that’ll shrink its “breakout” time down to nothing. We’ve endorsed Iran’s right to do that, leaving a future president boxed in when he/she is inevitably forced to confront Iran again about its nuclear ambitions. Obama strengthened Iran’s hand against his successor’s because it was politically convenient for him, personally, to do so. He solved the Iran problem for himself, not for America.
Actually, maybe he didn’t solve it for himself either.
The U.S. intelligence community has informed Congress of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin, in broad daylight, days after agreeing to a nuclear deal with world powers.
For senior lawmakers in both parties, the evidence calls into question Iran’s intention to fully account for the possible military dimensions of its current and past nuclear development. The International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have a side agreement meant to resolve past suspicions about the Parchin site, and lawmakers’ concerns about it has already become a flashpoint because they do not have access to its text.
My, my. Covering up the evidence of bomb work already? Luckily the UN will have a chance to grill Iran’s nuclear scientists about that. Or will they?
Iran so far has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations that Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said in an interview Wednesday…
The IAEA and its director-general, Yukiya Amano, have been trying for more than five years to debrief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, an Iranian military officer the U.S., Israel and IAEA suspect oversaw weaponization work in Tehran until at least 2003…
But during an interview in Washington, Mr. Amano said Iran still hasn’t agreed to provide access to Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists to assist the IAEA in completing its probe.more

Bad Iran Deal Breeds Warranted Skepticism

By Michaela Dodge

On Wednesday, President Obama will make a personalpush to sell the flawed Iran deal to the American public and Congress.
The president’s efforts to sell his bad deal are unsurprising, considering that the more Americans have learned about the deal, the less they like it.
They have plenty of reasons for skepticism.
The deal with Iran is deeply flawed and rewards years of Iranian cheating and lying about the nature of its nuclear program.
Iran has never reasonably explained its nuclear activities.
This is because the only plausible answer is that Iran interested in pursuing a nuclear weapon program, including experiments with explosives.
This is definitely more than an academic interest in shaping highly enriched uranium to a spherical shape (one needs two such spheres for a nuclear device).
The deal leaves the Iranian nuclear infrastructure largely intact—and dismantles sanctions that successive administrations and Congress have put into place, including on Iranians directly responsible for American deaths.
Even the Obama administration recognized that these sanctions likely slowed down Iran’s nuclear progress.
The American people are also skeptical of the administration’s efforts to circumvent Congress.
Last week U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted as much when he said that the agreement wasn’t treated as a treaty “because you can’t pass a treaty anymore.”
Political expediency was clearly not the primary concern of our founding fathers when the Constitution was drafted. If the Iran deal can’t pass as a treaty, then John Kerry has no one but himself to blame.
Had the administration done a better job in negotiating the agreement and not give in to Iran’s dangerous demands, the deal would have sailed through Congress and Americans would have supported it.
To add insult to injury, the president chose to send the deal to the United Nations before he sent it to Congress.
Americans like to be guided by the old adage: “Trust, but verify.”
Obama does not lack trust when it comes to dealing with Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism—but he is short on verification.
Americans are not permitted to be a part of inspections teams that will go to Iran to monitor its nuclear progress. more

Obama: Iranian oil, good, Canadian oil, bad, American oil, bad

President Obama’s confusing approach to energy encourages our enemies who shout “death to America” as it penalizes our closest allies and even our own job creators.
Iran’s participation in the nuclear negotiations netted a deal that allows it to resume oil exports. International sanctions have, since 2011, cut Iran’s oil exports in half and severely damaged its economy. Iran currently has about 50 million barrels of oil in storage on 28 tankers at sea.
It is believed that it will take Iran months to bring its production back up to pre-sanction levels. The millions of barrels of oil parked offshore are indicative of their eagerness to increase exports. Once the sanctions disappear — if Congress approves the terms of the deal — Iran wants to be ready to move its oil.
On July 17, the Financial Times (FT) reported: “The departure of a giant Iranian supertanker from the flotilla of vessels storing oil off the country’s coast has triggered speculation Tehran is moving to ramp up its crude exports.” The Starla, “a 2 million barrel vessel,” set sail — moving the oil closer to customers in Asia.
Starla is the first vessel storing crude offshore to sail after the nuclear deal was reached — which is, according to the FT: “signaling its looming return to the oil market.”
Already, before sanctions are lifted, global oil prices are feeling the pressure of Iran’s increased exports. Since the deal has been announced, crude prices have lost almost all of the recent gains.
While the Obama Administration’s actions allow Iran to boost its economy by increasing its oil exports, the White House hurts our closest ally but putting delay after delay in front of the Keystone pipeline, which would help Canada export its oil.
So, the Obama Administration lobbies Congress to lift the sanctions on Iran, a country that views America as The Great Satan while constraining Canadian and American oil. How is that in the “national interest?”
It appears we might just be living in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots...morehttp://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/36394/Obama-Iranian-oil-good-Canadian-oil-bad-American-oil-bad

Growing signs Schumer will oppose Iran deal

More than 10,000 phone calls have flooded his office linethe past two weeks, organized by a group looking to kill the deal. Anothergroup has dropped seven figures on TV in New York City to pressure Schumer andother lawmakers to vote against the plan.
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 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. 

If Schumer wanted to persuade members to side with him, “Chuck would have let his intentions known a long time ago, and everybody would have known,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Winning over members now, Manchin added, “would be much more difficult.”
The Iran vote could reverberate for Democratic senators facing tough reelection races in the coming years, especially if they back the accord and it fails to rein in Iran. Only one of them, Colorado’s Michael Bennet, is up in 2016; several others will be on the ballot in 2018.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a moderate who faces voters in three years, said she’s still carefully weighing the agreement.
In the Senate, the other members of the leadership team, including Reid, Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), are playing coy.
 

Asked why he hadn’t made a decision yet, Reid replied: “Have you made a decision?” Informed that reporters don’t cast votes on bills, he responded, “Yeah, well” and then walked into the Senate chamber....more