Key Dems Schumer, Engel Oppose Iran Deal; Obama Doubles Down On Outrageous Rhetoric
“‘After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval,’ Schumer said in a statement weeks before he will cast a vote.
"Schumer, a leading Jewish Democrat, is the first senator of Obama's party to step forward to oppose the deal. . . . Schumer's split with Obama is remarkable for a senior leader in line to replace Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after he retires at the end of next year.”
In his statement announcing his opposition to the Iran deal, Schumer explained, “In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement. First, inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling. While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) – the tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.
“Furthermore, even when we detect radioactivity at a site where Iran is illicitly advancing its bomb-making capability, the 24-day delay would hinder our ability to determine precisely what was being done at that site.
“Even more troubling is the fact that the U.S. cannot demand inspections unilaterally. By requiring the majority of the 8-member Joint Commission, and assuming that China, Russia, and Iran will not cooperate, inspections would require the votes of all three European members of the P5+1 as well as the EU representative. It is reasonable to fear that, once the Europeans become entangled in lucrative economic relations with Iran, they may well be inclined not to rock the boat by voting to allow inspections.”
Schumer further wrote, “Supporters argue that after ten years, a future President would be in no weaker a position than we are today to prevent Iran from racing to the bomb. That argument discounts the current sanctions regime. After fifteen years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program. Even more importantly, the agreement would allow Iran, after ten to fifteen years, to be a nuclear threshold state with the blessing of the world community. Iran would have a green light to be as close, if not closer to possessing a nuclear weapon than it is today.
“If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.”
Critically, Schumer points out, “[W]e must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are ‘state sponsors of terrorism.’ Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond. . . .
“[T]he hardliners can use the freed-up funds to build an ICBM on their own as soon as sanctions are lifted (and then augment their ICBM capabilities in 8 years after the ban on importing ballistic weaponry is lifted), threatening the United States. Restrictions should have been put in place limiting how Iran could use its new resources. When it comes to the non-nuclear aspects of the deal, I think there is a strong case that we are better off without an agreement than with one.”
Schumer concludes, “Using the proponents’ overall standard – which is not whether the agreement is ideal, but whether we are better with or without it – it seems to me, when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.”
Following Schumer’s announcement, Reuters reported, “U.S. Representative Eliot Engel, the top Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Thursday he has decided to vote to reject the nuclear deal with Iran.
“In a statement obtained by Reuters, Engel said he had raised questions about his concerns about the deal during the negotiations and since the deal was announced on July 1. ‘The answers I’ve received simply don’t convince me that this deal will keep a nuclear weapon out of Iran’s hands, and may in fact strengthen Iran’s position as a destabilizing and destructive influence across the Middle East,’ Engel said.
“A congressional aide said Engel would support a resolution of disapproval of the deal, and, if such a resolution were passed by Congress, would vote to override a veto by Democratic President Barack Obama.”
A Schumer aide told NBC’s Frank Thorp that the New York senator would also vote that way.
Meanwhile, President Obama doubled down on his “crass political rhetoric,” outrageously attacking opponents of the administration’s Iran deal as making “common cause” with Iranian hardliners.
According to CNN, “President Barack Obama is standing by his comparison between Iranian hardliners and Republicans who he says are dead set on derailing any nuclear deal.
“‘What I said is absolutely true, factually,’ Obama told CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview that will air in full Sunday. ‘The truth of the matter is, inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, hardliners who are implacably opposed to any cooperation with the international community,’ Obama said. . . . Obama said the Republicans' unwillingness to consider any deal put them in league with Iranian factions opposed to the deal.”
Is President Obama saying all these Democrats, such as Reps. Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, and Ted Deutch, plus Sen. Bob Menendez, and now Chuck Schumer, the future Democrat Senate leader, and Elliot Engel, the ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, are making “common cause” with Iraninan hardliners who chant “Death to America”?
Obama did land two Democrat senators, however. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (NH) was not a surprise. More significant was Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), who many thought would oppose the deal. Apparently, Senator Schumer made no serious effort to convince her to join him in opposing the pact.
Gary Bauer, President, Campaign for Working Families presented the following ACTION ITEM: If enough of people act, we can stop this deal. Your elected members of Congress are evaluating President Obama's nuclear deal right now. They need to know that their votes have consequences and that this issue will influence how you vote in the next election. Click Here to contact your elected representatives right now!
Tags: Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep, Eliot Engel, Rep. Steve Israel, Rep. Nita Lowey, Rep. Ted Deutch, Sen. Bob Menendez, Oppose Iran Deal, President Obama, attacks democrats, Iran Deal, Action Item To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 11:47 AM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home