Obama Admin Continues Attack On Iran Deal Critics

Today in Washington, D.C. - Aug 11, 2015.
Congress is not in session.

President Obama continues to try to sell his deal with Iran to a skeptical public by spending a great deal of time attacking critics of the deal and questioning their motives.

AP has a story titled, “Obama says opposition to Iran deal over politics, not merits.” They report, “President Barack Obama said Republicans are reflexively opposing the Iran nuclear deal because his name is on it, brushing off criticism from a majority in Congress. . . . ‘Unfortunately, a large portion of the Republican Party, if not a near unanimous portion of Republican representatives, are going to be opposed to anything that I do,’ Obama told NPR News.”

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, the president doubled down on his comparison of Republicans to hard-liners in Iran, saying, “What I said is absolutely true factually. 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. . . . And so the reason that Mitch McConnell and the rest of the folks in his caucus who oppose this jumped out and opposed it before they even read it, before it was even posted, is reflective of a ideological commitment not to get a deal done.”

The President of the United States appears more aligned with aligned with the desires of hardliners in Iran in his support this botched agreement/treaty than he is with the well fair of America's long term survival.

Now that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the 3rd ranking Senate Democrat and presumptive next Democrat Senate leader, has announced his opposition, Obama allies are also training their rhetorical fire on Schumer.

The Hill notes, “Former aides to Obama have ripped Schumer for coming out in opposition to the deal, and former Obama campaign manager and White House adviser David Plouffe slammed the senator shortly after his comments became public. In a message on Twitter, Plouffe linked to an earlier version of this story, described Schumer as naive and said Senate Democrats would miss Harry Reid, the Democratic leader Schumer is poised to succeed in the next Congress.” Roll Call adds, “Former Obama aides Pfeiffer, Tommy Vietor, Jon Favreau and Ben LaBolt Twitter-blasted Schumer within moments of the news breaking. MoveOn.org, quickly followed by other groups on the left, launched a fundraising strike to dump Schumer. . . . Press Secretary Josh Earnest didn’t hand out praise, either, saying last week, ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ if senators took voting records into account when making their decision. He highlighted Schumer’s support for the Iraq War for good measure. He also suggested Schumer had a mindset that minimizes the chances for diplomacy and relies too much on the ability of the United States to impose its will on another country.”

In contrast to the insults coming from the White House, critics of the Iran deal have focused on the provisions of the deal that are so troubling.

As Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, explained in the Weekly Republican Address, “Over the years, Iran has routinely violated international agreements through development of an illicit nuclear program that included covert facilities and previous work on a nuclear weapon.

“In response, the United States, led by efforts in Congress, built an international sanctions regime to isolate Iran economically, imposing a severe cost on their country that ultimately brought Iran to the negotiating table.

“In 2012, President Obama declared that he would only accept a deal requiring Iran to ‘end their nuclear program.’ It was a goal that both Republicans and Democrats rallied behind, and still do today. That’s why there is bipartisan concern with the deal that has been presented. Rather than ‘end’ Iran’s nuclear program, this deal allows them to industrialize it over time—with our approval.”

In his statement announcing his opposition to the deal, Sen. Schumer said, “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.”

Taking a break from questioning his opponents’ motives, President Obama again acknowledged how quickly Iran could have a nuclear weapon when the deal his administration negotiated expires. The Hill writes, “President Obama defended his landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but conceded the time it takes Tehran to acquire the material to build a bomb would shrink to ‘a matter of months’ as the agreement expires. . . .

“Asked by NPR’s Steve Inskeep what Iran’s ‘breakout time’ will be 15 years from now, Obama said “it shrinks back down to roughly where it is now ... which is a matter of months.” But Obama said that was no reason to reject the 15 years of limits on Iran's program under the deal. Breakout time is the amount of time it would take for Iran to amass enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear weapon. . . .

“The president would not tell NPR exactly how long it would take for Iran to acquire a weapon as the deal sunsets, explaining ‘theoretical breakout times don't match up with practical breakout times.’”

As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last month, “Remember: ending Iran’s nuclear program was supposed to be the point of these talks in the first place; what’s already clear about this agreement is that it will not achieve — or even come close to achieving — that original purpose.

“Instead, the Iranians appear to have prevailed in this negotiation: maintaining thousands of centrifuges and entrenching their threshold nuclear capability instead of ending it, reaping a multi-billion dollar windfall to spend freely on terrorism, dividing our Western allies and negotiating partners — some of whom will now undoubtedly sell arms to Iran — and gaining legitimacy before the world.”

Speaking to reporters last week, Leader McConnell reiterated, “[It’s] an absurd argument, ... that it's either what the President negotiates with the Iranians or it's war.

“That's never been the alternative. Let me suggest that had the president and his team spent as much time trying to ratchet up the sanctions on the Iranians over the last two years as they have entering into an agreement, which most of us are highly skeptical of, as to having any positive impact at all, we'd have ended up in a better place.

“But it's not this deal versus war. That's the argument they've been making during the whole negotiation -- it's either this deal or a better deal, or more sanctions. And I think that's been a huge mistake on his part.”

Senator Schumer is making a similar argument. According to The Hill, “The Obama administration should go back to the negotiating table with Iran and force the Islamic republic to accept a ‘better’ nuclear deal, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Monday.

“In his first public remarks since Thursday evening’s bombshell announcement that he would break with the White House and oppose the agreement, the likely next Senate Democratic leader said that the international pact ‘fell short.’

“‘Some say the only answer to this is war. I don’t believe so,’ Schumer said during a press conference in Rochester, N.Y. ‘I believe we should go back and try to get a better deal,’ he added. ‘The nations of the world should join us in that.’”

And, The AP adds adds today, “The lone Democratic senator to publicly oppose President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran said Tuesday that even if the U.S. backs away and other countries lift their sanctions, Iran still will feel ‘meaningful pressure’ from the U.S. penalties. . . .

“Schumer also said that sanctions aimed at companies that do business with Iran could force U.S. allies and trade partners back to the negotiating table.

“‘Let's not forget, those secondary sanctions are very powerful,’ Schumer told reporters in New York as he detailed a decision he first announced last week. He said these sanctions alert corporations, such as the French oil company Total, that if it deals with Iran, it cannot deal with the United States. ‘We have that powerful tool, and if used, I think that's a better, better chance in a very difficult world than an agreement that is so totally flawed,’ Schumer said.”

---

Tags: President Obama, Iran Nuke Deal, critics, news comments To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!