Iran isn’t complying with the interim deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...14/iran-isnt-complying-with-the-interim-deal/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...14/iran-isnt-complying-with-the-interim-deal/
But there are also Democrats in Congress with genuine qualms about a nuclear deal, especially one that fails to guarantee that Iran will never become a nuclear military power. The political polarisation is such that these voices now hesitate to make themselves heard. Because of their excesses, Republicans may well have left themselves unable to gather the kind of majority that would tie the president’s hands.
But while those partisan rivals have dangerously politicised a key international security issue, the Obama administration would be wrong to let domestic political considerations define the negotiation now unfolding in Lausanne. The overriding narrative should not be about who clinches a deal with Iran and with what political benefit, but about the nature of such a deal, its guarantees and whether such an accord might prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Many of the current political manoeuvres are only possible because of the lack of transparency on these questions. Dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme is a strategic problem of global security. It should not be hostage to short-term partisan games – wherever they are played
But while those partisan rivals have dangerously politicised a key international security issue, the Obama administration would be wrong to let domestic political considerations define the negotiation now unfolding in Lausanne. The overriding narrative should not be about who clinches a deal with Iran and with what political benefit, but about the nature of such a deal, its guarantees and whether such an accord might prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Many of the current political manoeuvres are only possible because of the lack of transparency on these questions. Dealing with Iran’s nuclear programme is a strategic problem of global security. It should not be hostage to short-term partisan games – wherever they are played
Correct, and that is why it's Important that these talks are the P5 +1 with Iran. It's not just us, and no agreement will be finalized unless all parties agree to it, and all parties will agree to the monitoring mechanisms to verify compliance. If these talks break down, Iran will resume it's quest to acquire the bomb, with no checks and balances. They Must succeed.
[h=2]Senate Dems Blocking New Iran Sanctions Measure[/h]Sources: Move contradicts Obama excuse for obstructing congressional oversight
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
March 25, 2015 1:25 pm
LAUSANNE, Switzerland—Senate Democrats are moving to block a new proposal that would enable Congress to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran if it cheats on a nuclear agreement with the West that is expected to be finalized in the coming days, according to sources in and outside of Congress with knowledge of the situation.
The Democratic opposition to the new nonbinding proposal was described by sources familiar with the controversy as a contradiction of the Obama administration’s focus on maintaining “flexibility” during the deal’s implementation phase.
The Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress have long been fighting against measures aimed at providing lawmakers with legislative oversight over how the negotiations and final deal with Iran are implemented.
The need for flexibility in reimposing sanctions on Iran has emerged as the Obama administration’s top talking point in its efforts to circumvent congressional oversight of the expected deal. The administration claims any legislative action would limit the range of options for future administrations.
The new nonbinding proposal, which is being offered by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) as an amendment to the 2016 federal budget, seeks to increase flexibility regarding sanctions, but is being met with resistance by congressional Democrats.
The amendment would establish a “deficit-neutral reserve fund” to reimpose any sanctions already lifted on Tehran and for “imposing new sanctions against Iran for violations” under any deal that is struck, according to a copy of the amendment viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
The bill would create a stand-by fund capable of allowing lawmakers to level sanctions on Iran more easily and quickly if it cheats on the nuclear deal and continues clandestine work on a weapons program, according to sources.
However, a contingent of Democrats is already lining up to block the amendment, despite the bipartisan support that had been in place for similar sanctions measures, according to congressional insiders familiar with the situation.
Top aides to Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) are said be urging the lawmaker and other key Democrats to vote against the nonbinding measure, one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon.
Kirk’s sanctions amendment is being viewed by insiders as “a test vote” to see whether Democrats will oppose Iran sanctions, as the Obama administration has been urging them to do.
In late January, 12 Democratic senators sent a letter to President Obama affirming their support for a separate sanctions bill being pushed by Sens. Kirk and Menendez. That bill would increase pressure on Iran if it fails to agree to a nuclear agreement by June, a deadline agreed to by the negotiating parties.
One senior congressional staffer familiar with the amendment said Democrats should be forced to put themselves on the record opposing sanctions should Iran cheat on the deal.
“If Democratic senators, who claim that they’ll never allow a bad nuclear deal on their watch, cannot even bring themselves to vote for a nonbinding and uncontroversial measure saying that Iranian cheating on nuclear deals should be punished with non-military sanctions—I repeat, non-military sanctions—then how likely is it that they’ll vote on the Senator floor to pass serious Iran legislation or to override a presidential veto to stop a bad deal?” the staffer asked.
“The amendment is noncontroversial as it is based on a bipartisan principle … [that] if Iran cheats or walks away from agreements, Iran gets sanctioned,” the source added. “Those who would vote against this uncontroversial amendment are basically telling Israel, Gulf states, and even Iran that they do not care if Iran cheats on pacts to prevent it from getting nuclear arms.”
The move to block the amendment comes as Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western leaders travel to Lausanne, Switzerland, for a final round of talks with Iran that are expected to produce a framework agreement for a final deal.
Critics of the Obama administration’s diplomacy say the deal would enable Iran to retain the most controversial aspects of its nuclear program, including the ability to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
Iranian leaders are pressuring the United States to lift sanctions fully before a final deal is even reached. Both Iran and the United States have hinted that they may seek to ratify the deal at the United Nations Security Council, a move that would cut Congress out of the equation.
“The president says he wants to preserve ‘flexibility’, but he is committed to going to the United Nations first, which would tie the hands of future administrations and irreparably destroy the international sanctions regime,” said one policy analyst familiar with the talks. “Now we find out that the Democrats are also trying to prevent Congress from maintaining its own flexibility.”
“It seems the president only wants flexibility when it gives him an excuse to avoid letting the people’s branch of Congress have a voice on the staggeringly important national security issue,” the source said.
AP
BY: Adam Kredo
March 25, 2015 1:25 pm
LAUSANNE, Switzerland—Senate Democrats are moving to block a new proposal that would enable Congress to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran if it cheats on a nuclear agreement with the West that is expected to be finalized in the coming days, according to sources in and outside of Congress with knowledge of the situation.
The Democratic opposition to the new nonbinding proposal was described by sources familiar with the controversy as a contradiction of the Obama administration’s focus on maintaining “flexibility” during the deal’s implementation phase.
The Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress have long been fighting against measures aimed at providing lawmakers with legislative oversight over how the negotiations and final deal with Iran are implemented.
The need for flexibility in reimposing sanctions on Iran has emerged as the Obama administration’s top talking point in its efforts to circumvent congressional oversight of the expected deal. The administration claims any legislative action would limit the range of options for future administrations.
The new nonbinding proposal, which is being offered by Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) as an amendment to the 2016 federal budget, seeks to increase flexibility regarding sanctions, but is being met with resistance by congressional Democrats.
The amendment would establish a “deficit-neutral reserve fund” to reimpose any sanctions already lifted on Tehran and for “imposing new sanctions against Iran for violations” under any deal that is struck, according to a copy of the amendment viewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
The bill would create a stand-by fund capable of allowing lawmakers to level sanctions on Iran more easily and quickly if it cheats on the nuclear deal and continues clandestine work on a weapons program, according to sources.
However, a contingent of Democrats is already lining up to block the amendment, despite the bipartisan support that had been in place for similar sanctions measures, according to congressional insiders familiar with the situation.
Top aides to Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) are said be urging the lawmaker and other key Democrats to vote against the nonbinding measure, one senior congressional aide told the Free Beacon.
Kirk’s sanctions amendment is being viewed by insiders as “a test vote” to see whether Democrats will oppose Iran sanctions, as the Obama administration has been urging them to do.
In late January, 12 Democratic senators sent a letter to President Obama affirming their support for a separate sanctions bill being pushed by Sens. Kirk and Menendez. That bill would increase pressure on Iran if it fails to agree to a nuclear agreement by June, a deadline agreed to by the negotiating parties.
One senior congressional staffer familiar with the amendment said Democrats should be forced to put themselves on the record opposing sanctions should Iran cheat on the deal.
“If Democratic senators, who claim that they’ll never allow a bad nuclear deal on their watch, cannot even bring themselves to vote for a nonbinding and uncontroversial measure saying that Iranian cheating on nuclear deals should be punished with non-military sanctions—I repeat, non-military sanctions—then how likely is it that they’ll vote on the Senator floor to pass serious Iran legislation or to override a presidential veto to stop a bad deal?” the staffer asked.
“The amendment is noncontroversial as it is based on a bipartisan principle … [that] if Iran cheats or walks away from agreements, Iran gets sanctioned,” the source added. “Those who would vote against this uncontroversial amendment are basically telling Israel, Gulf states, and even Iran that they do not care if Iran cheats on pacts to prevent it from getting nuclear arms.”
The move to block the amendment comes as Secretary of State John Kerry and other Western leaders travel to Lausanne, Switzerland, for a final round of talks with Iran that are expected to produce a framework agreement for a final deal.
Critics of the Obama administration’s diplomacy say the deal would enable Iran to retain the most controversial aspects of its nuclear program, including the ability to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
Iranian leaders are pressuring the United States to lift sanctions fully before a final deal is even reached. Both Iran and the United States have hinted that they may seek to ratify the deal at the United Nations Security Council, a move that would cut Congress out of the equation.
“The president says he wants to preserve ‘flexibility’, but he is committed to going to the United Nations first, which would tie the hands of future administrations and irreparably destroy the international sanctions regime,” said one policy analyst familiar with the talks. “Now we find out that the Democrats are also trying to prevent Congress from maintaining its own flexibility.”
“It seems the president only wants flexibility when it gives him an excuse to avoid letting the people’s branch of Congress have a voice on the staggeringly important national security issue,” the source said.
[h=2]Obama Admin Threatens U.S. Allies for Disagreeing with Iran Nuke Deal[/h]U.S. allies snubbed as administration moves toward nuke deal
EMAIL
BY: Adam Kredo
March 27, 2015 5:00 am
LAUSANNE, Switzerland—Efforts by the Obama administration to stem criticism of its diplomacy with Iran have included threats to nations involved in the talks, including U.S. allies, according to Western sources familiar with White House efforts to quell fears it will permit Iran to retain aspects of its nuclear weapons program.
A series of conversations between top American and French officials, including between President Obama and French President Francois Hollande, have seen Americans engage in behavior described as bullying by sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The disagreement over France’s cautious position in regard to Iran threatens to erode U.S. relations with Paris, sources said.
Tension between Washington and Paris comes amid frustration by other U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The White House responded to this criticism by engaging in public campaigns analysts worry will endanger American interests.
Western policy analysts who spoke to the Free Beacon, including some with close ties to the French political establishment, were dismayed over what they saw as the White House’s willingness to sacrifice its relationship with Paris as talks with Iran reach their final stages.
A recent phone call between Obama and Hollande was reported as tense as the leaders disagreedover the White House’s accommodation of Iranian red lines.
Amid these tensions, U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley met with her French counterpart, Gerard Araud, Monday to discuss a range of issues.
Benjamin Haddad, who has advised senior French political figures on foreign policy issues, said leaders in Paris have not been shy about highlighting disagreements they have with the White House.
“Fance, like other European countries, has negotiated for more than 10 years and endured most of the sanctions’ burden,” said Haddad, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute.
“The French want a deal, but they see no rush and repeat that Iranians need a deal more than we do, and that we shouldn’t fix artificial deadlines that put more pressure on us than Iran.”
One source in Europe close to the ongoing diplomacy said the United States has begun to adopt a “harsh” stance toward its allies in Paris.
“There have been very harsh expressions of displeasure by the Americans toward French officials for raising substantive concerns about key elements of what the White House and State Department negotiators are willing to concede to Iran,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is because the clarifications expose just how weak the Americans’ deal is shaping up to be.”
“The meeting between the French ambassador in Washington and the president’s envoy to Paris—not a diplomat but a big fundraiser for his campaigns—comes amid these very harsh words that were spoken privately about the ambassador’s recent comments on the seeming American desperation for a deal, and the tough words that President Obama had for President Hollande in their phone call.”
Strategic differences remain between the United States and its allies over how a final deal should look, the source said. The French remain opposed to a recent range of concessions made by the Obama administration.
“We may agree that denying Iran a nuclear weapon ability is the goal, but apparently the view of what one can leave Iran and assure that is very different,” the source said.
“Clearly these are the differences that must be discussed. I don’t see France suddenly deciding that America is right and French objections to weakness are wrong, nor that silence is preferable to transparency.”
Haddad said the French are hesitant to rush into an agreement.
“The French want a robust deal with clear guarantees on issues like [research and development] and inspections to ensure that Iranians won’t be able to reduce breakout time during the duration of the agreement (also an issue of discussion), or just after thanks to research conducted during the period,” he said. “That is also why they disagreed on lifting sanctions.”
He also said the French “don’t trust Iran and believe an ambiguous deal would lead to regional proliferation.”
Another Western source familiar with the talks said the White House is sacrificing longstanding alliances to cement a contentious deal with Iran before Obama’s term in office ends.
“The President could be hammering out the best deal in the history of diplomacy, and it still wouldn’t be worth sacrificing our alliances with France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—key partners in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf,” the source said. “But he’s blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Iran’s way to a bomb.”
A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the issue.
Meanwhile, talks between the United States and Iran reached a critical juncture Thursday, as Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Iranian counterpoint to hash out differences over key points concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
The sides are hoping to reach a framework agreement by March 31 amid reports that Iran is demanding Saudi Arabia immediately halt airstrikes in Yemen, where Iran-aligned forces are working to bring down the Western-backed government.
The issue could complicate the talks as the United States attempts to balance its regional alliance with Iran in Iraq against competing interests with traditional allies in Saudi Arabia.
U.S. negotiators have reportedly softened their stance in recent days on a range of issues relating to Iran’s continued production of nuclear materials. One of Iran’s nuclear sites in Fordow could continue to operate, according to the Associated Press.
From left, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius talk after Hammond made a statement about their meeting regarding recent negotiations with Iran over Iran's nuclear program in London, England, Saturday, March 21 / AP
BY: Adam Kredo
March 27, 2015 5:00 am
LAUSANNE, Switzerland—Efforts by the Obama administration to stem criticism of its diplomacy with Iran have included threats to nations involved in the talks, including U.S. allies, according to Western sources familiar with White House efforts to quell fears it will permit Iran to retain aspects of its nuclear weapons program.
A series of conversations between top American and French officials, including between President Obama and French President Francois Hollande, have seen Americans engage in behavior described as bullying by sources who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
The disagreement over France’s cautious position in regard to Iran threatens to erode U.S. relations with Paris, sources said.
Tension between Washington and Paris comes amid frustration by other U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The White House responded to this criticism by engaging in public campaigns analysts worry will endanger American interests.
Western policy analysts who spoke to the Free Beacon, including some with close ties to the French political establishment, were dismayed over what they saw as the White House’s willingness to sacrifice its relationship with Paris as talks with Iran reach their final stages.
A recent phone call between Obama and Hollande was reported as tense as the leaders disagreedover the White House’s accommodation of Iranian red lines.
Amid these tensions, U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley met with her French counterpart, Gerard Araud, Monday to discuss a range of issues.
Benjamin Haddad, who has advised senior French political figures on foreign policy issues, said leaders in Paris have not been shy about highlighting disagreements they have with the White House.
“Fance, like other European countries, has negotiated for more than 10 years and endured most of the sanctions’ burden,” said Haddad, a research fellow at the Hudson Institute.
“The French want a deal, but they see no rush and repeat that Iranians need a deal more than we do, and that we shouldn’t fix artificial deadlines that put more pressure on us than Iran.”
One source in Europe close to the ongoing diplomacy said the United States has begun to adopt a “harsh” stance toward its allies in Paris.
“There have been very harsh expressions of displeasure by the Americans toward French officials for raising substantive concerns about key elements of what the White House and State Department negotiators are willing to concede to Iran,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “That is because the clarifications expose just how weak the Americans’ deal is shaping up to be.”
“The meeting between the French ambassador in Washington and the president’s envoy to Paris—not a diplomat but a big fundraiser for his campaigns—comes amid these very harsh words that were spoken privately about the ambassador’s recent comments on the seeming American desperation for a deal, and the tough words that President Obama had for President Hollande in their phone call.”
Strategic differences remain between the United States and its allies over how a final deal should look, the source said. The French remain opposed to a recent range of concessions made by the Obama administration.
“We may agree that denying Iran a nuclear weapon ability is the goal, but apparently the view of what one can leave Iran and assure that is very different,” the source said.
“Clearly these are the differences that must be discussed. I don’t see France suddenly deciding that America is right and French objections to weakness are wrong, nor that silence is preferable to transparency.”
Haddad said the French are hesitant to rush into an agreement.
“The French want a robust deal with clear guarantees on issues like [research and development] and inspections to ensure that Iranians won’t be able to reduce breakout time during the duration of the agreement (also an issue of discussion), or just after thanks to research conducted during the period,” he said. “That is also why they disagreed on lifting sanctions.”
He also said the French “don’t trust Iran and believe an ambiguous deal would lead to regional proliferation.”
Another Western source familiar with the talks said the White House is sacrificing longstanding alliances to cement a contentious deal with Iran before Obama’s term in office ends.
“The President could be hammering out the best deal in the history of diplomacy, and it still wouldn’t be worth sacrificing our alliances with France, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—key partners in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf,” the source said. “But he’s blowing up our alliances to secure a deal that paves Iran’s way to a bomb.”
A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the issue.
Meanwhile, talks between the United States and Iran reached a critical juncture Thursday, as Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Iranian counterpoint to hash out differences over key points concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
The sides are hoping to reach a framework agreement by March 31 amid reports that Iran is demanding Saudi Arabia immediately halt airstrikes in Yemen, where Iran-aligned forces are working to bring down the Western-backed government.
The issue could complicate the talks as the United States attempts to balance its regional alliance with Iran in Iraq against competing interests with traditional allies in Saudi Arabia.
U.S. negotiators have reportedly softened their stance in recent days on a range of issues relating to Iran’s continued production of nuclear materials. One of Iran’s nuclear sites in Fordow could continue to operate, according to the Associated Press.
Guesser: The Obama admin has halted Iran's efforts to get a nuclear bomb.
Me: OK, based on what evidence?
Guesser: Umm...LOL! Idk, guyz!
That's basically where we're at in this thread.
On a somewhat related note though, guess what?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...455830-d343-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html
Egypt and the Saudis are about to put some serious boots on the ground in Yemen to battle Iranian-backed rebels. Even CNBC is finally admitting that Iran is engaged in state-sponsored terrorism and is directly involved in Yemen.
So let's recap...daily "Death to America" chants coming from Iran's supreme leader. Direct military insertions in to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and a proxy war in Yemen...and oh yeah...for the proverbial cherry on the sundae: Nukes!
And we are negotiating with them WHY?
Quite frankly, I'm half hoping they annihilate each other. Not even sure I give a shit about who is going to war with who anymore over there. If the whole damn region went up in a mushroom cloud (or 10), I'd probably look back on the days retards thought "green energy" was a great idea and have a good laugh.
Then I'd go buy a gas-guzzling SUV.
I don't. But I don't reflexively attack the guy, just because he's Obama, like so many of these clueless idiots do. I've ripped him for his Foreign policy in the 2nd term. He lied and got us back in Iraq, he put us in Syria, He's keeping us in Afghanastan longer than promised. I've railed against his drone program, I've railed against his hypocrisy with Obamacare, I've railed against his hypocrisy regarding Snowden and the NSA. I attack the guy when it's warranted. I fully back him in the P5 +1 talks with Iran to stop Iran from getting a Nuke.
And if you actually read what Aki and Vit say, instead of relying on the lies that the sick hateful people down here say they say, you'd see that they have also disagreed with Obama at times, although not as much as me.
That's why I stated that at least you try and argue constructively most of the time. As far as the other two, I've been here since 2006 and used to be down here on a regular basis. I still read it a lot but don't post much anymore because it's nothing really more than name calling mostly. I know it goes both ways, but I know what I see from both of them.
I laugh to myself at times because I can't believe so many posters get so upset at what anonymous people think about them.
I laugh to myself at times because I can't believe so many posters get so upset at what anonymous people think about them.
