Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN) opened debate up to the full Senate Thursday on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 that passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously.
In the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, New York Times columnist began to reconsider his support for the military option, as he became convinced that the Bush administration was going to mishandle the war and its aftermath. Fast-forward 12 years, and Friedman is making similar moves ahead of the final talks on a nuclear deal with Iran. In his Apr. 23 column, Friedman says that while a nuclear deal is desirable, the structure and context of the deal means “it will not be easy.”
SANTA ANA, California — An indictment hearing was held at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Santa Ana on Monday for Khosrow Afghahi, one of the five men who have been accused by the U.S. of “allegedly circumventing U.S. sanctions and illegally exporting controlled microelectronics to Iran.” The highly-sensitive technology is used for military-grade systems like surface-to-air and cruise missiles.
Eli Lake at Bloomberg View reports that President Obama’s administration has confirmed that Iran is “two to three months” away from developing a nuclear weapon, contradicting the White House’s rebuttal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that Iran is months away from the breakout.
As the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt heads to Yemen to confront a convoy of Iranian ships, including destroyers, it is worth asking why President Barack Obama is still talking to the Iranian regime about its nuclear program. The Iranians, who used the Houthi militia to knock over the American-aligned Yemeni government, clearly has no fear that Obama will suspend negotiations. If anything, Iranian tactics are winning more concessions.
Carly Fiorina, speaking with FOX News Radio’s Jared Halpern, said she is getting closer than 90 percent to running for president. “We’re getting closer – I’ll make a final decision and a formal announcement probably in the next several weeks,” said Fiorina.
Continuing its tradition of providing a propaganda platform for America’s enemies, the New York Times has published an op-ed by Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in which he demands that the United States choose “between cooperation and confrontation, between negotiations and grandstanding, and between agreement and coercion.” Enjoying the freedom of expression his government denies to its opponents, Zarif argues that the West should work with it toward regional peace.
Three new dangers have emerged in the last few days alone that should scuttle any nuclear deal with the Iranian regime. If President Barack Obama were truly concerned about American security, he would have ended negotiations, told Congress to pass new sanctions, and prepared the armed forces for military action as a last resort. Instead, out of narcissism and a fear of war at all costs, he is pursuing a peace at any price–one that guarantees war in the future on unfavorable terms.
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz ripped into the Obama administration and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Saturday, drawing applause for his red-meat remarks.
President Barack Obama appeared to yield Friday to Iran’s insistence that sanctions be removed immediately when a nuclear deal goes into effect, rather than over time. Rather than lifting sanctions only when Iran is shown to be complying with the agreement, Obama now wants sanctions to be able to “snap back” when Iran is found to be in violation of the deal.
Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has offered what he admits is a rather weak defense of the Iran deal: he hopes it will lead to regime change by strengthening reformists within the Tehran government. In an op-ed for Politico Magazine, Mullen claims that “Iranian reformists…support a nuclear deal because it would be a first step in the evolution they would like to see.” He also rules out a military option and says that Obama’s deal is the best deal possible.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a possible Republican presidential candidate, weighed in on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s unanimous approval requiring President Obama to submit the Iran deal to Congress for final review.
An amendment requiring President Obama to guarantee Iran hasn’t committed terrorist acts against the U.S. or U.S. citizens was removed before the Senate Foreign Relation Committee voted on an agreement to require Congressional approval of any Iran nuclear deal.
If you still wonder why our nation’s politics are so divided, look no further than Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s half-witted attempt to accuse Republicans—and Israelis—of hypocrisy in opposing the Iran deal. The same neocons and Likudniks who opposed any Iran deal, Milbank says, now want to stick with the interim deal, or argue for a “better deal” than the one President Barack Obama is proposing. Conclusion: they are liars, warmongers, and above all, Obama-haters.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted unanimously Tuesday afternoon to pass Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sending the legislation to the full Senate for final approval. The bill gives Congress time to review
President Barack Obama’s White House is beginning to show signs it may fold under congressional pressure on the deal it struck with Iran over nuclear arms.
The opportunity for Congress to have a say in the Iran deal faces a big test Tuesday afternoon. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will debate and vote on the bipartisan measure put forth by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN).
President Barack Obama met on Monday with a group of Jewish leaders at the White House in an effort to win their support for the Iran deal–and for passing that deal without approval from Congress. The details of the meeting were not posted, but The Hill reports that the Obama administration sees the outreach as a key part of its effort to prevent the Corker bill, which would require congressional approval of an Iran deal, from reaching the two-thirds majority threshold.
A series of polls makes the case that voters support President Barack Obama’s Iran deal, despite the objections of Republicans in Congress. The latest is the Quinnipiac swing state poll, which finds that voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia support a deal with Iran by a 3-to-1 margin. They also support letting Congress decide by a 3-to-1 margin, so the case against the administration’s position is solid. But the poll’s support for the deal is entirely dependent on bad wording that covers up what is actually going on.
Sen. John Barrasso plans to introduce amendments if necessary to strengthen the Iran sanctions measure the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider this week.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider Sen. Bob Corker’s measure to secure congressional approval on the Iran deal Tuesday afternoon.
Russia announced Monday that it will sell Iran advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The decision, which ends an embargo dating back to 2010, shows that President Barack Obama is rapidly losing control of the international consensus on Iran.
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made public suggestions as to how a “bad deal” on Iran’s nuclear program could be improved. He suggested shutting down all of Iran’s underground facilities, and lifting sanctions only when Iran stops carrying out terror and aggression in the region. It was at least the fourth time Netanyahu had proposed clear alternatives to the Iran deal–though U.S. President Barack Obama persists in pretending he has never proposed any.
In its lead editorial Sunday, the New York Times plays the race card, accusing Republicans of criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy because he is black. The editors, like many on the left, refuse to acknowledge that it is Obama’s own radical policies,
President Barack Obama attempted on Saturday to dismiss harsh criticism by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had accused the American president last week of “lying” about the terms of the nuclear framework reached in Lausanne, Switzerland earlier this month. Obama tried to explain that Khamenei’s remarks were intended for domestic political purposes: “Even a guy with the title ‘Supreme Leader’ has to be concerned about his own constituencies,” Obama said.
Iranians living in California are deeply skeptical of the emerging nuclear deal announced last week by the Obama administration. Many fled Iran for Southern California during and after the 1979 revolution–some after suffering human rights abuses, and many leaving property and relatives behind in uncertain circumstances.
Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei said in a speech on Thursday that he has neither endorsed nor rejected the basic framework for an agreement on Tehran’s nuclear program, which had been reported as agreed upon by both the P5+1 world powers and the Iranian regime.
A war of words–and fundraising emails–has erupted between Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) over the Iran deal. The fight began when Schakowsky objected to Kirk’s remark to Politico that “Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than [U.S. negotiator] Wendy Sherman got out of Iran.” Schakowsky said it was “appalling” for Kirk to “equate the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Nazi appeasement.” Kirk then used her attack in a fundraising email.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act appears to be the most effective way for Congress to stop President Barack Obama from appeasing the Iranian regime with a bad nuclear deal. The “Corker-Mendez-Graham” bill, or the “Corker Bill,” would require President Obama to submit the final Iran deal to Congress. Yet the text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve–and would do so by gutting the Senate’s constitutional power over treaties.
On Wednesday, David Horovitz, the liberal editor of the Times of Israel called the emerging Iran deal: “A bad deal. Far, far worse than no deal at all.” Also on Wednesday, the liberal editorial board of the New York Times called the Iran framework “a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal,” and claimed that Israel had offered “offers no workable options.” In order to arrive at that conclusion, however, the Times had to rely on a different set of facts from Horovitz–facts it invented.
Rand Paul may be “closest to Obama in his view on foreign policy,” as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put it on Tuesday, but he is facing stiff competition from Jeb Bush in that category.The former Florida governor praised Obama’s initial negotiating efforts with Iran on Tuesday, telling an audience in Denver that “we need to give him credit” for “bringing other people along and making it tougher.” The puzzling statement suggests the influence of James A. Baker III on the Bush campaign.
Israel Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s promise to have Israel’s back is meaningless if he allows Iran to procure a nuclear weapon.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is a candidate to succeed retiring Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as Senate Minority Leader, has reiterated his support for a bipartisan proposal to require President Barack Obama to submit to Congress any nuclear deal with Iran. Because President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation–known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act–Schumer’s position is seen as a rare moment of dissent. However, there may be less here than meets the eye.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is providing rapid response, after President Obama made disparaging remarks about Walker’s potential foreign policy.
President Barack Obama has granted an interview to National Public Radio in an attempt to sell the Iran “framework” to a skeptical public. In the process, he compares the agreement to a real-estate deal–a poor analogy for a man who called his own last property purchase deal “boneheaded” after involving indicted (now convicted) bag Chicago man Tony Rezko. Obama also provided at least five big reasons that Congress–whose opposition is growing–should reject the Iran deal.
President Obama appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition with host Steve Inskeep and took a jab at potential GOP presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s statements on the Iran deal, according to the Daily Mail.
For days, lefties like Chris Matthews of MSNBC and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic have been fuming that conservative critics of the Iran “framework” have referred to it as the sequel to the Munich agreement of 1938—the deal that defined “appeasement.” Yet President Barack Obama proved his critics correct on Monday when he rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s suggestion that Iran be required to accept Israel’s right to exist as a condition of a final deal.
At a speaking event in Washington, D.C., Monday evening, Carly Fiorina, former HP CEO and possible 2016 candidate, said she isn’t sure what side some of the parties are on at the negotiating table regarding the Iran deal.
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), appeared on Fox News Sunday saying discrepancies on the political framework agreement between the U.S and Iran reveal the necessity for congressional review of any final deal.
The French delegation in Switzerland felt the outline for a nuclear deal with Iran was “not solid enough,” and wanted to improve upon the deal before signing off on the accord, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Europe 1 radio on Friday.
