Sunday, December 27, 2015
Renewing the Iran Sanctions Is Vital and Non-negotiable
Washington is on vacation. But, early in 2016 the US Senate will face the next decision point in the Iran nuclear deal, needing to decide whether to extend sanctions against Iran that expire in 2016. The Iran Sanctions Act includes provisions targeting Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missies, and energy sector. Senator Ben Cardin, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, told The Hill that Senators suggested during a December briefing they were looking at an extension as early as January or February, and are trying to get Stephen Mull, Obama’s point person on the Iran deal, to comment on the potential timeline. Democrat Senator Chris Coons said during a December Foreign Relations hearing that "in January many members of Congress will call for the swift renewal" of the sanctions law. The problem with a January/February timetable is that it could coincide with the deal's "implementation day," putting the administration in the awkward position of trying to lift sanctions against Iran while Congress tries to extend them. ~~~~~ Congress members who support extending the sanctions law say it’s needed so this or a future administration has the ability to “snap back” sanctions into place if Iran violates the nuclear deal. They argue that two recent ballistic missile tests - which have frustrated lawmakers in both parties - underscore the worry that Iran will cheat on the nuclear deal. They'!re pressing Obama to send a clear message that he’s prepared to hold Iran accountable, including leaving the sanctions law on the table. Democrat Senator Robert Menendez wrote to Obama in December : “How you respond to this challenge will send a message to the Iranian regime about its compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action." Menendez asked the President to use existing authority to target individuals - including freezing their assets - if they support Iran’s ballistic missile program. Menendez also urged Obama to publicly support legislation drafted by Menendez and GOP Senator Mark Kirk that would provide for a 10-year extension of the Iran Sanctions Act. The proposal, supported by Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, has been stuck in the Banking Committee, even though committee chairman Senator Richard Shelby says he backs extending the sanctions : “Anything to tighten up on Iran,” he said in December. And, Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, suggests that his panel will focus on Iran and the sanctions law, as he and Cardin pledge “rigorous” oversight of the deal. Corker said recently : "Now we’re going to begin to look at steps we want to take legislatively. I’m certain that will be one of the steps.”
~~~~~ But it is unlikely that congressional action to renew the sanction law would be supported by the Obama administration, or some of Obama's staunch allies in Congress, because of concerns that new sanctions could be seen by Iran as a violation of the agreement. Democrat Senator Tim Kaine told The Hill he disagrees with the idea that the ballistic missile tests should change the focus of the debate on extending the Iran Sanctions Act : “I don’t think activity on the non-nuclear side should change the schedule on the JCPOA,” he said, but added that the administration should “go fervently” after Iran if it doesn't comply. Obama officials argue there's no need to extend the sanctions law because they have other means to hold Iran accountable if it violates the deal. To get an extension through the Senate, Republicans will need the votes of the four Democrats who opposed the Iran deal, and at least two more Senate Democrats who supported the nuclear agreement when it was before the Senate last summer. ~~~~~ Dear readers, Democrats often say one thing but vote differently after White House pressure. Democrats refused to allow the Iran deal to go to the Senate floor for a vote last summer, after Senator Corker's compromise with Obama was reneged on by the President. This time, we all need to contact our Senators to make clear that extending the Iran sanctions is vital and non-negotiable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Haven't we seen this play before? The Senate or Hiyse democratic make noise about splitting with the President and then on bite day a mysterious thing happens - all the good little Dumbocrats line up and March lock step into their appropriate Cgamber and vote with EVIL represented by Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnd until the last Dumbicratuc bite us cast the GOP leadership keeps talking about winning.
Elected Republicans in WashingtonDC are a pathetic group of gullible inexperienced players.
The last time there were signs of life in the Congressional (House and/or Senate) GOP delegation was in September 1994 when newt Gingrich released “The Contract With America”.
ReplyDeleteReleased 6 weeks before the 1994 Congressional Election – Bill Clinton’s Administration first mid-term election the Contract simply stated – actions that a republican controlled House of Representatives would take is elected. Six weeks later America voted and the GOP gained 54 seats in the House. A working majority and Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey set out to accomplish what was promised within the first 100 days of the first House session of 1995.
The GOP set forth what they would do, asked for voters to elect them based on what they proposed, and then went out and accomplished their proposals.
The Contract With America was revolutionary in its commitment to offering specific legislation for a vote, describing in detail the precise plan of the GOP Congressional Representatives, and broadly nationalizing the Congressional election.
Elect us and we will do this – simplicity and brilliance all in one
WHY NOT AGAIN ???
The Constitution is out in the open being ignored, perverted, and violated daily by politicians, judges, and bureaucrats. Obama has armed Mexican drug cartels, and is bringing in tens of thousands of Moslem “refugees” to help him subjugate citizens under his caliphate. He has stated he will use executive orders to abolish the 2nd, 4th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Very few members of congress speak out against this tyranny. Most either want Obama to succeed or desire to be part of his power structure or fear being called racists. I believe most of them fit into the complicit category, desiring power for themselves, and the wealth they can amass by helping Obama. Obama and his democratic cronies are making agreements to bring in foreign soldiers under the UN Command to “suppress domestic terrorism in cities”. The “terrorists” he refers to are not the Muslims now committing mass murder with his blessing but patriots like ourselves who refuse to bow to his tyranny.
ReplyDeleteWe call them names like ‘jihad’, ‘terrorists’, ‘Muslim fundamentalist’, ‘ISIS’. But put them all into one common container and they’re altruistic commonality is simply “collectivism” or “statism.
ReplyDeleteThe political expression of this altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good; and a statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the government’s unlimited power. And that is exactly what Obama is building up to. Along with those he has chosen to be banded together with in the Middle East war.
Nothing can ever justify the monstrosity evil of such a working theory. Nothing can justify the horror, the brutality, the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter of statist dictatorships. Exactly what is sweeping over the landscape of the Middle East with the help of Obama?
Once the start of ceding the region to the mullahs began; tension between Washington and its traditional allies in the Middle East was inevitable. Obama’s first presidential meeting with American Jewish leaders, he told the assembled marchers that he would seek to establish “daylight” between the United States and Israel. The White House then proceeded to launch secret negotiations with the Islamic Republic, keeping its ally Israel in the dark.
If the United States has no other compelling interest except oil in the Middle East then why are we involved in the turmoil there at all?
ReplyDeleteFriends it is ISRAEL. This Iranian nuclear deal is detrimental for a host of reasons, but it stands to pave the ground work for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
And it is because of the broad influence and importance of the existences of a strong and healthy Israel that this nuclear agreement must be blocked and the 100 Billion in USD must not be returned to Iran along with the end of all embargoes.