Thank You Mikulski!

[lennygoran]

Obama secures Iran nuclear deal with Barbara Mikulski vote!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/politics/ ... index.html

Regards, Len!

[jbuck919]

She was my senator from the year zero, an impeccable liberal Democrat, and all I can say is, I wonder what part of her constituency she was trying not to offend (we know the answer for Chuck Schumer) by waiting so long.

[lennygoran]

we know the answer for Chuck Schumer

There's someone I'm not too impressed with these days-not supporting Obama's Iran plan and his position on the hedgefund executives. Regards, Len

"But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washi ... wanted=all

[jbuck919]

we know the answer for Chuck Schumer

There's someone I'm not too impressed with these days-not supporting Obama's Iran plan and his position on the hedgefund executives. Regards, Len

"But there is another way Mr. Schumer has been busy with hedge fund and private equity managers, an important part of his constituency in New York. He has been reassuring them that he will resist an effort led by members of his own party to single out the industry with a plan that would more than double the taxes on the enormous profits reaped by its executives. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washi ... wanted=all

He's playing the risky game of keeping himself in office by supporting right-wing causes he probably does not really believe in so that he can continue to serve as the bastion of liberalism the rest of his constituency expects him to be. On Iran, he seems to have calculated correctly that his support would not be needed for the plan to succeed, which is probably the outcome he really wants. Because politics is a money game in this country, all politicians now have to compromise this way to one extent or the other. But if they didn't, they'd be compromising for votes instead (or some combination of votes and money). That's why the also liberal Kirsten Gillibrand couldn't speak out against guns when she was my congresswoman, and why another Democrat who served only one term had to be given a "pass" on voting for the ACA, because it includes the tax on medical devices, an important industry up here.

[John F]

Schumer isn't just keeping himself in office, he's in line to become the next Democratic leader in the Senate - majority leader, if the 2016 elections go well. If he compromises along the way on issues which I have no personal stake in, such as the Iran nuclear deal, I really have no problem with that. New York State can only gain from one of its senators having so much power and influence. Let's not be too picky.

[rwetmore]

Why does anyone think this is good deal? They will use the money gained from the lifted sanctions to fund attacks on the United States and Israel (and probably elsewhere too). The naïvete is just unbelievable. I didn't see anyone from Iran denounce 'death to America' as part of this deal.

[lennygoran]

Why does anyone think this is good deal?

With out the deal Iran can just go back to building their nuclear facilities with no verification-the other allies we now have will walk away from their sanctions on Iran and leave us as the only one administering sanctions-how are you going to stop them from their nuclear build up-go to war? Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

Why does anyone think this is good deal?

With out the deal Iran can just go back to building their nuclear facilities with no verification-the other allies we now have will walk away from their sanctions on Iran and leave us as the only one administering sanctions-how are you going to stop them from their nuclear build up-go to war? Regards, Len

What gives you such a high degree of confidence this will actually stop their nuclear ambition? And even if it does, what's to stop them from using the money (up to 150 billion) to fund significant non-nuclear attacks on us? What part of 'death to America' do you not understand? Why do you think Iran was so immensely giddy for getting this deal?

[lennygoran]

What gives you such a high degree of confidence this will actually stop their nuclear ambition? And even if it does, what's to stop them from using the money (up to 150 billion) to fund significant non-nuclear attacks on us? What part of 'death to America' do you not understand? Why do you think Iran was so immensely giddy for getting this deal?

Of course no one can be sure but at least there is now verification on a pretty sophisticated level-there are no iron clad guarantees. As for other problems with Iran they may not go away but we're sure not barred from reacting to them as they develop. Major thing it's the only way to stop them from achieving a nuclear weapon unless you're ready to invade them-is it war you're after? Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

They'll have at least 24 days to get rid of any incriminating evidence. I mean, duh -- that's what they will do. Continue to develop nuclear weapons, and if they get notice of inspection, they'll thoroughly remove the evidence before the inspectors get there.

You do understand that Iran is terror sponsoring state, right? This deal further funds terrorism against the United States.

[rwetmore]

They'll use the money to further destabilize the Middle East and further fund ISIS.

[John F]

Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal
By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
SEPT. 2, 2015

WASHINGTON — Just before the Senate left town for its August break, a dozen or so undecided Democrats met in the Capitol with senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia who delivered a blunt, joint message: Their nuclear agreement with Iran was the best they could expect. The five world powers had no intention of returning to the negotiating table.

“They basically said unanimously this is as good a deal as you could get and we are moving ahead with it,” recalled Senator Chris Coons, the Delaware Democrat who lent crucial support to the deal this week despite some reservations. “They were clear and strong that we will not join you in re-imposing sanctions.”

For many if not most Democrats, it was that message that ultimately solidified their decisions, leading to President Obama on Wednesday securing enough votes to put the agreement in place over fierce and united Republican opposition. One after another, lawmakers pointed to the warnings from foreign leaders that their own sanctions against Iran would be lifted regardless of what the United States did.

But the president’s potentially legacy-defining victory — a highly partisan one in the end — was also the result of an aggressive, cooperative strategy between the White House and congressional Democrats to forcefully push back against Republican critics, whose allies had begun a determined, $20 million-plus campaign to kill the deal. Overwhelmed by Republicans and conservatives in previous summers when political issues like the health care legislation were effectively put on trial, Democrats sought to make sure that momentum remained behind the president on the Iran agreement in both the Senate and the House.

Under the direction of Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, and a team of lieutenants, House Democrats orchestrated a daily roll-out of endorsements of the Iran deal from a Capitol war room, tucked into Ms. Pelosi’s office just off the House chamber. They parceled out their statements to make clear that House members were closing ranks behind the agreement and distributed letters of support from colleagues and respected outside experts to both wavering colleagues and the news media. They pushed back against reports they believed wrongly threatened the deal.

“There was a plan, and there continues to be a plan,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview. “My goal was to have 100 by the end of the week, and we will exceed that.” She acknowledged that the memories of the previous summer health care fight were “useful because I could say to people that we have to be proactive because I know the other side will be.”

The administration, too, went all-out. At the White House, administration staff members set up their own West Wing war room and even created a separate Twitter account, @TheIranDeal, to make their case. Cabinet members and other senior administration officials talked directly with more than 200 House members and senators. The president spoke personally to about 100 lawmakers, either individually or in small groups, and aides said he called 30 lawmakers during his August vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

One senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House strategy said Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a nuclear physicist who helped negotiate the deal, was a “secret weapon” in selling it to lawmakers. Not only did he know the science, he could explain it clearly, persuasively and without the condescension some heard in Secretary of State John Kerry’s presentations.

Some of Mr. Kerry’s arguments, however, did resonate, especially when he quoted two prominent Israeli security experts who made favorable public comments about the Iran deal: Efraim Halevy, the former director of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and Ami Ayalon, the former director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service. Several lawmakers said the two Israelis provided a counterbalance to the forceful speech opposing the agreement that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made in Congress in March. Indeed, Mr. Netanyahu and his allies may well have overplayed their hands. The campaign to kill the nuclear accord was not aimed at persuading Democrats so much as scaring them. In the end, that helped turn the debate into yet another partisan showdown without the gravity many feared it would attain.

Opponents of the agreement said they could not remember another recent policy battle where the White House and Ms. Pelosi were so driven. In tandem, they made the Iran vote a strong test of party loyalty.

Not all of the Democrats’ efforts helped their cause. Some lawmakers said they were put off by the president’s insistence that the only alternative to the Iran deal would be war. And even some supporters of the pactsaid they were disturbed by the administration’s criticism of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, who was one of just two in the party, along with Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, to publicly declare opposition.

Although the announcement on Wednesday by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, that she would back the deal meant that a presidential veto could not be overridden in the Senate, critics of the agreement said they would continue to press lawmakers to oppose it. Ultimately, they said, Democrats would be held accountable for their votes. “For pro-Israel activists, this is a once-in-a-generation vote,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which spent more than $20 million in a national media campaign against the deal.

Other opponents predicted that Democrats would rue their votes if Iran violated the agreement. One Republican official said the campaign against it was also hurt by the intense August media focus on Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican presidential primary race and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s handling of State Department emails.

The opponents noted the Obama victory promises to be narrow and dependent solely on Democratic votes. “We believe that this strong opposition conveys an important message to the world — especially foreign banks, businesses and governments — about the severe doubts in America concerning Iran’s willingness to meet its commitments and the long-term viability of this agreement,” said Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Ned Price, spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said Wednesday: “The president and his team continue to be deeply engaged in making sure that all those interested in the deal understand why this is the best approach to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We are encouraged by the growing number of lawmakers who have announced support for the deal in the past weeks — all echoing the same arguments the president has been making for several months.”

Some Democrats clearly agonized over the decision. But some who came out in support of the deal said the outside pressure was ineffective largely because the substance of the debate was too important and too complex. “You felt the weight of it,” said Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “Millions of dollars in advertising going on. You just had to block it out.” In an interview, Mr. Casey said the unwillingness of the other five powers to renegotiate was a major factor in his decision as well as the importance of keeping America’s allies unified. “I would want to put us in a position,” he said, “where the same kind of unity on sanctions could be brought to bear on deterrence, which ultimately could be a military strike.”

In the end, one administration official said two things broke in Mr. Obama’s favor: an absence of outrage when lawmakers went back home for the summer recess, and a failure of the opponents to develop a credible alternative to the deal as it was negotiated in Vienna on July 14. More important, the official said, an expected Republican alternative approach — an argument that Congress should simply ignore the accord and try to keep the existing interim accord in place — “never got beyond a few talking points.”

That was not obvious in late July and early August. R. Nicholas Burns, the former under secretary of state for policy, noted recently that at hearings where he testified in favor of the deal, “Republicans dominated the hearings. They are united, have a common position against the deal and are assertive.”

Many Democrats said they were persuaded on the merits, including a point stressed by Mr. Moniz, the energy secretary, that the International Atomic Energy Agency would have technology that could catch even the most minute trace amounts of radioactive material, and help expose any cheating on the deal by Iran. They also heard from experts who said that a 15-year limit on fissile material, the makings of a nuclear weapon, would do more to slow Iran’s production of a nuclear weapon than a military attack, which intelligence experts said would only delay a weapons program by three years.

On Wednesday, with victory secured, Mr. Kerry still sought to reassure skeptics. “If Iran decides to break the agreement, it will regret breaking any promise it has made,” he said in an hourlong speech in Philadelphia.

The outcome left Democrats celebrating, assured of the president’s power to follow through on the deal — an outcome they said was crucial to upholding American’s international standing. “Our ability to build coalitions, to lead, to have credibility when we enter into a negotiation was really on the line,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who organized the Iran deal strategy with Ms. Pelosi, with whom she consulted almost daily while lawmakers were scattered in their districts around the country. “To walk away now would diminish our ability to lead on future issues.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world ... -deal.html

[lennygoran]

You do understand that Iran is terror sponsoring state, right? This deal further funds terrorism against the United States.

You're good at just reciting the news-what's your solution to stopping their nuclear build up-why no reply to my questions about invading and war. Regards, Len

[lennygoran]

They'll use the money to further destabilize the Middle East and further fund ISIS.

I thought they were fighting ISIS!

'We will destroy ISIS': Iranian militia vows to fight terror group

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/middleeas ... ting-isis/

For a guy who's so sure of himself you sure are misinformed! Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

They'll use the money to further destabilize the Middle East and further fund ISIS.

I thought they were fighting ISIS!

'We will destroy ISIS': Iranian militia vows to fight terror group

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/22/middleeas ... ting-isis/

For a guy who's so sure of himself you sure are misinformed! Regards, Len

Well, some of the Iranians are I can't deny. It seems exactly how ISIS gets its funding is unclear, but there seem to be a lot of theories. Also, the Iranian fight against ISIS may only be garnering more support for them among Sunnis in Iraq.

The bottom line is Iran is terror sponsoring state. If it isn't ISIS, then other groups or other means.

The key point you only need to consider regarding this deal is if Iran was really planning on adhering to the deal to not try to develop nuclear weapons, why the need for them to require 24 days notice for any inspection? Think about it, if you were entering a deal where you knew you would adhere to the terms, you wouldn't mind if there were no notice inspections anywhere, because you would be adhering to the deal and the inspectors wouldn't find anything.

[jbuck919]

I can't remember if it was here or Facebook that I posted that I attended a "town hall" with my young Republican congresswoman. (She's a Harvard grad, but I don't hold that against her. Instead it leads me to assume that since she's smart enough to know better than Republican dogma she's in this opportunistically as the first step in building a power career.) There is a lot I can say about this, the first such occasion I have ever attended, and very stressful to be part of even though I only sat there and watched and listened. For now, though, the local Move On sent perhaps a dozen of its members with the agenda of questioning her on her opposition to the Iran deal. They didn't dominate the entire proceedings, and good order was maintained throughout, but it was still quite a little show. One question (from a reform rabbi who was not with Move On) that she simply did not answer was how she felt about the possibility of war as the alternative to the deal. She just kept repeating, "I think we need a better deal" no matter how often it was pointed out that there was not going to be a better deal. (At one point she said that Israel, whose current government wants the US to go to war with Iran on their behalf, should have been at the table during the negotiations.)

Since Elise Stefanik, to name her, is still running on the total repeal of Obamacare, I had thought that I might ask her what she intended to put in its place to give all her constituents access to affordable health care. I'm no good at this game, it is clear, because I hadn't the nerve even to do that in front of a half-hostile audience. However, in the course of the proceedings, I decided that if I could bring myself to speak up, I would ask instead if she realized how much fear the Republican party has instilled in millions of people, including many in her district.: fear of another financial crisis if what regulation we have is is repealed, fear of losing the power of the vote to anti-democratic developments under the control of the very wealthy, fear of environmental degradation and worst-case global warming scenarios, and, to bring it closer to home for those who think locally as many do around here, fear of the economic but in particular the human devastation of another Asian ground war, fear of losing their health insurance, and fear of having Medicare and Social Security either eliminated or gutted. That is what her party has brought us: an agenda of fear, not one iota of it necessary.

(In fairness, she said that she favors retaining Social Security and Medicare, but puts the blame for any coming insolvency on the failure of the Democrats to compromise. Someone in the audience, thank goodness, had the nerve to call out to the effect that there is no need to compromise when the programs can be made solvent through straightforward means like raising the payroll tax cap.)

[lennygoran]

The bottom line is Iran is terror sponsoring state. If it isn't ISIS, then other groups or other means.

The bottom line is you got it wrong again. Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

The Democrats Now Own Iran. They’ll Soon Wish They Didn’t

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015 ... -own-iran/

Uh, yeah...

[rwetmore]

You do understand that Iran is terror sponsoring state, right? This deal further funds terrorism against the United States.

You're good at just reciting the news-what's your solution to stopping their nuclear build up-why no reply to my questions about invading and war. Regards, Len

Ideally, you need some kind of plan that prevents outright war or invasion and stops them from getting a nuke. But it will have to be really harsh and from a position of strength. Moreover, what good is it if Iran gets immensely richer as a result of this deal, gets a nuke, and then we ultimately are forced to go to war against a much more powerful and built up enemy just to survive?

[rwetmore]

The bottom line is Iran is terror sponsoring state. If it isn't ISIS, then other groups or other means.

The bottom line is you got it wrong again. Regards, Len

I'm not an expert on the various Muslim faction nuances. Few people are. The bottom line is even if the Iranian gov't isn't funding ISIS directly, if Iran becomes a much wealthier country, it could indirectly facilitate ways for ISIS to be able to get more funding.

[lennygoran]

gets a nuke,

this deal is the best way to prevent them from getting a nuke. Regards, Len

[John F]

Put it this way. If the agreement goes into effect, and is effectively enforced, then Iran won't be able to build nuclear weapons for at least 10 years. Without the agreement, they can do it much sooner. As for the either/or of accept the agreement or go to war, that's hype. No American president is going to launch another preemptive war in the Middle East for any reason because the people won't stand for it - it'll be the 1970s all over again.

[rwetmore]

Iran thumbs nose at US even as Obama rallies support for nuke deal

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/03 ... tcmp=hpbt1

[rwetmore]

Put it this way. If the agreement goes into effect, and is effectively enforced, then Iran won't be able to build nuclear weapons for at least 10 years. Without the agreement, they can do it much sooner.

If they won't and/or can't build nuclear weapons as a result of the agreement why the need to stipulate 24 days notice prior to the inspection of any suspected site? And in reality, it probably more like a month or more since the 24 days doesn't start right away. I mean, duh. They are playing us, namely Obama and those going along with it, for complete fools. I can't believe people don't see this. We're not getting anything from this deal and Iran is getting everything they want, including the ability to continue to develop nuclear weapons. They can probably hardly believe we could be this stupid and weak.

As for the either/or of accept the agreement or go to war, that's hype. No American president is going to launch another preemptive war in the Middle East for any reason because the people won't stand for it - it'll be the 1970s all over again.

Nobody is saying this, but something super harsh like doubling down on sanctions or perhaps some other drastic series of measures is necessary. Otherwise, at some point we will be forced to go to war anyway against a much stronger enemy just to prevent our own or Israel's extermination.

[John F]

With that attitude, no agreement can ever be possible, and Iran goes ahead with its nuclear program unhindered. Is this really what you want? It's all about verification, and we'll see how that works soon enough - in actual practice, not in talking points motivated by knee-jerk opposition to President Obama.

If Iran breaks the agreement, then our allies may join us in reimposing sanctions and possibly taking more severe measures. They won't do any of that if we reject the agreement our own negotiators have reached, and they won't join us in attempting to renegotiate it. That game is over - the NY Times piece I just posted makes it crystal clear. Is it possible you don't see it?

As for the either/or of accept the agreement or go to war, that's hype. No American president is going to launch another preemptive war in the Middle East for any reason because the people won't stand for it - it'll be the 1970s all over again.

Nobody is saying this.

President Obama did say it.

[rwetmore]

The bottom line is why stipulate the need for 24 days prior to an inspection if they plan to uphold the deal and not continue to develop nuclear weapons? The obvious answer is so they can continue to develop and if suspected, they have enough time to remove the evidence before the inspectors come in. Duh.

[rwetmore]

Look, we all want a deal or agreement that actually achieves our objectives, which are to prevent Iran from getting a nuke so as prevent the need to go to war with them in order to stop them from getting a nuke.

I don't think this deal is likely to stop them from getting a nuke, thus it's a bad deal and gives us a false sense of having accomplished our objectives.

[Auntie Lynn]

Apparently, Ben Cardin - Maryland sez: No thank you Mikulski...

[jbuck919]

I could just spit about Cardin, who was my congressman when I lived in Maryland. (I know, Cardin in Maryland, Gillibrand in New York. I swear having me as a constituent has nothing to do with it. ) Not only is he against the treaty, but he is co-sponsoring a resolution that it should be the policy of the US that Iran never have a nuclear weapon. Follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, and it sure sounds like Republican war-mongering.

[rwetmore]

Dershowitz on the Iran deal:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _deal.html

[rwetmore]

Here's an interesting piece that touches on the Iran deal:

http://freebeacon.com/columns/an-anti-a ... ite-house/

[lennygoran]

Here's an interesting piece that touches on the Iran deal:

http://freebeacon.com/columns/an-anti-a ... ite-house/

This letter is more to the point directed at Schumer but also applying to Cardin-you should read it carefully imo! Regards, Len

Dear Sen. Schumer,

When you announced your decision to vote against the nuclear agreement with Iran, you explained your reasons in a nearly 1,700-word statement that is thoughtful in substance and civil in tone. And yet, in the end, I found it unconvincing.


I believe that the agreement is flawed. But it is the most intrusive, demanding and comprehensive set of inspections, verification protocols and snapback measures ever negotiated. Compare the detailed 159-page document with the United States' 1994 accord with North Korea, which was a vaguely worded four-page document with few monitoring and enforcement provisions.

You have three sets of objections, which I will get to, but you fail to note what must happen at the outset, before Iran gets widespread sanctions relief.

Iran must destroy 98 percent of its enriched uranium and all of its 5 percent to 20 percent enriched uranium, remove and store more than two-thirds of its centrifuges (including all advanced centrifuges), terminate all enrichment at its Fordow nuclear facility and render inoperable the key components of its Arak (plutonium) reactor. All of these steps must be completed to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It is difficult to imagine that a serious military campaign against Iran would set back its nuclear program as much as this deal does from the start. Fordow, for example, is buried deep in a mountain and would probably survive all but the most intense bombardment.

Your first objections are about the inspections and sanctions. You argue that the inspections are not “anywhere, anytime” and have a 24-day delay that is “troubling.” But all of Iran’s known nuclear facilities are subject to anywhere, anytime monitoring. And for new, suspicious sites, as nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis points out, “what opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over.”

In that scenario Sen. Schumer, you argue that the sanctions snapback provisions are cumbersome. We must have read different documents. The one I’m looking at contains the first mechanism for the automatic reimposition of sanctions ever created, to my knowledge. And they can be triggered by Washington unilaterally. Peter Feaver, a former aide to President George W. Bush, and sanctions expert Eric Lorber, in expressing skepticism about the deal, admit that “we are hard-pressed to come up with other examples when the U.N. Security Council has voted to disenfranchise future U.N. Security Councils and create legally binding decisions on the say-so of a single member.”

You argue that the United States might prefer to restore sanctions in part and that other countries might not go along with this. But the fact that Washington could unilaterally snap back all U.N. sanctions is surely extraordinary leverage that it could use to get other countries to agree to a partial reimposition of sanctions.

You further say that “after 15 years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program.” Let’s be clear. Iran is going to get sanctions relief no matter what. The international sanctions against Iran were put in place by other countries solely to get to a nuclear deal. None would go along with extending the sanctions, given that Iran has produced what they all regard as an acceptable agreement.

Foreign Policy magazine reported on an extraordinary meeting this month, when top diplomats from the other five great powers involved in the deal met with senators to urge them to support it. The British and Russian envoys explained that if the deal was rejected, the sanctions would “unravel.”

Your final objection is that Iran would use some of its newly freed-up resources “to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East.” That might be true, but the deal does not stop the United States and its allies from countering these activities, as they do today. The non-nuclear tensions between Iran and the United States predate Tehran’s nuclear program, continue today and will persist in the future. But they would be much worse if Iran had a nuclear threshold capacity.

Your basic conclusion is that “if one thinks Iran will moderate . . . one should approve the agreement. . . . But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate . . . then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.” This is the most puzzling and, frankly, illogical part of your case. If Iran remains a rogue state, all the more reason to put its nuclear program on a leash.

Rejecting this deal would produce an Iran that ramps up its nuclear program, without inspections or constraints, with sanctions unraveling and a United States that is humiliated and isolated in the world. You cannot want this. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[John F]

The author of that open letter is Fareed Zakaria, one of the few really thoughtful pundits to examine the agreement with Iran on the merits, unbiased by political allegiance and especially the pro-Israel lobby. And Zakaria's exposition is indeed thoughtful - easy for me to say, since I believe I've already made or quoted all of his essential points in this and other threads.

But Senator Schumer, Democrat of New York and a potential leader of his party in the Senate, and of course Jewish as well, is a main focal point of pro-Israel lobbying, which has an obvious bearing on his political future. I'm sorry to say that I believe he has bowed to this political pressure and is not open to persuasion. Well, if the agreement goes into effect as now seems likely, the outcome may compel him and others such as Senator Cardin to admit they were wrong. I hope so.

Full disclosure: Fareed Zakaria has a Ph.D. in Government (aka Political Science) from Harvard, where he delivered the commencement address at my 50th reunion. But then, he got his B.A. at another university a bit further south. Nobody's perfect.

[lennygoran]

But then, he got his B.A. at another university a bit further south. Nobody's perfect.

Oh he went to Brooklyn college like me! Regards, Len [fleeing and ]

[John F]

Not that far south...

[rwetmore]

Your first objections are about the inspections and sanctions. You argue that the inspections are not “anywhere, anytime” and have a 24-day delay that is “troubling.” But all of Iran’s known nuclear facilities are subject to anywhere, anytime monitoring. And for new, suspicious sites, as nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis points out, “what opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over.”

This is the salient point, and doesn't address the need of Iran to stipulate 24 days notice prior to the inspection of a suspected site if they don't intend to covertly continue to try to develop nuclear weapons without getting caught.

[rwetmore]

I believe that the agreement is flawed.

There you go. It is.

[rwetmore]

Here's another interesting piece that relates to the Iran Deal:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... ility-than

[lennygoran]

This is the salient point, and doesn't address the need of Iran to stipulate 24 days notice prior to the inspection of a suspected site if they don't intend to covertly continue to try to develop nuclear weapons without getting caught.

The major point for me is that the Washington Post fact checker gave Schumer 2 pinnochios! As Obama said from the start this was the best deal that could be gotten and is powerful-if this didn't get done the rest of the countries would give up their part of the sanctions-Iran would get a lot of money and the ability to immediately start nuclear development -what would you do then? Please read this:

“Particularly troublesome, you have to wait 24 days before you can inspect.”

–Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), speaking to reporters about the international nuclear agreement with Iran, Aug. 10, 2015

“At non-designated sites it will take 24 days to get an inspection.”

–Schumer, speaking to reporters, Aug. 11

Sometimes a single word can make a difference in a lot of Pinocchios.

The first statement by Schumer—who has emerged as an important opponent of the nuclear deal reached with Iran—was sent to The Fact Checker by a reader who thought it was wildly misleading. The second statement was provided by Schumer’s staff as a counterexample.

What difference does insertion of the word “non-designated” make? And does the agreement really say no inspections can happen for 24 days?
The Facts

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated between Iran and six world powers, is a lengthy and complex document. That means it is open to interpretation and debate –and advocates and opponents can twist meanings.

But it is clear that Iran’s declared nuclear sites, such as the Natanz uraninum encirchment facility, will be under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency –and the IAEA would have immediate access. Under the deal, for 10 years Iran will have limits on the enrichment permitted at Natanz; the IAEA will be able to keep close tabs on the production. That’s why our reader was outraged by Schumer’s first statement, which suggested that inspectors couldn’t go anywhere in Iran until a 24-day clock had ended.

Indeed, the JCPOA even allows IAEA monitoring of Iran’s centrifuge production and storage facilities, the procurement chain, and mining and milling of uranium—verification measures that many experts say exceed previous negotiated nuclear deals.

The issue involves the question of what to do if the IAEA learns of suspicious activity at an undeclared site. The IAEA can demand instant access—but Iran could refuse. So the JCPOA sets up a process to resolve the stand-off, described in a 29-page document known as Annex 1.

First, there’s a 14-day period for negotiations. If nothing is resolved, the matter is brought to a Joint Commission under which five of eight members could force Iran to open the facility to inspectors. (The members of the commission are representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, European Union, China, Russia and Iran.) There’s a seven-day limit on Joint Commission consultations. If the Joint Commission orders Iran to open the facility, Iran has three days to comply—or face a “snapback” of sanctions. The process is supposed to remain in place for 15 years.

Add it up—14 plus 7 plus 3—and you get 24 days. But that’s the maximum, not the minimum, as Schumer seems to suggest in both statements.

Ironically, this provision was added to remove a loophole in an enhanced IAEA inspections regime known as the Additional Protocol, which Iran has agreed to accept. The Additional Protocol requires access to suspect sites in 24 hours, but it does not have immediate consequences for a nation that refuses to permit access. The JCPOA’s 24-day provision is intended to close that loophole.

Many nuclear proliferation experts think it’s actually a useful provision, intended to halt, within a certain time frame, disputes about right of access that have hampered earlier nuclear accords. Without something to close this loophole, given Iran’s history of blocking and misleading IAEA inspectors, the negotiations likely would have collapsed.

But the 24-day clock also has many critics. Former weapons inspector David Albright, who has remained neutral on the Iran deal, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that with Iran’s long history of hiding its nuclear activities, “24 days could be enough time, presumably, for Iran to relocate undeclared activities that are in violation of the JCPOA while it undertakes sanitization activities that would not necessarily leave a trace in environmental sampling.”

Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security, noted that in the past Iran was able to stretch out disputes over access for more than 24 days, but over time Iran has gained “extensive practice at defeating IAEA and U.S. detection methods.”

Albright said that this provision could be strengthened if the IAEA made clear it would expect access within 24 hours, as indicated in the Additional Protocol. If Iran started to slow things down, then the United States and its partners could begin to “slow nuclear cooperation and approvals of exports to Iran via the procurement channel.” In other words, pressure would start from the first day: “Iran should get a message that prompt access is required under the Additional Protocol, despite the language in the JCPOA.”

Albright has been trying to convince lawmakers to make this clear in separate legislation. “Those who oppose the deal do not like the approach of fixing weaknesses because it quickly devolves to them implicitly endorsing the deal or risking doing so,” he told The Fact Checker. “So, my approach will be more appealing to opponents once the vote is over.”

Matt House, a spokesman for Schumer, said: “If Iran is going to cheat, it will not be at a declared site with inspectors and the eyes of the world watching. Instead, it will be at a non-designated site, and if Iran is going through the trouble of cheating at a non-designated site, of course they will delay inspections as long as possible to avoid being caught. Inspections at non-designated sites are where the rubber meets the road, and the fact that Iran can drag out inspections for 24 days‎ is absolutely a key factor when weighing the merits of the deal.”
The Pinocchio Test

In an issue as important as this, it’s important to get the details right. Schumer should not leave some audiences with the impression that the agreement only allows inspections after 24 days, even at non-designated sites. That’s the maximum period. As Albright noted there are ways to ramp up the pressure fairly quickly, given that access is expected after 24 hours under the Additional Protocol.

It’s also important to recognize that this provision was intended to strengthen the system of enhanced inspections and limit Iran’s ability to hide unauthorized activities. It was the product of negotiations, and so experts may differ as to whether it falls short.

But in the meantime Schumer needs to be more careful with his language. A failure to mention that this provision related to undeclared sites is worthy of Three Pinocchios, while a failure to acknowledge that 24 days is the maximum period of time is about One Pinocchio. So we’re going to average it at Two.
Two Pinocchios

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... t-in-iran/

[rwetmore]

Sunday -- Dick and Liz Cheney on the Iran deal:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/446762120100 ... show-clips

[rwetmore]

As Obama said from the start this was the best deal that could be gotten...

Of course that's what he's going to say.

[lennygoran]

Of course that's what he's going to say.

Yes and of course he's right--what he says and does is sure better than anything Cheney can say! So what's your answer to what happens if the deal is abandoned-we keep our sanctions going but all the other countries go back to dealing with Iran and remove their sanctions-then Iran kicks out all the inspectors and probably starts to go full tilt toward going nuclear-what's your solution then? Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

So what's your answer to what happens if the deal is abandoned-we keep our sanctions going but all the other countries go back to dealing with Iran and remove their sanctions-then Iran kicks out all the inspectors and probably starts to go full tilt toward going nuclear-what's your solution then? Regards, Len

You have to somehow make a deal with the other countries and persuade them to keep their sanctions on Iran. Where there is a strong enough will, there is a way. If you think this is the best deal we can get -- giving Iran pretty much everything they want, then you don't think or demand much from your elected officials. This deal screams being accepted from a position of weakness and fear on behalf of the US.

[lennygoran]

You have to somehow make a deal with the other countries and persuade them to keep their sanctions on Iran. Where there is a strong enough will, there is a way. If you think this is the best deal we can get -- giving Iran pretty much everything they want, then you don't think or demand much from your elected officials. This deal screams being accepted from a position of weakness and fear on behalf of the US.

Sorry you're wrong on many counts. Iran is giving up quite a bit. There is no other deal to be had with the other countries.

Myth #1: The Iran deal is abject surrender and will make it easier for Iran to get a nuclear bomb

This is probably the most common talking point about the Iran deal, and certainly the most common one against it: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been making it for months, as have some Republicans.

This is total nonsense and is, in fact, the exact opposite of what is happening. Iran has accepted enormous cuts to its nuclear program, not to mention invasive and politically humiliating inspections.


Iran gets to keep some stuff, sure. But the US won on every major issue that was really important, and the upshot is that Iran is surrendering most of its nuclear program. Here are the bullet points:

Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms' worth.
Iran will be forbidden from enriching uranium beyond energy-grade fuel, or 3.67 percent enrichment. (Weapons-grade uranium is 90 percent enriched.)
Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.

It's worth looking at what actual arms control experts say: that the deal is very good at limiting Iran's nuclear program and is favorable to the United States. Given that many of those analysts were initially pessimistic, that they took this as a welcome surprise tells you something.

One nuclear weapons expert, Aaron Stein, told us the that deal "makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote."

In short, the terms of this agreement will make it far, far, far more difficult for Iran to get a nuclear bomb. It is exactly what the United States sought out of this deal, and it got it.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8989147/ir ... deal-myths

[rwetmore]

Len,

What did Iran want but not get in this deal?

[rwetmore]

Iran is giving up quite a bit.

On the surface -- yes, they are giving up something, but beneath the surface it's doubtful they would really give up their development of nuclear weapons. I didn't see them denounce 'death to America' as part of this deal.

[lennygoran]

I didn't see them denounce 'death to America' as part of this deal.

I really don't care what they say-it's what they do that concerns me. When will you address what we do if we walk away from the deal and Iran immediately starts on their nuclear path again-are you and Cheney looking for boots on the ground-fortunately we have a sensible thoughtful President in the white house right now. Regards, Len

[rwetmore]

Piece from Trump himself on the Iran deal and what he would do:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /71884090/

[rwetmore]

I didn't see them denounce 'death to America' as part of this deal.

I really don't care what they say-it's what they do that concerns me. When will you address what we do if we walk away from the deal and Iran immediately starts on their nuclear path again-are you and Cheney looking for boots on the ground-fortunately we have a sensible thoughtful President in the white house right now. Regards, Len

Why did Iran come to the table in the first place if the sanctions were not significantly hindering their ability to develop nuclear weapons? No, we are not looking at boots on the ground at this point. And it matters what they say, because it indicates what they are likely to do in spite of any deal they claim they will uphold.

Here's the question no one seems to be able to answer. If Iran plans to truly adhere to this deal as they claim and not continue to try to develop nuclear weapons, and is the reason why advocates are supporting the deal (because the deal itself is supposed to prevent them from being able to), why would Iran not agree to anywhere/anytime inspections? I mean this is not rocket science, but basic logic 101. The bottom line is the provisions of the deal provided all kinds of way to stall an inspection for at least 24 days of a suspected site, and long enough for them to eliminate any incriminating evidence.

[rwetmore]

Len,

Take a serious look at this:

Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years

http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-i ... -25-years/