26 Senators Defy Obama, Back Iran Sanctions Bill

[Jesus Malverde]

Source: ABC News

More than a quarter of the Senate defied President Barack Obama on Thursday by introducing legislation that could raise sanctions on Iran, and compel the United States to support Israel if it launches a pre-emptive attack on the Iranian nuclear program.

The bill, sponsored by 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans, sets sanctions that would go into effect if Tehran violates the nuclear deal it reached with world powers last month or lets it expire without a long-term accord. The measures include a global boycott on Iranian oil exports within one year and the blacklisting of Iran's mining, engineering and construction industries.

The goal, according to supporters, is to strengthen the negotiating leverage of the Obama administration as it seeks to pressure Iran into a comprehensive agreement next year that would eliminate the risk of the Islamic republic developing nuclear weapons. But it could also create added complications for U.S. negotiators, who promised Iran no new economic sanctions for the duration of the six-month interim pact that was finalized on Nov. 24 in Geneva.

"Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who spearheaded the effort with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/26-senators-defy-obama-back-iran-sanctions-bill-21279008

[Dopers_Greed]

1. Let me guess...

All Third Way dems?

[geek tragedy]

2. Probably not. AIPAC has a wide spectrum of support, unfortunately. nt

[warrant46]

46. Its mainly Sen Chuck Scumer

He's the main architect along with Menendez

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/iran-sanctions-bill_n_4472439.html

[geek tragedy]

47. Coons, Cardin, and other 'liberals' cosponsored. nt

[warrant46]

48. Yes I saw that too.

But I think Chuck had more to do with actually rounding up the herd. Every time you see Reed on TV, Chuck is right by his side

[geek tragedy]

49. Schumer is an unprincipled panderer on Israel who knows better. Menendez is just a neocon asshat

when it comes to foreign policy and actually believes this stuff.

And, there is that lobby that supposedly doesn't exist.

[warrant46]

50. I have seen that too

And here I always thought, that Democrats in general were mostly against foreign wars and indiscriminate killing.

But if one subscribes to the view that corporations really call the shots with both parties as their hired servants, it may explain the rise of drones killing people all over the world.

And further explain the apparent the cult of never ending wars for corporate profits.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Not Third Way - Fifth Column nt

[benld74]

3. Didn't they watch the last episode of Homeland? Saul was right!!!!

[geardaddy]

4. Any word on who the remaining 11 dems are?

after Menendez and Schumer?

[karynnj]

31. NO NO NO - that is the chairmen's letter - the people who are AGAINST the Menendez bill

(read the second page of the ABC article)

Note these are 10 of the most important Senators there are and Reid has blocked the bill. I assume that they will be able to keep enough support - even if they have to use their positions - and they have a lot of power.

In fact, I think Boxer could even take SFRC away from Menendez when they reorganize after Nov 2014 - if she wanted to. She beats him on seniority - but wanted to keep the environmental chair.

Here are the people behind this ridiculous bill:

The Democratic co-sponsors are Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Warner (Va.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), and Joe Donnelly (Ind.).

Every Democrat considered vulnerable in his or her race for reelection next year is co-sponsoring this measure, a sign that they want to appear tough on foreign policy.

The Republican co-sponsors are Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Roy Blunt (Mo.).

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/193669-dems-divided-on-tougher-iran-sanctions-as-bill


My comment - "tough" or in sync with AIPAC?

[Jesus Malverde]

32. I'm really dumb sometimes. Thanks the heads up!

the chairmans letter.

[karynnj]

35. You are not dumb!

Sorry if my tone was out of line. I had initially panicked seeing that list - including many really important people, including my new senior Senator - I moved from NJ to VT.


I wanted to make sure people knew who was on each side.

[Jesus Malverde]

41. Co-Sponsors

The Democratic co-sponsors are Sens. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Chris Coons (Del.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Warner (Va.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), and Joe Donnelly (Ind.).

Every Democrat considered vulnerable in his or her race for reelection next year is co-sponsoring this measure, a sign that they want to appear tough on foreign policy.

The Republican co-sponsors are Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ted Cruz (Texas), and Roy Blunt (Mo.).

“This is a responsible, bipartisan bill to protect the American people from Iranian deception and I urge the Majority Leader to give the American people an up or down vote," Kirk said in a statement.

[Arkana]

44. Schumer I'm not surprised at, but Coons, Blumenthal, and Gillibrand

are very unfortunate signees. The rest are all Blue Dog tough-guy types. I'm surprised Heidi Heitkamp isn't on there, or Joe Manchin.

[Nancy Waterman]

45. I called Cardin's office to complain

Sent emails to local Maryland friends as well, with his phone number.

[TwilightGardener]

5. They can "compel" Obama to start or join a war? Based on a foreign country's wishes?

News to me.

[atreides1]

9. "Congress shall have power to ... declare War".

It's in the US Constitution.

[TwilightGardener]

15. How can they get around the President, who is the Commander in Chief?

[Voice for Peace]

19. Congress declares war, Commander in Chief tells military to stand down?

don't know

[TwilightGardener]

20. Don't know either. That would be a crisis. There'd have to be a military coup.

Ultimately, I believe it's the CiC who must commit troops to military action, and can do so at any time, but after a certain amount of time a war must be approved and declared by Congress, and they control the purse strings for it. I don't believe it goes the other way around--that Congress can order the military to act against the President's authorization.

[geek tragedy]

23. President is Commander in Chief, he could tell Congress to go fight it themselves. nt

[karynnj]

36. It's a bit more mixed in the Constitution than that

Only the President can commit troops.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. I didn't realize these guys had (D-Tel Aviv) after their names.

[MyNameGoesHere]

7. It would be a lot cheaper

and easier to sell this horseshit if Israel just annexed the USA.

[QuestForSense]

10. And people actually wonder why there's no peace in the Middle East.

[HERVEPA]

30. Yeh. that's for sure the only reason.

[QuestForSense]

40. Not the only reason, but one of them.

The Obama administration has warned that Iran could view this as a failure to negotiate in good faith....

“Members of Congress pressing for this bill are effectively choosing to close the door on diplomacy, making it far more likely that we’ll be left only with a military option,” one senior administration official tells me, characterizing the message that’s being delivered directly to Senators. “You close the door on diplomacy, and you’re left only with a choice between a possible military option or Iran steadily advancing its nuclear program.” [...]

“It is not necessary for Congress to pass this bill, because we are enforcing existing sanctions and can move to sanctions if negotiations don’t succeed or if Iran cheats,” the senior administration official says. “The fact is, passing new sanctions now would split the international community, embolden Iranian hard-liners, and likely derail any prospect of a diplomatic resolution.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/19/1263909/-Leading-Democrats-on-board-to-impose-new-sanctions-on-Iran-White-House-seeks-to-deter-them?detail=hide

[Blue_Tires]

11. Every once in awhile Israel has to flex their muscles

and remind everyone who's really in charge of congress....

[sharp_stick]

12. Fortunately Obama has said he'll veto

and I hope that AIPAC doesn't have enough members purchased to override.

[karynnj]

37. 10 of the most powerful Chairman signed a letter against it

- and Reid has not been in favor of it. That gives me more confidence that Obama might be able to stop it in the Senate rather than having to veto it.

It does not help that Iran got upset with the US enforcing the existing one - and it does not help when Iran makes comments that are unnecessary and inflame the situation. There are more people working FOR this agreement than ever before -- but there are very powerful forces working against it.

It ( and the Syrian chemical weapons agreement) may together signal a huge change in US foreign policy - rejecting the neo-con goals.

[iamthebandfanman]

14. headline should really be...

'republican senators defy logic and reason' ..
as they've done over and over and over and over again.. on even the most mundane and agreeable subjects.
whatever it takes to be 'the opposition', even if on a personal level you have none...
just so those checks from fear and hate keep rolling in.

[QuestForSense]

24. This time they did it with help from an equal number of Democrats.

See Post #13 above. Fear and hate are now bipartisan values. No wonder they work so well.

[MFM008]

16. easy

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[1000words]

17. The envelope was a little heavier this month

Happy Holidays!

[sabbat hunter]

18. I think that

if Iran does not follow its part of the nuclear deal, then yes new tougher sanctions should be imposed. Same if there is no long term deal

How is keeping nukes weapons out of the mullahs who run Iran a bad thing?

They should be allowed to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but anything else and I would say no way.

[karynnj]

28. The point is there is no reason to do this now -- and it could derail negotiations

And guess what? That ENDS Iran's commitment to roll back where they are - meaning as soon as things fall apart, they are CLOSER to a bomb.

[sabbat hunter]

33. I disagree

It reinforces the carrot or the stick for Iran.

[karynnj]

38. I would imagine that Secretary Kerry who has regulary spoken with the Iranian FM and Obama

who has spoken to Rouhani both have a far better idea of the impact it would have. They have BOTH said it could derail the talks. It also has other bad problems. It is crazy for the US to pass a bill that says that we will support Israel if it PRE-EMPTIVELY attacks Iran. Now, the likelihood is that even with no such bill we would, but this is crazy. I don't know the degree to which it commits us - but I am 100% against giving another country the right to pull us into war. (Note - this is not the same as saying that - if attacked, we will support a country - as NATO says.)

That provision alone is reason to reject it. As to lining up immediate sanctions, it ties our negotiators hands. I think we should give Kerry and his team the latitude to work with our partners and the Iranians. Imagine if we are extremely close - and there is just one day left. Do we give up a little on the language to avoid this time bomb going off? Not to mention, it is really acting in very bad faith -- and ignoring that Congress could pass the very sanctions in that bill very quickly IF the talks actually fail or Iran does something to deserve it.

One question who would you trust more to look out for the US's interests - Secretary Kerry, a man of integrity and patriotism or AIPAC. A few years ago, there was a meeting with the Northern NJ AIPAC representatives at my then synagogue. They argued that, unlike J Street, they were not "perspective" . Pushed for a definition, they said it mean that they did not push ISRAEL on policy. They just supported Israel. From the heated discussion at the synagogue - it seems that they simply rubber stamped everything Likkud said. Even by their OWN definition, they are most concerned with Israel. In addition, they agreed when people pointed out that AIPAC had NOT backed more liberal Israeli Prime Ministers. So, they really are most in line with Likkud - rather than Israel as a whole.

[painesghost]

34. I agree with pretty much everything you say, but do agree that now might not be the time.

Once we are able to ween ourselves off oil then I hope we start applying major sanctions to countries that refuse to respect human rights.

[Scootaloo]

53. Think, please.

Right now the reason the Iranians are talking on the subject is because of a promised lightening of sanctions in response for a deal. if more sanctions are levied, Iran has zero reason to continue talks. Why negotiate with someone who's going to hit you either way?

The rider that commits US support to a pre-emptive strike by Israel exposes exactly what this shit-wipe piece of paper is - an underhanded attempt to throw another war into the middle east.

[sabbat hunter]

57. No the idea is

that if Iran does not follow the agreement, THEN more sanctions are imposed.

The pre-emptive strike part is unconstitutional because only the US president can direct US troop actions.

[Blue State Bandit]

21. Until they propose Sanctions against Saudi Arabia, then they should STFU.

Because I don't remember Iran funding the murder of nearly 3000 US citizens on US soil.

[Enthusiast]

42. You deserve a massive plus one!

[cyclezealot]

22. Who were the turncoat 13 Dems

Beholden to AIPAC. Name names , please.

[Ash_F]

25. Shameful. /nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I called my Senators offices in Washington two days ago

I live in NY so I spoke to office staff for Gillebrand and Shumer.

I stressed not wanting Congress to insert itself into the negotiations with Iran by introducing any legislation regarding the stand off with Iran during the 6 month negotiating window. I pointed out that there are always extremists on any side of a conflict looking for an excuse to inflame the situation to scuttle negotiations and torpedo any peaceful resolution of differences. The Senate may think it has reasonable proposals but they become fodder for blowing up negotiations in the hands of hardliners on either side. I said that is what happened between Israel and Palestine when Rabin was assassinated - the extremists on both sides won even though men of good will stood ready to make peace. I said hands off the negotiating process- take your concerns directly to Secretary Kerry in private for now during this negotiating window. This is not the time to go looking for political points with any special interest groups. They may have legitimate interests and concerns, but while I too support Israel's right to exist and understand that we stand ready to protect Israel, we have legitimate national interests also and these Senators were elected as United States Senators to represent our interests.

When I spoke to Gillebrands office I heard typing going on throughout our entire call, so I think the woman I spoke to was taking notes to pass on. I got a polite listen from Shumer's staff - no indication of how they were noting my concerns, or if they were.

[Jesus Malverde]

29. Thank you for your activism and courage.

Peacemaking is never easy.

[karynnj]

27. I am sorry I volunteered even one second for Menendez

- ironic thing - I did so because of John Kerry's email in support of him! I hope there are enough supporters to defend Obama's veto if this passes.

[lostincalifornia]

52. It is because of things like this why I do not send money to the DNC anymore

[davidpdx]

39. I'll be bugging both my senators to vote no

They would need 67 for a veto override. That has to be at least 35 Senators who will vote no.

[lostincalifornia]

51. This is the nonsense the President has been up against since 2008. Does anyone really think single

payer could have made it?

[Jesus Malverde]

54. Senators To Override Obama’s Iran Veto

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he would bring a new Iran sanctions bill for a vote.

On Thursday, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) introduced a new sanctions bill against Iran which was co-sponsored by 24 other senators across the aisle.

The White House was quick to condemn the new anti-Iran effort by the hawkish senators on Capitol Hill with Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney saying that the president would veto the bill “if it were to pass” Congress.

However, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told Fox News that he was seeking to secure a veto-proof majority of 67 senators for the bill.

“If the president wants to veto [the bill], we’ll override his veto,” Graham said.

http://www.albanytribune.com/21122013-senators-override-obamas-iran-veto/

[Jesus Malverde]

55. Senate makes move toward vote on Iran sanctions bill despite Obama threat to veto

US Senate Majority Leader Reid files Rule 14, allowing him to bypass normal process of bringing bill for Senate vote through c'tee.

US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has begun a process that could allow the Senate to vote as soon as next month to impose new sanctions on Iran if talks on its nuclear program fail, Senate aides said on Friday, despite a White House veto threat.

Aides and lawmakers said Reid had filed Rule 14 for the sanctions bill, which allows him to bypass the normal process of bringing a bill for a Senate vote through committee.

A spokesman for Reid did not respond to requests for comment.

Reid's action sets the stage for a potential battle between more than 25 Republican and Democratic senators who are co-sponsoring the new Iran sanctions legislation and the Obama administration and its supporters in Congress, including the Democratic heads of 10 Senate committees.

http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Senate-makes-move-toward-vote-on-Iran-sanctions-bill-despite-Obama-threat-to-veto-335708

[Jesus Malverde]

56. White House to Senate Dems: Your Iran sanctions bill makes war more likely

With Senate Dems increasingly likely to introduce and even vote on a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran, the White House is escalating its behind the scenes pressure on them to hold off, warning them that in moving such a measure, they are making war with Iran more likely.

“Members of Congress pressing for this bill are effectively choosing to close the door on diplomacy, making it far more likely that we’ll be left only with a military option,” one senior administration official tells me, characterizing the message that’s being delivered directly to Senators. “You close the door on diplomacy, and you’re left only with a choice between a possible military option or Iran steadily advancing its nuclear program.”

National Journal reported today that Senator Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and other Democrats, along with GOP Senator Mark Kirk, may introduce a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran as early as today. As NJ notes, this would set up the bill to be voted on when the Senate returns in January, and would represent a “bold act of defiance against the administration, which was still begging lawmakers this week to sit back and wait to see whether a comprehensive agreement can be reached.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/19/white-house-to-senate-dems-your-iran-sanctions-bill-makes-war-more-likely/

The bill is called the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act

[marshall]

58. Whose supposition is it that Iran won't follow the terms it agreed to?

It basically sets up a contingency plan if Iran defaults on the agreement. It's a double edged sword--on the one hand it supports the deal that Obama negotiated, and assumes all parties will follow through. On the other hand, it ties the President's hands in the unfortunate case of a default.