by Eli Lake
Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”
Sen.
Marco Rubio, R-Florida and aspirant for his party’s presidential
nomination, has a very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran
legislation this week before the Senate.
No, it’s not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”
On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.
Rubio’s amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.
“For the life of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”
But Rubio knows very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement, the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran signs an agreement.
In the face of Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
In the Senate it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the amendments Republicans have offered.
So far, Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.
Among the Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted he will be running for president.
- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=11281#sthash.R6b7lCCm.dpuf
No, it’s not his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president says it is.”
On the surface, this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.
Rubio’s amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the White House conditions.
“For the life of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”
But Rubio knows very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement, the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran signs an agreement.
In the face of Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable.”
In the Senate it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the amendments Republicans have offered.
So far, Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.
Among the Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted he will be running for president.
- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=11281#sthash.R6b7lCCm.dpuf
Chicago Tribune
April 30, 2015
Sen. Marco
Rubio, R-Florida and aspirant for his party’s presidential nomination, has a
very poisonous pill he is seeking to add to Iran legislation this week before
the Senate.
No, it’s not
his much discussed amendment saying Congress would not lift its sanctions on
Iran unless Iran recognized Israel. Rather Rubio just wants the Iran deal to
conform to the president’s own description of a nuclear framework agreement. As
Rubio said Wednesday, “It requires this final deal be the deal the president
says it is.”
On the surface,
this seems like small ball. On April 2, the White House released a fact sheet
that spelled out Iran’s obligations to modify some of its nuclear facilities
and limit its enrichment. The fact sheet said sanctions would be phased out
over time as Iran complied with the terms of the framework.
Rubio’s
amendment simply quotes that fact sheet verbatim and says the president may not
waive or lift any Congressional sanctions until he certifies Iran has met the
White House conditions.
“For the life
of me, I don’t understand why that would be controversial,” Rubio said
Wednesday. “Yet somehow, I was told this would box the White House in.”
But Rubio knows
very well why the amendment is controversial. Almost immediately after the
White House announced the terms of what it thought was a framework agreement,
the Iranians balked. The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, tweeted that the White
House fact sheet was spin. The head of Iran’s revolutionary guard corps
said international inspectors would never gain access to military sites. And
Iran’s supreme leader says all sanctions must be lifted up front when Iran
signs an agreement.
In the face of
Iran’s new red lines, Obama wobbled. On April 17, Obama said he was instructing his
negotiators to “find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the
other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more
acceptable.”
In the Senate
it’s not clear whether Rubio will get a vote on his fact-sheet amendment. On
Wednesday Rubio said leaders of his party promised that he would be able to get
a fair hearing for his amendments during the floor debate, but that this week
he said he was being told there may not be enough time to vote on all the
amendments Republicans have offered.
So far,
Democrats and a few Republicans have voted down two amendments to the Iran
bill. An amendment to treat an Iran deal as a treaty, and thus require an
affirmative two-thirds majority to approve it in the Senate, was voted down
Tuesday 57 to 39. Another amendment that would require Obama to certify Iran
was not supporting acts of terrorism against Americans as a condition for
lifting Congressional sanctions was voted down 54 to 45 on Wednesday.
Among the
Republicans voting with Democrats on the amendments are Tennessee Sen. Bob
Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the
legislation; Arizona Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Armed Services
Committee; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, an Iran hawk who has hinted
he will be running for president.
But Rubio’s
fact-sheet amendment is different. It doesn’t challenge the presidential
authority to sign an executive agreement. Republicans supported that power when
their party controlled the White House. Rubio’s fact-sheet amendment is also
germane to the Iran legislation before the Senate. An argument used against
other amendments–like Rubio’s one on recognizing Israel–is that it asks Iran to
meet conditions not related to the nuclear negotiations.
Rubio’s fact
sheet amendment only asks Democrats to vote on whether a final Iran deal should
meet the conditions as described by the leader of their own party. If Democrats
vote that it should, then Obama may be forced to issue a veto over his own fact
sheet as he seeks to make a final agreement more palatable to Iran. If the
Democrats vote that it shouldn’t, then they will appear to be conceding the
White House either misled the public or bungled the negotiations earlier this
month.
An irony here
is that Rubio himself has said that the deal outlined in the White House fact
sheet was too weak. But bad policy in this case makes for very good politics.
Eli Lake is a
Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.
II But
today, US Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Bill Giving Congress Oversight of
Iran Deal
MAY 7, 2015
Author: avatar
JNS.org
The United
States Senate rejected a bid to consider the Iran nuclear deal as an
international treaty.
JNS.org – The
U.S. Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act of 2015, which would give Congress a 30-day period to review a final
nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, in a 98-1 vote.
The only
senator to vote against the bill was U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who
objected on the grounds that the legislation does not require a final nuclear
agreement to be submitted as a treaty requiring Senate approval. U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer was absent
for the vote.
Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs.
Source: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=11281
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
1 comment:
IRAN'S REGIME MUST FACE TRIAL, NOT NEGOTIATIONS.
Post a Comment