Friday, August 07, 2015
Chuck Schumer voting against nuclear deal with Iran
Chuck Schumer's decision is not surprising when so much is at stake. The Iran deal fails on the most basic requirement: verification. It is a well known fact that military programs are not under civilian control or the president of Iran with whose representatives Kerry negotiated.
The nuclear weapons are a military program. These are under the Revolutionary Guards that report directly to the mullahs. It is therefore no surprise that nobody in our government can even see the supposed agreement they have with the UN's IAEA.
The unpleasant fact is that we have been lied to by President Obama and John Kerry.
It's very interesting that Democrats with a direct tie or concern for Israel are voting against Obama's Iranian deal. Clearly myth that Obama pushed that this deal is good for the region does not wash.
So it becomes simple for Democrats, if your loyalty is to Obama, you vote for the deal. If you loyalty is to our allies in the Middle East, you vote against the deal.
History and voters will judge accordingly. Given how voters responded in November 2014, generally voting out of office Obama supporters, I suspect other Democrats may think twice about supporting Obama on this horrible deal.
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
"Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.
"For all of these reasons, I believe the vote to disapprove is the right one," Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said.
How could Schumer not dissent when even as Kerry was telling Congress that the world would not lift sanctions on General Soleimani, Commander of the Quds force and a U.S. designated terrorist, sanctions that include a travel ban, the General was travelling to Russia? And his purpose for the trip? To arrange for the purchase and delivery of ground-to-air missiles on which sanctions are not being lifted for another five years.
That's some deal we have with the peaceful Iran.
There should be a stampede away from the Iran deal. Obama and Kerry were bamboozled and unless we up the ante, Iran is going to roll over the Middle East once they have the bomb. The only ones that don't seem to mind are Obama's acolytes.
What Obama has done in the Middle East is more than just give Iran the bomb. The deal gives Iran the means to consolidate the noose it has been putting around Arabia. Look at a map. To the north its proxies now control a strip running from Iran to the Mediterranean including Lebanon, Syria and Iraq; and to the south of Arabia it now controls Yemen.
Don't kid yourself, the millennial conflict between Persians and Arabs is full on and it is now aggravated by the Shia-Sunni religious divide. It is that into which Obama is now pouring immense amounts of fuel. Arguably the only party giving Iran's proxies trouble is ISIS and that may explain why Obama doesn't go after them more forcefully. He is in Iran's pocket.