Obama seals Iran deal win as Senate Democrats find 34 votes

[webfact]

Obama seals Iran deal win as Senate Democrats find 34 votes
By ERICA WERNER and MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Overcoming ferocious opposition, President Barack Obama secured a legacy-defining foreign policy victory Wednesday as Senate Democrats clinched the necessary votes to ensure the Iran nuclear agreement survives in Congress.

The decisive 34th commitment came from Maryland Democrat Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring next year after three decades in the Senate. In a statement she said "no deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian regime." But she called the pact "the best option available to block Iran from having a nuclear bomb."

Supporters now have the votes in hand to uphold Obama's veto, if one becomes necessary, of a resolution of disapproval Republicans are trying to pass this month. GOP lawmakers who control the House and Senate ardently oppose the agreement, which curbs Iran's nuclear program in exchange for hundreds of billions of dollars in relief from international sanctions.

Shortly after Mikulski's announcement, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., grudgingly acknowledged that his side would not be able to block the deal after Obama, in his words, secured "the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one-third of one house of Congress." McConnell spared the accord no criticism, saying it leaves Iran "with a threshold nuclear capability."

Israel also has railed against the deal, arguing that its conditions would keep Iran perilously close to developing nuclear weapons while enriching a government that has funded anti-U.S. and anti-Israel militants throughout the Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had personally lobbied U.S. lawmakers to block the pact, will continue fighting the agreement, an Israeli official said, while a spokesman for the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC said his group also would seek to build further opposition.

In Philadelphia, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the deal. "Rejecting this agreement would not be sending a signal of resolve to Iran, it would be broadcasting a message so puzzling that most people across the globe would find it impossible to comprehend," he told lawmakers and civic leaders at the National Constitution Center. His speech was carried live on Iranian television, an unusual occurrence.

Yet for all the geopolitical ramifications, the debate in the U.S. has often seemed more about domestic partisan politics over a resolution that, on its own, wouldn't be able to reverse a multi-country agreement already blessed by the United Nations. A vote of disapproval, however, could signal Congress' readiness to introduce new sanctions at the risk of causing Tehran — and other governments — to abandon the accord and blame the U.S. for the failure.

Among American lawmakers, the debate has broken along party lines. Republicans, defending their congressional majorities and aiming for the White House in next year's elections, have denounced the deal in apocalyptic terms. The bulk of Democrats have rushed to the president's defense.

Next week, Donald Trump will headline a rally outside the Capitol against the agreement, along with fellow presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz and talk show host Glenn Beck, as lawmakers return from a five-week recess to begin debating it. Several GOP presidential hopefuls issued statements Wednesday vowing to undo the agreement if they are elected. "When I'm president of the United States, we will re-impose those sanctions on day one," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said.

Supporters of the deal are seeking an even bigger victory. If they can assemble 41 votes in favor in the Senate, they'd be able to block the disapproval resolution from passing at all, sparing Obama the embarrassment of having to veto it. They would need seven of the remaining 10 undeclared Democrats to back the agreement, though several in this group could still come out in opposition.

Either way, Obama has succeeded in selling a package that prompted immediate and intense opposition from Republicans in the days after it was concluded on July 14 by Iran, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Millions were spent lobbying against the pact. Polls registered significant public distrust.

But none of the skepticism translated into enough Democratic opposition to threaten the deal, partly resulting from the upside-down voting process involved.

Because the Obama administration didn't consider it a treaty, ratification wasn't dependent on two-thirds approval in the Senate. Instead, Republicans and Democrats agreed on a process that essentially allowed the pact to stand if it gained the support of just one-third of lawmakers in either chamber, since two-thirds majorities in both would be needed to override a veto of the disapproval resolution.

Only two Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, have announced their opposition so far. Menendez, in particular, highlighted the potential threat to Israel.

In a letter delivered to Congress Wednesday, Kerry called Israel's security "sacrosanct," recounting the billions of dollars the U.S. has provided the Jewish state for missile defense and other support. U.S. and Israeli officials, he said, are working on a deal to "cement for the next decade our unprecedented levels of military assistance."
___

Lee reported from Philadelphia. Josef Federman contributed to this story from Jerusalem.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-03

[johna]

Great news, Netanyahu and AIPAC are will fight to overthrow this, I hope Obama tells Israel to butt out of US foreign policy.

[mjef]

Great news. Congratulations!

[Ulysses G.]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., grudgingly acknowledged that his side would not be able to block the deal after Obama, in his words, secured "the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one-third of one house of Congress.

No matter what you think of Mitch McConnell, he got that right. Obama got away with this crazy deal because of partisan politics. 34 democratic members of Congress better hope that there is no such thing as karma.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., grudgingly acknowledged that his side would not be able to block the deal after Obama, in his words, secured "the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one-third of one house of Congress.

No matter what you think of Mitch McConnell, he got that right. Obama got away with this crazy deal because of partisan politics. 34 democratic members of Congress better hope that there is no such thing as karma.

please detail the crazy parts of this deal will you? I mean the real clauses from the deal that you have issues with not the blatant lies and speculation that FOX and the GOP are saying but the REAL parts of the deal that are dangerous!!

My guess is you don't have a clue and are just towing the party (and FOX) line. Do the research or at least stop listening to FOX so much.

[Steely Dan]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., grudgingly acknowledged that his side would not be able to block the deal after Obama, in his words, secured "the tepid, restricted and partisan support of one-third of one house of Congress.

No matter what you think of Mitch McConnell, he got that right. Obama got away with this crazy deal because of partisan politics. 34 democratic members of Congress better hope that there is no such thing as karma.

please detail the crazy parts of this deal will you? I mean the real clauses from the deal that you have issues with not the blatant lies and speculation that FOX and the GOP are saying but the REAL parts of the deal that are dangerous!!

My guess is you don't have a clue and are just towing the party (and FOX) line. Do the research or at least stop listening to FOX so much.

Allseeingeye, if you are as omniscient as your avatar suggests perhaps you can educate us as to how the deal is so good and <deleted> 'unprecedented verification' means in the context of said deal.

[Grouse]

Sanity prevails - for a change?

[Jingthing]

I don't think Obama is a Muslim. I don't think he is a Christian either. I think he is a closet atheist. And I like it.

[Michael8511]

Great news, think it's time to separate Israel from U.S. International politics. As far as I know Israel is not a U.S. State as some believe. They should stay out of the U.S. Foreign policy.

[Srikcir]

There was never any doubt that Obama couldn't sustain a veto over Republican opposition to the Iran deal.

Why?

Because it was Obama who AGREED to allow Congress to proceed with a vote on the deal should they disagree with the deal's terms. He already had a sustainable veto against the procedure if it passed the Senate.

Now Obama can say he acted in a bipartisan way to allow full congressional review. This promotes the Democratic Party with an upcoming POTUS election next year.

[Jingthing]

That doesn't make any sense.

But I don't think it will actually be much an election issue unless it literally blows up by election time.

[Ulysses G.]

think it's time to separate Israel from U.S. International politics. As far as I know Israel is not a U.S. State as some believe. They should stay out of the U.S. Foreign policy.

Iran is developing ICBM's that will reach America and all over the world. It is not just Israel that has to worry about Iranian nukes.

[Chicog]

think it's time to separate Israel from U.S. International politics. As far as I know Israel is not a U.S. State as some believe. They should stay out of the U.S. Foreign policy.

Iran is developing ICBM's that will reach America and all over the world. It is not just Israel that has to worry about Iranian nukes.

Are you worried about North Korean nukes UG?

They have ballistic missiles that can reach the US.

[Ulysses G.]

Another rogue country that we tried to negotiate with. So just let everybody have them.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory baiting post has been removed.

[Chicog]

Another rogue country that we tried to negotiate with. So just let everybody have them.

You didn't answer my question.

It's just that I don't hear you harping on about them all the time along with cute vomit emoticons.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

does anybody recall all the hullabaloo when Netanyahu spoke before Congress? Many posters on this forum were incensed that Netanyahu would get involved with US politics and attempt to sway votes in his favor.

Here is an interesting read about the nuclear deal Senatorial approval and how they got to the required 34 votes for veto overturn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNSEPT. 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world/obama-clinches-vote-to-secure-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=1

[DeaconJohn]

does anybody recall all the hullabaloo when Netanyahu spoke before Congress? Many posters on this forum were incensed that Netanyahu would get involved with US politics and attempt to sway votes in his favor.

Here is an interesting read about the nuclear deal Senatorial approval and how they got to the required 34 votes for veto overturn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNSEPT. 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world/obama-clinches-vote-to-secure-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=1

What those undecided Democrats got from the senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia was a dose of reality.

Let's hope they begin to realize that the interests of the USA -and the civilized world - don't always coincide with those of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

[Berkshire]

think it's time to separate Israel from U.S. International politics. As far as I know Israel is not a U.S. State as some believe. They should stay out of the U.S. Foreign policy.

Iran is developing ICBM's that will reach America and all over the world. It is not just Israel that has to worry about Iranian nukes.

Are you worried about North Korean nukes UG?

They have ballistic missiles that can reach the US.

....as well as Pakistan, a Muslim state. But they're an ally. Or are they? What if Iran becomes an ally?

[DeaconJohn]

think it's time to separate Israel from U.S. International politics. As far as I know Israel is not a U.S. State as some believe. They should stay out of the U.S. Foreign policy.

Iran is developing ICBM's that will reach America and all over the world. It is not just Israel that has to worry about Iranian nukes.

Are you worried about North Korean nukes UG?

They have ballistic missiles that can reach the US.

....as well as Pakistan, a Muslim state. But they're an ally. Or are they? What if Iran becomes an ally?

Iran is a de facto ally already... in the fight against the Islamic State.

[Ulysses G.]

Another rogue country that we tried to negotiate with. So just let everybody have them.

You didn't answer my question.

They already HAVE nukes. It is too late to stop them.

[Linky]

The agreement was going ahead whether the US liked it or not. But nice they are board with the rest of the world.

[Michael8511]

Ulysses G, if this deal works out the Iranien nuclear program would be controlled and they would not be able to develop any nuclear warheads. If this does not work Europe and U.S. Have to look for other solutions. I still think it's better to try to find a non military solution, we have had enough war and wounded US soldiers. The U.S. Government can't take care of the wounded soldiers we have today, these poor guys have to go on TV and beg for citizen to make donations so they can survive.

So with that in mind I think it's well worth to try this agreement first.

[Steely Dan]

The deal is a farce, all we have now is Democrats persisting in an ongoing charade which will end in war. Obama will claim that he didn't start it (unlike Bush), but cause it he did, history will not look kindly on those involved in passing the deal.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-vows-to-violate-un-restrictions-on-ballistic-missiles/

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said the Obama administration walked back many of its promises in pursuit of a final nuclear deal.

“Obama and Kerry violated well over a dozen red lines to reach a deal with Iran on everything from anytime, anywhere inspections to the underground facility at Fordow to Iran using a heavy water reactor,” Rubin said. “Basically, every time the Iranians dug in their heels, Kerry caved. He might think such compromise is a path to peace, but to Iran it was weakness to exploit.”

These concessions have emboldened the Iranians and led the regime to believe it can violate the deal without any serious repercussions, Rubin said.

“Rouhani sees Iran’s commitments as an a la carte menu from which to pick and choose. Every senator who endorses this deal is, in effect, blessing a White House which will bend over backward to allow Iran to get its way,” he said.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Chicog]

The deal is a farce, all we have now is Democrats persisting in an ongoing charade which will end in war. Obama will claim that he didn't start it (unlike Bush), but cause it he did, history will not look kindly on those involved in passing the deal.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-vows-to-violate-un-restrictions-on-ballistic-missiles/

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser and expert on rogue regimes, said the Obama administration walked back many of its promises in pursuit of a final nuclear deal.

Some people just don't get it, do they?

The P5+1 is a group of six world powers which, in 2006, joined together in diplomatic efforts with Iran with regard to its nuclear program. The term refers to the UN Security Council's five permanent members (the P5); namely China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

does anybody recall all the hullabaloo when Netanyahu spoke before Congress? Many posters on this forum were incensed that Netanyahu would get involved with US politics and attempt to sway votes in his favor.

Here is an interesting read about the nuclear deal Senatorial approval and how they got to the required 34 votes for veto overturn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNSEPT. 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world/obama-clinches-vote-to-secure-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=1

What those undecided Democrats got from the senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia was a dose of reality.

Let's hope they begin to realize that the interests of the USA -and the civilized world - don't always coincide with those of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

But, DJ, that is not the point of my post.

My point is...why all the clamor when Netanyahu petitioned Congress and the apparent absence of clamor when other nations do the exact same thing?

How about commenting on that rather than a left handed slap against Israel.

[Publicus]

does anybody recall all the hullabaloo when Netanyahu spoke before Congress? Many posters on this forum were incensed that Netanyahu would get involved with US politics and attempt to sway votes in his favor.

Here is an interesting read about the nuclear deal Senatorial approval and how they got to the required 34 votes for veto overturn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coordinated Strategy Brings Obama Victory on Iran Nuclear Deal

By CARL HULSE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNSEPT. 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.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world/obama-clinches-vote-to-secure-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=1

What those undecided Democrats got from the senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia was a dose of reality.

Let's hope they begin to realize that the interests of the USA -and the civilized world - don't always coincide with those of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

But, DJ, that is not the point of my post.

My point is...why all the clamor when Netanyahu petitioned Congress and the apparent absence of clamor when other nations do the exact same thing?

How about commenting on that rather than a left handed slap against Israel.

The diplomats of the governments mentioned in the NYT did not address a joint session of the Congress carried live on television throughout the country and live back to the home country of each diplomat and which was available for all the world to see live and in color.

The diplomats representing the governments mentioned in the NYT did not get standing ovations from all the attending members of the House and the Senate. Nor did the diplomats receive a formal invitation to speak before the joint session of Congress from the Republican Speaker John Boehner, an invitation Boehner falsely implied was a bipartisan one.

Before his speech to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was greeted by Speaker John A. Boehner.CreditJabin Botsford/The New York Times

Almost all of the diplomats and officials mentioned in the NYT represent Nato formally allied governments and countries. Each of the P-5 foreign governments mentioned in the NYT were the principal negotiators of the Iran Agreement and are with the United States members of the UN Security Council.

One could say more but the point is more than made that what the Republican Party Senator from Israel did in the United States Congress is not "the exact same thing" as was done by the diplomats and others mentioned in the NYT. Completely different entirely.