New Iran Bill Sets Stage for Obama-Senate Battle
Bill Endorses Any Future Israeli Attack on Iran
Setting the stage for the protracted recess battle for votes, 26 co-sponsors introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 (pdf) today, aimed at derailing the ongoing diplomacy with Iran by imposing new sanctions in violation of the interim P5+1 deal.
The bill makes as statements of fact several outright false claims, including the idea that Iran could have enough “weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in one to 2 months’ time,” despite Iran never attempting to produce any uranium above 20 percent enrichment.
It goes on to demand any diplomatic deal with Iran require the whole of their civilian nuclear program be dismantled, and endorses any Israeli attacks on Iran, pledging US government support for any war Israel starts with Iran.
10 Senate committee chairs have come out against the bill, issuing an open letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV) urging “consultations” before it is brought for a vote, and noting that it would derail negotiations.
Which seems to be very much the point for its hawkish advocates, and author Sen. Mark Kirk (R – IL) presented it as a move against “Iranian deception,” by which he means diplomacy in general.
President Obama has promised a veto of the bill, and with a veto likely to come no sooner than January, the holiday recess is sure to be filled with heavy lobbying to see if the hawks can get a veto-proof majority. With the Israeli lobbying factions coming out strongly for the pact, it’s going to be a major battle.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- NSA Paid Encryption Company $10 Million to Create Backdoors for Them - December 20th, 2013
- Pakistan Passes New Resolution Against Drone Strikes - December 20th, 2013
- After Yemen Wedding Strike, US Drone Policy Comes Under New Scrutiny - December 20th, 2013
- A 2013 Disaster: Death Toll More Than Doubles in Iraq - December 20th, 2013
- Iran Sanctions Bill to Skip Committee; Hawks Promise Veto-Proof Majority - December 20th, 2013
Guest
December 19th, 2013 at 9:47 pm
In one hand you have pentagon chief accusing china being irresponsible, in the other hand you have senator McCain in Ukraine meeting the opposition to democratically elected government there, then you have those, including McCain who would love to see china and Russia and Iran being bombed in 24 hours, then you have those democrats whom by mistake chosen the Democratic Party, also love to see Israel conquering Lebanon paving the way for us navel force start sending tomahawk missile into Syria, Iraq and Iran, then you have Saudis kingdom whom have said that they will force the regime change in Syria, with or without the western help. look, they are looking for the real Third World War, the kind of wars that we have seen from 1990 up to date are the mini Third World War, they are stationing military bases, from Balkan to Libya to Turkey and etc, paving the way for the real one. Rest what they say or do is political maneuvering, manipulated or not.
outsider
December 20th, 2013 at 5:43 am
Thank god that the 10 committee chairs have come out against this outrageous bill. Rachel Maddow had an excellent and informative comment about this situation on her show last night. Why are so many Dems stabbing their leader in the back on this? I hope the American people now realize that these turncoats are putting the interests of Israel ahead of their own country. I live in PA and was particularly outraged that my senator Casey, usually a loyal Obama toadie, has signed on to this despicable attempt to scuttle negotiations. You can bet he'll be hearing from me.
Yonatan
December 20th, 2013 at 5:55 am
Obama's sole success is enabling the Israel-first versus US-first issue to be brought into the open. This is often deceptively described by Israel-firsters as a dual loyalty issue. It is not. It is a single loyalty issue.
Gus
December 20th, 2013 at 6:18 am
How about the Nuclear Weapon Free USA and Israel Act? That would be far more sensible…….which is why it would never happen.
curmudgeonvt
December 20th, 2013 at 7:15 am
It's time those who believe war is bad for the future of the human race start to remove the warmongers from the ruling class. It's obvious that the warmongers are not aware of the consequences of what they are proposing. If they believe that they will be untouched by what they force upon the rest of the world, they need to be re-educated – after being removed from office, of course.
Surely there are more anti-war advocates than warmongers…surely…
liberal
December 20th, 2013 at 9:40 am
Stabbing Obama in the back…I'm no political science professor, but I'm pretty sure there's long been a tendency for Congress to be more "pro Israel" (scare quotes intended) than the presidency.
The least "pro" Israel president I can recall was George H. W. Bush. Can't recall what Congress thought of that.
tampayank
December 20th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Can you say mid term election with all that AIPAC money floating around, Demodummies are going to make Oblome the bad guy by a veto, he has nothing to lose !!
curlyrocks
December 20th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
There are but we have less money and power than them, and they know how to make money and gain power from war, so we don't have much hope for changing it.
Geoff Young
December 20th, 2013 at 6:33 pm
If Harry Reid is against it, he should announce a filibuster. Why can only Repubs filibuster things? He should also enlist relatively dovish senators such as Rand Paul into his filibuster corps. Let's see how many Dems decide to vote against a bipartisan filibuster.
curmudgeonvt
December 21st, 2013 at 6:33 am
First, it's not altogether clear that Obama REALLY wants peace to happen – there's been very little proof that he does. But if we make the claim he does and if Rand Paul makes the same claim for peace – though I could find nothing recent where he states clearly he's against the current attempt at sanctions – he'll never stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama. Just bad optics for when you're supposedly positioning yourself for a presidential run.
curmudgeonvt
December 21st, 2013 at 6:33 am
First, it's not altogether clear that Obama REALLY wants peace to happen – there's been very little proof that he does. But if we make the claim he does and if Rand Paul makes the same claim for peace – though I could find nothing recent where he states clearly he's against the current attempt at sanctions – he'll never stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama. Just bad optics for when you're supposedly positioning yourself for a presidential run.