“Republicans threaten to block new Iran deal”
I hope they’re sincere about this:
Forty-nine Senate Republicans are threatening to derail the Biden administration’s efforts to secure a new Iran nuclear agreement within the coming days.
Any new agreement that “does not have strong bipartisan support in Congress will not survive,” the senators said in a statement issued Monday and provided to the White House. The lawmakers warned the administration that if it bypasses Congress and agrees to a deal without first allowing a vote in the Senate—as is required under a 2015 law—they will do “everything in our power to reverse it.”
“The administration has thus far refused to commit to submit a new Iran deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, as per its constitutional obligation, or for review under statutory requirements that passed on a bipartisan basis in response to the 2015 deal,” the senators said, according to a copy of the statement obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “Additionally, despite earlier promises to the contrary, the administration has failed to adequately consult with Congress.” Every Republican senator except Rand Paul (Ky.) signed on to the statement, signaling widespread unity in opposition to a new deal.
The statement is the latest warning to the White House that a new Iran deal has little chance of surviving into the future.
What’s up with Rand Paul?
More:
“Unless Iran ceases its support for terrorism, we will oppose removing and seek to reimpose any terrorism-related sanctions,” they said. “And we will force the Senate to vote on any administration effort to do so.”
The statement comes just weeks after nearly 200 Republican House lawmakers signed on to a similar letter expressing opposition to a new deal and promising to block sanctions relief for Iran.
…Republican leaders are now urging their Democratic colleagues to join them in opposing any deal that does not sufficiently restrict Iran’s contested nuclear program.
They need Democrats to join them in order to accomplish this, and it’s possible they’ll get them – if only because some Democrats are worried about the midterms. The following is at least somewhat encouraging:
Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has signaled concerns about the Biden administration’s negotiations and has called for increased pressure to counter Iran’s nuclear program.
A similar effort was tried by the GOP with Obama’s Iran deal; I wrote several posts on the subject, in particular this about how the bill failed to overcome the 60-vote threshold for invoking cloture (see also this). I see the same possible roadblocks now, except for one thing: the Republicans may have more Democrat senators joining them and therefore there’s a small chance that this more recent effort will be successful. I certainly don’t count on it, though.
Rand being Rand.
My guess before reading it was Rand was Mitt.
Joe Manchin might be against it too.
I guess the thing I take away from this is that the Constitution only works if people actively try to make it work.
For decades now Presidents have been able to make war without Congress, and apparently for the last 20 years they’ve been able to make treaties without Congress.
The Iran “deal” shouldn’t be something that the Republicans have to do ANYTHING to oppose. The Senate should have to approve it by 67 votes or it should have no effect. Even the uni-party Republicans shouldn’t be able to join with the Democrats to approve it, because I think there are 33 non-fake Republicans. (What can I say I’m an optimist.)
But our system of government is becoming increasingly fake. It’s not totally fake, maybe about 70% fake at the national level. Somebody found some kind of circumlocution so that a treaty is not a “treaty” and so the Senate doesn’t have to vote, just like they’ve found the AUMF circumlocutions that don’t require Congress to declare war.
At some point somebody needs some kind of appropriation that falls under the Iran agreement and that point Congress has the power to do something about it by not funding whatever it is. I bet, however, they won’t.
@SHIREHOME:Rand being Rand.
This should tell you to read past the headline / narrative.
You know who Rand Paul is. You know what this Iran deal is. If Rand Paul isn’t onboard with this “opposition” then there’s something we are not being told. It may be something about Rand Paul not being the guy we thought he was, but I think there’s probably something here that is not as the media would like you to believe it, and he knows and is voting against it for that reason.
Or maybe he’s drunk under his desk that day, or his kid had a birthday, I don’t know.
Frederick:
I don’t think you are necessarily correct about Rand Paul’s reasons. My guess is that they’re similar to what I wrote about Massie in the post about Obama’s deal – Massie didn’t sign on because his position against the deal was harder rather than softer. He believed it had to be submitted as a treaty.
I also think that if he thought the bill had a chance of succeeding he would have joined the other Republicans. I think it is probably the same for Paul at the moment. I don’t have time to research it right now, though. If you find anything Paul has actually said, please let me know.
When a nation, while negotiating with you, conducts a rocket attack on your nearest embassy; I’m trying to understand why you would make a deal with them. Unless you are weak.
I am gratified to see the republicans putting their foot down on this issue, hopefully they won’t once again cave.
neo’s speculation about Paul’s rationale seems probable to me. It may be a case however of Paul making perfect the enemy of good enough.
Leland:
They ARE weak. And they are desperate to make a deal with Iran.
The desperation to make a deal with Iran is what I don’t understand, but Neo has blogged about that, and she doesn’t understand it either. They certainly are desperate to get this through before the midterms, when they may lose the House and their control of the Senate.
There has always been a lot of State Department people who would rather produce a treaty that is bad for the US than no treaty at all.
Fredrick, I have a pretty good idea who Rand is.
On another note:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/nato-moves-ahead-military-drills-norway-deploys-30000-troops-50-warships-220-aircraft-near-russias-border-tensions-flare-ukraine/
What is the Dem’s case FOR the Iran deal?
The thing the Dems don’t understand is that Iran will cheat. Iran can’t be trusted.
Cornhead,
The democrat case for the Iran deal is that it harms Israel. The democrat base, including even some Jewish people, hate Israel more than they ‘love’ … cough … cough … cough … the United States.
Most democrats hate BOTH Israel and the United States. But they simple aren’t honest enough about it, or anything for that matter, to admit it.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/realignment-iran-biden-obama-michael-doran-tony-badran
This article remains the sole coherent attempt (that I have seen to date) to sum the progressive aims at capitulation to Iran in the Obama-Biden foreign policy apparat. Granted, neither Doran nor Badran are Democrats, yet I believe they do their utmost to interpret what they see with fidelity to the public record. Of course too, the Obama-Biden foreign policy apparat would never say aloud what they intend, since they are not so stupid as to think their aims would be acceptable to the nation they purport to lead.
Frederick wrote, “I guess the thing I take away from this is that the Constitution only works if people actively try to make it work.
This, 100%!
This administration is determined to get Iran nuclear weapons
John Solomon’s most recent post on the 2020 election had an Iranian hook – a group of hackers who tried to run a Proud Boys false flag op to damage Trump by intimidating various people, including registered Democrats listed in the voter database they accessed.
Here’s some information that I tracked down; it’s a long series of comments because there are a lot of moving parts.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2022/03/11/iran-deal-2-0-postponed/#comment-2612915
h/t sdferr for getting the ball rolling, although I didn’t expect the direction it would take.
How ??? If I remember correctly, the last deal was never submitted to the Senate, it was a stand alone deal that Congress had no say in.
Republicans can’t block it, but they can just shape it. Pervesely, they will end up making it even worse. The Iranians would be fools to give up absolutely anything except in return for what they can get from Joe Biden in the next 2.5 years. So Biden will give them cash, end sanctions, and generally enrich the Iranian government. Everyone will know that the sanctions are coming back as soon as Republicans control the federal government and plan accordingly. It would be emminently rational for the Iranians to prepare their first nuclear test and run it about 6 months after Biden leaves office. All the better to blame it on the mean Republicans.
But this goes back to neo’s post over the weekend about ping-pong foreign policy. Prior to Obama, majority Congressional opposition to a foreign policy initiative would kill the foreign policy initiative. We understood the importantce of a consistent foreign policy that was generally supported by the country as a whole. Since Obama, we’ve had the politics of “I won” and we’re all worse off for it.
That previous Iran deal was what is now called a constitutional “work around.”
The sad part, neo, is if it is so obvious to us, then it is obvious to Iran and Putin. It should also be obvious to Republicans to pounce, yet we recognize they will likely not do so. This just leaves the notion that Republicans are weak too.
And no. Lindsey Graham, acting tough on war is not a substitute for moral and intellectual strength. I’m sure a no fly zone will be a nice gravy train for defense contractors, but it won’t help Ukraine or the US.
Don’t count on it. Progressive democrats in general hate Israel and progressive Jewish Democrats would blithely sell Israel to the Mullahs if only to preserve their standing with fellow leftists. Their fealty to socialism is far greater than their concern over the future existence of Israel
I saw a headline that “Rand Paul introduced an amendment” to eliminate Fauci’s position. LOL
NOT helping Iran is a Repub “nice to have”
For whatever reason (Israel/Jew hate?), helping Iran is a Dem “must have”.
So, long term, I would expect the GOPe to cave … as usual
Thanks, sdferr, for the link on “the Realignment.” Basically, Obama’s idea, being furthered by the Biden crew, is that the old Near East order was created by the US and sustained by it, and elevating Iran while disadvantaging Israel and the Sunni powers would get us out of it. This is just another example of their idea that US power is colonialism and anything we did must be bad and should be reversed.
Never mind all those Jewish lives, evidently. Or even Arab lives.
Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives