Eye on Iran: Senate Starts Iran Debate

Join UANI           Top Stories The Hill: "Senators began debate on Iran legislation Thursday, with Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) making their opening salvos on the proposal. Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, urged senators to maintain the bipartisan nature of the legislation on curbing Iran's nuclear capabilites, which passed unanimously out of the Foreign Relations Committee earlier this month. 'What we did in the bill that we bring forward to you is a compromise,' the Maryland Democrat said. 'Let's see the amendments and try to work with you on the amendments. Let's maintain the bipartisan cooperation we have here.' ... Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he plans to offer or support amendments that would require any final deal to be submitted as a treaty to Iran, that would require the administration to submit any breaches of a final deal to Congress - instead of just material breaches - and that Iran wouldn't get sanctions relief until they 'live up to their international obligations.'" http://t.uani.com/1GqxG19    Reuters: "U.S. Republican senators pledged on Thursday to try to toughen a bill giving Congress the power to review a nuclear agreement with Iran, raising the possibility of a partisan battle that could complicate the measure's chances of passing. The Senate's Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, said he expected a 'vigorous debate' next week. 'Look, no piece of legislation is perfect. Senators who would like to see this bill strengthened, as I would, will have that chance during a robust amendment process that we'll soon have,' he said in a Senate speech. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 19-0 last week for a compromise version of the 'Iran Nuclear Review Act,' in a rare display of bipartisan unity in the deeply divided Congress. Bill supporters urged that the measure go ahead to ensure lawmakers have a say on any Iran nuclear deal. 'Without this bill, there is nothing stopping the president from bypassing the American people, immediately waiving sanctions imposed by Congress and unilaterally implementing an agreement with Iran,' the bill's author, Republican Senator Bob Corker, said as he introduced the bill in the Senate on Thursday." http://t.uani.com/1HzS2Ud WSJ: "An Iranian flotilla suspected of carrying weapons bound for rebels in Yemen has reversed course and appeared to be heading home, averting a potential confrontation in the Gulf of Aden, U.S. defense officials said Thursday. The cargo ships, accompanied by two Iranian warships, shifted course as a U.S. aircraft carrier moved within 200 nautical miles of the flotilla and Saudi Arabian officials said their sailors would attempt to search the ships if they tried to dock in Yemen. U.S. defense officials said it was too soon to tell Thursday if a crisis had been averted. But initial indications suggested that the Iranian ships had abandoned an attempt to challenge the Saudi-led effort to prevent arms from reaching Houthi rebels in Yemen. U.S. and Saudi officials have been keeping an eye on at least nine Iranian ships suspected of carrying weapons and supplies to Houthi fighters who have taken over much of Yemen. On Tuesday, the U.S. military sent the USS Theodore Roosevelt and several other warships to the Gulf of Aden to send a warning to Iran not to challenge a United Nations arms embargo on the Houthis." http://t.uani.com/1OOrQ8T     Nuclear Program & Negotiations Reuters: "Nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers are making good but slow progress as they work toward a June 30 deadline for a final deal, Tehran's senior negotiator said on Friday... 'The progress is good... We are at preliminary stages and the pace is slow but it is good,' Iranian state television quoted negotiator Abbas Araqchi as telling reporters in Vienna. 'The Europeans and Americans made good clarifications about lifting of the sanctions,' he said, adding that drafting of the text had begun." http://t.uani.com/1JBAOVk AFP: "The United States said Thursday that any deal reached with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions would be 'fundamentally different' from a pact sealed with North Korea that later unraveled. 'The restrictions, inspections and verifications measures imposed on Iran by a comprehensive plan of action will go far beyond those placed on North Korea in the 1990s and the 2000s,' said acting State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf... 'The comprehensive deal we are seeking to negotiate with Iran is fundamentally different than what we did in terms of our approach to North Korea,' Harf told reporters. 'In the early 1990s, North Korea had produced weapons-grade plutonium prior to agreeing to limited IAEA inspections. After the agreed framework, they agreed to more intrusive inspections; but in 2002, when they finally broke its commitments, its violations were detected by the IAEA.' And she acknowledged that part of the reason for the in-depth, complex technical annexes to an Iran deal was 'because of the lessons we learned from the North Korea situation.'" http://t.uani.com/1EnglUE Reuters: "The United States and five other world powers would be able to detect any military capabilities of Iran's nuclear program for at least 10 years under a framework deal agreed upon earlier this month, the U.S. energy secretary said on Thursday. For 10 years at minimum, 'we will have a very comfortable ability to detect any military activity related to the nuclear program and we would have adequate time to respond,' Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist who participated in the Iran talks, said on CNBC about the plan... Moniz told CNBC said agreements under the framework deal would give world powers access to Iran's uranium supply chain for 25 years in a 'completely unprecedented way.' In addition, the plan would 'essentially forever' commit Iran to verification that goes beyond agreements that international nuclear inspectors have anywhere else, he said." http://t.uani.com/1Gf7uRC Human Rights ICHRI: "The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran released a video today highlighting the plight of the thousands of Iranians who wish to return to their homeland, yet fear likely imprisonment upon arrival for the peaceful expression of their beliefs, art, or lifestyle. Dozens of Iranian expatriates who have traveled to Iran following assurances by President Hassan Rouhani regarding their safe passage, have been arrested, interrogated, prevented from leaving by having their passports confiscated, and, in many instances, imprisoned upon their return." http://t.uani.com/1Fk8Jmr Opinion & Analysis Charles Krauthammer in WashPost: "In December, President Obama said that he wished to see Iran ultimately become a 'very successful regional power.' His wish - a nightmare for the Western-oriented Arab states - is becoming a reality... This is the new Middle East. Its strategic reality is clear to everyone: Iran rising, assisted, astonishingly, by the United States. Obama's initial Middle East strategy was simply withdrawal. He would enter history as the ultimate peace president, ushering in a new era in which 'the tide of war is receding.' The subsequent vacuum having been filled, unfortunately and predictably, by various enemies, adversaries and irredeemables, Obama lighted upon a new idea: We don't just withdraw, we hand the baton. To Iran. Obama may not even be aware that he is recapitulating the Nixon doctrine, but with a fatal twist. Nixon's main focus was to get the Vietnamese to take over that war from us. But the doctrine evolved and was generalized to deputize various smaller powers to police their regions on our behalf. In the Persian Gulf, our principal proxy was Iran. The only problem with Obama's version of the Nixon doctrine is that Iran today is not the Westernized, secular, pro-American regional power it was under the shah. It is radical, clerical, rabidly anti-imperialist, deeply anti-Western. The regime's ultimate - and openly declared - strategic purpose is to drive the American infidel from the region and either subordinate or annihilate America's Middle Eastern allies. Which has those allies in an understandable panic. Can an American president really believe that appeasing Iran - territorially, economically, militarily and by conferring nuclear legitimacy - will moderate its behavior and ideology, adherence to which despite all odds is now yielding undreamed of success? Iran went into the nuclear negotiations heavily sanctioned, isolated internationally, hemorrhaging financially - and this was even before the collapse of oil prices. The premise of these talks was that the mullahs would have six months to give up their nuclear program or they would be additionally squeezed with even more devastating sanctions. After 17 months of serial American concessions, the Iranian economy is growing again, its forces and proxies are on the march through the Arab Middle East and it is on the verge of having its nuclear defiance rewarded and legitimized. The Saudis are resisting being broken to Iranian dominance. They have resumed their war in Yemen. They are resisting being forced into Yemen negotiations with Iran, a country that is, in the words of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., 'part of the problem, not part of the solution.' Obama appears undeterred. He's determined to make his Iran-first inverted Nixon doctrine a reality. Our friends in the region, who for decades have relied on us to protect them from Iran, look on astonished." http://t.uani.com/1Drv50A Bill Kristol in The Weekly Standard: "This week, for the first time since President Obama abandoned the bipartisan and international policy of pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program, the Senate will have a sustained debate on the administration's Iran policy. For the first time! The op-ed pages and the journals have been full of arguments about the path the administration has gone down. A remarkable number of serious observers, including many sympathetic to the notion of a negotiated deal with Iran, have been critical of the administration's repeated cascades of concessions. But Congress? No. The administration has succeeded in averting votes on various pieces of legislation, and therefore in preventing a real and sustained congressional debate on its Iran policy. So the elected representatives of the American people haven't weighed in. Now they have a chance to do so. The occasion is the Corker-Cardin bill, reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which establishes a process for congressional review of whatever deal the administration reaches. It's a toothless bill, setting up a process that allows Congress, in reaction to a deal, to stop the president from waiving or removing sanctions on Iran-which is of course something Congress could already do in any case, at any time. So the bill sets up a process that allows Congress to do something it can do without that process. There is no reason to think passage of this bill, as it now stands, significantly increases the chance of reversing a deal once it is agreed to. There is every reason to think, if the bill passes without serious debate, that it will have the opposite effect-giving the illusion that Congress is doing something to stop or slow down a bad deal when it really is not. So as it stands, the bill is at worst misleading, at best toothless. But there will be efforts on the floor of the Senate to give it teeth. Various senators are planning to offer amendments specifying what provisions would need to be in a deal to make it worthy of congressional support. These amendments range from requiring that Iran stop denying international inspectors access to certain sites, to insisting Iran stop spinning centrifuges at such sites, to making sure that sanctions relief is gradual and based on Iranian behavior rather than immediate and based only on Iranian promises, to requiring that Iran stop engaging in terror against Americans or supporting attempts to destroy Israel. Some of these amendments will be more important or more useful than others. But each needs to be considered, and debated, and voted on. Such a Senate debate, and votes, could put the administration-and the Iranians-on notice as to what Congress would and would not accept. And Congress would not be in the position of having to overturn later an agreement entered into by the executive branch with a foreign government because of objections that had not been clearly stated in advance. It could also clarify what is at stake in this deal-not just the status of Iran's nuclear program and the sanctions on Iran, but the broader question of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and the likelihood of a regional nuclear arms race. It could rouse the nation to a serious consideration about the stairway we are descending under the guidance of the Obama administration... What is urgent is a congressional debate on the substance of an Iran deal. Perhaps the nation can be roused. Perhaps a nuclear Iran can still be prevented without military action. Perhaps future wars in the Middle East can be made less likely. A determined Congress might still halt our descent down the broad stairway that leads to a dark gulf." http://t.uani.com/1OkCXvu Eli Lake & Josh Rogin in Bloomberg: "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been quietly pressing Republicans to oppose a series of pro-Israel amendments that lawmakers will try to add to the Iran legislation coming up for debate on the Senate floor next week. At issue is the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, a bipartisan bill authored by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker. Earlier this month, the bill was voted out of Corker's committee unanimously, with strong support from Democrats and a promise from President Barack Obama not to veto the bill if it reached his desk without amendments that he said could imperil the Iran nuclear negotiations. Senate staff members tell us that since Monday, senior Aipac lobbyists and board members have had face-to-face meetings and phone calls with leading senators to try to dissuade lawmakers from voting for the Republican amendments... Aipac supports Corker's bill as is. Earlier this year, it quietly dropped its campaign to get Congress to pass new sanctions on Iran latched onto a previous version of the chairman's legislation. Corker's new bill, which has added concessions to Obama, would give Congress a chance to review an Iran deal and could provide for a vote on the deal, although language inserted at the last minute makes clear that Obama could begin implementing the agreement even if Congress votes against it... Each of the Republican amendments would in practice require 60 votes to be added to the bill. Since most Democrats and Corker will oppose all of them, there is little chance any would be adopted... In other contexts, Aipac has supported all the ideas behind all these amendments. One Aipac official even told us he feels many of the proposed Republican amendments have merit. But this official stressed that the lobby's position is that senators support the passage of a 'clean' bill instead of risking an Obama veto or the loss of Democratic support. 'Our fundamental view is that this bill is the first step of a number of different steps on the Iran deal,' the official said. 'The first and foremost priority is to make sure the bill gets passed to make sure congress is guaranteed a chance to pass judgment on the deal.' Some conservatives and Republicans, however, have already passed judgment on that deal. William Kristol, the chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel and the editor of the Weekly Standard, wrote this week that Corker's bill was toothless. In a not-so-veiled reference to Aipac, Kristol wrote, 'Not just the Obama administration, but the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the leading establishment pro-Israel lobbying group, all prefer quiet acquiescence to and approval of a toothless bill rather than a serious debate and series of votes over our Iran policy.' Many Republicans, however, don't like Corker's bill as is. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Thursday that when the bill comes to the Senate floor, there will be a 'robust amendment process,' and that he hopes the bill is strengthened. Republican critics say that the bill doesn't have any real mechanisms to stop Obama from lifting congressionally mandated sanctions. Some also complain that the Corker bill doesn't require the nuclear deal to address other issues, including Iran's support for terrorism, its campaign against Israel and its imprisonment of U.S. citizens on trumped-up charges. And several Republicans, including presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Rubio, are planning to offer amendments to remedy what they see as the bill's weaknesses. All told, at least two dozen amendments are expected to be offered next week. Rubio alone has seven. Senator James Risch will propose an amendment to require Obama to certify that four Americans currently held in Iran are released from captivity before the Senate considers lifting any sanctions. Other measures would focus on Iran's support for terrorism and refusal to grant U.N. inspectors access to military sites." http://t.uani.com/1KcQlMt          Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.  UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.