So the Iran Nuclear Deal....where do you stand?

[MantisToboggan]

New poll: U.S. Jews support Iran deal, despite misgivings

by Steven M. Cohen
Posted on Jul. 23, 2015 at 1:02 pm

The LA Jewish Journal Survey found that 49% of American Jews support the Iranian nuclear deal. Information from LA Jewish Journal Survey – July 16-20, 2015." height="332" width="539">
The LA Jewish Journal Survey found that 49% of American Jews support the Iranian nuclear deal. Information from LA Jewish Journal Survey – July 16-20, 2015.


By a wide margin, American Jews support the recently concluded agreement with Iran to restrict its nuclear program, and a clear majority of Jews wants Congress to approve the deal. In fact, as compared with Americans generally, Jews are more supportive of the “Iran deal,” in large part because Jews are more liberal and more Democratic in their identities. It turns out that liberals (Jewish or not) support the deal far more than conservatives (Jewish or not), just as most Democrats are in favor, while most Republicans are opposed.
These results emerge from the new LA Jewish Journal Survey conducted under my direction by Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS), between July 16-20, a few days after the agreement had been announced. SSRS interviewed 501 Jews for the Jewish survey, and for the national survey, 522 respondents by phone (almost a third of which were cellphones). The margin of error is 6 percent for the Jewish survey and 5.2 percent for the national survey (consisting of 505 non-Jews and 17 Jews).
The LA Jewish Journal Survey asked respondents’ views on “an agreement … reached in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.” Almost half – 49 percent of American Jews – voiced support, and 31 percent opposed. Jews differ from the national population. Of all respondents in our national survey, only 28 percent support the deal, 24 percent oppose and the rest (48 percent) “don’t know enough to say.”
Similarly, asked whether Congress should “vote to approve or oppose the deal,” Jews lean heavily toward approval, 53 percent for versus 35 percent against. These margins contrast with the near-even split among the nation generally (41 percent for versus 38 percent against, with 21 percent undecided).
As a group, Jews hold these supportive views of the agreement, notwithstanding their mixed views regarding its outcomes. Asked whether “this agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons over the next 10 years or so,” only 42 percent are somewhat confident or very confident, while 54 percent are not so confident or not confident at all. A slim plurality believes the agreement will lead to more rather than less stability in the Middle East (46 percent versus 41 percent), but a wider margin believes the deal will make Israel more endangered (49 percent) rather than safer (33 percent), almost the same as in the U.S. survey (48 percent versus 32 percent respectively).
The bottom line: American Jews, more than Americans generally, tend to support the Iran deal and they want Congress to approve it
A slim majority of Jews want Congress to approve the deal, yet nearly half believe the agreement will make Israel more endangered. How is this possible?
It turns out that among those who see Israel as safer, almost all voice approval. Among those who are not sure how Israel will be affected, the vast majority wants Congress to approve. And among those who feel Israel is more endangered, a full 20 percent still support the deal. Arithmetically, it all adds up, even though support for the Iran deal is, indeed, closely related to perceptions of how the deal will affect Israel's security.
But even with their misgivings, Jews overwhelmingly think that, in retrospect, the idea of the U.S. conducting negotiations with Iran was a good one (59 percent) rather than a bad one (19 percent).
Opinions among Jews and the country generally are sharply divided along ideological and partisan lines, with even sharper polarization among Jews than among non-Jews.
Among Jewish liberals (self-defined), those favoring congressional approval outnumber opponents 72 percent to 18 percent. For conservative Jews, the numbers are reversed: 8 percent for approval and 81 percent opposed. Similarly, Jewish Democrats divide 70 percent-20 percent in favor of congressional approval, while the Republicans divide 77 percent-15 percent in opposition.
We asked respondents their views of President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The two leaders are about equally popular among American Jews and Americans in general. However, people tend to disagree in their assessments; many who favor one of them tend to disfavor the other.
Given these contrasts, it should come a no surprise that positive views of Obama are associated with approval of the Iran deal: Those who very favorably view Obama seek congressional approval 93 percent to 4 percent. The opposite is true about Netanyahu: His admirers oppose the deal, and his detractors heavily oppose it. Among those seeing him as very favorable, only 22 percent want Congress to approve the deal, while 73 percent seek rejection.
Approval of the Iran deal rises with increased confidence in its effectiveness, greater belief in its ability to promote more stability in the Middle East, and wider conviction that it makes Israel safer rather than more endangered.
Of those who think it makes Israel safer, 98 percent want Congress to approve. Of those who see Israel as more endangered by the deal, only 20 percent seek congressional approval. The “swing votes” are the “don’t knows” about the impact on Israel: They break 66-8 percent in favor of congressional approval.
Indeed, connection to Israel does play a major role in influencing views on the Iran deal with those more connected to Israel less supportive of the deal. However, even the pro-Israel segment of the Jewish population comes down in favor of the deal. Among those who have never been to Israel, support for congressional approval wins 58-30 percent. But it also wins, albeit more narrowly, among those who have visited Israel: 48 percent to 44 percent. In fact, among those who say that they are “very attached” emotionally to Israel, 51 percent want Congress to approve the deal, versus 38 percent who oppose such action.
Another question asked about the degree of sympathy with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians. Among those with the highest level of sympathy (“a lot”), support for congressional approval very narrowly exceeds opposition, 47 percent to 44 percent.
Of some political import is the fact that more younger adult Jews seek congressional approval than their elders — 59 percent-25 percent for those younger than 40, versus 51 percent-40 percent among those 65 and older. The highly educated (also more politically active and influential) strongly favor congressional approval (61 percent to 31 percent) as compared with those without a college degree who tend to oppose (39 percent for approval and 48 percent against).
The bottom line: American Jews, more than Americans generally, tend to support the Iran deal and they want Congress to approve it. Their support certainly co-exists with considerable hesitations and qualifications. Their views on the Iran deal are highly differentiated by political camp. On one side are liberals, Democrats and Obama admirers; on the other, conservatives, Republicans and Netanyahu admirers. Even the most pro-Israel support the deal, albeit far more narrowly than those who are less passionately connected with Israel.
The true and deeper divide in American Jewry is not about the Iran deal per se. This issue is merely the latest place to witness the ongoing and maybe growing divide between the liberal and conservative wings of American Jewry. As with many views and behaviors related to Israel and being Jewish, American Jews’ political identities serve as a major basis for social differentiation. Which is a fancy way of saying: Liberals and conservatives — especially Jewish liberals and conservatives — see and experience the world, including Iran, very differently.

Considering 69% of the Jewish vote went to Obama in 2012, and 78% in 2008, it really isn't that surprising that he could muster up 49% support for this deal. Kind of interesting that the split on congressional support is 48-44 among American Jews who have visited Israel (that 4% split is inside the margin of error, btw). Anyways, I'll let you get back to bitching and moaning about how everyone who disagrees with you is a sick, vile, racist, terrorist supporting POS.

 

[ScottL]

I've criticized Khomeini for his vile words. You lack the decency to do the same with Huckabee, collaborator.

I know what's important and what's horseshit. Huckabee is like a best friend to the Jews when lined up next to you.

 

[ScottL]

The sick storm fronters down here think you're a good Jew. How proud you must be, Collaborator. I'd rather have their, and your scorn. That tells me I'm doing something right.

Yes, everyone can tell how much you just love being who you are. Your aurra of contentedness shines brightly in every post.

 

[ScottL]

David Harris The Iran Nuclear Deal

Posted: 08/05/2015 11:25 am EDT

When the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced in Vienna on July 14, AJC issued a press release indicating that we would first study the full text and its implications, and then take a position on the deal, as the U.S. Congress launched into its 60-day review period.

Over the past three weeks, AJC (American JEWISH Committee - the premier global Jewish advocacy organization -SL) engaged in a very intensive, open-minded, and thorough process of external consultations and internal deliberations, involving many lay and staff leaders.

During this effort, we had the privilege of meeting privately with, first, Secretary of State John Kerry, and, later, Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, both of whom visited our New York headquarters. We also had the opportunity to speak with Democratic and Republican Members of Congress; diplomats from Europe, the Arab world, and Israel; and respected analysts knowledgeable about both nuclear diplomacy and Iran-related matters. And we were invited to participate in discussions in Washington with President Barack Obama and Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. We are grateful for all these opportunities.

We understood from the start that the Iran deal was not a simple matter. Rather, it was one of the most consequential policy issues in a generation. Thus, it could not be boiled down to a reflexive reaction for or against, or a glib one-line response.

We listened carefully to the arguments of those in favor of the deal, who, inter alia, asserted that Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb would be blocked for at least 10-15 years; that it would use the cash windfall of unfrozen assets and the lifting of sanctions largely for domestic purposes; that the Middle East would not witness the specter of nuclear proliferation; that the inspection and verification regime would be the most intrusive ever developed, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) up to the task, including ascertaining possible military dimensions of Iran's past program; and that perhaps Iran would, with time, open up to positive change and greater cooperation.

And we listened to the opponents, who asserted, inter alia, that this deal at best only delayed but did not dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure; that it in fact created a legitimate pathway for Iran to emerge as a nuclear threshold state even if it never violated the deal; that at least some of Iran's new infusion of funds would be used to stoke further terror and instability in the Middle East and beyond; that America's allies in the region were profoundly unsettled by the agreement and its broader implications; and that there were concerns about Iran's ability to deceive the international community, as it had done in the past at Natanz and Fordow, and as other countries, including North Korea and Syria, had also done.

In the end, AJC's leadership concluded overwhelmingly that we must oppose this deal.

Much as we respect those in the P5+1, led by the United States, who painstakingly negotiated the agreement over the span of years, and who confronted one challenge after another with Iran and also, it should be noted, had to manage the complex interaction within the P5+1 itself, there are too many risks, concerns, and ambiguities for us to lend our support.

By abandoning the earlier negotiating posture of dismantling sanctions in exchange for Iranian dismantlement of its nuclear infrastructure, and instead replacing it with what is essentially a temporary freeze on its program, the P5+1 has indeed validated Iran's future status as a nuclear threshold state, a point that President Obama himself acknowledged in a media interview.

Given the nature of the Iranian regime and its defining ideology, AJC cannot accept this prospect. It is too ominous, too precedent-setting, and too likely to trigger a response from Iran's understandably anxious neighbors who may seek nuclear-weapons capacity themselves, as well as, more immediately and still more certainly, advanced conventional arms, adding an entirely new level of menace to the most volatile and arms-laden region in the world. Surely, this cannot be in America's long-term security interests.

And by lifting the freeze on Iranian assets in relatively short order, removing sanctions will surely trigger many visits to Tehran, as evidenced already by German Vice Chancellor and Minister of Economy Sigmar Gabriel's desire to be among the first. Furthermore, ending the ban on arms flow to Iran within five years and on missile technology, which would help its ICBM program, within eight years, will benefit the regime enormously - and without a demand that Iran change its destabilizing and dangerous behavior. This includes its frequent calls for "Death to America and Israel," and its hegemonic ambitions in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen. AJC cannot accept this prospect, either.

We are told by the deal's supporters that the only alternative to this deal is war. We respectfully disagree. We do not support war against Iran, nor have we ever advocated for the use of force, though we have always believed in a credible military option as a way of convincing Iran of our seriousness of purpose. But until recently, we were told by P5+1 negotiators: "The alternative to a bad deal is no deal." What happened to that formulation, and why did it suddenly change?

We understand that opposing this deal raises important questions about the future that no one can answer today with certainty, much as we believe that, faced with strong American leadership, Iran would find it in its own best interests to return to the negotiating table sooner or later. But we know with greater certainty that this deal raises still more ominous questions about the future.

Therefore, AJC opposes the deal and calls on Members of Congress to do the same.

In doing so, we wish to make two additional points.

First, we fully understand that passions run high on both sides of the debate, but that should not be an excuse for personal attacks or inflammatory statements having no factual basis, whether voiced by the deal's supporters or its opponents. What is needed is a full-blown and respectful debate about the issues, and not ad hominem accusations.

And second, it is in the American strategic interest, now more than ever, to maintain the closest possible links with our long-time allies in the region, including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Their geography, which is immutable, places them on the front line. Their ongoing political and security concerns - sometimes expressed publicly, sometimes privately - need to be carefully considered, both now and in the future. They need us, as, yes, we need them.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Guesser,

You bummed to see Chuck Schumer not joining "most of the sane world" in supporting the Iran deal? Tough break, champ.

 

[The Guesser]

Guesser,

You bummed to see Chuck Schumer not joining "most of the sane world" in supporting the Iran deal? Tough break, champ.

Chuckie is doing what he perceives as best for Chuckie. He's been pretty much assured Obama has the needed votes without him, so he's making a symbolic vote. Just another gutless Politician. As long as at least 34 Brave Senators do the right thing for America and the rest of the world, that's all I care about.

 

[The Guesser]

Looks pretty good for Obama and America.

[h=1]Whip count: Where the Senate stands on the Iran deal[/h] By Amber Phillips August 5
Congress has until mid-September to review the nuclear deal President Obama just signed with Iran. Lawmakers will vote on a yes-or-no resolution that could give the deal the go-ahead -- or halt it at least temporarily.
Obama has vowed to veto any "no" vote or effort to dilute a deal that he says will keep Iran from building a bomb. But because an agreement was reached just before the August recess, opponents of the agreement have two months to rally support for their side and try to gather the two-thirds majorities required to overcome that veto.
Which is where we come in. Will Congress get the two-thirds it needs? At least in the Senate, we can glean something of an idea of where things stand.
So we've begun monitoring all the senators' comments on the issue and classifying them accordingly. Be sure to bookmark this page for the latest updates. We'll update this whip count regularly.
And if we miss anything or classify a senator wrongly, make sure to let us know via e-mail.
Current state of play
(Updated 3:18 p.m. on Aug. 6)
Yes or leaning yes (34 needed to uphold veto, keep the deal): 27
No or leaning no (67 needed to override veto, kill the deal): 58
Unknown/unclear: 15
And now, the 100 senators ...
Yes (13)

• Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): "If this agreement is what the Administration says it is, it is a major, historic diplomatic breakthrough.”
• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): "The United States, working with our allies, has reached a historic agreement with Iran that, according to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I commend our negotiators for this critical effort. Finding a diplomatic solution will make our country, our allies, and the world a safer place."
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.): "I stand behind the U.S. negotiating team and will support this agreement in the Senate."
• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wrote on Medium Aug. 6 "Why I'm supporting an imperfect Iran deal."
• Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.): " I think if it matches the April 2 framework and there is a solid verification and inspection regime, I think it’s going to be good for our national security," he said on PBS July 15th.
• Sen. Angus King (I-Maine)
• Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.): "we thought we were negotiating in good faith and we'd have a deal. If we walk out now, many of these countries are going to say, 'okay, you're in it by yourself,'" he said Aug. 5.
• Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.): "[T]he numbers under this deal look a hell of a lot better than what we got under the previous policy," Heinrich told Politico.
• Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): "I've said for some time that the best way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is through diplomacy, not war. And after very thoughtful consideration over the past several weeks, I believe that more than ever," he said in an Aug. 5 press release.
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.): "Unless there is an unexpected change, I will support the nuclear agreement," he said Aug. 4.
• Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.): "I've concluded this is the best available option we have for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," she said in an Aug. 6 statement.
• Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.): "This is a historic moment. This agreement has profound impact if we approve it and - make no mistake - if we fail to approve it," he said in a July 30 speech.
• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.): "The question now before Congress — the only question before Congress — is whether the recently announced nuclear agreement represents our best available option for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” she said in a statement to The Boston Globe. “I am convinced that it does.”

Clearly leaning yes, reserving final judgment (7)

• Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.): “I’m proud that America led six countries toward an historic international agreement with Iran. I will now take the time to carefully review this diplomatic agreement and make a judgment on it."
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): “If early reports are correct, it appears the agreement the U.S. and other U.N. Security Council nations have finally reached with Iran is the kind of durable and verifiable agreement that is far preferable to further escalation and possible military action.”
• Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.): "The most critical element of the deal for me is likely to be our ability, and the ability of the world, to verify strict Iranian compliance with the agreement."
• Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.): In May said he supports a diplomatic solution. " Our negotiators did a very good job in crafting the framework agreement in April, so I remain hopeful that they will strike a strong final agreement that will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
• Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.): "Today's announcement is a significant milestone in the effort to preclude Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon ... The devil is in the details."
• Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Leaning yes, but hesitant (7)

• Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "We might get a deal that’s a good deal," Reid said in March urging his colleagues to wait on passing the law allowing them to have a vote on the Iran deal. When he was majority leader, he blocked Republican attempts to impose more sanctions on Iran, which Obama warned would have derailed negotiations.
• Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)
• Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii): "The pathway to implementing a deal to effectively prevent Iran from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapon is in sight.”
• Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.): "I believe that American strength is rooted in both military might and diplomacy, and I am pleased that we have given diplomacy a chance. However, we still need to look at the agreement in its entirety before passing judgment."
• Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
• Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
• Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Purely undecided (8)

• Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.): "The stakes are high, and the details of this deal matter."
• Sen Cory Booker (D-N.J.): "I will hold this deal to a very high standard and in reaching any conclusion," he said.
• Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.): "There's a lot of questions," the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee said on NPR on July 14. In his opening statement of a July 23 hearing on the deal, he said "Our negotiators got an awful lot, particularly on the nuclear front."
• Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.): "I am a Democrat, and I would like to be able to support this agreement. But I have serious reservations about it," he told Politico.
• Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.): In May, he said: "A nuclear-armed Iran would be one of the most serious threats to our national security interests, and I have long-supported diplomatic efforts, including the ongoing negotiations and sanctions, to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and today he is undecided on the Iran deal.
• Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): The Senate Foreign Relations Committee member told the Washington Examiner in July he's undecided and is waiting for hearings to make his decision.
• Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.): Heitkamp was a co-sponsor Iran review bill Congress passed in May. Her staff says she is still reviewing the deal. "We must prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb – period. That is our priority and where our focus should remain. And we must avoid lifting any sanctions without verifiable actions so Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon," she said.
• Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.): "“I will review this agreement with the utmost attention to detail, given the incredible importance of getting an agreement of this magnitude right."

Leaning no (42)

• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
• Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
• Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
• Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
• Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.): "We have a responsibility to ensure that Iran never achieves its goal of becoming a nuclear power. This deal give us little confidence that we will be successful in this regard."
• Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
• Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
• Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) "Over the coming days, I will be conducting a thorough review of the agreement to evaluate whether it protects our national security interests," but in November, he urged his colleagues on the banking committee to impose more sanctions on Iran, saying he had little faith in interim negotiations, which "simply allowed more time for the Iranian regime to continue its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability."
• Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)
• Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.): " Regardless of what the president has concluded and what he tries to sell, we need to individually take a real hard look at this and make our own decisions because they are going to have immense consequences for the future."
• Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.): "Iran cannot be allowed to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, and I am skeptical whether the agreement reached by the Obama administration is truly verifiable and enforceable."
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
• Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
• Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
• Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho): "The consequences of a bad deal are monumental," he said in May.
• Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.)
• Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.): He signed a Republican human rights letter to Secretary of State John Kerry saying "we are concerned the Obama Administration is failing to recognize the inherent danger of engaging in nuclear negotiations with this particular regime given their appalling record on human rights."
• Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): She gave an April floor speech declaring a deal should only lift sanctions if Iran abandons support of terrorism.
• Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
• Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
• Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
• Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
• Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.)
• Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
• Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.): "I have often stated that I believe this negotiation was lost from the start ... That said, I will carefully review the details before rendering my final judgment."
• Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
• Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
• Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.): Menendez co-authored a bill that would have put sanctions on Iran if negotiations failed by June 30. "I’m concerned that the deal ultimately legitimizes Iran as a threshold-nuclear state. I’m concerned the redlines we drew have turned into green-lights."
• Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): "If today’s agreement is ‘historic’ as some are claiming, it’s still very much unknown if the history being made is positive or negative."
• Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.): Peters was an original co-sponsor of the 2015 Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill that Obama said would put unnecessary pressure on the negotiations.
• Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
• Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
• Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.): "It is important that any deal is enforceable so that we can keep Iran accountable," he said in May.
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): "“It’s hard to make a good deal with bad actors."
• Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
• Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
• Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
• Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)
• Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
• Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): " I was skeptical that Iran’s leaders would agree to dismantle their nuclear weapons program and I have questions about whether this agreement accomplishes that, particularly in light of Iran’s history on this issue."

No (16)

• Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
• Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.): "If this deal is approved, it will represent a historic defeat for the United States."
• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
• Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.): "This deal is unwise. For the sake of the region, and the sake of the world, it must be rejected."
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
• Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.): "This agreement will enrich and empower Iran, the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism."
• Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
• Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): "“This deal won’t protect Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state—it just delays it."
• Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho): "This deal falls disastrously short of what the Obama Administration originally promised and gives the Iranian government what it desires."
• Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): "I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down."
• Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.): "The Administration just lit the fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."
• Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): The likely next-in-line Democratic leader and ally of Israel said Aug. 6 he cannot support the Iran deal. "In the first ten years of the deal, there are serious weaknesses in the agreement," he wrote on Medium. His "no" vote is a big loss for Obama and deal supporters.
• Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska)
• Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
• Sen. David Vitter (R-La.): "This agreement is a really, really bad deal for America, for Israel, and for freedom."

Unknown / Unclear (7)

• Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): She's approved tough sanctions on Iran in 2012 but has been quiet on the deal so far. On July 23 she told Politico: "It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things. And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time."
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.): The moderate Democrat was considering co-sponsoring the Iran review bill but ended up not for fear of scuttling the negotiations. "I’m making sure I’m going to make the right decision, not when I’m going to make it," she told Politico. "It's hard," she added in a separate interview.
• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.): She's been supportive of the diplomatic negotiations but also wary of a deal: "There are so many unanswered questions on the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program," she said in May, adding "No one wants to rush to judgment" in July.
• Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
• Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.): The Democratic leader told Politico it "would take us all a while" to decide.
• Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
• Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.): "As these negotiations move forward, I will monitor them closely to ensure that our national security is protected," he said in May. He told Politico July 23: "We’re going to go to some outside folks too, I don’t just want to hear from the administration."

 

[The Guesser]

My My. Arab States SUPPORTING this agreement, and want to give peace a chance. From the Propaganda pieces you get down here, I thought all the Arab states were against it. Sanity prevails, once again. :toast:. Hopefully the extremists nuts here and in Iran don't scuttle this.

John Kerry Wins Gulf States’ Cautious Support for Iran Deal

By MICHAEL R. GORDONAUG. 3, 2015


Secretary of State John Kerry spoke on Monday in Doha, Qatar, about the Iran nuclear deal. Mr. Kerry traveled to the Middle East in an attempt to get the Arab states to endorse the accord.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date August 3, 2015. Photo by Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski. Watch in Times Video »

DOHA, Qatar — Persian Gulf monarchies issued a cautious endorsement on Monday of the accord Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated last month to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.
“This was the best option among other options,” said Khalid al-Attiyah, the foreign minister of Qatar, who hosted a meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council that Mr. Kerry attended.

In a news conference with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Attiyah said the secretary of state had repeated his assurance that the United States would stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon if Tehran failed to adhere to the accord.
“We are confident that what they undertook makes this region safer and more stable,” he added.
Mr. Kerry and his counterparts from the Persian Gulf states also agreed on ways to expedite the military support and training efforts that President Obama promised at a meeting in May at Camp David with senior gulf state officials.


On the basis of Mr. Kerry’s assurances, Mr. Attiyah said the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council welcomed the American offers of support. “He let us know that there is going to be live oversight over Iran not to gain or to get any nuclear weapons,” Mr. Attiyah said. “This is reassuring to the region.”

The nuclear accord with Iran was negotiated by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
None of Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East had a seat at the negotiating table. Israel is worried that the accord would delay but not eliminate Iran’s ability to develop an industrial-size program to enrich uranium and, ultimately, build nuclear weapons.
In Israel, dozens of former security officials — including major generals in the Army, chiefs of the Shin Bet and Mossad intelligence agencies and a former director of the state’s atomic energy commission — signed a letter calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the Iran agreement as “an established fact,” according to an article in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Monday.

The group said Israel should “adopt a policy that will restore the trust and strengthen the security-diplomatic cooperation with the U.S. administration in order to prepare for the many challenges derived from the agreement,” the article said. The challenges were listed as monitoring the deal’s implementation, detecting violations and “formulating special defense aid for Israel to ensure its qualitative edge.”
Saudi Arabia and Arab states in the region fear that Iran would be able to use the billions of dollars it is expected to receive in sanctions relief under the agreement, and revenue from its future oil exports, to aggressively pursue its regional ambitions.
But instead of assailing the agreement, as the Israeli government has done, the Arab states appear to have calculated that there was little to be gained from publicly criticizing a deal that stands a good chance of being enacted despite opposition from some American lawmakers.

Instead, they have concentrated on securing American support for their efforts to push back against Iran if its government continues its support for militant groups in the region.
Mr. Kerry repeated on Monday promises that Mr. Obama made in May at the meeting with senior leaders and other officials from the gulf states at Camp David.
Listing the steps the United States would take, Mr. Kerry said it would step up efforts to assist the gulf states, such as training special forces and increasing intelligence sharing, including of Iranian “agents of proxies who come in to try to stir up the population.”
Mr. Kerry also said the United States would continue efforts to help the gulf states improve their missile defenses, increase joint military exercises and help the navies of those countries improve their ability to intercept Iran’s attempts to smuggle weapons and people.
For Mr. Kerry, the support of gulf Arabs was a diplomatic victory for the State Department and a political one for the White House in its struggle to secure congressional support for the accord, which is undergoing a 60-day review.
The members of the Gulf Cooperation Council are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

While most of the gulf states have been skeptical of the accord, Oman has been a notable exception: It played a crucial role in hosting the back-channel discussions between the United States and Iran.
After his news conference, Mr. Kerry hosted a meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, and Adel al-Jubeir, his Saudi counterpart, to discuss the crisis in Syria. It was the first time the three diplomats had met on Syria, Mr. Kerry said.
The Obama administration is hoping that concern over the Islamic State’s gains in Syria may lead Russia, which has supported President Bashar al-Assad, to take a more flexible position in discussions about a solution to the crisis that would not include Mr. Assad’s retaining power.
It is unclear if the Russian government is prepared to withdraw its support from Mr. Assad, or what it would demand for Syria’s transition should the Kremlin change its stance. Mr. Assad’s main military support has come from Iran, which has shown no signs of abandoning him.
In recent weeks, Mr. Kerry has mounted a two-pronged effort to win Arab support for the nuclear deal with Iran, arguing that the accord is the best way to limit Tehran’s program. He has also vowed to help gulf states defend against Iran’s “illicit activities,” including its shipment of arms to Houthi rebels in Yemen, its backing of Shiite militias in Iraq and the military support it provides to Mr. Assad.
On Sunday, before arriving here, Mr. Kerry made his case to Egyptian officials in Cairo.
“The United States and Egypt recognize that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities in the region, and that is why it is so important to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program remains wholly peaceful,” Mr. Kerry said Sunday. “There can be absolutely no question that if the Vienna plan is fully implemented it will make Egypt and all the countries of this region safer than they otherwise would be or were.”
The Obama administration has already taken steps to reassure Saudi Arabia, the most influential member of the gulf council. Last month, the administration approved the sale of $5.4 billion of Patriot missiles and other military equipment. It also authorized the sale of $500 million in ammunition.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Chuckie is doing what he perceives as best for Chuckie. He's been pretty much assured Obama has the needed votes without him, so he's making a symbolic vote. Just another gutless Politician. As long as at least 34 Brave Senators do the right thing for America and the rest of the world, that's all I care about.

Sorry, I forgot that you're more concerned with Amy Schumer's opinions on American policy than Chuck Schumer's.

 

[The Guesser]

Sorry, I forgot that you're more concerned with Amy Schumer's opinions on American policy than Chuck Schumer's.

Amy has alot more integrity and decency.

 

[Acebb]

Chuckie is doing what he perceives as best for Chuckie. He's been pretty much assured Obama has the needed votes without him, so he's making a symbolic vote. Just another gutless Politician. As long as at least 34 Brave Senators do the right thing for America and the rest of the world, that's all I care about.

"Symbolic vote:

[h=1]Liberals rip Schumer as 'unfit' to lead Democrats[/h]
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is facing quick pushback after he said he will vote against the Iran nuclear deal, with one outside group saying he is "unfit" to be the next Democratic leader.
"Chuck Schumer was wrong on Iraq and he is wrong on Iran. Schumer's decision to join Republicans in attempting to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal once again shows that he is unfit to lead senate Democrats," said Becky Bond, the political director of CREDO Action.
Bond added that "perhaps it is time to change his nickname from Wall Street Chuck to Warmonger Chuck."
The strong remarks against Schumer come after the New York senator, who is expected to be the next Democratic leader, became the first Democratic senator to say he will oppose the Iran nuclear deal.


The Senate Minority Leaders makes all sorts of "symbolic votes" on "historic treaties"

Spammy the rat clowned again

 

[The Guesser]

"Symbolic vote:

Liberals rip Schumer as 'unfit' to lead Democrats


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is facing quick pushback after he said he will vote against the Iran nuclear deal, with one outside group saying he is "unfit" to be the next Democratic leader.
"Chuck Schumer was wrong on Iraq and he is wrong on Iran. Schumer's decision to join Republicans in attempting to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal once again shows that he is unfit to lead senate Democrats," said Becky Bond, the political director of CREDO Action.
Bond added that "perhaps it is time to change his nickname from Wall Street Chuck to Warmonger Chuck."
The strong remarks against Schumer come after the New York senator, who is expected to be the next Democratic leader, became the first Democratic senator to say he will oppose the Iran nuclear deal.


The Senate Minority Leaders makes all sorts of "symbolic votes" on "historic treaties"

Spammy the rat clowned again

Yep, symbolic. They know they have the needed votes without Chuckie. How about stepping up Lying Ace? A one year poli ban bet(except any sports betting contests) that The Senate gets at least 34 votes and a veto proof majority? Or is it time for the usual run away, avoidance game whenever a Bet that Lying Ace doesn't know the outcome, is proposed. Step up for ONCE in your pathetic life.

 

[MantisToboggan]

Amy has alot more integrity and decency.

Ha, you're too funny, man. Hope you never stop posting down here. Amy Schumer > Chuck Schumer on foreign policy is almost as funny as you calling yourself a centrist while pimping Bernie Sanders.

 

[The Guesser]

Ha, you're too funny, man. Hope you never stop posting down here. Amy Schumer > Chuck Schumer on foreign policy is almost as funny as you calling yourself a centrist while pimping Bernie Sanders.

I said Integrity, not foreign Policy expertise, Pillboy. Am I a far lefty when I'm pimping John Kasich? Are you?

 

[MantisToboggan]

I said Integrity, not foreign Policy expertise, Pillboy. Am I a far lefty when I'm pimping John Kasich? Are you?

If Kasich got the nomination, and he won't (sadly), you'll find a reason to push him into the unelectable loon category. There's zero chance you'd pull the lever for him.

 

[The Guesser]

If Kasich got the nomination, and he won't (sadly), you'll find a reason to push him into the unelectable loon category. There's zero chance you'd pull the lever for him.

Total lie, but of course, you already know that, and are just kissing up to the sick cult. If it's Kasich vs Hillary, I will proudly vote for Kasich. I'll be glad to make the same bet I offered Russ and the Terrorist supporting POS that they ran far away and fast from. An amount of your choice to a mod, and on election day I prove my vote with a Photo, personalized to you. Up for it, Pillboy? Or just talking out of your Bi Polar ass?

 

[MantisToboggan]

Total lie, but of course, you already know that, and are just kissing up to the sick cult. If it's Kasich vs Hillary, I will proudly vote for Kasich. I'll be glad to make the same bet I offered Russ and the Terrorist supporting POS that they ran far away and fast from. An amount of your choice to a mod, and on election day I prove my vote with a Photo, personalized to you. Up for it, Pillboy? Or just talking out of your Bi Polar ass?

I'd be an idiot to take this bet. Let's say we bet $1k, I'd be giving you a $1k added incentive to vote for him, whether you actually like him or not. Sorry, I'm not an idiot. All it would take for you to pull the level is liking 1k more than you like the dem nomination.

 

[The Guesser]

I'd be an idiot to take this bet. Let's say we bet $1k, I'd be giving you a $1k added incentive to vote for him, whether you actually like him or not. Sorry, I'm not an idiot. All it would take for you pull the level is liking 1k more than you like the dem nomination.

So, as I said you're just talking out of your wishy washy ass yet again? I guess you're Lie that there's zero chance I'm voting for Kasich has been exposed as a Lying Ace style whopper. You'd be an idiot to take the bet because it's a sure loser, just as you're an idiot for making such an absurd statement that I wouldn't vote for Kasich in the first place.

 

[MantisToboggan]

So, as I said you're just talking out of your wishy washy ass yet again? I guess you're Lie that there's zero chance I'm voting for Kasich has been exposed as a Lying Ace style whopper. You'd be an idiot to take the bet because it's a sure loser, just as you're an idiot for making such an absurd statement that I wouldn't vote for Kasich in the first place.

Are you stupid? As I said earlier, I don't believe that you'd vote for Kasich over Hilary. I do believe you'd potentially vote for him if there was $1k on the line. If you can't see how money being on the line would change things then you're even dumber than I thought.

 

[The Guesser]

Are you stupid? As I said earlier, I don't believe that you'd vote for Kasich over Hilary. I do believe you'd potentially vote for him if there was $1k on the line. If you can't see how money being on the line would change things then you're even dumber than I thought.

So you can make a statement that's an obvious lie, that I wouldn't vote for Kasich, and then back off when something's on the line to prove you're lying. OK I'll leave it up to you? IF that scenario happens, how do you suggest I prove it, since you don't accept my words, my numerous Pro Kasich, anti Hillary posts. What are you willing to put on the line? I'm open to suggestions. Or maybe you'll take a pill, and post normally that "of course I believe you're voting for Kasich, you've said so many times and you don't lie".