Missouri Democratic Rep. Claire McCaskill also said Schumer’s vote had no impact on the leadership race. “What I’m interested in is the deal itself and can we enforce it”. Among Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer says the alternative “does not have to be war” and Senator Robert Menendez, confirming McConnell’s prediction, finds it “insulting” to suggest that it does. “Gary has been one of the premier experts skeptical of Iran’s willingness to forgo a nuclear weapons capability, and his analysis has advanced the discourse on the challenge of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran”. It would be to witness the existing global sanctions regime crumble, the United States becoming isolated and weakened as a credible negotiator, and the Iranians freed from agreed-upon limitations and thus far closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Advertisement
Congress will vote on the deal – trumpeted by Pres. Barack Obama as the only way to avert military intervention in Iran – when they return to Washington in September, making the next several weeks critical for the future of the deal.
The top American diplomat additionally challenged those that have criticized the size of the deal’s restrictions on Iranian enrichment of fabric that can be utilized in nuclear warheads and different parts of its program. But it is implausible to the point of fantasy, and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. My own view is that there were perhaps details that could have come out differently, but on the big questions of concern to critics, insisting on a flawless deal would have meant no deal at all.
It’s important to note that the signatories to this letter said they do not endorse any political party, but do endorse peaceful negotiations. The Vienna agreement has been endorsed by the P5+1, the entire United Nations Security Council and practically every country in the world.
The deal includes so-called “snap-back” provisions for sanctions, if inspectors determine that Iran has cheated. For now Obama appears to have enough support to weather the stiff opposition and retain the authority to execute the deal. He noted that, even during the arrangement’s decade-long timeframe, the United States would need the approval of other countries to conduct inspections, to give the Islamic theocracy 24-hour notice before inspecting and that the “snap back” of sanctions should Iran violate the terms of the agreement would be “cumbersome” because of the parameters laid out in the plan. This is an extraordinarily hard decision, and the president’s case would be more compelling if he stopped minimizing the agreement’s weaknesses and exaggerating its benefits. It will also provide the secure commitment that Iran will keep its nuclear weapons at bay, allowing for healthier and more deeply rooted diplomatic relations globally.
“History shows us that America must lead not just with our might, but with our principles. If the nuclear agreement goes forward-as I believe it should-UANI will continue to play a critical role monitoring implementation and helping to maintain non-nuclear sanctions until Iran changes its behavior in these other areas”.
Advertisement
Members of Congress were already condemning the Iran deal without ever having read the actual agreement because this is what AIPAC urged them to do. And then what? At the very least, the loss of Cardin’s vote would convey a powerful lack of confidence in the deal – even from the administration’s allies.
