Jerrold Nadler, New York Congressman, to Endorse Iran Nuclear Deal

[geek tragedy]

Source: New York Times

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York will endorse President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, becoming the lone Jewish member of Congress from the state to back the contested arms-control agreement.

A long-tenured liberal Democrat, Mr. Nadler intends to declare his position on Friday, according to sources familiar with his decision, who asked to speak anonymously because the congressman has not yet made a formal announcement.

Mr. Nadler, whose district stretches down Manhattan’s West Side and into Brooklyn, is closely identified with New York’s Jewish community: The 10th Congressional District is believed to have the largest Jewish population in the country, and Mr. Nadler has a history of energetic support for Israel.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/nyregion/jerrold-nadler-new-york-congressman-to-endorse-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

---

He was a similarly lonely voice of reason in the Iraq war vote.

He set forth his thinking earlier this month (note: government website for fair use purposes)


http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/op-ed-careful-analysis-not-political-pressures-should-sway-iran-vote

WASHINGTON (JTA) — This month, there is one question concerning the future safety and security of the United States and Israel: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed upon between the six world powers and Iran. We must decide what costs and risks are acceptable in order to avert the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb. This is a decision that weighs heavily on all members of Congress — particularly on Jewish members. To make this decision properly requires consideration of what has led us to this point, a sober understanding of the reality we face and a determination to find the most responsible course of action given the options available.

In 2002, Congress was faced with such a decision when we voted on the use of military force against Iraq. At the time, following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in my district, there was tremendous pressure to support the Bush administration’s crusade against Saddam Hussein. Never mind that some of us pointed to the Iranian regime as the bigger threat. When I voted against the resolution, I was the only Jewish member in the New York delegation to go against the president. And I took a lot of criticism as a result. But I made the decision based on careful thought and analysis, putting my emotions and politics to the side. I am proud of my vote, not only because history has shown that I was right, but because I was able to live up to my responsibilities in representing my country, my constituents and myself.

Congress now faces a decision with equally large consequences and even greater political pressures. The JCPOA agreement is meant to address the central concern of Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, not only because of the threat it would pose to the United States and our allies in the region, but also because, in the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an Iranian nuclear weapon would represent “an existential threat to the State of Israel.”

This is my mindset as I continue to examine the agreement and listen to arguments from all sides. As I said when the deal was first presented to Congress: It is crucial to understand its full ramifications, looking at the immediate and long-term security of the United States, of Israel and of our other allies, and the likely effectiveness and enforceability of the agreement in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

I do not yet know how I will vote. What I do know is that no member of Congress should take this decision lightly. We must do what we believe is best for the interests and security of the United States and Israel, which has been our strongest ally and closest friend.

Over the past few weeks, I have been careful to take the time to study and understand the details, terms and probable consequences of the deal — making sure that we are asking questions rather than accepting assumptions — reserving final judgment until there has been full diligence in applying a critical eye and a clear head. In the end, my evaluation cannot be based on the ideal. I must determine whether the agreement accomplishes the primary goal of preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, and then look at it in comparison with the other available alternatives.

If an alternative puts us in a weaker and less secure position, is that alternative still preferable to a deal with serious and troubling flaws that undermine its ability to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

I have deep reservations and concerns about some of the wider ramifications of this deal, and I continue to ask myself if the agreement can accomplish what we hope. After consulting with experts from all sides and speaking with officials at the highest levels, I believe there are four main problems that stand in the way of answering that question and, therefore, make this decision so difficult.

First, the agreement provides a 15-year time frame, during which we can expect that Iran will not be able to become a nuclear-weapon state without the United States and our partners knowing about it first, and having enough time to respond appropriately. After those 15 years, there are few limits on Iran’s ability to produce highly enriched uranium, or to build out its nuclear infrastructure so long as it is stated to be for peaceful purposes. How will Iran be prevented from using that ability, and that enriched uranium, to “break out” to a nuclear bomb in a time frame too short for us to react effectively? What clear penalties will be in place to deter such a break out?

Second, as a result of the agreement, Iran’s position as a supporter of terrorism and a destabilizing force in the region may well be enhanced. What can we do to stop Iran from being legitimized as an international actor guilty of such illicit conduct? How will the world confront Iran’s bad behavior in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Israel or anywhere else after the agreement is implemented?

Third, it seems that there are limited options for dealing with Iranian violations, particularly minor or mid-level offenses. We lack a clearly agreed-upon commitment of what will and will not be tolerated, and the actions that will be taken as a result. Can we establish definitively that Iran’s violations, big or small, will be unanimously condemned and swiftly punished, even if it puts the deal at risk? What is to be considered a major violation sufficient to bring about punitive action, and what violations will be considered too small to warrant a penalty?

Finally, whichever decision Congress makes, Israel’s security will be at risk. Approving the agreement may place Iran in a better position to support Hezbollah and Hamas in their terrorist campaigns, while disapproving the deal could swiftly put Iran back on course for a nuclear break out timeline even shorter than the current two to three months.

Parts of this agreement are good and parts are bad; that is the reality of the decision we face. Congress must weigh all the alternative scenarios to determine what is achievable, what is preferable and what action most likely will lead to the outcome we all want. My colleagues and I must ask the right questions, without any certainty that there are indisputable or unanimously agreed-upon right answers. We must put aside the demagoguery and political pressures to make a decision based on a clear and careful analysis.

The only certainty I have is that my decision will be influenced by the facts, by my elected duty and by my principles. It is my hope that this will be enough to guide me in making the right decision. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

###

[Fred Sanders]

1. Oath of Allegiance of religion and a foreign land over oath of allegiance to the Office of your own land.

How is that not even a topic that can be debated even as it is obvious?

"Only Jewish member of Congress.....", voting for the Iran peace deal to date - only one without a wonky moral compass being pulled away from true North by their religion.

Congressman Grayson and Senator Franken....how is your compass working?

A lot of folks at DU and the Democratic Party do not suffer from amnesia.

[geek tragedy]

2. Plenty of other Jews from across the country are voting for the deal.

Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Sander Levin, Adam Schiff.

NY is a ideosyncratic in a bad way in this regard.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Only one Jewish member with a Vote so far to declare support for the Iran peace deal is this fine fellow. I stand to be corrected.

My comments are directed as an opinion on the holdouts.

They tell me all the time how much they want public input before making major decisions, so...

As the sole Jewish member of Congress from New York to so far announce support, I think it is like 6 to 1, is that reflective of the will of the Jewish vote of New York who, if I recall correctly, voted overwhelmingly for Obama?

This "one lonely voice" has my full throated support, along with 212 nations of the world, the UN - and the nuclear physicists, of which I am not one.

[karynnj]

14. Only ****NY***** Jewish member, more than half of the Senate Jews are declared in support

including Franken (MN), Sanders(VT), Schatz (HI), Boxer(CA), and Feinstein(CA). Schumer is against it, while Blumenthal (CT), Cardin(MD) and Wyden(WA) have not announced their vote.

[geek tragedy]

15. Blumenthal and Cardin will support it, but Rand Wyden will probably vote against it nt

[BlueMTexpat]

16. I am not so sure about Cardin.

After I wrote to him urging support of the deal, he responded in template form - which I expected.

But the letter also baldly stated: "There is no trust when it comes to Iran."

This may be true but it is exactly why this deal needs to be approved. I find it the height of hypocrisy when an elected official of the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on another country, of the country that helped to overthrow the elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953, and of the country that also supported Saddam Hussein with weaponry, including chemical weapons for use against Iran from 1980-1988 states that there is no trust when it comes to Iran.

The better statement is whether there should be any trust when it comes to the US.

I am REALLY disappointed in Cardin and hope very much that my concern is misplaced.

[geek tragedy]

18. Cardin plays it very close to the vest, but he's not Crooked Bob, Schemer or Rand Wyden.

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/316489/ben-cardin-says-negotiators-got-an-awful-lot-in-iran-nuclear-talks/

“Our negotiators got an awful lot, particularly on the nuclear front,” Cardin said at a hearing the committee held as Congress begins a 60-day period, which ends Sept. 17, to approve of the deal, reject it or do nothing.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. True - he generally does the right thing

for the right reasons, rather than marching to AIPAC's every drumbeat.

But I am a bit irritated that he's leaving it so long and especially when he makes editorial statements that sound like they were generated by Dick Cheney and John Bolton.

I am very heartened about Harry Reid's decision to endorse the Deal though.

[villager]

5. While you love seeing Jews as monolithic, as per the (acceptable here) stereotype

...the article was pretty explicit on stating the only Jewish member of Congress from New York.

[Fred Sanders]

6. What took you so long? Nice Strawman you brought with you to show off to all of DU!

[villager]

7. Strawman was yours, my stereotyping friend.Extrapolating something in the article to mean "all Jews"

Or more specifically, "all Jews in Congress," painting them with the broad broad brush you wield ever-so-comfortably.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Obama and I are in good company with the "stereotyping" accusations being levelled by some...no problem, dude!

The "extrapolation" is entirely yours,....which is why you brought your Strawman friend along.

Bringing another similar friend is just rude!

Good day sir, I will keep counting the votes....

I know I will have a good day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027097305

[villager]

12. You're backpedaling so furiously you no longer even make sense.

You were the one talking about "all Jews in Congress."

In your threads, you repeatedly view Jews as a single monolith, "loyal to other countries," etc. You recycle the same stereotypes used against JFK.

Obama doesn't share your easy stereotyping, I'm afraid.

And finally, you seem to indicate that I am somehow against the Iran deal, which is part and parcel of how utterly blindered you really are.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. That is actually quite courageous of him.

[villager]

19. It *was* courageous of that Congressman

That's not the same thing as conflating the Likud party with "all Jews" however, or slinging around updated versions of JFK-era slurs...

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Was I doing that?

I don't believe that I ever have done that.

I despise Likud. But I hope that I am not perceived as tarring every Jew with the same brush. I am in fact a supporter of J Street (http://jstreet.org/policy/pages/iran-understanding-the-p51-agreement) and I love Tikkun (http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/), among many, many others.

Haaretz also has good op-eds along with articles that provide Israeli views that counter those of Bibi and AIPAC. http://www.haaretz.com/misc/tags/Iran%20nuclear-1.476777

I used to follow Bitter Lemons International regularly, but that site closed in 2012. http://www.bitterlemons-international.org/index1.php There is still some interesting information there, but it is not current.

[villager]

22. No, I may have misspoke, in that I was addressing other strains/themes in this thread

...while also agreeing with you that what Hon. Adler did, was in fact courageous.

I also despise Likud, and support J Street. I hadn't heard of Bitter Lemons before this. Thanks! (Too bad it's shuttered, though...!)

[BlueMTexpat]

23. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, I was sorry about BLI because the "dueling" POVs provided information that I didn't often see elsewhere.

[november3rd]

4. thanks, jerry!

standing up for what's right like that really takes balls.

[Judi Lynn]

9. Tremendous Congressman with a real conscience. He is needed. n/t

[geek tragedy]

10. he's awesome, hopefully this will free up Jeffries and Clarke to do the right thing. nt

[iandhr]

11. I live in the district.

I have long been a fan of his but I was sure he would cave on this. I am pleasantly surprised.

[geek tragedy]

13. I was hoping he would come through, the pressure on him must have

been extraordinary.