Menendez to Obama: You must be kidding on Iran

[Jefferson23]

**Pathetic.


Thursday afternoon, following a slew of news reports about substantial concessions by the U.S. negotiators in the Iran nuclear talks, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) released a statement, which read:


If today’s news report from Lausanne is true, we are not inching closer to Iran’s negotiating position, but leaping toward it with both feet. We have pivoted away from demanding the closure of Fordow when the negotiations began, to considering its conversion into a research facility, to now allowing hundreds of centrifuges to spin at this underground bunker site where centrifuges could be quickly repurposed for illicit nuclear enrichment purposes. My fear is that we are no longer guided by the principle that “no deal is better than a bad deal,” but instead we are negotiating “any deal for a deal’s sake.”

An undue amount of trust and faith is being placed in a negotiating partner that has spent decades deceiving the international community; denying the International Atomic Energy Agency access to its facilities; refusing to answer questions about its nuclear-related military activities; and all the while, actively destabilizing the region from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen. A good deal must meet our primary negotiating objective – curtailing Iran’s current and future ability to achieve nuclear weapons capability. If the best deal Iran will give us does not achieve this goal, it is not a good deal for the United States or its partners. A good deal won’t leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state.

It is extraordinary on many levels — that so many giveaways would be tossed at the Iranians’ feet, that it should be publicly revealed (many speculate, by the French, who object to the collapse), that a Democratic senator would tell the president his deal is going nowhere and that things have gotten this far out of whack without a vote from the Senate. In reality, no Republican and a great many Democrats will refuse to assent to a deal that, for example, leaves 6,000 centrifuges in Iran’s hands, allows Fordow to continue operations, does not provide for snap inspections, does not require revelation of past activities, does not continue in a meaningful way beyond 10 years and does nothing to address the catastrophe throughout the region, caused in large part by Iran’s hegemonic ambitions. Oh, and there may be no written document. As former ambassador Eric Edelman, tells me, “I think it is axiomatic that any deal that cannot be put down on paper is not a deal at all.” Considering all we are giving up, that may be the good news.

Indeed, with Iranian surrogates and allies destabilizing the entire Middle East, why are we lifting any sanctions or talking about a deal at all? Unless the deal is far different than has been reported, look for an overwhelming vote in April to inject the Senate into the process or to increase sanctions.

in full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/03/27/menendez-to-obama-you-must-be-kidding-on-iran/



Heart of Empire, Six Questions — May 6, 2014
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare
Gareth Porter on the true history of Iran’s nuclear program
By Andrew Cockburn
http://harpers.org/blog/2014/05/manufactured-crisis-the-untold-story-of-the-iran-nuclear-scare/

Leaked cables show Netanyahu’s Iran bomb claim contradicted by Mossad
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

[tularetom]

1. Doesn't he have something else to worry about?

Like the corruption charges staring him in the face.

He needs to STFU.

[Jefferson23]

2. His future does not look promising in politics so maybe that is one reason he

feels comfortable to continue to spew this crap.

[markpkessinger]

19. Sen. Bob Menendez Was Just Charged With Bribery. Read the Indictment

From Mother Jones:

[font size=5]Sen. Bob Menendez Was Just Charged With Bribery. Read the Indictment[/font]
—By Tim Murphy | Wed Apr. 1, 2015 5:29 PM EDT

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors indicted Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on charges of bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery, honest services fraud, and making false statements. Salomon Melgen, a top Menendez benefactor and Florida opthalmologist, was named as a co-conspirator in the 22-count indictment. The feds allege that Melgen provided Menendez with private airfare and free accommodations at the donor's luxury resort in the Dominican Republic. In exchange, Menendez helped "influence the immigration visa proceedings of Melgen's foreign girlfriends" and pressured the State Department, Customs and Border Patrol, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to protect the doctor's business interests.

Menendez will hold a press conference in Newark on Wednesday night to address the allegations.

You can read the full indictment here:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1699736-menendez-indictment.html#document/p4/a210915

[elleng]

3. Is he part of the negotiations?

If NOT, how can he be so critical?

[Jefferson23]

4. He wants to be part of the problem and he is not alone...no he is not part of the negotiations.

Iran will most likely not agree if the sanctions lift is not part of an all inclusive agreement, they
do not trust what the Republicans can undue to them and they have good reason not to trust
them..the Iran letter. This makes it harder for Obama, all their nonsense has made it harder for
Obama.

Senators Approve Iran Sanctions Amendment In Unanimous Vote

The Senate unanimously approved a non-binding amendment to the budget on Thursday that would reimpose sanctions on Iran if the country violated the interim agreement that has paused its nuclear activities and any final deal it reaches with the United States and its negotiating partners.

The amendment was co-sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and is similar to legislation introduced by Kirk and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to impose harsh sanctions against Iran if it does not sign-on to a negotiated agreement or fails to comply with the terms of any possible deal.

The Obama administration has vowed to veto the bill, but Republicans touted the unanimous passage of the Kirk-Brown amendment as an indication that all senators wish to weigh in on the president’s Iran policy and are likely to approve the more stringent Kirk-Menendez bill with a veto-proof majority. A separate measure, sponsored by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), requiring the administration to submit a final deal for Congressional approval, has also received a veto threat from the White House.

“The bipartisan Kirk-Brown amendment on Iran is now even more consistent with the Kirk-Menendez Iran bill to immediately impose sanctions if Iran cheats. When you vote for the Kirk-Brown amendment, you support Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions,” Kirk told Politico.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/03/27/3639795/senators-approve-iran-sanctions-amendment-unanimous-vote/

[Jefferson23]

5. The influence is persistent, here: Ambassador Tries to Bridge Gap With U.S., but on Israel’s Terms

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/us/israel-ron-dermer-ambassador-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=1

[elleng]

6. Thanks for all the info, Jefferson23.

'Every American president since Harry S. Truman has had differences with Israel, Mr. Dermer told the group, and they always work themselves out.

Representative Steve Israel, Democrat of New York, who initiated and organized the dinner, said, “What people need to do right now is read a little bit of history, take a deep breath and relax, because every administration has had moments of tension with Israel, and it’s always forgotten.”'

Not at all sure I agree with applying the premise to these circumstances, and I don't care for Rep. Israel.

[Jefferson23]

7. He is telling us he supports continued poor irrational foreign policy approaches which

have done nothing to further our interests. He is hoping it all blows over and
our senate is helping to meet that end...so far.

It is disheartening to me to watch Obama have to fight back against Democrats,
there is no boogeyman to fear.

[cpwm17]

8. "Thursday afternoon, following a slew of news reports about substantial concessions

by the U.S. negotiators in the Iran nuclear talks"

So how many of our nuclear weapons are we giving up or bases near Iran are we eliminating with our "concessions."

[Jefferson23]

10. Zero. n/t

[quadrature]

9. what is the O/U on allowed underground-centrifuges?

my guess is 1000.

[Jefferson23]

11. The break out theory, is that what you're referring to? n/t

[quadrature]

12. I suppose so, yes.

nothing stops Iran from enriching
to 20%U235

[Jefferson23]

13. Two Minutes to Midnight?

snip* The idea that Iran's regime might exist for any purpose other than to destroy Israel is largely ignored as well. Bizarrely enough, Iranians don’t actually feature much in the American “debate” at all (beyond citations of Mad-Mullah-like pronouncements by some Iranian leaders who wish Israel would disappear). The long, nuanced relationship between Israel and the Islamic Republic, as explained by Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, is simply ignored. So, too, is every indication Iran's leaders have given that they have no intention of attacking Israel or any other country. In fact, in the Goldberg debate, domestic politics in both the U.S. and Israel is understood as an important factor in future decisions; Iran, with the Green Movement presently suppressed, is considered to have no domestic politics at all, just those Mad Mullahs.

2. Even if Iran were to acquire the means to build a nuclear weapon, would that be a legitimate or prudent reason for launching a war?

If Iran is actually pursuing the capability to build nuclear weapons, its leaders would be doing so in response to a strategic environment in which two of its key adversaries, the U.S. and Israel, and two of its sometime friends/sometime adversaries, Russia and Pakistan, have substantial nuclear arsenals. By all sober accounts, Iran's security posture is primarily focused on the survival of its regime. Some Israeli military and intelligence officials have been quoted in Israel's media as saying that Iran's motivation in seeking a nuclear weapon would be primarily to head off a threat of U.S. intervention aimed at regime change.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175289/

How US Policy on Iran Came to Be Based on Fabricated Documents

The key “evidence” of an Iranian nuclear weapons program comes via the MEK, a cult-like terrorist group—and was likely produced by Israel.
Gareth Porter
June 9, 2014

http://www.thenation.com/article/180163/how-us-policy-iran-came-be-based-fabricated-documents#

[LeftishBrit]

14. Why is Menendez trying to interfere with the deal at this stage?

Seems to me any progress is better than none. If the deal breaks down, it does; but it seems that some people don't WANT a deal. I can understand why Republicans don't want it - they're Republicans. I can understand why Netanyahu doesn't want it - he's Netanyahu. I can understand why Iranian hardliners don't want it - they're Iranian hardliners. But why in the hell is the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee trying to scuttle it?

Incidentally, the opponents of any deal keep trying to represent it as purely linked to President Obama and the Iranian leaders, but actually it isn't: there are several governments involved in the negotiations, including the UK.

[geek tragedy]

15. Menendez is a neocon war pig. nt

[Jefferson23]

16. That's it, in a nutshell..yes. n/t

[MBS]

17. " " "

and also a hack.

[Jefferson23]

18. The reason Obama wants a deal is to avoid a conflict and he knows from trying sanctions

alone it did not produce the desired response. Iran adjusted to the sanctions
despite their heavy toll because they can and they also know from history not
to trust the US, blindly. So what they essentially want is to keep a level for deterrence
purposes which is their protection from coups etc, from their perspective.

The hardliners you speak of don't want a nuclear weapon they just don't want
the new guy, Rouhani, to get all the credit for a deal, they prefer he look bad to Iranians
who support him, overall ...the hardliners consider him a threat to the status quo in Iran.
They also want to see the sanctions lifted, and if you listen to them, they're not the
ones who sound unreasonable. Which brings you to the break out theory, one which
has been utilized to continue to portray Iran as the boogeyman, but it is severely
flawed and unsubstantiated. I left links in the OP, I believe the investigative journalists
cover the level of the alleged threat from Iran.

Anyway, so the sanctions did not work, Obama changes course, to his credit..now we have
a president who is making non-neocon foreign policy moves...and they all freak out,
including some Democrats.

Menendez is a corrupt politician, he has other legal issues that go back years, although
he tried to imply that Eric Holder is after him due to his views on Iran, that is not credible
to me.. issues go back too long ago. Then there is AIPAC and Menendez, he receives a substantial
amount of money from the group, but he is not alone.

Obama is fighting the Republicans and AIPAC..and you can't separate that group from all
Democrats. What happened was an admission from Dermer that he was ( NYT article )
set to create a rift between the parties on Israel over Iran. AIPAC has a great deal of power
when it comes to Israel regarding the occupation. They don't have a lot of say, if at all,
in the ME region. But this time their push was over the line, for many reasons. The issue
was Iran and Bibi would not pull back, so they went ahead confronting Obama.

If the deal falls apart it will be the responsibility of the Republicans, AIPAC and Bibi.
not Obama, not Iran. Hopefully no Democrats in any great number go against him.

Obama is working to press Democrats to support him, some won't do that,
either because of AIPAC influence and or their own hawk foreign policy ideology.
I would think they also resent that he'll be gone in 2 years, and they'll still have to deal
with AIPAC when he is done.

I think it's important to note that we can't control what the EU does with sanctions anyway,
they have no obligation to stand with us and they want to resume relations with Iran.

AIPAC is not monolithic, there are limits, but if anyone tells you these guys vote based
on the merits of the issue, they are either lying to you or are very poorly informed about
the lobby system in the US.

Menendez actually said to the press at one point: Obama Statements on Iran "Sound Like Talking Points Straight Out Of Tehran".

It's up to you of course to decide how sincere Menedez is.

[quadrature]

20. the longer that Iran holds out, the better deal that Iran gets ...

Iranians are not going to
allow centrifuges to be put in the crusher.
they will not give up any Uranium.
etc