Obama needs only 3 of 11 Dem Senate Fence Sitters to stop GOP Bill to kill Iran Deal

[SassyIrishLass]

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Here are Reasons Two and Three.

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran

.


2. Bombing Iran Makes an Iranian Bomb More Likely

Much like a U.S. strike, only with much less tactical impact, an Israeli air strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would only increase the likelihood that Iran would build the bomb. At home, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could use the attack to justify rescinding his fatwa against possessing a nuclear-weapons program, while using the greater domestic support for the regime and the nuclear program to mobilize greater resources for the country’s nuclear efforts.

Israel’s attack would also give the Iranian regime a legitimate (in much of the world’s eyes) reason to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and kick out international inspectors. If Tehran’s membership didn’t even prevent it from being attacked, how could it justify staying in the regime? Finally, support for international sanctions will crumble in the aftermath of an Israeli attack, giving Iran more resources with which to rebuild its nuclear facilities.

3. Helps Iran, Hurts Israel

Relatedly, an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would be a net gain for Iran and a huge loss for Tel Aviv. Iran could use the strike to regain its popularity with the Arab street and increase the pressure against Arab rulers. As noted above, it would also lead to international sanctions collapsing, and an outpouring of sympathy for Iran in many countries around the world.

Meanwhile, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would leave Israel in a far worse-off position. Were Iran to respond by attacking U.S. regional assets, this could greatly hurt Israel’s ties with the United States at both the elite and mass levels. Indeed, a war-weary American public is adamantly opposed to its own leaders dragging it into another conflict in the Middle East. Americans would be even more hostile to an ally taking actions that they fully understood would put the U.S. in danger.

Furthermore, the quiet but growing cooperation Israel is enjoying with Sunni Arab nations against Iran would evaporate overnight. Even though many of the political elites in these countries would secretly support Israel’s action, their explosive domestic situations would force them to distance themselves from Tel Aviv for an extended period of time. Israel’s reputation would also take a further blow in Europe and Asia, neither of which would soon forgive Tel Aviv.

5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

The other two to come.

[/QUOTE]

Save it, Foo, I don't read left wing blog BS. Look what it's done to you, you're nuts

 

[deltex1]

You need to read my shiney object thread, foo

 

[jwoodie]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

Why do you love licking assholes so much?

[IGNORE]

 

[deltex1]

Khamenei s shiny object... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[jwoodie]

Do that and it would definetly guarantee 1000% that Obama's eventual veto in the Senate would not be overturned. Right now there is little chance that if forced to do so Obama's veto of a legit passed bill could be over-ridden.

Do you realize that you are contradicting yourself? What is the difference between little and no chance that a veto would be over-ridden? This BS logic fits right into the Dems playbook.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Here is Reason Four.

.
4. Israel’s Veto Players

Although Netanyahu may be ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, he operates within a democracy with a strong elite structure, particularly in the field of national security. It seems unlikely that he would have enough elite support for him to seriously consider such a daring and risky operation.

For one thing, Israel has strong institutional checks on using military force. As then vice prime minister and current defense minister Moshe Yaalon explained last year: “In the State of Israel, any process of a military operation, and any military move, undergoes the approval of the security cabinet and in certain cases, the full cabinet… the decision is not made by two people, nor three, nor eight.” It’s far from clear Netanyahu, a fairly divisive figure in Israeli politics, could gain this support. In fact, Menachem Begin struggled to gain sufficient support for the 1981 attack on Iraq even though Baghdad presented a more clear and present danger to Israel than Iran does today.

What is clearer is that Netanyahu lacks the support of much of Israel’s highly respected national security establishment. Many former top intelligence and military officials have spoken out publicly against Netanyahu’s hardline Iran policy, with at least one of them questioning whether Iran is actually seeking a nuclear weapon. Another former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces told The Independent that, “It is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] leadership do not support military action at this point…. In the past the advice of the head of the IDF and the head of Mossad had led to military action being stopped.”

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran


5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

The last one to come.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

.

Save it, Foo, I don't read left wing blog BS. Look what it's done to you, you're nuts

It's from a magazine founded by your Iraq Invasion Boy Billy Kristol's father Irving.

.
About The National Interest
Over almost three decades, The National Interest, founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol and Owen Harries, has displayed a remarkable consistency in its approach to foreign policy. It is not, as the inaugural statement declared, about world affairs. It is about American interests. It is guided by the belief that nothing will enhance those interests as effectively as the approach to foreign affairs commonly known as realism—a school of thought traditionally associated with such thinkers and statesmen as Disraeli, Bismarck, and Henry Kissinger. Though the shape of international politics has changed considerably in the past few decades, the magazine’s fundamental tenets have not. Instead, they have proven enduring and, indeed, appear to be enjoying something of a popular renaissance.

About The National Interest The National Interest


I see why you would not be interested:

"It is guided by the belief that nothing will enhance those interests as effectively as the approach to foreign affairs commonly known as realism"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "deal guarantees that Israel makes a strike on Iran and the Middle East blows up"

SIL 12057853

. All Obungles has done is guaranteed Israel making a strike and in turn the Middle East blows up. The man is a fool

Here is Reason Five

.

5. A Deal is Better Than No Deal

Finally, Israel won’t attack Iran because it is ultimately in its interests for the US and Iran to reach an agreement, even if it is a less than an ideal one. To begin with, an agreement is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons short of an invasion and occupation of the country. Moreover, Israel would benefit both directly and indirectly from a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal and especially larger rapprochement. Israel would gain a number of direct benefits from a larger warming of U.S.-Iranian relations, which a nuclear deal could help facilitate. Iran currently pays no costs while benefiting significantly from its anti-Israeli tirades and actions. A rapprochement with the U.S. would force Iranian leaders to constrain their anti-Israeli rhetoric and actions, or risk losing their new partner. While Israel and Iran might not enjoy the same relationship they did under the Shah or the first decade of the Islamic Republic, a U.S.-allied Iran would be much less of a burden for Israel. History is quite clear on this point: U.S. Middle Eastern allies—notable Egypt under Sadat—have been much less hostile to the Jewish state than countries that have been U.S. adversaries.

Tel Aviv would also benefit indirectly from a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal and possible rapprochement. That’s because either of these agreements would spark panic in Sunni Arab capitals. For the foreseeable future, then, Israel would enjoy some breathing room, which would obtain as these governments would be preoccupied with Iran for the foreseeable future. Indeed, just the possibility of an interim nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran has created rumors of Saudi Arabia seeking tighter cooperation with Israel.

For these reasons, the interim nuclear deal has made it less likely that Israel will attack Iran. That being said, the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran was already remote long before Iran and the P5+1 held their talks in Geneva last month.

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
5 Reasons Israel Won't Attack Iran


5 Reasons Israel Won t Attack Iran

Can you point to any facts in these five reasons and dispute them?

Do you have anything you have read that backs up your fantasy that an Israeli attack on Iran is now guaranteed?

 

[easyt65]

WHY would Liberals want to STOP the killing of the Iran deal?
- much like Obamacare and his Trade bill, the Iran deal was chok-full of hidden secret 'gems', ones that benefitted Iran to no end. Obama then completely dirsregarded our system of Government and violated the Constitution by taking the deal to the U.N. - by-passing Congress to do so - to present the deal as if the United States had already officially signed off on it, which it has NOT. Obama completely disrespected and disgarded Congress - the Liberals Representatives in Congress as well. Basically Obama, in doing this, made a gesture to show that Congress as a whole is not necessary (for him, at least). By siding with him they are sorta agreeing with him that they are useless and not necessary. If that is true, if that is the case they are greeing to, then we really don't need them and can disband Congress / fire them.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hard to think there might be three (3) Democrats with even the slightest ability to put country ahead of party.

 

[Redfish]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

the obama/kerry deal does. read it, fool. Iran will have nuclear bombs to use or sell to terrorists.

 

[easyt65]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

This deal DOES, however, guarantee a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia all but said this was going to happen, declaring that it is in their interest now to look into acquiring their own nuclear energy. Other Middle Eastern countries have already said they would follow suit.

If you think Israel is going to allow Iran to run 37,000 centrifuges almost completely un-monitored (30/60-day notice prior to an investigation), furthering their nuclear energy capability while professing their intent on destroying Israel, and NOT strike Iran, starting a huge war in the Gulf / Region you are just ignorant.

If you think much of the billions of dollars Iran is suddenly getting by the elimination of the sanctions is not going to go to many of their proxy terrorist organizations to conduct terrorist operations and to attack Israel then you are ignorant as well.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The White House right now has 31 backers and likely backers of the Iran Deal and needs 34 to stop the GOP and Schumer's hopes of passing a disapproval of the deal which would then be vetoed by the President. Obama will not need a veto if he can get three of the eleven undecided Dems to back the deal.


What does anyone think the odds are that Obama can get three of these a Senators to stand by their President and give peace a chance?

.
ON THE FENCE, BUT BEING LOBBIED HEAVILY (11)

Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) @SenBlumenthal
Blumenthal was an original co-sponsor of the two consecutive efforts to pass additional sanctions in the midst of negotiations. However, his July 14 reaction to the deal was neutral: "I welcome the announcement of an agreement with Iran after a long and difficult diplomatic road,” he said. "While our common hope may be that diplomacy has succeeded in barring an Iranian path to nuclear weapons capability, Congress must apply exacting standards and strict scrutiny, especially given Iran’s history of deceit and international law violations."

Cory Booker (N.J.) @corybooker
Booker has yet to issue a statement and is currently juggling his loyalty to Obama and his ideological support of peace and diplomacy with pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, who gave Booker significant backing during the last election cycle. Earlier this year, Booker heeded the president’s call to resist voting for new sanctions.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is close to Booker, admonished the senator on Twitter last week, suggesting it was hypocritical to quote Tupac saying "They have money for war but can't feed the poor" while also casting a vote that could lead to war


Maria Cantwell (Wash.) @SenatorCantwell
“It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things,” Cantwell toldPolitico shortly before the August recess. “And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time.” Cantwell has given no other public indication of how she’ll vote.

Chris Coons (Del.) @ChrisCoons
Coons is a close ally of the Obama administration. When lawmakers were considering legislation to give Congress a vote on the eventual Iran deal, Coons, along with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), played an instrumental role in modifying the bill into something that was amenable to the White House. However, he has also supported controversial sanctions legislation in the past.

Before leaving for recess, Coons said he had some concerns about the IAEA’s ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into whether Iran sought nuclear weapons in the past.

Joe Donnelly (Ind.) @SenDonnelly
Donnelly has been one of the most tight-lipped senators about the issue, but supported the efforts to sanction Iran in the midst of talks.

Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) @SenatorHeitkamp
Heitkamp was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill that provided Congress with the opportunity to vote on the Iran deal -- which, in its original version, faced a veto threat from Obama. Although Heitkamp stayed quiet after the initial announcement of the deal, she has since posted the entire text of the agreement on Medium and encouraged her constituents to read up.

She recently advocated lifting the export ban on U.S. oil, arguing that if Iran’s oil industry received sanctions relief, U.S. oil exports should be allowed to flow freely -- an indication she thinks the nuclear deal is likely to go into effect.

Heitkamp is likely to find herself under pressure from her sizable progressive women's donor network. Her supporters was disappointed by her vote against background check legislation, but cheered when she opposed Larry Summers' bid for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of those donors are pushing for approval of the Iran deal.

Gary Peters (Mich.) @Peters4Michigan
Peters has not yet issued a statement on the Iran deal, but was a co-sponsor on the most recent sanctions legislation. As the lone freshman Democrat, Peters is unlikely to make waves by breaking with a president of his party on the cornerstone of the administration's foreign policy agenda.

Harry Reid (Nev.) @SenatorReid
Although the retiring Senate Minority Leader has not come out publicly in favor of the nuclear accord yet, he has tended to heed the Obama administration’s requests to give diplomacy a chance. As majority leader in the last Congress, Reid blocked attempts to vote on new sanctions. More recently, he opposed the timing of the vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal, again citing concerns that it would hinder negotiations.

Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) @SenStabenow
Stabenow has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal. She has not issued a statement and her public comments have been cryptic while also suggesting she is open to the accord. “We have to look at what the alternatives are and really be very thoughtful because it is incredibly serious for the United States and for Israel and for the world. ... It’s a very difficult issue,” she told The Detroit News last month.

Stabenow is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and close with Schumer, who has publicly opposed the deal. She recently defended Schumer against the administration's criticism of his decision, saying, “I think it’s very unfortunate to see the comments coming from people connected with the White House."

Mark Warner (Va.) @MarkWarner
Warner has not yet indicated which way he’ll vote, but recently pushed back on critics who accused the Obama administration of rushing into a bad deal to cement the president’s legacy. “I find it remarkable that some members seem to impugn that you are not there trying to do the best deal possible for the United States of America and for long-term prospects of stability in the region,” he said to Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing.

“I’ve got more due diligence to do,” he said at the time about his position on the deal.

Ron Wyden (Ore.) @RonWyden
“I said all along 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," Wyden said on July 14. "However, I will use my seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee to thoroughly review the details."

Wyden, who is Jewish, is up for re-election in 2016 and has been a top recipient of funding from pro-Israel groups, the most powerful of which oppose the Iran deal. However, Wyden abided by the Obama administration’s requests to hold

Here Are The Wobbly Democrats Who Could Make Or Break The Iran Deal


I say Obama gets at least seven of them and we all get to see another GOP fail. No need to go down the veto path at all.

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

This deal DOES, however, guarantee a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia all but said this was going to happen, declaring that it is in their interest now to look into acquiring their own nuclear energy. Other Middle Eastern countries have already said they would follow suit.

If you think Israel is going to allow Iran to run 37,000 centrifuges almost completely un-monitored (30/60-day notice prior to an investigation), furthering their nuclear energy capability while professing their intent on destroying Israel, and NOT strike Iran, starting a huge war in the Gulf / Region you are just ignorant.

If you think much of the billions of dollars Iran is suddenly getting by the elimination of the sanctions is not going to go to many of their proxy terrorist organizations to conduct terrorist operations and to attack Israel then you are ignorant as well.

Israel got their nukes by ignoring the non-proliferation treaty without consequences. Why should the rest of the Middle East be held to a different standard?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

the obama/kerry deal does. read it, fool. Iran will have nuclear bombs to use or sell to terrorists.

You read it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

I should clarify. Not getting a deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

 

[easyt65]

The White House right now has 31 backers and likely backers of the Iran Deal and needs 34 to stop the GOP and Schumer's hopes of passing a disapproval of the deal which would then be vetoed by the President. Obama will not need a veto if he can get three of the eleven undecided Dems to back the deal.


What does anyone think the odds are that Obama can get three of these a Senators to stand by their President and give peace a chance?

.
ON THE FENCE, BUT BEING LOBBIED HEAVILY (11)

Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) @SenBlumenthal
Blumenthal was an original co-sponsor of the two consecutive efforts to pass additional sanctions in the midst of negotiations. However, his July 14 reaction to the deal was neutral: "I welcome the announcement of an agreement with Iran after a long and difficult diplomatic road,” he said. "While our common hope may be that diplomacy has succeeded in barring an Iranian path to nuclear weapons capability, Congress must apply exacting standards and strict scrutiny, especially given Iran’s history of deceit and international law violations."

Cory Booker (N.J.) @corybooker
Booker has yet to issue a statement and is currently juggling his loyalty to Obama and his ideological support of peace and diplomacy with pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, who gave Booker significant backing during the last election cycle. Earlier this year, Booker heeded the president’s call to resist voting for new sanctions.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who is close to Booker, admonished the senator on Twitter last week, suggesting it was hypocritical to quote Tupac saying "They have money for war but can't feed the poor" while also casting a vote that could lead to war


Maria Cantwell (Wash.) @SenatorCantwell
“It’s a really busy time around here and people are trying to do other things,” Cantwell toldPolitico shortly before the August recess. “And so if you don’t have to decide in the next two days, then people will take their time.” Cantwell has given no other public indication of how she’ll vote.

Chris Coons (Del.) @ChrisCoons
Coons is a close ally of the Obama administration. When lawmakers were considering legislation to give Congress a vote on the eventual Iran deal, Coons, along with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), played an instrumental role in modifying the bill into something that was amenable to the White House. However, he has also supported controversial sanctions legislation in the past.

Before leaving for recess, Coons said he had some concerns about the IAEA’s ability to conduct a meaningful investigation into whether Iran sought nuclear weapons in the past.

Joe Donnelly (Ind.) @SenDonnelly
Donnelly has been one of the most tight-lipped senators about the issue, but supported the efforts to sanction Iran in the midst of talks.

Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) @SenatorHeitkamp
Heitkamp was one of the original co-sponsors of the bill that provided Congress with the opportunity to vote on the Iran deal -- which, in its original version, faced a veto threat from Obama. Although Heitkamp stayed quiet after the initial announcement of the deal, she has since posted the entire text of the agreement on Medium and encouraged her constituents to read up.

She recently advocated lifting the export ban on U.S. oil, arguing that if Iran’s oil industry received sanctions relief, U.S. oil exports should be allowed to flow freely -- an indication she thinks the nuclear deal is likely to go into effect.

Heitkamp is likely to find herself under pressure from her sizable progressive women's donor network. Her supporters was disappointed by her vote against background check legislation, but cheered when she opposed Larry Summers' bid for chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of those donors are pushing for approval of the Iran deal.

Gary Peters (Mich.) @Peters4Michigan
Peters has not yet issued a statement on the Iran deal, but was a co-sponsor on the most recent sanctions legislation. As the lone freshman Democrat, Peters is unlikely to make waves by breaking with a president of his party on the cornerstone of the administration's foreign policy agenda.

Harry Reid (Nev.) @SenatorReid
Although the retiring Senate Minority Leader has not come out publicly in favor of the nuclear accord yet, he has tended to heed the Obama administration’s requests to give diplomacy a chance. As majority leader in the last Congress, Reid blocked attempts to vote on new sanctions. More recently, he opposed the timing of the vote on the bill that gave Congress a vote on the deal, again citing concerns that it would hinder negotiations.

Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) @SenStabenow
Stabenow has been noticeably quiet on the Iran deal. She has not issued a statement and her public comments have been cryptic while also suggesting she is open to the accord. “We have to look at what the alternatives are and really be very thoughtful because it is incredibly serious for the United States and for Israel and for the world. ... It’s a very difficult issue,” she told The Detroit News last month.

Stabenow is the vice chairwoman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee and close with Schumer, who has publicly opposed the deal. She recently defended Schumer against the administration's criticism of his decision, saying, “I think it’s very unfortunate to see the comments coming from people connected with the White House."

Mark Warner (Va.) @MarkWarner
Warner has not yet indicated which way he’ll vote, but recently pushed back on critics who accused the Obama administration of rushing into a bad deal to cement the president’s legacy. “I find it remarkable that some members seem to impugn that you are not there trying to do the best deal possible for the United States of America and for long-term prospects of stability in the region,” he said to Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing.

“I’ve got more due diligence to do,” he said at the time about his position on the deal.

Ron Wyden (Ore.) @RonWyden
“I said all along 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," Wyden said on July 14. "However, I will use my seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee to thoroughly review the details."

Wyden, who is Jewish, is up for re-election in 2016 and has been a top recipient of funding from pro-Israel groups, the most powerful of which oppose the Iran deal. However, Wyden abided by the Obama administration’s requests to hold

Here Are The Wobbly Democrats Who Could Make Or Break The Iran Deal


I say Obama gets at least seven of them and we all get to see another GOP fail. No need to go down the veto path at all.

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

This deal DOES, however, guarantee a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia all but said this was going to happen, declaring that it is in their interest now to look into acquiring their own nuclear energy. Other Middle Eastern countries have already said they would follow suit.

If you think Israel is going to allow Iran to run 37,000 centrifuges almost completely un-monitored (30/60-day notice prior to an investigation), furthering their nuclear energy capability while professing their intent on destroying Israel, and NOT strike Iran, starting a huge war in the Gulf / Region you are just ignorant.

If you think much of the billions of dollars Iran is suddenly getting by the elimination of the sanctions is not going to go to many of their proxy terrorist organizations to conduct terrorist operations and to attack Israel then you are ignorant as well.

Israel got their nukes by ignoring the non-proliferation treaty without consequences. Why should the rest of the Middle East be held to a different standard?

Israel is not the world's leading exporter of terrorism and has not declared the genocide of anyone to be one of their goals.

 

[deltex1]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

I should clarify. Not getting a deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

Then say goodbye to your Iranian buddies...and their families....and don't forget the goat.

 

[Redfish]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

the obama/kerry deal does. read it, fool. Iran will have nuclear bombs to use or sell to terrorists.

You read it.

I have read it, you flaming dipshit. It guarantees that Iran will have nuclear bombs in a very few years.

 

[Redfish]

Why are you so eager to see Iran obtain nukes?

No deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

I should clarify. Not getting a deal guarantees Iran gets nukes.

bullshit. keeping sanctions on them would stop their nuclear ambitions because they would not be able to afford them.

Obozo and his head clown Kerry got NOTHING, and gave EVERYTHING. Thats not a deal, thats a surrender.