Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frances Farmer on January 10, 2014 at 3:23pm

The White House statement, issued late Thursday, was the first time the administration had accused sanctions advocates of a concealed agenda.

It escalated the administration’s criticism of powerful Democratic legislators whom the White House needs on many issues, including Sen. Chuck E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), No. 3 in Senate Democratic leadership, and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

President Obama has identified the Iran nuclear deal as a top foreign policy priority, and he and other top administration officials have conducted an unusual all-out lobbying campaign to stop the bill.

The bill would seek to cut Iran’s all-important oil exports to near zero if the Islamic Republic fails to cooperate in negotiations that are expected to last six months to a year. The measure was introduced last month with 26 supporters, but now has 59, according to the official count. Advocates claim more will soon sign up.

Iran sanctions bills have had an almost unstoppable force in Congress. But the White House knows that Americans’ desire to avoid another Mideast war is also powerful.

One Senate aide said the White House’s statement “is an attempt play the antiwar card: They want to remind the senators that they could be blamed if diplomacy collapses and we’re looking at a bombing campaign.”

Several important lobby groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are working hard to build support for the measure. Several liberal pro-Israel groups, including J Street and Americans for Peace Now, are urging lawmakers to vote against it.

Advocates for the bill contend it will increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation by building further economic pressure on Iran. The critics maintain it would torpedo a deal by setting conditions that Iran would never accept.

One section, for example, says Obama can temporarily hold off sanctions only if he certifies that Iran “will dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure.”

“While Iran may agree in the end to dismantle some of its nuclear infrastructure, there is no realistic chance that it will dismantle all of its uranium enrichment capability,” Edward Levine, a longtime Senate Intelligence Committee aide, wrote in an analysis for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, an advocacy group.

A final showdown on the bill could come by the end of the month, some lobbyists believe.

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-white-house-iran-nuc...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Not mainstreamer on January 10, 2014 at 4:10pm

If anyone needs more proof that a considerable portion of our govt is run by outside forces- God help them.

Source communicates the myth about [Wall St / AIPAC / JP Morgan] as Jewish supporters of Israel

J.P.Morgan Religion Episcopal

The Morgan name is traced to Carmarthen, Wales, and the first known Morgan family ancestral is Hyfaidd ap Bleddri, third son of Bledri of Wales.

Meaning Anglo-Saxon Khazarians, not Semitic

(WWIII is not about Israel, it is a Khazarian/Zion agenda (check "The Anglo Saxon Mission"). It is US weaponry and Americans that are going to destroy/be destroyed. Israel will predictable be extinguished before everything is over (if they are going to follow the scriptures that is what script says). AIPAC is Israelis worst friend. Same as last war)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Katko on January 10, 2014 at 5:02pm

Actually, the Talmudic orthodoxy in the Likud party are "Israeli's worst friend", although AIPAC is way up there.

They are the ones that put Netanyahu in to power.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Not mainstreamer on January 10, 2014 at 6:30pm

“6,000,000 Jews exterminated" was concepted decades before WWII

The Zionists planned it :(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Katko on January 10, 2014 at 6:47pm

Yes, they tried it in Russia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Not mainstreamer on January 10, 2014 at 6:54pm

Antisemitism was forbidden in Soviet - big surprise

• ▶ Reply