Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Game Over? With Sen Casey, Pro-Deal Forces Win Over Key Iran Deal Vote

With Sen. Bob Casey, a close ally of AIPAC, coming out in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement, it is now a virtual certainty that President Obama will have enough votes to sustain a veto against any resolution to reject the deal.

Print Friendly


While LobeLog generally shuns “breaking news,” Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey’s announcement Tuesday that he supports the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA) merits special notice. According to my calculations, Casey’s announcement, which was coupled with a lengthy and thoughtful memorandum on why he reached his decision, makes it a virtual certainty that Obama will have enough support among Senate Democrats to sustain his veto – if one proves necessary — of any resolution to reject the nuclear deal.

Indeed, it’s looks increasingly possible that a veto may not be even necessary. If 41 Democrats (including the two independents, Bernie Sanders and Angus King) oppose such a resolution, it won’t even get to the president’s desk. And, with Delaware Sen. Chris Coons joining Casey and what is becoming a remarkably strong majority of his Democratic colleagues, that prospect is certainly looming into view. With Coons, I count 33 Democratic senators on record as supporting the deal. With another half dozen reportedly leaning in that direction… well, you can do the math. Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski is also expected to announce her support imminently, which would bring the veto-relevant total to the magic 34.

That said, Casey’s decision marks a major victory for the administration and the independent groups that have rallied behind the JCPOA. Until now, the Pennsylvania senator has been a staunch ally of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and a steadfast hawk on Iran. Shortly after winning reelection in 2012, Casey spoke before the neoconservative (and mainly Republican) Foundation for Defense of Democracies which sang his praises in the latter regard. “Few leaders have done as much as Senator Casey to confront Iran, our greatest threat in the Middle East,” noted FDD board member Ken Schwarz in his introduction.

Casey was one of the original movers of the Kirk-Menendez “Wag the Dog” Act (S. 1881), the bill designed by AIPAC and FDD to sabotage the November 2013 Joint Program of Action (JPOA).

(Of the 15 Democrats who co-sponsored that bill, Casey and Coons have become the third and fourth — after Gillibrand and Donnelly — to endorse the JCPOA. Four others – Begich, Pryor, Landrieu, and Hagan – were defeated in their reelection bids. Five others – Cardin, Blumenthal, Warner, Booker, and Manchin – haven’t yet announced their positions, while Menendez and Schumer are the only two Senate Democrats who have pledged to reject the deal.)

Casey was also one of just eight original Democratic co-sponsors of S. 269, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015, that was introduced by Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, AIPAC’s most loyal Republican in the upper chamber. Other Democratic co-sponsors of that bill included Menendez, Schumer, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Manchin, and Peters (who has also come out in favor of the JCPOA). That legislation, a milder version of the “Wag the Dog” bill, albeit also intended to sabotage the P5+1 talks, became mired in parliamentary mismanagement and never made it to the floor.

Casey’s co-sponsorship of these bills is not the only thing that makes his support for the JCPOA so significant, however. My understanding from sources on Capitol Hill is that, once Schumer announced his opposition to the deal with Iran, Casey became one of the top three — along with Cardin (the ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and Booker – lobbying targets for AIPAC and the various donors who have contributed millions to the campaign to secure a veto-proof majority against the nuclear deal.

Casey’s decision not only brings Obama to the brink of victory in his quest to secure the 34 Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain any veto. It may also provide additional political cover – and inject some spine – into still-wavering Democrats, including, perhaps Cardin and Booker. If they break in the president’s favour, the chances that Obama will be forced to wield his veto will likely be substantially reduced – which would be a remarkable victory indeed, particularly given the tens of millions of dollars spent on this campaign by the opposition.

Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu, AIPAC and the Republicans, who are already working on new sanctions legislation, will not be deterred. And, while Obama now looks set to win a mighty big battle in the Senate later this month, the war over the future of U.S. policy toward Iran is hardly over.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

John Hannah, Dick Cheney’s national security adviser, is now a leading advocate for regime change in both Iran and Syria based at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Dennis Ross, a U.S. diplomat who served in the Obama administration, is a fellow at the “pro-Israel” Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Sheldon Adelson is a wealthy casino magnate known for his large, influential political contributions, his efforts to impact U.S. foreign policy discourse particularly among Republicans, and his ownership and ideological direction of media outlets.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.