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

LobeLog

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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share