Right Web

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

Congress on Iran and Israel

Various bills and resolutions circulating in Congress promote hardline “pro-Israel” positions on Iran and the Palestinians.

LobeLog

Bills & Resolutions

(SETTLEMENTS = ISRAEL LEGISLATION) HR 2146: As reported in last week’s Round-Up, on 6/18 the House took up and passed the “Fast Track” trade promotion part of the TPA bill, now known as HR 2146 (see last week’s Round-Up for an explanation of the ever-changing bill numbers). That bill was then sent to the Senate for action.  On 6/24, the Senate passed, without amendment, this latest TPA text by a vote of 60-38. The bill was sent to the President that same day, and he is expected to sign it into law imminently.  As discussed in last week’s Round-Up, the text adopted in the House last week and now in the Senate includes the provision conflating Israel and settlements/occupied territories and directing that protecting settlements/occupation from boycotts and other pressure be a principle negotiating objective of the U.S. in negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the EU [Sec. 102(b)(20) in the final bill].  Sen. Portman (R-OH) issued a press release crowing about the passage of the allegedly anti-BDS language (but actually pro-settlements) provision in TPA bill; in the House, Rep. Roskam (R-IL) did the same. Consistent with the deliberately duplicitous way that advocates for this provision have presented the legislation all along, Portman and Roskam both fail to acknowledge the fact that the legislation explicitly and in a way UNPRECEDENTED IN US LAW conflates Israel and settlements/occupied territories (both also fail to mention that the only practical effect of this language is to promote/protect settlements, since European countries are not boycotting Israel and have never indicated plans to do so; they DO have policies restricting activities related to settlements and the occupied territories).

(EXTEND IRAN SANCTIONS – AKA, DESPERATE GAMBIT TO STAY RELEVANT) S. 1682: Introduced 6/25 by Kirk (R-IL) and Menendez (D-NJ), “A bill to extend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 and to require the Secretary of the Treasury to report on the use by Iran of funds made available through sanctions relief.” Referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Kirk’s press release touting introduction of the bill – a bill that would extend sanctions on Iran for another 10 years – is here.  Kirk and Menendez argue, disingenuously, that extending the sanctions is necessary in order to preserve the ability to snap back sanctions if Iran violates the terms of a deal. In fact, the sanctions legislation their bill seeks to extend doesn’t expire for another year, so there is zero necessity to do anything with it right now. Indeed, the only possible reason to talk about doing this now, in the final days before the deadline for reaching a deal with Iran – as opposed to, say, after a deal has been achieved and can be reviewed by Congress, allowing Congress to understand how sanctions relief under the deal has been structured – is to undermine talks and threaten a deal by sending a message that regardless of what may be agreed at the negotiating table, Congress plans to block sanctions relief.

(CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA) H. Res. 346Introduced 6/25 by Yoho (R-FL) and 7 cosponsors, “Condemning the use of toxic chemicals as weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.” Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Letters

(PALESTINIAN CHILDREN) McCollum et al letter to Kerry: On 6/23, Rep. McCollum (D-MN) and 18 cosigners sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry expressing urging the United States to prioritize the human rights of Palestinian children living in the Occupied West Bank in the bilateral relationship with the Government of Israel. The letter was supported by APN.  McCollum press release on the letter is here.

(IRAN SANCTIONS) Royce/Ros-Lehtinen letter to Kerry: On 6/25 Reps. Royce (R-CA) and Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry expressing their “deep concern that the State Department has failed to fully implement congressionally mandated sanctions on Iran” and suggesting that “This failure amounts to de facto, unilateral relief of a sanctions regime that has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support.” The letter calls on the State Department to implement the law and requests written answers to a list of questions about sanctions. The letter comes in response to a GAO report (commissioned by Royce) issued last week. Royce press release on the letter is here.

Hearings

6/25: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing entitled, “What Is A Successful Agreement? How To Evaluate Key Components Of The JCPOA.”  Witnesses were: David Albright, ISIS (the Institute for Science & International Security, not the terrorist organization – testimony); Ray Takeyh, CSIS (testimony); and Jim Walsh, MIT (testimony). Video of the hearing is here. Corker’s (R-TN) press release on hearing is here.

6/24: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing entitled, “Lessons Learned From Past WMD Negotiations.”  Witnesses were: William Tobey, Harvard (testimony) and Graham Allison, Harvard (testimony). Video of the hearing is here. Corker’s (R-TN) press release on hearing is here.

Members on the Record

Note: Starting last week and continuing into this week (as seen below), there has been a stream of statements from Members of Congress laying out requirements/conditions for an Iran deal. Many of these statements closely (if not exactly, and in at least one case, explicitly) mirror the AIPAC memo circulated in recent weeks to the Hill, entitled “5 Requirements for a Good Deal.” This memo is part of a major campaign by AIPAC and other groups to kill an Iran deal, as reported this week in Bloomberg news: Pro-Israel Lobby Prepares to Battle Obama Over Iran. Also see U.S. lawmakers step up warnings against ‘weak’ Iran deal (Reuters, 6/25) and Republicans line up against Iran nuke deal (The Hill 6/24).

Royce (R-CA) 6/26: Embracing the open letter from former Obama advisors to conclude “When your close associates are speaking out, you know you’re on the wrong track.  Secretary Kerry needs to take this letter to the negotiating table – and not come back with a bad deal.” Note this very different take on that letter:  No, Obama’s Former Advisors Aren’t Trashing the Iran Deal (John Hudson 6/26, in Foreign Policy)

Booker (D-NJ) 6/25: Constructive, substantive floor speech in support of Iran diplomacy and discussing how he will judge any Iran deal.

Dold (R-IL) 6/25: Calling for Congress to oppose an Iran deal.

Graham (R-SC) 6/25: Calling on the U.S. to suspend negotiations with Iran until we “clear up” the issue of recent Iranian statements to the effect that under a deal there will be no access to military facilities and all sanctions must be immediately lifted (“Secretary Kerry, now is a time for you and President Obama to send a clear message to the Iranians: repudiate these two statements or we will not negotiate any further.”)

Gibbs (R-OH) 6/25: Laying out his five demands for an Iran deal (a list that closely parallels the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo).

Smith (R-NJ) 6/25: Laying out conditions for an Iran deal (which closely parallel the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo), raising concerns about the continued detention by Iran of Pastor Saeed Abedini, etc.

Sarbanes (D-MD) 6/25: Expressing concern about the Iranian parliament vote to bar U.N. inspectors from accessing the country’s military sites and speaking with its scientists

Frankel (D-FL) 6/25: Laying out five “key components” for an Iran deal (that closely parallels the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo).

Granger (R-TX) 6/25: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war

Carper (D-DE) 6/24: Constructive, substantive floor speech in support of Iran diplomacy and laying out the three criteria on which he will judge an Iran deal

Coats (R-IN) 6/24: Laying out concerns/objections related to Iran negotiations and the pending deal.

Hurd (R-TX) 6/24: Oped in the Hill expressing concerns about Iran negotiations and the pending deal (and noting, “Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been very vocal in his opposition to a deal with Iran, used a fitting analogy to describe our government’s action. He compared negotiating with Iran to trying to domesticate a wild tiger. We all know how that ends.”)

Royce (R-CA) 6/24: Statement slamming Iran negotiations and pending deal (“…the way these negotiations are moving, it is increasingly difficult to see the Administration striking a meaningful, lasting agreement that would be acceptable to Congress.”)

Blunt (R-MO) 6/24: Calling for Iran talks to be suspended until all Americans are released, generally slamming the pending Iran deal (“An agreement that doesn’t change the terror threat from Iran, an agreement that doesn’t allow inspection of military facilities, an agreement that doesn’t disclose past secret research for nuclear weapons, an agreement that doesn’t ensure long-term inspections, an agreement that doesn’t maintain sanctions in place until important compliance benchmarks are made is not an agreement that would be good enough.”)

McClintock (R-CA) 6/24: Extension of remarks:  Policy Initiative on Iran: Breaking the Stalemate, Engaging with the Iranian Opposition (lengthy pitch for the MEK) [Also note: the MEK held an event earlier in June, for which Royce, R-CA, and Engel, D-NY, both sent video greetings.

Hastings (D-FL) 6/24: Laying out his five conditions for an Iran deal (conditions that closely parallel the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo).

Mooney (R-WV) 6/24: Laying out his five demands for an Iran deal (a list that closely parallels the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo).

Gohmert (R-TX) 6/24: In a floor statement entitled “Faith Through the Bible,” quoting the Bible to make his case against same-sex marriage, and then going to discuss the evils of Iran and attack any Iran nuclear deal (“the deal that has been negotiated is deadly to our ally Israel ; it is deadly to the United States…”)

Babin (R-TX) 6/24: Press release – “Babin Denounces Iranian Parliament Vote and the Obama Administration’s Continued Appeasement”

Holding (R-NC) 6/24: Opposing the pending Iran deal.

Lowenthal (D-CA) 6/23: Laying out his five demands for an Iran deal (and explicitly citing the AIPAC “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo by name, without mentioning that it came from AIPAC).

Gohmert (R-TX) 6/23: Talking about the injustice of the attacks in Charleston, and connecting it to the injustice suffered by Israel which is persecuted from all sides, most recently by the UN in the report on Gaza (yes, seriously). And suggesting that he will re-introduce his bill to cut off assistance to any country that votes “against” the U.S. more than 50% of the time at the UN.

Kirk (R-IL) 6/23: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war

Hatch (R-UT) 6/22: Expressing concerns about an Iran nuclear agreement, especially with respect to inspections.

Cotton (R-AR) 6/22: Reacting with outrage to reports that the US is sharing a military base with Iranian forces in Iraq

Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) 6/22: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war (Headline: “UN Human Rights Council Gaza Report Pushes False Moral Equivalency Between Israel and Hamas; President Obama Must Cut All Funding and Withdraw From Council Until Drastic Reforms Are Implemented”)

Royce (R-CA) 6/22: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war

Engel (D-NY) 6/22: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war

Rubio (R-FL) 6/22: Statement slamming the UN report on Gaza war

Gohmert (R-TX) 6/21: Speaking at far right-wing organization awards dinner (EMET), Gohmert stated that Iran’s nuclear weapons “would be the new gas chambers for Israel.” (Read whole article – amazing).

Gohmert (R-TX) 6/20: Article – “Rep. Gohmert: Obama Outed Active Israeli Iranian Spy Mission” (bombshell revelation by Gohmert at EMET dinner! Also full quote on gas chambers = Iran nukes.)

Noem (R-SD) 6/19: Laying out her (five) requirements for an Iran deal (conditions that closely parallel the requirements laid out in AIPAC’s “5 Requirements for a Good Deal” memo). And framing her call with Bibi’s reference in his March 2015 speech to Congress to the Book of Esther, in which he explained “how this ancient queen exposed a plot to destroy the Jewish people and, as a result, ensured good triumphed over evil.” [For some commentary on his selective use of this story, see: By invoking Purim, Netanyahu calls for a preemptive strike on Iran]. Noem concludes her statement saying, “…we must eliminate every nuclear pathway Iran has access to in order to help ensure – just as Queen Esther did – that good continues to triumph over evil.” [You just can’t make this stuff up.]

Corker (R-TN) 6/19: Slamming the Obama Administration over reports that it will not require full disclosure of Iran’s past attempts to develop a nuclear weapon as part of a deal

Kirk (R-IL) 6/19: Criticizing Iran talks and the pending Iran deal for failing to curb Iranian support for terrorism (per the 2014 Country Reports on Terrorism, released 6/18)

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share