Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill & Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill & Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.” & Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam 22,16&17JAN14

I e mailed my senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, telling them to oppose S 1881, to give diplomacy a chance to work. I haven't received an answer from Warner (just request for donations to his campaign) but was very happy with Sen Kaine's as he is not a supporter of increasing sanctions on Iran until all diplomatic options are exhausted.
More sanctions on Iran could lead us into another war. The vast majority of the cosponsors of S 1881, especially the democrats, have not served in the US Military, yet they are all to willing to push the war option regarding Iran. Constituents can find out if their senator is a cosponsor of the bill and if they served in the military at http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/sen-tim-kaine-d-va-supports-diplomacy.html and e mail them their thoughts on both.
American and Iranian politicians need to listen to the vast majority of their people. We expect them to give peace a chance. Below are a series of articles from Daily Kos and the Washington Post on S 1881, the threat it poses to peace in the Persian Gulf, the opposition to S 1881 by Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, Sen Patty Murry D WA, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV, Sen Dick Durbin D IL as well as Sec of State Kerry and Pres Obama. And there is an excellent report on Sen Diane Feinstein's (D CA) opposition to S 1881 and the way she publicly slapped down Israeli PM bibi netanyahu and aipac, the pro-Isreal lobby in the U.S., telling them it is not Israel's place to tell America when and where we will go to war! WELL SAID SEN FEINSTEIN!

Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST

Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill

by David Harris Gershon

Elizabeth Warren – an unyielding progressive on economic issues – does not often make headlines in the foreign policy department. However, today she made waves by coming out strongly against the Iran sanctions bill which threatens to derail President Obama's diplomatic progress.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:

“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”

Warren broke her silence today along with Senator Patty Murray, who as part of the Senate Democratic leadership proved that a definite rift within the Democratic Party on the sanctions bill exists – a rift which may prevent the bill coming up for a vote. Though as Greg Sargent writes, there is still the possibility of such a vote with 58 senators having come out in favor, and many Democrats still silent on their position.
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
                                                                --§--

David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.

Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST.

Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271714/-Elizabeth-Warren-Goes-All-Foreign-Policy-on-Iran-Sanctions-Bill? 

Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill

 By Greg Sargent

Patty Murray (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Add two more prominent Senators to the list of lawmakers who oppose a vote on an Iran sanctions bill right now: Patty Murray and Elizabeth Warren.
Murray’s opposition — which she declared in a letter to constituents that was sent my way by a source — is significant, because she is a member of the Senate Dem leadership, which is now clearly split on how to proceed. While Chuck Schumer favors the Iran sanctions bill, Murray, Harry Reid and (reportedly) Dick Durbin now oppose it. This could make it less likely that it ever gets a vote.
From Murray’s letter:

Please know that I share your concerns about the Iranian government’s nuclear program. Like you, I am troubled by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and their desire to enrich nuclear materials above levels required for energy production. That is why I was pleased to see Iran take measurable steps toward addressing the international community’s concerns by signing the Joint Plan of Action last fall…While I still remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, I believe this agreement could be an important step in our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to this complicated issue.
I believe the Administration should be given time to negotiate a strong verifiable comprehensive agreement. However, if Iran does not agree to a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable, or if Iran does not abide by the terms of the interim agreement, I will work with my colleagues to swiftly enact sanctions in order to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

This hits some of the key points: The mere possibility of a long term deal is worth trying for, and sanctions can always be imposed later if the talks go awry.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is circulating a letter to constituents out there that also opposes a vote. Asked about the letter, Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose emails me:

“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”

Warren’s pull with the Democratic base, of course, is largely rooted in her emphasis on economic issues, but there has been some chatter in liberal circles inquiring about her stance on Iran. Since a mobilized left is important in preventing a vote that could derail diplomacy, her opposition can only help.
The method by which both Senators declared their positions — letters to constituents, in response to questions perhaps stoked by pressure from outside groups — says something about the caution Dems are demonstrating when it comes to the domestic politics of engagement with Iran. Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.
Meanwhile, announcements like the one earlier this month indicating that the deal with Iran is moving forward make a vote still less likely. With Murray now opposed, that means virtually the whole Dem leadership is a No. On the other hand, those who adamantly want a vote — insisting it would only help the White House and make success more likely, despite what the White House itself wants – will be looking for any hook they can find to reactivate pressure.
And it’s worth stressing that if this ever did come to a vote, it’s quite possible that many of the Dems still remaining silent could still vote Yes. Those Democrats would be putting themselves in a ridiculous, untenable position if they did that, but since many appear convinced that the alternative is politically worse, it remains a very real possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/22/another-blow-to-the-iran-sanctions-bill/?wp_login_redirect=0

Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.”

by TomPFollow

I have been heartened by the recent pushback against the AIPAC scheme to destroy negotiations with Iran, i.e., the current sanctions bill, and to turn the war power of the United States Constitution effectively over to Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu.
President Obama's spokeperson recently laid it on the line by saying that if members of Congress want a war, they should say so:

According to National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan, “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.” The White House said the bill “would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations.”

New Sanctions on Iran Could Torpedo Negotiations Senator Feinstein followed this up by openly rejected the attempt to turn the war power of the US Constitution over to Israel's current prime minister:

Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee, called the sanctions bill "a march towards war" on Tuesday in a floor speech that was remarkable in detail and force. “I deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,” Feinstein said, after thoroughly rebutting many of the claims about the interim deal put forth by the bill’s supporters. “The United States, not Iran, then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place.” snip
Dianne Feinstein addressed this point more directly than perhaps any other politician so far. “While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war,” she said. “By stating that the US should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.”

The Nation: Push for New Sanctions on Iran Stalls Amid Growing Resistance Through the toughness of the President and the patriotism of a few, including Senator Feinstein, who often is much more hawkish, I think we have averted the attempt to bring this nation to war by the current Israeli government and its lobbyists in the United States.
10 committee chairs in the senate oppose this bill and it looks as if Reid is not going to bring it to a vote.
Such a bill never should have been this close to passing.  Our Congress has a big problem.  Nonetheless, people like Senator Feinstein, who I believe is a strong supporter of Israel, stood up against this.  On foreign policy and civil liberties, we often disagree.  But she has my thanks for helping to avert war and allow negotiations to proceed.  Senator Reid, President Obama and Secretary Kerry also deserve much credit.

Originally posted to TomP on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:22 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East and California politics. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/16/1270111/-Sen-Feinstein-We-cannot-let-Israel-determine-when-and-where-the-US-goes-to-war 

Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST

Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam

by Meteor Blades

Uranium-concentrating centrifuges at Natanz, Iran.

A week ago, it appeared that a bill to tighten the screws on Iran over its nuclear program was headed for certain success in the Senate. Initiated by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, S. 1881—the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act—would not only have imposed new economic sanctions, it would also have committed the United States to use military force in support of Israel if that nation attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran retaliated. By last Wednesday, Menendez had 58 co-sponsors, including 15 Democrats. Talk centered on whether an additional eight could be gathered to make the bill veto-proof.
But as Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow blog notes today, there's been a turnaround:

Just [in] the last few days, however, the odds of such a bill even reaching the president’s desk have dropped unexpectedly. The Hill, for example, reported yesterday that House Republicans “are moving away from a proposal to adopt new Iran sanctions.” House Democrats who were otherwise sympathetic to the idea became “irked” by GOP political tactics “and the idea appears to have been at least temporarily shelved.”

Meanwhile, in the Senate, the effort to get 67 co-sponsors on board has stalled, with no new names being added since last week. And while U.S. support for new sanctions has fallen off, at least for the moment, the European Union will begin relaxing some of its sanctions next week if inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is complying with the restrictions agreed to by negotiators in Geneva in November. Good news all around.
The switch in the United States can be chalked up in part to White House pressure, the 10 Senate committee chairpersons who wrote a letter opposing more sanctions and surprises like hawk Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) saying new sanctions would "blow up" the negotiations for a long-term international agreement with Iran limiting its nuclear program. The other source of opposition, Benen says a Senate staffer told him, is that "public pressure has also increased, with more voters contacting the Hill with phone calls and emails, voicing opposition to the bill."
Please join us in keeping up that public pressure by opposing the Menendez sanctions bill.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East, More and Better Democracies, and Daily Kos. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/17/1270433/-Congressional-move-to-add-more-sanctions-on-Iran-has-run-out-of-steam