Senators introduce another Iran sanctions bill, Cruz signs on

[tsai3904]

Twenty-Six Senators Introduce the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act

Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 Proposes Prospective Sanctions on Iran if the Regime Breaches the Joint Plan of Action or Fails to Conclude a Final Agreement, Provides Flexibility to Pursue a Diplomatic Track

December 19, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC. – U.S. Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), joined by 24 U.S. Senators, introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, bipartisan legislation proposing prospective sanctions on Iran should the regime violate the interim Joint Plan of Action agreed to in Geneva or should Iran fail to reach a final agreement.

...

The prospective sanctions legislation requires further reductions in purchases of Iranian petroleum and applies additional penalties to strategic elements of the Iranian economy, to include the engineering, mining and construction sectors.

Simultaneously, it gives the Administration continued flexibility and up to one year from the conclusion of an implementing agreement to pursue a diplomatic track resulting in the complete and verifiable termination of Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.

More:
http://www.menendez.senate.gov/news...rs-introduce-the-nuclear-weapon-free-iran-act

 

[Brett85]

That's not surprising. What I still don't know yet is how Rand is going to vote on this. He's voted in favor of all of the sanctions so far.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No reason for this legislation at this point. If it is needed, it could be brought up at a later time. This actually puts American credibility at risk for a variety of reasons.

This is just a way for these kiss-ass politicians to cater to special interests. This is not in the interest of the United States right now during negotiations.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

SEC. 401-404 are exemptions for special interests and cronies.

 

[Matt Collins]

That's not surprising. What I still don't know yet is how Rand is going to vote on this. He's voted in favor of all of the sanctions so far.

No, actually Rand has NOT voted for all of the sanctions previously.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

It is not clear if Cruzer is a plain war mongering religious fanatic with unsound mental bolts or just another neocons nTool for hire... but in either case he needs to repent.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK3pZfa4saw

 

[Occam's Banana]

No reason for this legislation at this point. If it is needed, it could be brought up at a later time. This actually puts American credibility at risk for a variety of reasons.

This is just a way for these kiss-ass politicians to cater to special interests. This is not in the interest of the United States right now during negotiations.

Actually, I think there *is* a reason for it. Given the phrasing, "proposing prospective sanctions on Iran should the regime violate the interim Joint Plan of Action agreed to in Geneva or should Iran fail to reach a final agreement," it looks like a pre-emptive attempt to brow-beat Iran with "waiting in the wings" consequences for not acceding to whatever demands the US decides to be unilaterally obstinate about. If Iran refuses to dance to the tune the US calls for it, the US just says, "Hey, look, we tried. And they knew what would happen if they weren't reasonable ..."

It is, in other words, an attempt to set up a "gun to the head" situation for Iran. You are right that it damages US credibility, that it is not in Americans' interest, and that it caters to special interests. But when did any of those things ever matter to the hubristic bastards running the show?

 

[hated]

"The White House says President Barack Obama would veto any new legislation imposing additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. " VOA

 

[Occam's Banana]

"The White House says President Barack Obama would veto any new legislation imposing additional sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. " VOA

Obama does two right things in one day - this and that. Gotta be some kind of record ...

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Your whores in the US Senate doing the bidding of the wealthy lobbyists, amazed how they'll spin the 'Israel before Obama, Biden, and Kerry' who are nutcase puppets of war to start with... well, well, the Kabuki Theater is writing so absurd scripts. No Secret, Pro-Israeli lobby groups own Senators Porn King Menedez and Chicagoan Elitist Mark Kirk. One only needs to look at the refinement acceleration of Iran nuclear program. Brfore sanctions, 5% enrichment... after sanctions 20% enrichment. RP correct again, sanctions unite the people/country... guess the Fascist will eventually get their next profit war.

Mark Kirk - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

rightweb.irc-online.org › Profiles › IndividualsFeatured Content‎
In November 2013, Kirk led a bipartisan group U.S. senators in opposition to the Obama administration's efforts to cut a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. ... with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to push new sanctions ... at pressuring President Obama to adopt Iran sanctions that observers ...

Iran condemns US Senate sanctions bid

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/04/276074/iran-condemns-us-sanctions-bid/

Iran has slammed the recent sanctions bid approved by the US Senate against the Islamic Republic as contradictory to Washington’s declared support for diplomacy over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.


“The recent measure by the [US] Senate is incompatible with the claims made by the US government in support of diplomacy and negotiation,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Monday.

On November 30, the US Senate approved a new round of sanctions against Iran's energy, port, shipping and shipbuilding sectors. The amendment should pass through the House of Representatives and should be signed by US President Barack Obama before turning into law.

A report published on the website of Foreign Policy on Friday, however, said that the White House had been against the new measure and that it had conveyed a message indicating its opposition to the senators through its National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor hours before the amendment was passed.

Even if the opposition of the US President Barack Obama administration to the new round of sanctions is verified, it will be indicative of the confusion in the corridors of power in the United States, Mehmanparast said, adding that the policies of such confused power systems are “untrustworthy.”​

Mehmanparast said the approval of such laws undermines the basic principles of international law, including sovereign equality.

“The measure demonstrates to the world public opinion that the logic behind Iran’s resistance against the US bullying approach is a strong one, which is aimed at the negation of unilateralism and a commitment to the principles of international law in order to strengthen international peace and stability.”

The US, Israel and some of their allies falsely claim that Tehran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program. The US and European Union have use the unfounded accusation as a pretext to impose international and unilateral sanctions on Iran.

Tehran rejects the allegations against its nuclear energy activities, arguing that as a committed signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of International Atomic Energy Agency, it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

 

[Brett85]

No, actually Rand has NOT voted for all of the sanctions previously.

Yes, he has. This has been pointed out to you before. I provided links. Rand has even said on Fox News and interviews on other stations that he's voted for all of the sanctions so far.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes, he has. This has been pointed out to you before. I provided links. Rand has even said on Fox News and interviews on other stations that he's voted for all of the sanctions so far.

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but there were occasions where he voted AGAINST sanctions on the Iranian government because he said they went too far and were not helpful. That being said, he did vote to sanction their central bank.

 

[Brett85]

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but there were occasions where he voted AGAINST sanctions on the Iranian government because he said they went too far and were not helpful. That being said, he did vote to sanction their central bank.

No, he has never voted against any of the sanctions against Iran. These are his own words at the 2:12 mark.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2849475234001/sen-rand-paul-on-negotiating-with-iran/

So are you saying that Rand is lying here?

 

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul blocks Iranian sanctions bill:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

 

[Brett85]

Rand Paul blocks Iranian sanctions bill:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

He held up the bill in order to insert language into the bill that nothing in it would give the President the legal authority to launch an attack on Iran. He wasn't opposed to the substance of the sanctions themselves. He voted for the sanctions bill after the language was included which made it clear that the bill couldn't be used as an authorization for war. And I clearly said that Rand hasn't voted against any of the sanctions, which is true. He didn't vote against this bill or any other sanctions bill. He just held it up to get language included in it that would make it clear that it wasn't an authorization for war. I'm not criticizing Rand, but simply setting the record straight.

 

[Matt Collins]

He held up the bill in order to insert language into the bill that nothing in it would give the President the legal authority to launch an attack on Iran. He wasn't opposed to the substance of the sanctions themselves. He voted for the sanctions bill after the language was included which made it clear that the bill couldn't be used as an authorization for war. And I clearly said that Rand hasn't voted against any of the sanctions, which is true. He didn't vote against this bill or any other sanctions bill. He just held it up to get language included in it that would make it clear that it wasn't an authorization for war. I'm not criticizing Rand, but simply setting the record straight.

Hmmmm.... perhaps you are right... I swore he voted against one or more sanctions bills. I need to do more research on this.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Bumping this thread because a whole bunch of Senators signed on to the new sanctions bill as co-sponsors.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?440154-50-Senators-Now-Cosponsor-Iran-Sanctions-Bill

 

[Brian4Liberty]

He held up the bill in order to insert language into the bill that nothing in it would give the President the legal authority to launch an attack on Iran. .... He just held it up to get language included in it that would make it clear that it wasn't an authorization for war. I'm not criticizing Rand, but simply setting the record straight.

This is a great idea, but in my interpretation of the bill, there is a section which would over-ride that, and does authorize force, if Israel decides to use force first:

Breaking this down, it seems to be an authorization for use of US military force against Iran, if Israel is "compelled to take military action". So instead of Congress turning their responsibility to declare war over to the President, they are essentially turning it over to Israel. Nice trick.

"United States Government should...provide...military...support."

 

[jmdrake]

That's not surprising. What I still don't know yet is how Rand is going to vote on this. He's voted in favor of all of the sanctions so far.

Rand has made it clear that he will not support added sanctions that have the effect of undermining ongoing negotiations. In other words, he will most certainly vote "no" at this point. Should Obama say "Negotiations have broken down and we need more sanctions" Rand could vote yes. And this development is a good thing. Ted Cruz is starting to make himself unelectable in the general 2016 elections by being seen as "against Obama for the sake of being against Obama." Rand will honestly be able to say "I can work with Democrats. The few times Obama was actually right about something, like negotiating with Iran, I agreed with and worked with him." Compare that with Chris "I'm happy to take more pork from Obama" Christie.

 

[Brett85]

Rand has made it clear that he will not support added sanctions that have the effect of undermining ongoing negotiations. In other words, he will most certainly vote "no" at this point. Should Obama say "Negotiations have broken down and we need more sanctions" Rand could vote yes. And this development is a good thing. Ted Cruz is starting to make himself unelectable in the general 2016 elections by being seen as "against Obama for the sake of being against Obama." Rand will honestly be able to say "I can work with Democrats. The few times Obama was actually right about something, like negotiating with Iran, I agreed with and worked with him." Compare that with Chris "I'm happy to take more pork from Obama" Christie.

Right. Good point. Rand comes across as a moderate on this issue, even though the neocons will still claim that he's a "hardcore isolationist" and whatever else.