Majority of senators now on board with Iranian sanctions bill

posted at 10:01 pm on January 9, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The White House is not going to be pleased about this.

The “Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act” is now supported by at least 54 senators in the 100-member chamber, according to a congressional record, with six senators joining on Wednesday. A Senate aide said two more joined on Thursday, bringing the total to 56.

It is uncertain whether the bill will be introduced in the Senate and whether backers can win the two-thirds majority to overcome a veto by President Barack Obama. A senior Senate Democratic aide said there were no plans yet for advancing the bill to the Senate floor, despite the growing list of co-sponsors. …

The aide said more support could come soon from the bloc of Democrats. “At least two that I know of are inching toward public support for the bill,” the aide said on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the talks. …

The bill seeks to cut Iran’s oil exports to zero two years after implementation. It also puts limits on the Obama administration’s ability to waive sanctions.

That still doesn’t bring the total up to the two-thirds majority the Senate would need to overcome the White House’s veto threat, but that brings the tally of Democrats supporting the measure up to at least 16 — despite the White House’s aggressive attempts to persuade the senators to drop the issue and just leave it to their own esteemed foreign-policy machinations. Jennifer Rubin at WaPo points out that the newfound participation of Sen. Michael Bennet, Democrat from Colorado and not normally an outspoken pro-Israel advocate, will put still more pressure on strident Democrats to break with the White House, especially if (let’s face it: when) Iran refuses to let up on their centrifugal intransigence and otherwise thwart the conditions of the interim agreement.

The talks between Iran and world powers resumed on Thursday, and no doubt they will continue to insist that even just the possibility of more sanctions being held over them will threaten their participation in the so-called deal. Their motivations for discouraging more sanctions at-all-costs are readily apparent:

Iranian oil exports hit a high in December, just one month after Western nations inked a nuclear pact with Iran that guaranteed up to $7 billion in economic sanctions relief.

Exports of Iranian crude oil rose from 789,292 barrels per day in November to 1,059,605 per day in December, according to new shipping data provided to the Washington Free Beacon by the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). …

Some foreign policy experts worry that the interim nuclear deal reached between Iran and the West has reinvigorated the global markets and created a renewed demand for Tehran’s cheap—and heavily sanctioned—crude oil.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Can`t he just ignore Congress as per usual?

ThePrez on January 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM

good

rob verdi on January 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Is Obama cryin’?

Fluck him…

And Sandra him too….

Electrongod on January 9, 2014 at 10:03 PM

All that appeasement by JFKerry down the drain.

Bishop on January 9, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Well at least we’ll know what the main focus of the next Adminstration will have to be.

Smart Power, Ivy League College Grads!

:spit:

BlaxPac on January 9, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Don’t cry for Obama as even if he loses on Iran, he will still have the Muslim Brotherhood to make love to.

VorDaj on January 9, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Majority of senators now on board with Iranian sanctions bill

…how come I’m not believing it?

KOOLAID2 on January 9, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Everyone pumped about the Syrian playoffs coming up in Geneva?

BL@KBIRD on January 9, 2014 at 10:25 PM

He can do no wrong. Failure is never his fault and never will be. His presidency is historic you know.

MT on January 9, 2014 at 10:31 PM

So it is understood that the sole purpose of these sanctions is act as a poison pill and to thwart any chance there could be a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue. A peaceful resolution must never happen. The US must perpetually be at war with Iran. People like Erika, the Hot Air staff and most of the commenters have such a thirst for Iranian blood that in you all’s mind anything that does not involve the death of hundreds if not thousands of Iranians is not permissible. You all have lied so much about Iran being one month away from a nuke, you just gotta have a war with them just to save face.

Sick bunch you all are.

antifederalist on January 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

I guess the Iranian Navy is off the coast of North Carolina and ready to invade any moment.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 10:38 PM

Does someone know of a good sunni/shia map? An accurate one?

Sort of the equivelent of our red/blue county map?

That would be helpful.

wolly4321 on January 9, 2014 at 10:43 PM

Iran is already refusing to do anything about their centrifuges. They said they would never stop enrichment, they have never agreed to stop enrichment, and they reiterate regularly since the “agreement” that they will never stop enrichment.

Passing tougher sanctions is the wrong answer, though. By the time a coalition in both House and Senate is built big enough to override a veto, Iran will have already been enjoying great relief granted by Obama. Even if new sanctions were to stick, it would be too late in their nuclear program at that point for them to have an effect.

~~~

Congress should instead demand the President and the P5+1 group adhere to the sanction regime already in force by the UN Security Council Resolutions. Each of these nations have agreed previously to uphold UN sanctions, and these specify not only a HALT to enrichment but also DISMANTLING permanently the new plutonium reactor being constructed (which Obama doesn’t even address).

Obama may ignore federal law, but he lacks authority to alter international law just because he is a special mocha snowflake.

~~~~

And it is not a good precedent to pass sanctions without a waiver provision. The executive prerogative to conduct foreign policy should not be usurped.

God willing, there will be many Presidents after Obama.

Adjoran on January 9, 2014 at 11:42 PM

So it is understood that the sole purpose of these sanctions is act as a poison pill and to thwart any chance there could be a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue. A peaceful resolution must never happen. The US must perpetually be at war with Iran. People like Erika, the Hot Air staff and most of the commenters have such a thirst for Iranian blood that in you all’s mind anything that does not involve the death of hundreds if not thousands of Iranians is not permissible. You all have lied so much about Iran being one month away from a nuke, you just gotta have a war with them just to save face.

antifederalist on January 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

You’re wrong. If it were up to Obama, the U.S. might lift the economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for a few vague empty promises from Iran that Iran would have no intention of fulfilling. But with tough sanctions in place, Iran has to actually comply with getting rid of its nuclear program if it wants to be relieved from the sanctions.

I’d be happy to see the Iran nuclear issue resolved without a single Iranian dying — as long as that resolution included Iran actually getting rid of its nuclear weapons program.

J.S.K. on January 9, 2014 at 11:49 PM

Does someone know of a good sunni/shia map? An accurate one?

Sort of the equivelent of our red/blue county map?

That would be helpful.

wolly4321 on January 9, 2014 at 10:43 PM

There are a couple of relevant maps at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam#Demographics

J.S.K. on January 9, 2014 at 11:54 PM

So it is understood that the sole purpose of these sanctions is act as a poison pill and to thwart any chance there could be a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue.

If Iran wanted peace, they wouldn’t be an Islamic Republic.

A peaceful resolution must never happen.

Peace is achieved when one side is dead or both sides are of the same mindset. See above

The US must perpetually be at war with Iran.

1 nuke over Mecca would end that

People like Erika, the Hot Air staff and most of the commenters have such a thirst for Iranian blood

Backing up that claim?

that in you all’s mind anything that does not involve the death of hundreds if not thousands of Iranians is not permissible.

I hear that the sun can run off your gigantic strawman well past the expiration of its hydrogen

You all have lied so much about Iran being one month away from a nuke,

And yet here you are howling to the wind

you just gotta have a war with them just to save face.

antifederalist on January 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

I did this three times now.

nobar on January 10, 2014 at 12:07 AM

Sick bunch you all are.

antifederalist on January 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

1. You couldn’t be more wrong. Your talking points sound like Saddam’s leftist apologists circa 2002-2003.

2. If everyone is so bloodthirsty here, why bother coming onto the site? Go back to Info Wars, then.

thebrokenrattle on January 10, 2014 at 1:11 AM

Sanctions don’t work. So stupid. But it makes some here feeling like they are extracting their pound of flesh from the Iranians. It just feels good. Pay no attention to the lack of results.

iwasbornwithit on January 10, 2014 at 2:40 AM

Sanctions don’t work. So stupid. But it makes some here feeling like they are extracting their pound of flesh from the Iranians. It just feels good. Pay no attention to the lack of results.

iwasbornwithit on January 10, 2014 at 2:40 AM

Do I think sanctions will “work” in the sense of stopping the Iranians from pursuing nuclear weapons? Not that likely; the Iranian regime really wants nuclear weapons. But with sanctions in place, at least they will suffer some economic consequences for pursuing nuclear weapons.

But will not having sanctions stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons? Of course not. Not having sanctions against them will make it easier for them to build their nuclear weapons program.

J.S.K. on January 10, 2014 at 3:30 AM

1. Decision to support the ‘Muslim / Islamic Spring’ in which he supported the ‘people’s uprising’ throughout the Middle east…except for turning his back when Iranians did so in their country…

2. Ordering our military to aid Al Qaeda take over Libya…

3. Helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt…

4. Running guns to Syrian Jihadists…

5. Not only elminating Iranian sanctions but also RELEASING THEIR #1 NUCLEAR SCIENTIST so he can go back to help finish building nukes in Iran…

What’s it going to take for Americans to come to the obvious conclussion that Obama is an Islamic Extremist Sympathizer at the LEAST and an Islamic Extremist himself at the worst.

In Gates’ book ‘Duty’ he claims VP Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy decision in the last 40 years. I would argue if anyone has been paying attention they would notice OBAMA has been on, siding with, aiding, and abetting the wrong side ever since he has been in office.

He stepped in to drop charges against the militant Black Panthers for intimidating voters during an election, stepped in to drop charges on a woman who bragged to the media how she had voted for Obama in the last election 4 – 5 times, has aided the perpetrators of 9/11/01, has aided the terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood, has aided Syrian Jihadists, has supported/protected a Atty General who has perpetrated at least 3 Felony Counts of Perjury before Congress (Censured).

WAKE UP, AMERICA…AND OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. IMPEACH THIS GUY ALREADY!

easyt65 on January 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM

So it is understood that the sole purpose of these sanctions is act as a poison pill and to thwart any chance there could be a peaceful resolution to the Iran nuclear issue. A peaceful resolution must never happen. The US must perpetually be at war with Iran. People like Erika, the Hot Air staff and most of the commenters have such a thirst for Iranian blood that in you all’s mind anything that does not involve the death of hundreds if not thousands of Iranians is not permissible. You all have lied so much about Iran being one month away from a nuke, you just gotta have a war with them just to save face.

Sick bunch you all are.

antifederalist on January 9, 2014 at 10:37 PM

This is pretty tedious crap.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on January 10, 2014 at 8:29 AM

1. You couldn’t be more wrong. Your talking points sound like Saddam’s leftist apologists circa 2002-2003.

thebrokenrattle on January 10, 2014 at 1:11 AM

Well, those leftist Saddam apologist turned out to be right about Saddam’s WMDs and the neocons were proven to be liars.

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM

1 nuke over Mecca would end that

nobar on January 10, 2014 at 12:07 AM

You do know that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and not in Iran. Do you?

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 8:38 AM

You’re wrong. If it were up to Obama, the U.S. might lift the economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for a few vague empty promises from Iran that Iran would have no intention of fulfilling. But with tough sanctions in place, Iran has to actually comply with getting rid of its nuclear program if it wants to be relieved from the sanctions.
I’d be happy to see the Iran nuclear issue resolved without a single Iranian dying — as long as that resolution included Iran actually getting rid of its nuclear weapons program.
J.S.K. on January 9, 2014 at 11:49 PM

So you say that Obama might lift economic sanctions in exchange for vague promises. This is not a valid justification for imposing additional sanctions on Iran. Additionally,wouldn’t it be wise to wait for the actual deal be completed before making judgements as to what might happen. And regarding Iran’s nuclear program, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate,Iran hasn’t made a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. For the last 20 years there have been numerous pronouncement that Iran is only a few years or even months away from a nuclear weapon. Yet, there haven’t been any nukes. Isn’t it time for you to start questioning your presumptions about Iran’s nuclear program? Lastly, making war with Iran is the one way that you can assure that they will go nuclear. What incentive do that have not to develop a nuke if a permanent economic sanctions regime imposed onto them and if war or threats of war are directed at them?

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 9:05 AM

So you say that Obama might lift economic sanctions in exchange for vague promises.

That’s what the interim Geneva accord announced in November was all about.

And regarding Iran’s nuclear program, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate,Iran hasn’t made a decision to pursue a nuclear weapon.

That latest National Intelligence Estimate was released two years ago this month. Got anything more recent?

What incentive do that have not to develop a nuke if a permanent economic sanctions regime imposed onto them and if war or threats of war are directed at them?

The incentive is that if Iran actually does end their nuclear weapons program, they won’t have the sanctions imposed against them any more and they won’t have threats of war directed against them (much less an actual war).

J.S.K. on January 10, 2014 at 9:34 AM

That’s what the interim Geneva accord announced in November was all about.

So we can’t wait for the final agreement?

That latest National Intelligence Estimate was released two years ago this month. Got anything more recent?

Well, it is the latest that’s available. It sure as hell beats sneaking suspicions and gut feel, which is all the intelligence that most folks here can muster up.

The incentive is that if Iran actually does end their nuclear weapons program, they won’t have the sanctions imposed against them any more and they won’t have threats of war directed against them (much less an actual war).

Believe it or not, this isn’t about Iran’s weapons program. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. They are already, by treaty, prohibited from having a nuclear weapons program. However, they are, by treaty, permitted to have a nuclear program for civilian/non weapons use. What people are insisting is that Iran be denied the right to have any nuclear program, including a program for civilian use. Under the Nuclear Nonprolideration Treaty, Iran is permitted to enrich uranium up to approximately 19.96%. You need 3-5% enrichment for nuclear power. The 19.96% enrichment is for medical isotopes. According to US intelligence, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is dormant. The sticking point in these negotiations is if Iran is to be permitted to have a nuclear program for civilian use. The hawks demand that they have none and Iran insist that they do. Based on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran is permitted to have a civilian nuclear program (with certain stipulations like declaring materials). For Iran, this is a matter national sovereignty. Iran, a country that does not possess nuclear weapons, would have been singled out from all other countries, as being strictly prohibited from having a civilian nuclear program. It should be no surprise that they are resisting any attempt to prohibit their use of nuclear technology for civilian use. As I said, this is a matter concerning national sovereignty,

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM

You do know that Mecca is in Saudi Arabia and not in Iran. Do you?

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Of course I know that. The best way to break Islamic extremism is to obliterate its holiest sites. Force is the universal language.

nobar on January 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Well, those leftist Saddam apologist turned out to be right about Saddam’s WMDs and the neocons were proven to be liars.

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM

And the mask slips further off…

thebrokenrattle on January 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Of course I know that. The best way to break Islamic extremism is to obliterate its holiest sites. Force is the universal language.
nobar on January 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I see that you have no moral objections with murdering millions of people in Mecca with a nuclear weapon. Like I said, you all are a sick bunch.

antifederalist on January 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM