web analytics
June 25, 2016 / 19 Sivan, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear proliferation’

Surprise! UNSC Members Take US at its Word (Iran Concessions)

Tuesday, March 15th, 2016

At the United Nations Security Council “consultations” held Monday, March 14, at the urging of the U.S., the Russians did something that seemed to surprise – and annoy – the U.S. The Russians argued that the language inserted by the U.S. into the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 means what it says.

The nerve.

In a tag team effort that pro-Israel folks have been hankering for of late, both Israel and the U.S. called on the United Nations to take action against Iran for having launched several missiles last week.

But, as already reported by the JewishPress.com, the concessions made by the U.S. to Iran in the wild and wooly days at the end of the Nuclear Iran Deal negotiations, the U.S. and its partners substituted unambiguous and prohibitory language from a 2010 UNSC resolution “Iran shall not” to the flaccid phrase “Iran is called upon not to” engage in activity involving ballistic missiles.

So when Iran launched those missiles from within its own boundaries, it took the position that it had not violated any of its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the Nuclear Iran Deal.

And so did Russia. Russia’s Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin said on Monday that Iran should not face new sanctions over its recent ballistic missile launches because doing so did not violate any U.N. resolution.

Russian holds veto power in the Security Council.

Despite the clear-sounding meaning of the new language in the latest UNSCR, the U.S. is still clinging to its position that what Iran did is wrong.

A painful exchange between State Dept. Spokesperson John Kirby and Matt Lee of the Associated Press during Monday’s State Dept. press briefing is a public display of the exchanges that likely took place on Monday behind the closed doors of the U.N. meeting regarding the missile launches.

The exchange is long, and you may feel as though you are lost either in Wonderland or Who’s on First, but at least take a glance at what the U.S. and its partners are having to do to try and make the claim (with or without a straight face), that the language they permitted as a concession to Iran in order to get the Nuclear Iran Deal approved has had dire consequences. All bolds are for ease of reading, and decided upon by the JewishPress.com.

MR.LEE: Can we move to Iran?

MR KIRBY: Iran.

MR. LEE: Yeah. So today the – or the Security Council began discussions about what to do about the Iranian ballistic missile tests, and it looks like you guys are not going to be able to get to anything, not even a council statement saying that Iran is in violation, much less a resolution that might impose more sanctions on them, at least international sanctions – the reason being, at least as explained by opponents, is that Iran didn’t actually violate 2231 because 2231 calls on Iran not to do this instead of says that they can’t or says “shall not.”

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

MR. LEE: What’s your take on that?

MR KIRBY: So it’s a good question, and I think you might be referring to comments I think the —

MR. LEE: Ambassador Churkin.

MR KIRBY: — Russians said, yeah. So look, I’m – I don’t know that it’s fruitful to get into a back-and-forth over the technical meaning of “violation,” but as you might have noticed, Ambassador Power addressed this very issue this morning, and we are very much associating ourselves with what she had to say, that – one, that we’re in the process of preparing a report on these missile test launches to the Security Council, and we’re going to raise the matter directly at the council on Monday. We believe the council is the right forum to have this discussion and we still remain deeply concerned about their recent ballistic missile test launches, which we continue to believe are provocative and destabilizing.

They are also, at the very least, inconsistent with but more practically in defiance of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which of course codified the Iran deal. So we could have an interesting discussion about the degree to which it’s technically a violation. It doesn’t mean, though, that it’s okay, and it doesn’t mean that the council should look the other way, and it doesn’t mean that it isn’t – that their actions are still not inconsistent with the obligations in that resolution, which calls on them to refrain from that activity. So we’re still going to bring it up with the council and we still believe we have a strong case on that.

MR. LEE: Well, that – I mean, really?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

MR. LEE: Because, I mean, look – I went back and I looked. 1929, which is what replaced – sorry, which was – 2231 replaced, at least in terms of the missile technology – UNSCR 1929, number nine, and it says “decides” – this is quote – “decides that Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology.” 2231, which replaced it and enshrined the Iran deal, says, “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.” How is it that you’re – that you can have any kind of a logical disagreement with what Ambassador Churkin said? You have “shall not” and then “is called upon.” And as Ambassador Churkin said, you can’t violate a call. You can ignore it, but it’s not a violation.

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to get into a rhetorical debate about “violate” or “not violate.”

MR. LEE: Well, you’re going to have to, because if you’re going to push this at the Security Council, you’re going to have to convince people – like the Russians and the Chinese –

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Adoption of Nuclear Iran Deal Which ‘Removes all Bans’ Against Iran is Announced

Monday, October 19th, 2015

On the same day that the Speaker of the Iranian Majlis threatened to cease cooperation under the Nuclear Iran Deal should the U.S. or anyone else violate certain conditions, the European Union’s High Representative Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif issued a joint statement calling for a speedy implementation of the Deal.

The statement says:

“Today is Adoption Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) related to the Iran nuclear programme. This is another important milestone that brings us a step closer to the beginning of implementation of the JCPOA, to which we are strongly committed. We have respected the timetable set out in the JCPOA, which demonstrates our collective will to stick to its provisions.

Iran will now start the implementation of its nuclear-related commitments with the objective of full and effective completion. The IAEA will make the necessary preparations for the monitoring and verification of these steps.

The EU today adopted the legislative framework for lifting all of its nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions. It will take effect on Implementation Day, simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear measures by Iran.

The United States is taking action today to cease application of nuclear-related statutory sanctions on Iran effective on Implementation Day when the IAEA has verified implementation of agreed nuclear measures by Iran, as specified in the JCPOA; and is directing all appropriate additional measures be taken to implement the cessation of application of sanctions, including the termination of Executive Orders and the licensing of activities, as specified in the JCPOA.

The Joint Commission foreseen under the JCPOA will now convene for its first meeting at the level of Political Directors on 19 October in Vienna, in order to further advance preparations for implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

All sides remain strongly committed to ensuring that implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action can start as soon as possible. To this end, we will make all the necessary preparations.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia – plus Germany finalized the text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the JCPOA, over Iran’s nuclear program in the Austrian capital of Vienna on July 14.

Under the JCPOA, limits will be put on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for, among other things, the removal of all economic and financial bans against the Islamic Republic.”

Note that last point? The “removal of all economic and financial bans against the Islamic Republic.” All. That isn’t what Obama and Kerry said, is it? One more “in your face” to the naive negotiators.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

US Admin Claims ‘No Self Inspections,’ But Iran Alone Chooses Samples to Inspect

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2015

The bologna surrounding the Nuclear Iran Deal was sliced even more thinly on Monday, Sept. 21.

Remember the alarms raised when a version of one of the confidential secret side deals obtained and reported on by the Associated Press revealed that Iran would be permitted to inspect its own Parchin military site? At least some of Iran’s nuclear weapons activity is suspected to have taken place at Parchin.

On Monday, most of the headlines about the Parchin inspections revealed that what had been suspected was, in fact, the case.

Tehran said that Iranians “independently collected samples” at Parchin with no non-Iranians present.  They later handed over those samples to members of the International Atomic Energy Agency for analysis.

But it wasn’t only Iran that claimed the samples were chosen solely by Iranians, and without any other “inspectors” present.

“It was done by Iranian experts, in the absence of IAEA inspectors,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation.”

But that doesn’t worry the pretty little heads of the official spokespeople for both the White House and the State Department. Oh, no. You see?  It means that the Iranians did not self-inspect, according to the talking points placed in front of both of them.

How so?

Well, because the samples were delivered to the IAEA inspectors for….inspection! So all those efforts to make the secret side deals look like something nefarious when in fact they are merely super-duper top-secret – so secret no American has been or will be permitted to look at the text or the details of the deals, and that includes Secretary of State John Kerry, U.S. President Barack Obama or even the nuclear physicist Secretary of the Energy Ernest Moniz – agreements between the jolly Iranians and the IAEA.

During the State Department Press Briefing on Monday, State’s Spokesperson John Kirby explained that the U.S. administration is perfectly satisfied with Iran being permitted to choose what samples to gather from (maybe?) the military site widely believed to have been the site of nuclear weapons testing, with no independent oversight.

That argument was apparently a winner for Cong. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL). The DNC chair said she was briefed completely on the details of the inspections process, because she told CNN’s Jake Tapper when announcing her decision to support the deal that the Iranians “absolutely cannot self-inspect.”

The Florida Congresswoman also claimed in that same interview that the inspections regime under the Nuclear Iran Deal are “the most intrusive inspections and monitoring that we have ever imposed or that have ever been agreed to.” One wonders how swampland in Florida is selling these days.

Kirby also restated the official State Department position, which is that it is perfectly comfortable with the fact that the inspections process  to determine whether and how far along Iran’s nuclear weapons program was, is a confidential matter between Iran and the IAEA. That is none of the U.S.’s business, in other words.

Here is the full exchange between State Department Spokesman John Kirby and the AP’s incredulous Matt Lee, with an assist from his colleague Brad Klapper [emphasis added]:

QUESTION: And you don’t have any issue with fact that the inspectors were not allowed in, or that they were not there?

MR KIRBY: I would point you, Matt, to what the director general himself noted, which was that the verification activities at Parchin were conducted in the manner consistent with their standard safeguards practices. So the director general himself made it clear that he was comfortable with the verification process and that it was in keeping with the arrangement that they had made with Iran.

QUESTION: That’s great, but you – so you don’t have a problem with them not being physically present?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get into the details of the process itself. That resides inside this confidential arrangement between Iran and the IAEA, so I’m not going to confirm or deny whether inspectors were present here or there. What I am going to say is we’re comfortable that the process was conducted in accordance with the normal procedures and the agreement that the IAEA had already made with Iran.

QUESTION: And so it remains your position that the confidential agreement and whatever it contains is sufficient to investigate? Okay.

MR KIRBY: Absolutely. And again, I’d point you to the fact that Director General Amano made it clear before and I think certainly made the implication today that there’s no self-inspection by Iran in this process.

QUESTION: There – okay. The other thing, at the – that your colleague at the White House seemed to suggest was that the courtesy call that Director General Amano made to Parchin was somehow evidence that – or was evidence that the Iranian military facilities are open and available for IAEA access. Is that really – is that the position of the State Department?

MR KIRBY: Well, in a short answer: yes. I mean, it’s not insignificant that the IAEA and the director general himself – I mean, I don’t know that we would characterize it as a courtesy call –but the fact that he and his team had access to Parchin is not insignificant.

QUESTION: His team, meaning the one person that went with him.

MR KIRBY: Look, I don’t – I’m not going to —

QUESTION: A brief – a brief visit to an empty room at Parchin, you think counts – qualifies as an inspection? That – was that the –

MR KIRBY: It’s not insignificant that they had access to Parchin. The director general himself – and I’m not going to get into the details of his visit or what that – that’s for the IAEA to speak to. But it’s not insignificant that they got – that they were granted access to this.

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that the director general of the IAEA conducts inspections? Or would that normally be done by —

MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on their —

QUESTION: — lower-level people? MR KIRBY: I’m not an expert on their protocols. I don’t think it’s our expectation that he has to personally inspect everything.

QUESTION: Do you think he got down on his hands and knees and —

MR KIRBY: I’d point you to the director general to speak to his personal involvement. I don’t know that that’s our expectation, that he has to, as you said, get down on his hands and knees. But certainly he had access to Parchin, and that’s not insignificant – the first time that that’s been done. If we had this —

QUESTION: Well, do you recall how big a site Parchin is?

MR KIRBY: I don’t. I’m not an expert on the site itself.

QUESTION: It’s rather large.

QUESTION: It’s pretty huge.

MR KIRBY: Okay. QUESTION: So do you think that two people from the IAEA going into an empty room briefly —

MR KIRBY: Matt.

QUESTION: — counts – I’m trying to find out whether you guys think or are trying to say that Amano’s courtesy call, his very brief visit – he even said that it was very brief – counts as some kind of an inspection. That’s all.

MR KIRBY: I would point you to what the IAEA has said about their —

QUESTION: Not even the IAEA said this was an inspection, but your colleague at the White House suggested that the fact that Director General Amano was able to briefly visit one room or one part of the site was evidence that the Iranians have opened up their military sites to IAEA access. And I just want to know if the State Department thinks that it’s – thinks the same.

MR KIRBY: We believe it’s significant that Iran granted access to this facility at Parchin for the first time in the history of this issue, both in his visit and the technical verification activities. What’s more important is we look forward to Iran’s fulling implementing its commitments under the roadmap. That’s what matters here. QUESTION: Would you be confident in this being the standard of inspection going forward?

MR KIRBY: It’s not that that is – this is an issue between Iran and the IAEA, and as we said at the very outset, Brad, that having been briefed on the details of that confidential arrangement, the Secretary remains comfortable that it will allow for the IAEA to get the proper access it needs and the ability, through various techniques, of effectively monitoring.

QUESTION: But you don’t think there needs to be – you’re not saying that whatever the confidential arrangements are of future inspections going forward, that they will have necessarily more access than this?

MR KIRBY: That is between the IAEA and Iran to work out. What matters to us, we’re not going to micromanage the inspection activities of the IAEA. It’s an independent, international agency that can speak for itself about what it will or will not do. And as you know, many of those arrangements are confidential and they won’t speak to them. What matters to us, having been briefed on the protocols, is that we remain comfortable, should this – should Iran continue to meet its commitments in keeping with that arrangement, we believe they will get the access and will get the information they need.

So, according to the Obama Team’s talking points, it does not count as “self-inspection” when the Iranians – with no one watching – choose the samples to be analyzed to determine Iran’s nuclear weapons activity.

And the administration and all the elected officials who support the Nuclear Iran Deal, who are prepared to lift sanctions and turn over a hundred billions of dollars to the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism, are satisfied with this form of no oversight inspection.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

House Passes Resolution Obliging Obama to Follow the Law

Friday, September 11th, 2015

Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced, and the House passed, a Resolution intending to require President Barack Obama to follow his obligations under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Corker-Cardin).

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY), both of whom served in the U.S. military, sponsored House Resolution 411. The Resolution was introduced and then approved by a vote of 243-186 on Thursday, Sept. 10, the same date on which the U.S. Senate filibustered the Iran Deal to prevent the House from pushing forward a disapproval vote and requiring members to publicly vote on the deal.

The Resolution points out that despite the President’s obligation under Corker-Cardin “to transmit the agreement, including any side agreements” to “the appropriate congressional committees and leadership,” and the term “agreement” is exhaustively defined as including any

agreement related to the nuclear pro- gram of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related there- to, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.

Because the President has not provided Congress with the documentation regarding the secret side deals between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the President has failed to comply with Corker-Cardin.

And because Corker-Cardin has been breached by the President, the 60 day Congressional review period, the Resolution states, has not yet begun to run.

“Despite the reckless efforts by President Obama and Senate Democrats to force the implementation of the terribly flawed Iran nuclear agreement, I am proud of my colleagues in the House for getting it right and passing this important resolution today,” said Pompeo.

“This resolution is crucial to reining in the president and forcing him to live up to his obligation under Corker-Cardin, which he himself signed into law just a few months ago. The lack of access to the roadmap makes it impossible for a member of Congress to support this agreement; therefore, the president must show Congress the agreement in its entirety. A bad deal with Iran is not worth risking the safety of Kansans and the American people. I will continue to work hard and do everything in my power to stop this agreement.”

Following the passage of the Resolution, another opponent of the Nuclear Iran Deal, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), said “President Obama broke the very law he signed by failing to provide Congress with the Iran-IAEA side agreements. Withholding these documents from the American people and their elected representatives completely discredits the transparent review process the Administration was legally obligated to provide. In light of this vote, I believe the House should pursue legal action against the Administration for its blatant disregard for the law.”

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

HRC Top Aide: Hillary Paved Go-Ahead on Iranian Enrichment

Wednesday, September 9th, 2015

An explosive report revealed today that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s senior foreign policy negotiator met with the Iranians in Oman in late 2012, a meeting which ultimately led to the decision to allow Iran uranium enrichment capability.

At that time both Clinton and her then-boss, U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as the United Nations Security Council, were completely opposed to allowing Iran to enrich uranium at all as any part of a deal.

By the time Clinton left office, after months of meetings on this topic in Washington, she had concluded that the mullahs would be permitted to maintain at least some capacity to produce nuclear fuel, according to Sullivan, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Sullivan, who now serves as a senior Clinton campaign adviser, was sent by Clinton to Oman to negotiate with Iranian representatives. Sullivan was 35 years old at the time, which was a concern to the Iranians.

Without uranium enrichment rights, the mullahs would not give the “diplomatic track” any traction. So the U.S. caved on that most critical component.

“Mrs. Clinton hated the idea of allowing Iran that capacity, said her aides, but became open to a change in policy if Tehran agreed to serious restrictions on its nuclear program,” the Wall Street Journal reported, but “she hadn’t committed to the shift or to enrichment on a large scale, they said.”

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbade Iran from having any operational centrifuges. Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ultimately negotiated by the U.S. and its P5+1 partners, Iran would be permitted to maintain 5,000 centrifuges. And once the deal sunsets, in ten years, Iran will be able to expand from this number to full industrial scale. Sullivan is credited with being one of the main architects of the deal.

Clinton has been largely circumspect about the Nuclear Iran Deal since leaving office. She publicly, but reservedly supported it, but the role her office played in the decision to allow enrichment was not made public until now.

During Clinton’s presidential campaign, she has met with many Jewish groups and donors. Her campaign officials are acutely aware that this issue is of great concern to Jewish supporters.They are simultaneously promoting her as responsible for this epical change in U.S. foreign policy, while portraying her as deeply concerned about the anxieties expressed by opponents of the deal.

Clinton will be giving an address on the Nuclear Iran Deal Wednesday evening, Sept. 9.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Bad Day for Nuclear Iran Deal Opponents

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015

By mid-afternoon on Tuesday, Sept. 1, three members of the U.S. House of Representatives announced they were supporting the Nuclear Iran Deal. As the afternoon wore on, word came that first Senator Bob Casey (D) of Pennsylvania, and then, to close out the afternoon, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) also came out in favor of the agreement.

The three members of the House of Representatives who said they will support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are Rep.s Patrick Murphy (D-FL-18), Bobby Rush (D-IL-01) and Adam Smith (D-WA-09). None of these were real surprises.

But people were quite hopeful that Casey might swim against the tide. In fact, his statement announcing his support went on for 17 pages.

Casey, like so many other politicians who say they will vote to support the deal, admits that the chances of Iran cheating are significant. He began his analysis with this understanding.

So why support it?

Casey weaves a tale punctuated by “there is no alternative,” and “our allies have decided this is the best deal.” He also cites the letter from 36 U.S. military officials endorsing it (ignoring the letter from more than 200 retired officers opposing it) and mentioned that certain Israeli military leaders support it (ignoring the universal opposition to the deal across the Israeli political spectrum, including its defense department.)

Casey concluded his statement strongly endorsing the need for the U.S. to ensure Iran understands the U.S. will take military action if Iran attempts to develop a nuclear weapon, and stating that the U.S. should aggressively work to curtail Iran’s destabilization of the region through its terror proxies and direct participation in terrorism.

His constituents should watch to see whether Casey does anything to make this happen, because it is doubtful this administration will do any such thing.

Coons told the Washington Post that he was still undecided as recently as ten days ago. But he called Vice President Joe Biden, whose Senate seat Coons now holds, and that conversation finally convinced him to support the deal.

The White House now has 32 Senators who have announced support for the agreement. It only needs one more Democrat to ensure that any congressional effort to defeat his veto of legislation opposing the deal, should he need one, will fail.

And as the numbers increase, the White House is surely beginning to hold out hope that its supporters in Congress will be able to filibuster and thereby prevent any vote against the agreement at all. Senate supporters would need 41 votes to achieve that.

Eleven Senate Democrats have still not revealed how they will vote. Opponents of the deal need each one to go their way or the agreement will be approved.

The remaining fence-sitting senators to watch include Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who is up for re-election in the fall, as is Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, and New Jersey’s Cory Booker.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

3 NYC Ds Disappoint Area Residents and Announce Support for Nuclear Iran Deal

Tuesday, September 1st, 2015

Three members of the New York City Congressional Delegation came out in favor of the Nuclear Iran Deal on Monday, Aug. 31.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY-9), said that after much review and discussion, she now believes that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is “the most effective means by which the United States and her allies can achieve the goal of preventing the Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear weaponry.  It will set new rules of engagement regarding nuclear capabilities with one of the world’s most hostile and menacing regimes.  As one of the premier state sponsors of terrorism in the world, the Iranian regime has made its intentions clear through words and actions that it will, if left unchecked, create a nuclear weapon.”

Clarke is entitled to support the deal, but, as the saying goes, she is not entitled to create her own facts about it. She is incorrect when she included the following in her statement:

Through this agreement, Iran must allow full access at all times to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to monitor every aspect of its nuclear supply chain, to verify that Iran fulfills its pledge not to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. Inspectors will be able to access and monitor all sites ‘where necessary, when necessary’ to ensure Iran’s compliance with the agreement. Only when Iran has fully implemented the agreement will the economic sanctions be removed.

In fact, one of the major criticisms directed against the Nuclear Iran Deal is that President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry dropped their initial insistence that there would be “anywhere, anytime” inspections by members of the IAEA of suspected nuclear sites. Instead, if there is a suspicion that Iran is developing nuclear weapons in a previously undisclosed site, various procedures need to be followed, which means Iran will have nearly a month before any inspectors are allowed to enter the site.

Clarke represents a district which is heavily populated with Orthodox Jews. Her district is in Brooklyn and includes Crown Heights and Flatbush. Clarke had been the focus of intense attention by neighborhood residents and politicians who oppose the deal.

Community resident Yaacov Behrman told the JewishPress.com that congresswoman Yvette Clarke personally told him several months ago she would review the deal and that she would reject a bad deal.

‘I brought her message of hope back to the community. Tonight we all feel betrayed,” Behrman said.

The other two New York Democrats who announced they will support the Nuclear Iran Deal on the same day are Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY-5) and Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-7), who represents parts of Brooklyn, including Williamsburg, Lower Manhattan and Queens.

Velázquez issued a statement in which she said “after several months of deliberation, it is my deeply held belief that the JCPOA is the best option we have for preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the near term. I will support the agreement when it comes before the House for a vote.”

Announcing his support for the deal, Rep. Meeks said ““In my review, I placed great importance on the verification and inspection process,” and he also claimed that if “Iran violates the deal, sanctions will snap back into place.”

Weeks represents Far Rockaway, Jamaica, Queens and parts of Manhattan.

New York politicians and community leaders opposed to the deal are already discussing potential candidates to challenge those elected officials who vote to support the deal.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/3-nyc-ds-disappoint-area-residents-and-announce-support-for-nuclear-iran-deal/2015/09/01/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: