Obama Falsely Claims Deal Opponents Give No Reasons –– Therefore It’s Political
News Press Release
August 11, 2015
In an interview on ‘Fareed Zakaria’s GPS’ on CNN, President Barack Obama has astonishingly and falsely claimed that Congressional opponents of his nuclear deal with Iran have not given real reasons for their opposition, which he claims proves that their opposition is political, not substantive.
 
 
In the interview, President Obama said, “There are those who, if they did not read the bill before they announced their opposition, if they are not able to offer plausible reasons why they wouldn’t support the bill or plausible alternatives in preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, other than potential military strikes, then that would indicate that they’re not interested in the substance of the issue, they’re interested in the politics of the issue. (‘CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS EXCLUSIVE: President Barack Obama on the P+5 Iran deal,’ August 9, 2015).
 
 
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “President Obama implies that the opposition of members of Congress is not principled and concerned for American and international peace and security and that they have not given reasons for their opposition. This is a despicable lie. Congressional opponents of the deal, including Democrats, have given detailed, substantive reasons for their oppositionThese include Senator Charles Schumer(D-NY) and Members of Congress Eliot Engel (D-NY), Ted Deutsch (D-FL), Steve Israel (D-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Grace Meng (D-NY), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Juan Vargas  (D-NY).
 
President Obama implies that the opposition of members of Congress is not principled and concerned for American and international peace and security and that they have not given reasons for their opposition.
 

“Congressional opponents have argued that President Obama’s nuclear agreement does not merit support because it does not achieve the termination of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which President Obama falsely claims it does, and thus increases international insecurity in the medium to long-term. This deal after all, and as the ZOA has elaborated, gives $150 billion to Iran in unfrozen assets and tens of billions of dollars annually to Iran in sanctions relief, money that will undoubtedly swell Iran’s sponsorship of terror around the globe, including supplying thousands of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Congressional opponents also argue (as President Obama once did) that no agreement is better than a bad one, like the deal we now actually have, and have recommended maintenance of strong sanctions as more likely to bring Iran to make concessions.”

 
 
The ZOA lists some detailed critiques of the deal by Congressional Democratic opponents below:
 
  • The latest to declare himself, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) recently issued a 1,700-word statement outlining precisely the problems with the nuclear deal that has led him to oppose it. In it, Senator Schumer explained that his opposition is based on three major weaknesses in the plan: a very limited nuclear restrictions on Iran in the next decade; the absence of restrictions on Iran after that date; and in the non-nuclear components and consequences of the deal. Senator Schumer cited specific weaknesses in the agreement– the 24 day delay before any inspections can occur at declared sites; the inability of the United States to unilaterally demand inspections if for example US intelligence uncovers violations; inability to restore sanctions in the event of violations, given that restoring sanctions depends upon a majority vote in an eight-member committee, many of whose members have strong economic incentives not to reimpose sanctions on Iran and, thus, the fiction of ‘snapback’ sanctions; and so on. Senator Schumer also argued that no nuclear agreement is better than this bad one given that Iran’s aggressive designs in the Middle East and support for terrorism can only grow with the dropping of sanctions – and there is no evidence to support the hope that Iran might moderate in the next decade.

 

  • Another opponent of the deal, Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY), the highest ranking Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, has opposed it because he disbelieves the claim that this deal will stop Iran from going nuclear while also strengthening Iran’s “destabilizing and destructive influence across the Middle East.”

 

  • Member of Congress Grace Meng (D-NY), in a statement on July 29, 2015, gave detailed reasons for her opposition, saying that “I believe the inspections procedures set forth are flawed — leading nuclear experts assert that, pursuant to these procedures, inspectors would not necessarily know whether Iran is manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that almost all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would remain intact; this leads me to believe Iran would simply resume its pursuit of a nuclear weapon at the conclusion of the deal in a decade’s time.  Finally, the immediate sanctions relief provided Iran in the deal would incentivize the funding of terrorism and lessen Iran’s interest in restraining its nuclear ambitions over the long term … the deal before us now is simply too dangerous for the American people. I have every confidence a better deal can be realized.”

 

  • Congressman Juan Vargas (D-CA) has also given detailed reasons explaining why this deal will not achieve the goals President Obama says it will. Congressman Vargas, in the San Diego Union Tribune on July 24, said, “I detailed the criteria necessary for any final agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I strongly believe this deal does not meet that standard. The deal fails to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. It fails to guarantee intrusive enough inspections to ensure that Iran does not cheat, and it fails to keep Iran from achieving nuclear-threshold status. This deal is predicated on Iran’s compliance. In exchange for phased and reversible sanctions relief – at approximately $150 billion – the administration promised to cut off Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb. Instead, this agreement gives Iran a rapid payday while legitimizing its path to nuclear-threshold status. Iran has never fully addressed the concerns of international inspectors, and the regime has given us no reason to believe that will change … Supporters of this agreement believe that relieving sanctions and legitimizing this regime will moderate them.  That didn’t work with North Korea, and it won’t work with Iran. This strategy is doomed to fail, and this deal is destined to be remembered as a mistake. For months the administration has told us that ‘a bad deal is worse than no deal.’ Now the message seems to be that it is better to support than oppose this bad deal because it is the best we could get.  I disagree.  If this deal is approved, it will lock us into bad results that far outweigh its benefits … I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this deal and press for a better deal that will truly end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and make the world safer.”

 

  • Congressman Ted Deutsch (D-FL), in opposing President Obama’s nuclear deal, that “There are different predictions about what will happen if Congress rejects this deal.  But the consequences of approving it aren’t up for debate. Opening Iran up to foreign investment, increasing its oil exports, and unfreezing over $100 billion in assets means more money for Hamas for building terror tunnels in Gaza, more weapons for Hezbollah in Lebanon, more slaughter in Syria, and more violence worldwide. After a decade in public life working to stop Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, I cannot support a deal giving Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief — in return for letting it maintain an advanced nuclear program and the infrastructure of a threshold nuclear state.”

 

The ZOA has also extensively cited the arguments against this deal presented by other Congressional Democrats — Steve Israel (D-NY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Albio Sires (D-NJ).
  • ZOA’s Mort Klein TV Interview Exposing Truth of New Arab/Muslim War on Israel and Jews

  • Our Mission
    ZOA STATEMENT
    The ZOA speaks out for Israel – in reports, newsletters, and other publications. In speeches in synagogues, churches, and community events, in high schools and colleges from coast to coast. In e-mail action alerts. In op-eds and letters to the editor. In radio and television appearances by ZOA leaders. Always on the front lines of pro-Israel activism, ZOA has made its mark.
    Center for Law & Justice
    We work to educate the American public and Congress about legal issues in order to advance the interests of Israel and the Jewish people.
    We assist American victims of terrorism in vindicating their rights under the law, and seek to hold terrorists and sponsors of terrorism accountable for their actions.
    We fight anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses.
    We strive to enforce existing law and also to create new law in order to safeguard the rights of the Jewish people in the United States and Israel.