WarSclerotic

Bipartisanship in US Senate may fracture over Iran sanctions | JPost | Israel News.

By MICHAEL WILNER

01/29/2014 01:12

Future of controversial sanctions bill lies in the balance amid jockeying on the Hill.

WASHINGTON – While US President Barack Obama made final edits to his fifth State of the Union address on Tuesday, senior Senate aides relayed conflicting messages on the future of a key bill introduced last month threatening Iran with new sanctions should negotiations fail to dismantle its nuclear program.

Jockeying on the Hill reflected tense politics surrounding the future of the bill, which the president firmly opposes, warning that its passage through the Senate would derail talks between Iran and world powers.

A bloc of 19 Democratic senators is protesting the bill, as are foreign allied dignitaries in London and Paris. However, 59 senators from both parties openly support the legislation, which gives the president up to a year to negotiate a comprehensive solution to the nuclear impasse before triggering new sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, upon presidential approval.

Proponents of the bill, written by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ), seek an “insurance policy” on Iran during the negotiations process, afraid that an interim deal that only temporarily halts Iran’s nuclear program might become a new status quo in the longstanding crisis.

A recent meeting of Senate Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), reportedly resulted in a decision not to proceed with the legislation, Reuters claimed on Tuesday.

Senators first returned to Washington yesterday after a ten-day recess, raising questions as to when the meeting would have taken place.

Senate aides from both parties familiar with the bill said they were unaware of such a meeting, or of whether a decision had been made on how to proceed, one way or another.

“The truth is that Republicans have been holding back to try to maintain the bipartisan support that we know this issue engenders across the nation,” one senior Republican Senate aide told The Jerusalem Post. “But if Leader Reid wishes to defy the will of the majority of the Senate and the majority of the American people, Republicans will be forced to take partisan steps to try to force a vote.”

For the most part, the politics of Iran are typically placid and bipartisan in Washington, with a steady 80 percent of Americans distrustful of the Islamic Republic and, in general, supportive of more sanctions than less.

But fewer than one in ten Americans considers foreign policy a priority. That will be reflected in the president’s speech Tuesday night, as he is unlikely to spend much time discussing the Middle East.

The White House hopes the issue can remain bipartisan, and insists Obama will support swift action on sanctions should talks fail in six months’ time.

The president has threatened to veto the bill should it pass through the Senate and reach his desk.

Ex-CIA head: US would use force to stop Iran | JPost | Israel News.

By BEN HARTMAN

01/29/2014 01:49

Petraeus says that while there is a prevailing “wariness” among Americans towards military interventions abroad, people should not make the mistake that the US is not willing to use force to protect its interests.

Israelis should have faith that the United States is willing to use force to stop the Iranian nuclear program, former Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus said Tuesday.

“Take yes for an answer. This is not an off the cuff comment. He [US President Barack Obama] has articulated his approach on the Iranian nuclear program many times,” Patraeus said at the Institute for National Security Studies’ (INSS) annual conference in Tel Aviv.

Using the examples of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Petraeus said that while there is a prevailing “wariness” among the American public towards military interventions abroad, people should not make the mistake that the United States is not willing to use force to protect its interests.

“We are embarked on more nation-building at home for sure, there is wisdom in that, but people should not mistake that for the ability or willingness of the US to protect its vital interests,” Petraeus said.

In regards to the Obama administration’s handling of the Syria war and the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Petraeus said that “the complication of the Syria issue and the redline caused a degree of confusion and concern.”

The former commander of US forces in Afghanistan and the US Central Command added that in a wider look at US defense policy, while it is true that the Pentagon is reducing its budget “even after we will still spend more on defense than the next 10-14 countries together.”

Petraeus’s comments came during a back-and-forth with Amos Yadlin, the former head of AMAN, the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate.

Yadlin asked Petraeus about the security threats facing the US, and the former CIA chief referred to recent gridlock in Washington and the government shutdown saying “if you asked me a month ago what the worst security threat to the US was I would have said DC.”

Yadlin closed by asking Petraeus what he believes was the effect of the leaks by former National Security Agency employee Edward Snowden, to which he said “Snowden has done colossal damage and it was an enormous blow, as much as any spy, traitor or turncoat,” concluding “at the end of the day the damage done was enormous.”