"No deal is perfect"

September 2, 2015 6:18 PM

Today, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) announced she would support the Obama Administration's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the international agreement to end economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions imposed on its nuclear program. As the 34th Senator to so announce, Mikulski hands the White House the final Senate vote needed to protect President Obama's veto of Congress's expected rejection of the deal.

Mikulski, who this spring announced she would retire from the Senate at the end of this term (her fifth), is the longest-serving woman in the history of the U.S. Congress, where she represented Maryland (her home state) in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1977 to 1987 and in the U.S. Senate since 1987.

posted by sallybrown (39 comments total)

Previously on the Blue: (a) on the deal, (b) on the "secret" history of women in the Senate, including Mikulski, the "dean" of women Senators.
posted by sallybrown at 6:29 PM on September 2, 2015

Thanks Babs! You've always been there for NASA and jobs for your constituents like me at Goddard, and now you are supporting this treaty. You will be missed.

To the jerkoffs from the American Security Initiative who implored me to contact Senator Mikulski about the treaty, I did and asked her to support it.
posted by Rob Rockets at 6:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [20 favorites]

Man, the Republican Jewish Coalition has been flooding our local channels with ads targeting Sen. Donnelley for supporting the Iran deal. They're pretty shamelessly fear-mongering and inaccurate. You can't watch 15 minutes of local TV without seeing one.
posted by Thorzdad at 6:48 PM on September 2, 2015

It's not just Republicans. You also have Chuck Schumer (D., Israel) who is also likely to become next Senate Minority Leader when Harry Reid retires.
posted by JackFlash at 6:58 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]

Can we get a popular vote referendum for wars amendment already? Preferably the 1916 version not the Ludlow version.
posted by Talez at 7:15 PM on September 2, 2015

Chuck Schumer (D., Israel)

And yet . . .

The most important Democratic defector, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, is poised to become the next party leader, but he publicly declined to pressure colleagues to join him.
-- LA Times

posted by Herodios at 7:18 PM on September 2, 2015

Can we get a popular vote referendum for wars amendment already?

If it were up to the locals in my neck of the woods, most of the Middle East would be a big, glowing pile of Trinitite by now, if such a thing we're in place, so I'll pass on that.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:27 PM on September 2, 2015 [3 favorites]

Chuck Schumer (D., Israel)

Can we not blow this divided-loyalty dogwhistle, please?
posted by Etrigan at 7:31 PM on September 2, 2015 [16 favorites]

Schumer could have done a hell of a lot more to mess with this than he did. He found a way to represent his most vocal constituents while not whipping anyone against the deal. (I subscribe to the theory that he came out against the deal as soon as he, but not yet the public, was confident it would pass without him.) We don't know what would have happened if he had been the only option left for being the 34th to protect the veto.
posted by sallybrown at 7:49 PM on September 2, 2015 [8 favorites]

If you're keeping score, there's a whip list of how senators currently stand.
posted by peeedro at 7:49 PM on September 2, 2015

James Fallows also called it a month ago on Schumer's opposition being a sign that this was in the bag

"the Congress would have to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers—and this is what the Democrats, even in their diminished numbers, should still be able to block with some votes to spare.

Schumer doesn’t put it this way, but obviously he is hoping that one of those spare votes will be his. His life will be easier in many ways—in minimizing hassle during his upcoming reelection run in New York, and thus maximizing his efforts to help other Democratic candidates so that he has a chance of becoming Senate majority rather than minority leader—if he doesn’t have to spend time explaining away a vote for the deal to his conservative and AIPAC-aligned constituents"
posted by bl1nk at 7:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [5 favorites]

He found a way to represent his most vocal constituents.

And just who are those "vocal constituents?" Polling shows that American Jews support the Iran deal at a rate of 63%, almost two thirds, and that is higher than the approval rate of all Americans.
posted by JackFlash at 8:01 PM on September 2, 2015 [10 favorites]

And just who are those "vocal constituents?"

Here's a NY state-specific poll taken a few days after Schumer came out against the deal (which obviously could/did affect the results, as could all sorts of the typical factors that skew poll results (framing of the question, etc)).

I'm sure Schumer's team had internal polling that had some impact on his decision-making. I also have a hunch that he would have backed the deal if he could, given his ambitions for the upcoming year.
posted by sallybrown at 8:06 PM on September 2, 2015

And just who are those "vocal constituents?" Polling shows that American Jews support the Iran deal at a rate of 63%, almost two thirds, and that is higher than the approval rate of all Americans.

Moderate jews by far support the deal. The 63% polled after all includes secular jews by ethnicity as admitted in the poll. Those jews by far consider themselves Americans and not really connected to Israel at all. Straw polling amongst the in laws I see the exact same thing. The practicing Jews are against it, the secular ones are for it.

Meanwhile, AIPAC, ADL, AJC and other I/J variants of alphabet soup continue to come out against the deal while other individual detractors pull satirical stunts.

That's even before you get to the left's childish and borderline racist jabs against Schumer for coming out against the deal.
posted by Talez at 8:18 PM on September 2, 2015

Hey, Schumer can vote however he likes, but if we wants to be Senate Leader then he has to show that he can lead, not roll over on his back and wet himself every time AIPAC or the Wall Street bankers bark at him.

If the next President is Hillary Clinton, then it's going to get really ugly and she's going to need someone she can count on to cover her back every step of the way. Schumer is demonstrating that he cannot fulfill that role.
posted by JackFlash at 8:29 PM on September 2, 2015 [6 favorites]

Moderate jews by far support the deal. The 63% polled after all includes secular jews by ethnicity as admitted in the poll.Those jews by far consider themselves Americans and not really connected to Israel at all...

Please stop doing this. American Jews consider themselves Americans. American Jews who are "really connected to Israel" and who practice the religion (like me) consider themselves Americans. That's because we are Americans.

Some of us support the Iran proposal and some of us don't and most of us have thought about it a fair amount.

Also, we spell it with a capital J.
posted by escabeche at 8:29 PM on September 2, 2015 [21 favorites]

It's not just Republicans. You also have Chuck Schumer (D., Israel)

Seconding Etrigan. If you can't make your argument without adding in a dual-loyalty bullshit dogwhistle, then don't fucking make it.

Moderate jews by far support the deal. The 63% polled after all includes secular jews by ethnicity as admitted in the poll.Those jews by far consider themselves Americans and not really connected to Israel at all...

Jews, with a capital "J", thanks.

American Jews like me are Americans.
Practicing/Theistic American Jews, like me, are Americans.
Secular American Jews are also Americans.
It's really, really, REALLY fucking abhorrent and offensive to have our loyalties questioned.

Oh, for whatever it's worth, I'm a practicing Jew who 100% supports the Iran deal, and was deeply relieved by this news. I know at least a couple of dozen practicing/theistic Jews who also support the Iran deal.
posted by zarq at 8:38 PM on September 2, 2015 [13 favorites]

My sincere apologies, I didn't mean to insinuate that at all and I chose my words poorly.
posted by Talez at 8:55 PM on September 2, 2015 [7 favorites]

I didn't really think you did. And I hope it's clear that I'm not really arguing against you, I'm arguing against the currents of ideology that make it feel natural and normal for people to say things like that without thinking about it.
posted by escabeche at 9:00 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

American Jew here who both supports the Iran deal and Israel's right to exist (though not the current Israeli government, kthx!).
posted by Ruki at 9:00 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is fantastic news. Great news indeed. I can't wait for the editions of Washington Week and Meet the Press in 20 years that dissect what a load of horseshit much of the opposition to the deal was.

Oh yeah. We must not revisit errors. We might be accused of being liberal.
posted by persona au gratin at 9:05 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

Talez, Okay. No problem. Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it.
posted by zarq at 9:09 PM on September 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is fantastic news. Great news indeed. I can't wait for the editions of Washington Week and Meet the Press in 20 years that dissect what a load of horseshit much of the opposition to the deal was.

Oh yeah. We must not revisit errors. We might be accused of being liberal.

20 years? It took less than a year to realize the horseshit that was opposition to the AWACS deal.
posted by Talez at 9:11 PM on September 2, 2015

I don't get it. What is the argument against this deal? What are the alternatives?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 11:46 PM on September 2, 2015

What are the alternatives?
posted by Karaage at 12:38 AM on September 3, 2015 [3 favorites]

Either Iran needs a deal or it doesn't need a deal. If Iran doesn't need a deal then the whole thing is irrelevant anyway; if it does need a deal then a better one could probably have been extracted. Because as it stands, the deal is stupid. Iran gets to perform its own inspections on its own sites, and if it self-reports that it's being naughty then there's a whole drawn-out process that is frankly not going to achieve anything. And it can still refine uranium, and in fifteen years the whole deal comes to an end.

There's no money in continued sanctions, but there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars worth of deals that are being made for trade in Iranian oil and supplying previously interdicted goods. Obama made a fuss about AIPAC spending what, $20 million on advertising against the deal? That expenditure was up-front and open: where's the money that has been spent in support of the deal, and what did it pay for?
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:57 AM on September 3, 2015

Austrialia continues to do a brisk trade with Iran and has basically implemented the bare minimum of sanctions. Maybe if you'd done your part to weaken Iran, we could of gotten more.
posted by humanfont at 4:18 AM on September 3, 2015

I can only see two outcomes if this deal fails:

1. Iran puts their program in overdrive and gets nuclear weapons
2. US declares war on Iran. Possibly after (1).

So for those of you opposed to this deal, which of these alternatives are you supporting?
posted by indubitable at 4:53 AM on September 3, 2015

However, he said that he was "disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work."

He added, "I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way."

Literally five minutes with Google. And that's at only one site, Parchin, not any of the others. And that's not part of the deal, either, that's part of a draft implementing arrangement between Iran and the IAEA. Heck, here's one more minute of further reading through the search hits:

"The oldest Washington game is being played in Vienna," Lewis said. "And that is leaking what appears to be a prejudicial and one-sided account of a confidential document to a friendly reporter, and using that to advance a particular policy agenda."

The AP's controversial and badly flawed Iran inspections story, explained.
posted by traveler_ at 6:05 AM on September 3, 2015 [5 favorites]

Because as it stands, the deal is stupid. Iran gets to perform its own inspections on its own sites, and if it self-reports that it's being naughty then there's a whole drawn-out process that is frankly not going to achieve anything.

This sounded like a mischaracterization to me and read more about it. As expected, it's much more nuanced in reality.

The 'self inspections' is in relation to site that may have been used in the past for nuclear weapons development that international inspectors went through in 2004 and found nothing. Self inspections are not the norm for inspections moving forward under the deal.
posted by Karaage at 6:08 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]

Obama made a fuss about AIPAC spending what, $20 million on advertising against the deal? That expenditure was up-front and open: where's the money that has been spent in support of the deal, and what did it pay for?

This is starting to sound the other side of the coin of the divided loyalties argument. You've already used an argument that was proven false over two weeks ago, so enough with the insinuations that Obama is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. It makes it sound like you believe that the majority of Jewish Americans and plurality (or likely majority) of Jewish American legislators who support the deal are being paid off and/or coerced.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [4 favorites]

Either Iran needs a deal or it doesn't need a deal. If Iran doesn't need a deal then the whole thing is irrelevant anyway; if it does need a deal then a better one could probably have been extracted.

Neither side "needs" anything here. If there's no deal, Iran will continue doing what it's doing and we'll continue doing what we're doing. However, that status quo is one in which Iranians are suffering from the sanctions and Iran is still pursuing a nuclear weapon, so that has negative costs that both sides would like to avoid. Your spherical cow thinking that the JCPOA parties *must* have been able to get a better deal simply because Iran didn't take its ball and go home has no relation to how actual negotiations work.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:09 AM on September 3, 2015 [6 favorites]

War on the Rocks: US - Iranian Relations After The Nuclear Deal - From Detente To Rapprochement & How The AP Got The Iran Inspections Story Wrong

South Jerusalem: If Your Senator Is Considering Voting No on the Iran Deal, Ask Her to Read This

New York Times: Potential for Democratic Filibuster on Iran Deal Angers Key Republican

World Politics Review: Iran Deal Critics Pending Defeat Shows The Downsides Of Hawkishness

Fabius Maximus: Stratfor describes the Middle East – after the Iran deal

Tehran’s competitors in the region will not sit idly by without attempting to curb the expansion of Iranian influence. This will not manifest in all-out warfare between the Middle East’s most significant powers; Iran is not the only country well versed in the use of proxies. But the conflicts that are already raging in the region will continue unabated and likely only worsen. These clashes will occur on multiple fault lines: Sunni versus Shiite, for example, plus ethnic conflicts among Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Kurds, and other groups. The Iranian nuclear deal in the short term thus means more conflict, not less.

posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:46 AM on September 3, 2015 [1 favorite]

Booker, Heitkamp, and Warner have all said they'll support it. The Senate now only needs four more out of Bennet, Blumenthal, Manchin (who is leaning towards supporting it), Cantwell, Cardin, Peters, and Wyden to filibuster. Of course, if enough House Democrats support it, the attempt to block the deal won't even need to go to the Senate to be filibustered or denied.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:07 PM on September 3, 2015

And now Michael Bennet has said he'll support the deal. He was raised in part as a secular Jew (his maternal grandparents survived the Warsaw Ghetto), and he's running for re-election next year in a swing state.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:57 AM on September 4, 2015

He was raised in part as a secular Jew [...]

The "Jew" thing is pretty much irrelevant here, except for the touching belief that Jews may be more compassionate. Iran's nuclearisation is not directly relevant to the USA, just as North Korea's was not directly relevant. I'm pretty sure it will be highly relevant indirectly, as Iran proceeds to arm other nations, but that's long beyond the USA's political cycle. That being the case, why should anyone expect that the USA continue to spend both financial and diplomatic capital on something that doesn't benefit it? The same analysis applies to the Great Powers, who are the only ones with a real vote as to whether the sanctions stay or go.

In contrast, the countries to which this issue is relevant are those in Iran's neighbourhood. The USA worked hard at mustering support among them, and I think it's significant that Saudi Arabia's very equivocal support for it only came now, after it was a done deal. But Saudi Arabia's a big country, and the USA's has demonstrated that it will go to war to protect Saudi oilfields. Israel's tiny and doesn't have the same assurance. It's quite telling that all its major parties are opposed to this deal.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:35 AM on September 5, 2015

Iran is a minor player in international arms market place. Even before sanctions their exports were barely over US$100 million. By contrast the U.S. tips the world with annual arms exports over $100 billion. Russia a second at $59 billion. Israel is in the top ten with annual exports over a $1 billion. Oh and Austrialia exports about $500 million/year in weapons. If one looks at the Syrian situation one will find that their largest weapons supplier is Russia, Iranian troops and proxies (Hezbollah) have not been effective and have suffered major defeats to Daesh. Assad appears to be turning increasingly towards Putin for aid and assistance with Russian military contractors showing up in ever larger numbers and rumors of a major Russan expansion including major troop commitments in the near future.
posted by humanfont at 5:02 PM on September 5, 2015 [1 favorite]

Meet the Iran Lobby

– In the fight over sanctions and the nuclear deal, how did the supposedly all-powerful pro-Israel lobby lose to the slick operatives of the National Iranian American Council?

Short answer: lobbies are very good at getting the White House to do what it wants to do anyway.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:01 PM on September 5, 2015

Uh, the wheels that needed to be greased were in Congress, not in the White House, who was pushing the deal in the first place.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:02 PM on September 5, 2015