This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/senate-democrats-support-iran-nuclear-deal-block-disapproval-resolution

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Iran deal: Obama may have support he needs to avoid using veto Iran deal: Obama may have support he needs to avoid using veto
(about 1 hour later)
The White House is on the verge of a dramatic political victory in Congress after a flurry of last-minute endorsements for its Iran nuclear deal put Democrats within sight of enough votes to spare Barack Obama from needing to veto a motion of disapproval from Congress.The White House is on the verge of a dramatic political victory in Congress after a flurry of last-minute endorsements for its Iran nuclear deal put Democrats within sight of enough votes to spare Barack Obama from needing to veto a motion of disapproval from Congress.
At least 41 Democratic senators have now expressed their support for the international deal, which aims to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, after Oregon senator Ron Wyden joined Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Gary Peters of Michigan in endorsing the agreement on Tuesday.At least 41 Democratic senators have now expressed their support for the international deal, which aims to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, after Oregon senator Ron Wyden joined Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Gary Peters of Michigan in endorsing the agreement on Tuesday.
In theory, this should be enough for Democratic minority leader Harry Reid to block Republican efforts to pass a vote of disapproval on the deal and thereby obviate the need for the president to take the politically embarrassing step of vetoing the legislation. In theory, this should be enough for the Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, to block Republican efforts to pass a vote of disapproval on the deal and thereby obviate the need for the president to take the politically embarrassing step of vetoing the legislation.
However this would still require Democrats to vote against the procedural “cloture” motion that is needed to bring debate to a close, and it was not yet clear on Tuesday morning whether all those reluctantly supporting the Iran deal would be prepared to do this and risk being accused of filibustering such an important vote. However, this would still require Democrats to vote against the procedural “cloture” motion that is needed to bring debate to a close, and it was not yet clear on Tuesday morning whether all those reluctantly supporting the Iran deal would be prepared to do this and risk being accused of filibustering such an important vote.
At least one – Delaware senator Chris Coons – has already said he is in favour of the deal but also wants to see a formal vote on it rather than have it be killed by these procedural means.At least one – Delaware senator Chris Coons – has already said he is in favour of the deal but also wants to see a formal vote on it rather than have it be killed by these procedural means.
Nonetheless, the flurry of last-minute backing represents a symbolic expression of support for the administration, which had already cleared the 34-senator hurdle needed to ensure that Obama could withstand any attempt to override his veto.Nonetheless, the flurry of last-minute backing represents a symbolic expression of support for the administration, which had already cleared the 34-senator hurdle needed to ensure that Obama could withstand any attempt to override his veto.
Wyden, a longtime liberal stalwart and the son of Holocaust survivors, was one of the key undecided votes and has long cut his own idiosyncratic path in the Senate.Wyden, a longtime liberal stalwart and the son of Holocaust survivors, was one of the key undecided votes and has long cut his own idiosyncratic path in the Senate.
In a statement, he emphasised that “the ayatollahs of Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon” and warned “the Iranian regime will undoubtedly look to push the limits of this agreement”. However, the Oregon Democrat thought that if “the agreement is rejected ... all signs point to even more risk and even less stability in the region”. In a statement, he emphasised that “the ayatollahs of Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon” and warned “the Iranian regime will undoubtedly look to push the limits of this agreement”. However, the Oregon Democrat thought that if “the agreement is rejected … all signs point to even more risk and even less stability in the region”.
Wyden has been a key supporter of efforts to reform the National Security Agency but also been vocally skeptical of the Iran deal. On Tuesday, Wyden reluctantly announced his support for the deal, describing his decision as “a tough call”.Wyden has been a key supporter of efforts to reform the National Security Agency but also been vocally skeptical of the Iran deal. On Tuesday, Wyden reluctantly announced his support for the deal, describing his decision as “a tough call”.
Shortly beforehand, West Virginia moderate Joe Manchin became the fourth Democrat to come out against the deal.Shortly beforehand, West Virginia moderate Joe Manchin became the fourth Democrat to come out against the deal.
“I could not ignore the fact that Iran, the country that will benefit most from sanctions being lifted, refuses to change its 36-year history of sponsoring terrorism,” he said in a statement. “For me, this deal had to be about more than preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon for the next 10-15 years. For me, this deal had to address Iran’s terrorist actions ... I cannot gamble our security, and that of our allies, on the hope that Iran will conduct themselves differently than it has for the last 36 years.” “I could not ignore the fact that Iran, the country that will benefit most from sanctions being lifted, refuses to change its 36-year history of sponsoring terrorism,” he said in a statement. “For me, this deal had to be about more than preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon for the next 10-15 years. For me, this deal had to address Iran’s terrorist actions … I cannot gamble our security, and that of our allies, on the hope that Iran will conduct themselves differently than it has for the last 36 years.”
Voices from the past also emerged to weigh in on the Iran deal. In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington thinktank long associated with neoconservatism, former vice-president Dick Cheney railed against the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative on Tuesday.Voices from the past also emerged to weigh in on the Iran deal. In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington thinktank long associated with neoconservatism, former vice-president Dick Cheney railed against the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy initiative on Tuesday.
Cheney said the current nuclear agreement with Iran was an “intricately crafted capitulation”. The Iran deal would accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and legitimize Iran’s uranium enrichment program, he said. Cheney also argued the deal would accelerate the Syrian refugee crisis as the Iranian government would use the lifting of financial sanctions to further fund the Assad regime. Cheney said the current nuclear agreement with Iran was an “intricately crafted capitulation”. The Iran deal would accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and legitimise Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, he said. Cheney also argued the deal would accelerate the Syrian refugee crisis as the Iranian government would use the lifting of financial sanctions to further fund the Assad regime.
Cheney offered an alternative, saying a far better deal was still possible. “Iran will not be convinced to abandon its program peacefully unless it knows it will face military action if it refuses to do so,” he said. Cheney offered an alternative, saying a far better deal was still possible. “Iran will not be convinced to abandon its programme peacefully unless it knows it will face military action if it refuses to do so,” he said.
Cheney cited the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on flawed intelligence, as one example of the efficacy of military action. He asserted there there was “evidence that the Iranians halted a portion of their program in 2003 in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq – hoping to protect themselves from suffering Saddam’s fate”. Cheney cited the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, based on flawed intelligence, as one example of the efficacy of military action. He asserted there there was “evidence that the Iranians halted a portion of their programme in 2003 in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq – hoping to protect themselves from suffering Saddam’s fate”.
Speaking out in favour of the Iran deal, Senate minority leader Reid said he would be urging Republican leadership to proceed straight to a vote – and thereby avoid the filibuster threat – but only if it agreed to accept that a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes, was needed for it to pass rather than a straight majority of 50.Speaking out in favour of the Iran deal, Senate minority leader Reid said he would be urging Republican leadership to proceed straight to a vote – and thereby avoid the filibuster threat – but only if it agreed to accept that a three-fifths majority, or 60 votes, was needed for it to pass rather than a straight majority of 50.
At a luncheon at the National Press Club on Tuesday, long-shot Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham slammed the deal as one that “gives [Iran] a nuclear bomb, a missile to deliver it and the money to pay for it”. The three-term senator from South Carolina and vocal foreign policy hawk argued that Obama had negotiated from a position of weakness and allowed the Iranian regime to take advantage of the United States. “The Iranians have sized Obama up and found him lacking,” he said.
The South Carolina Republican also used the charged analogy of comparing the Iran deal to Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 agreement with Adolf Hitler in Munich. The difference was “that at least Hitler lied”, Graham said, arguing that the Iranian regime had long been open about its goal of destroying the state of Israel and backing terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.