Iran Deal Appears to be a Done Deal in the Senate

[cigaretteman]

After more than two months of uncertainty, it looks like President Obama is going to get his Iran deal.

Congress will vote in mid-September on a yes-or-no resolution that could give the historic nuclear deal President Obama and five other nations signed with Iran in July the go-ahead or halt it.

Obama has vowed to veto any resolution disapproving of the deal. But because an agreement was reached just before the August recess, opponents of the agreement had two months to rally support for their side and try to gather the two-thirds majorities required to overcome that veto.

As Congress prepares to come back from its August recess, it looks like opponents have failed. Senate Democrats have steadily come out in support of the deal, and we are now waiting on the 34th senator to signal support, a magic number that will allow Obama to sustain his veto should Congress pass a resolution of disapproval that could weaken the deal.

Currently, 30 are solid yesses, with 3 more leaning toward voting for the deal. Democrats might even be able to reach an even more magical number for Obama, 41, which would effectively prevent the resolution of disapproval from even coming to a vote in the Senate.

We've been monitoring all the senators' comments on the issue and classifying them accordingly. Be sure to bookmark this page for the latest updates. We'll update this whip count regularly.

And if we miss anything or classify a senator wrongly, make sure to let us know via e-mail.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...stands-on-the-iran-deal/?tid=trending_strip_2

 

[theiacowtipper]

Funny how Republicans are now calling for a rule on this bill that will allow for a simple up/down vote, making it ineligible for filibuster. This is apparently much more important to them now than it was before January of 2014.

 

[22*43*51]

I think it is cute that it is still allowed to be called a "deal".

Republicans completely missed the boat, or were only feigning outrage.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Closer than I expected, but still going as predicted.

What Israel and the GOP need to stop this is an event. Some outrage-worthy action by Iran. Something they could hammer as proving Iran can't be trusted.

Can such an event be provoked or fabricated? You have to figure Iran has told everyone to be very careful not to give any cause or excuse. So it won't be easy. But the Israelis are clever. So I wouldn't rule it out. And there are others who might also see killing this deal as being in their best interests. Saudi Arabia in particular, but also possibly ISIS or al Qaeda. Maybe some in Pakistan.

 

[SIXERS24]

Well Presidents from now on will just make deals!

Treaties are dead!

Democrats will someday be outraged when the shoe is on the other foot!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well Presidents from now on will just make deals!

Treaties are dead!

Democrats will someday be outraged when the shoe is on the other foot!

Probably.

In fact, watch lefties take that position when similar tactics are used to push the TPP through next.

I like this deal. A lot. But frankly I'd rather see democracy work. There's nothing democratic about a "deal" opposed by 66% of Congress being "passed."

 

[Vroom_C14]

Closer than I expected, but still going as predicted.

What Israel and the GOP need to stop this is an event. Some outrage-worthy action by Iran. Something they could hammer as proving Iran can't be trusted.

Can such an event be provoked or fabricated? You have to figure Iran has told everyone to be very careful not to give any cause or excuse. So it won't be easy. But the Israelis are clever. So I wouldn't rule it out. And there are others who might also see killing this deal as being in their best interests. Saudi Arabia in particular, but also possibly ISIS or al Qaeda. Maybe some in Pakistan.

Unfortunately the "action" will happen and it won't be pretty - but after this <cough>"deal"<cough> passes. It will be roughly 1yr+ in before it happens and Iran will have their fingerprints all over it.

 

[pablow]

Closer than I expected, but still going as predicted.

What Israel and the GOP need to stop this is an event. Some outrage-worthy action by Iran. Something they could hammer as proving Iran can't be trusted.

Can such an event be provoked or fabricated? You have to figure Iran has told everyone to be very careful not to give any cause or excuse. So it won't be easy. But the Israelis are clever. So I wouldn't rule it out. And there are others who might also see killing this deal as being in their best interests. Saudi Arabia in particular, but also possibly ISIS or al Qaeda. Maybe some in Pakistan.

The sneaky Israelis will probably claim that the Mullahs intend to make a nuclear bomb and drop it on them. Outrageous!

 

[thewop]

While most agree the deal isn't good, it's also all we've got, and many other countries we need to be friends with are already on board. Iran isn't waiting on us to take advantage of this deal, and Russia's going to let them regardless of what we decide, and they know there will be no repercussion for doing so. Perhaps our biggest mistake is thinking our country's opinion even matters.

However, when Iran violates the agreement, we'll have a good bit of support from the rest of the world to take action against them again, and that's really the best we can hope for. Here's hoping Iran violates the agreement before they have a functional nuclear weapon.

 

[cigaretteman]

While most agree the deal isn't good, it's also all we've got, and many other countries we need to be friends with are already on board. Iran isn't waiting on us to take advantage of this deal, and Russia's going to let them regardless of what we decide, and they know there will be no repercussion for doing so. Perhaps our biggest mistake is thinking our country's opinion even matters.

However, when Iran violates the agreement, we'll have a good bit of support from the rest of the world to take action against them again, and that's really the best we can hope for. Here's hoping Iran violates the agreement before they have a functional nuclear weapon.

Here's to hoping they don't violate the agreement, in which case they won't have a functional nuclear weapon!

 

[thewop]

Here's to hoping they don't violate the agreement, in which case they won't have a functional nuclear weapon!

It's my understanding that the agreement only delays their ability to create one, correct? I don't claim to be an expert, I've not read the whole thing. It's my understanding that if they do not violate the agreement, they'll have a nuclear weapon 10 years from now. Is this wrong?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

While most agree the deal isn't good, it's also all we've got, and many other countries we need to be friends with are already on board. Iran isn't waiting on us to take advantage of this deal, and Russia's going to let them regardless of what we decide, and they know there will be no repercussion for doing so. Perhaps our biggest mistake is thinking our country's opinion even matters.

However, when Iran violates the agreement, we'll have a good bit of support from the rest of the world to take action against them again, and that's really the best we can hope for. Here's hoping Iran violates the agreement before they have a functional nuclear weapon.

I challenge the assertion that most think it isn't a good deal.

Outside the echo chamber, most diplomats and scientists and lots of governments and businesses seem to think it is a good deal. And anyone with a brain knows it's better than the status quo ante - when Iran was quite legally enriching to 20%.

The rest of your comments are right, but your desire that Iran violates the deal early on seems bizarre. How does wanting them to violate the deal make sense? Moreover, the idea that they could somehow develop a nuclear bomb without violating the deal is nonsensical.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I think it is cute that it is still allowed to be called a "deal".

Republicans completely missed the boat, or were only feigning outrage.

Feigning outrage for sure.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Here's to hoping they don't violate the agreement, in which case they won't have a functional nuclear weapon!

Here's to hoping for Unicorns to come in and bless Iran with rainbows and flowers.

This deal is simply one step to war, and that is its intention. Make no mistake, the cons, the war-libs, the internationalists, ALL want to get into Iran as soon as they can. They are the final piece of the Middle East invasion.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It's my understanding that the agreement only delays their ability to create one, correct? I don't claim to be an expert, I've not read the whole thing. It's my understanding that if they do not violate the agreement, they'll have a nuclear weapon 10 years from now. Is this wrong?

This is just screwy thinking.

To build the bomb you need certain ingredients - raw materials, tech, knowhow, and so on. The agreement restricts the raw materials and tech. Without those they cannot create a bomb.

Everybody in the world whose raw materials and tech are not restricted can theoretically build a bomb. Which is to say that pretty much everybody has or could have the "ability" to build a bomb.

The only difference between Iran, under the deal, and nearly everybody else is that they won't have the raw materials or tech so they won't have the ability. When the deal ends in 8-10-15 years (depending on the provision) they will go back to being just like everyone else.

The deal does not give them the ability to build nukes after 10 years. It keeps them from building nukes for 10 years.

Saying it's a bad deal because it "lets" them build nukes after 10 years is like saying that the 2 week Rx of an antibiotic that gets you through a dangerous bacterial attack is a bad Rx because it "lets" you die after it runs out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here's to hoping for Unicorns to come in and bless Iran with rainbows and flowers.

This deal is simply one step to war, and that is its intention. Make no mistake, the cons, the war-libs, the internationalists, ALL want to get into Iran as soon as they can. They are the final piece of the Middle East invasion.

Actual it's one step away from war.

Saying this deal is one step to war Is like saying that the pill is one step closer to pregnancy.

 

[thewop]

This is just screwy thinking.

To build the bomb you need certain ingredients - raw materials, tech, knowhow, and so on. The agreement restricts the raw materials and tech. Without those they cannot create a bomb.

Everybody in the world whose raw materials and tech are not restricted can theoretically build a bomb. Which is to say that pretty much everybody has or could have the "ability" to build a bomb.

The only difference between Iran, under the deal, and nearly everybody else is that they won't have the raw materials or tech so they won't have the ability. When the deal ends in 8-10-15 years (depending on the provision) they will go back to being just like everyone else.

The deal does not give them the ability to build nukes after 10 years. It keeps them from building nukes for 10 years.

Saying it's a bad deal because it "lets" them build nukes after 10 years is like saying that the 2 week Rx of an antibiotic that gets you through a dangerous bacterial attack is a bad Rx because it "lets" you die after it runs out.

I hope you're correct. I just haven't heard anyone, including Obama, say anything more encouraging than 'well, it's not great but it's better than the alternative.' This is why I say most people don't think it's particularly good.

 

[Huey Grey]

Actual it's one stem away from war.

Saying this deal is one step to war Is like saying that the pill is one step closer to pregnancy.

Wow, this is spot on. The Republicans are definitely abstinence only when it comes to Iran.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Actual it's one step away from war.

Saying this deal is one step to war Is like saying that the pill is one step closer to pregnancy.

False. This is specifically designed as an unrealistic and easily breakable truce, that will be used as an excuse to send in troops.

 

[Huey Grey]

False. This is specifically designed as an unrealistic and easily breakable truce, that will be used as an excuse to send in troops.

As opposed to sending in troops right away, right?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

```

Wow, this is spot on. The Republicans are definitely abstinence only when it comes to Iran.

It's not even close to spot on. The pregnancy is already under way, you two are just like dead beat soon to be fathers who are in denial.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

As opposed to sending in troops right away, right?

They can't afford to send them in right now. The public is against it, we don't have the money, or the built up forces for it, and the land is too big to invade without as much preparation as possible.
The war hawks learned from Vietnam. It's inevitable that we one day make land fall. Hasn't history taught you anything yet?

 

[txhawk I]

yea....death to America!

Good job Obozo.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

So not only did obama tell them to nuke us and isreal but he's paying them millions of our money_ to do it

 

[ottumwan in tx]

If it wasn't. So insane it would be funny

 

[naturalmwa]

Here's to hoping for Unicorns to come in and bless Iran with rainbows and flowers.

This deal is simply one step to war, and that is its intention. Make no mistake, the cons, the war-libs, the internationalists, ALL want to get into Iran as soon as they can. They are the final piece of the Middle East invasion.

You got your countries confused. Unicorns live in North Korea.

 

[joelbc1]

Well Presidents from now on will just make deals!

Treaties are dead!

Democrats will someday be outraged when the shoe is on the other foot!

As GOPers are so enraged now....It is called "the political process", Sixers.....A "deal" with no winners is probably a good deal made. There are no winners here. BOTH sides want something else or something more.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Nuking the usa does not a deal make