This morning the Arizona Republic reported that Arizona’s Democratic congressional caucus will support the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran, with one member still “undecided” (oh, you already know who). Arizona Democrats in Congress to support Iran deal:
U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who represents a Tempe swing district, is the only member of the state’s Washington, D.C., delegation who has yet to publicly disclose how she will vote on the divisive foreign policy issue. A Sinema spokeswoman did not return messages Wednesday.
Now remember, on Wednesday the House fell into chaos when the GOP House Freedom Caucus derailed the scheduled vote in the House on the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal and forced a recess. The hair-brained scheme they came back with is three votes to set up a lawsuit to sue the President on a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the President did not provide them the IAEA “secret side deals” with Iran, so the 60 day review period never started — because we say so! When you’ve lost in one forum, seek another forum and play on.
Today, Senate Tea-Publicans failed to muster the 60 voted necessary for cloture on the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal, when 42 Senate Democrats held firm in support of the Iran deal. If Senate Democrats hold firm until the September 17 deadline, the resolution of disapproval of the Iran deal is dead. This is a done deal.
So it is curious logic by Kyrsten Sinema today, who once again is siding with Tea-Publicans in announcing that she will oppose the P5+1 world powers nuclear agreement with Iran. Does this mean that she will now support the GOP House Freedom Caucus plan for three votes to set up suing the President? Sinema Statement on Iran Nuclear Agreement.
Like Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Sinema’s excuses for opposition are on matters entirely outside of the negotiated nuclear agreement, and thus not on the merits of the actual agreement itself. Like every Tea-Publican, Sinema wants total capitulation by Iran, something Iran would never agree to in a negotiation. This is a ridiculous expectation:
“I am concerned that this agreement will escalate a conventional arms race in the Middle East and further destabilize the region. The agreement allows financial resources to flow to an Iranian regime, which siphons resources away from its citizens to fund terrorism and foment war. It allows Iran to strengthen its military capabilities, including conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. The Iranian regime and its proxies have made no secrets about how they will use these new resources and weapons in the region.
* * *
“The agreement may push back the time it will take Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon but does not eliminate the threat. At the end of the deal, Iran will have the tools, knowledge, and money to be an internationally recognized, empowered and legitimized threshold nuclear state. This newly created power and legitimacy will make deterring the regime’s aggression more difficult.
“The deal will go forward. We must now enforce vigilantly the provisions of the agreement and execute a comprehensive strategy that strengthens our security and supports our allies in the region.
When Saint Ronaldus Magnus negotiated nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union, it remained the “Evil Empire” and a super-power rival of the United States. The U.S. and Soviet Union continued to fight proxy wars around the world, Afghanistan being the prime example. But the threat of nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviets was substantially reduced, because that’s what was negotiated in the nuclear agreements.
I am deeply disappointed that Kyrsten Sinema does not seem to understand this simple concept.