Feb. 4, 2014 - by JOHN T. BENNETT – Defense News

WASHINGTON — US senators questioned Obama administration officials Tuesday for striking an interim pact that allows Tehran to continue developing nuclear arms components.

The influential heads of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one Democrat and one Republican, took the Obama administration to task for an interim deal they said is bad for US interests.

The panel’s Democratic chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, continued walking a political tightrope of trying to support the Obama administration while striking a tough line on Iran.

Menendez cited comments made recently by Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran nuclear agency chief: “ ‘The iceberg of sanctions are melting, while our centrifuges are also still working. This is our greatest achievement.’ ”

Menendez called those comments “my greatest fear.”

The committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, said the recent interim deal is merely the latest example of a long-standing Iranian tactic.

“If you look at what they are doing and what they’ve done in the past is … they perfect something and then they pause. They perfect something and then they pause,” Corker said. “And so what we have right now is they’ve perfected, no question, the centrifuge capabilities. I think people would say, they want to be a nuclear state, they can be that very quickly.

“And so we have this pause where we have an interim agreement that doesn’t address all the other areas that they have the ability to perfect over this next year,” he said, “which administration officials are already saying this isn’t going to happen in six months, this is probably going to take much longer.”

Menendez, again citing the Iranian official said: “Salehi may be correct — the iceberg of sanctions may melt before we have an agreement in place. That may, in fact, be the Iranian end game. They understand that once the international community ceases banking sanctions that they will have won regardless of whether or not we have a deal.”

Wendy Sherman, the Obama administration’s top negotiator on Iran, countered by telling the committee that an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections team “verified on January 20 that, among other things, Iran stop producing near-20 percent enriched uranium, [and] disabled the configuration of the centrifuge cascades Iran has been using to produce it.”

What’s more, she said Iran “began diluting its existing stockpile of near-20 percent enriched uranium, continue[s] to convert near-20 percent enriched uranium at a rate consistent with past practices, had not installed additional centrifuges at the Natanz or Fordow facilities, had not installed new components at the Arak facility.”

Lawmakers and administration officials clashed over the true impact of economic sanctions on Iran, and whether those measures have pushed Tehran closer to giving up its pursuit of an atomic arsenal. Lawmakers are skeptical, with many voicing support for new, stricter economic sanctions; administration officials want Congress to hold off until talks with Iran play out.

Corker called the sanctions issue an unhelpful “red herring.”

“It’s sort of been a place where the administration can say, ‘Well, sanctions will end up keeping this deal from happening,’ ” he said. “Congress can keep saying, ‘Oh, we’re trying to do something about it.’ And I think it avoids the topic of you, candidly, clearly laying out to us what the end state is that you’re trying to negotiate [toward].”

Sep. 11, 2013 - By JOHN T. BENNETT – Defense News

The US Senate is unlikely to vote on a resolution authorizing military force in Syria, even if a Russian plan to take control of Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons falls through, senior senators say.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved at breakneck speed — while still on recess — to last week craft and approve a measure authorizing President Barack Obama to launch a limited military strike.

But with Obama during a primetime Tuesday address announcing he has asked congressional leaders in both chambers to delay a vote, some senators involved in the crafting of Syria force measures said Wednesday they doubt lawmakers will ever vote to approve military action.

“I think it’s going to be very, very quiet. Everyone has been holding their breath. Now there’s nothing for them to be doing,” Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., told Defense News. “All these efforts … are kind of subsiding. Since the president has abandoned this [vote], I think it’s going to settle down and no one is going to be talking about it.”

Would either or both chambers likely vote on a Syria use-of-force measure should a Russian-offered plan to have Assad give up his weapons fall apart, and Obama decides to launch Tomahawk missile strikes?

“No, I don’t think so,” Inhofe said during a brief interview. “I think it goes away.”

SASC member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called the prospect for a vote “unlikely.”

“I think it’s very possible there will be no vote,” Sessions said. “I don’t think [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid is going to ask his people to vote if the president doesn’t want it.”

To that end, House Democrats left a classified Syria briefing earlier Wednesday and told reporters they believe a use-of-force measure would fail in their chamber.

The Senate’s leading proponent of big military mission in Syria, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Defense News it’s too soon to say whether the chamber will vote on a Syria measure.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who helped craft the panel’s use-of-force measure.

“No,” he said Wednesday when asked by reporters if he expected a vote. “We’re moving on to energy efficiency,” he added sarcastically.

“I’d be very surprised if, over the next couple weeks, anything is voted on,” Corker said. “It may never.

“I think this is on hold for a while,” he said. “I don’t think anything’s going to happen.”

Until the Russia proposal situation plays out, Corker said it is hard for lawmakers to even talk about what resolutions and amendments should say.

“I think when you’ve got a situation like this, where there’s a diplomatic opportunity, I think that kind of stalls things off,” Corker said. “Let me just say, I wish … everyone involved in this God speed.”

McCain said the White House should give Moscow “days” to show its plan is credible.

“If it were to fall apart, I think the president has to explore his options, and see what the votes are,” McCain. “But I am very, very skeptical about the [Russia proposal] succeeding.”

McCain and a bipartisan group of senators have been working on an amendment to the Foreign Relations Committee-approved measure that would tie a congressional authorization to a deadline by which a UN-supported effort to take over Assad’s weapons would have to succeed.

Sep 4, 2013 ASDNews (AFP)

President Barack Obama's plan to conduct military strikes on Syria passed its first congressional hurdle Wednesday, paving the way for a full Senate debate on the use of force.

A divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved an amended resolution 10-7, that would authorize US military intervention with a 90-day deadline and bars American boots on the ground for combat purposes.

The Senate's newest member, Democrat Edward Markey, voted present.

Senate leaders have said the full chamber will debate and vote next week on authorization of the use of force in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's apparent use of chemical weapons against his own people.

The House of Representatives, where a tougher vote is expected, will begin consideration next week but its leaders have not announced timing of a vote.

"What we've done today is a step in the right direction," said Senator Dick Durbin.

The chamber's number two Democrat voted against the Iraq war, but he insisted that "this is different."

"I really believe there is a moral component here that's critically important," he said, citing how all members of the committee are horrified by the attacks by Assad.

Senator Robert Menendez, the committee's chairman, said the resolution marks "a good foundation" for passing the Senate.

"This resolution strikes the type of balance that we are hearing from members on both sides of the aisle in both houses as to what their concerns are."

The White House commended the panel for "moving swiftly" to approve the measure.

"We will continue to work with Congress to build on this bipartisan support for a military response that is narrowly tailored to enforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and sufficient to protect (US) national security interests," the White House said.

Obama's administration had offered a draft text, but the committee's leaders re-worked it to set a time limit of 60 days plus a 30-day extension, and banned the use of any US ground troops in Syria to accomplish the mission.

But deep divisions emerged over the scope of the military action, and Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of the measure as well as against it.

Earlier in the day the committee held a three-hour classified session, with Secretary of State John Kerry selling the case to members before testifying at a panel of the House of Representatives, where lawmakers and analysts foresee a tough fight over giving Obama authority to strike.

"We need to send to Syria -- and to the world, to dictators and terrorists, to allies and civilians alike -- the unmistakable message that when we say 'never again,' we actually don't mean sometimes, we don't mean somewhere, we mean never again," Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Senate text was modified to include language sought by Republican Senator John McCain, who had threatened a no vote unless the measure was toughened up.

The committee debated and ultimately approved his amendment, which declared it is "the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria," and urges a comprehensive US strategy boost the fighting capabilities of "elements of the Syrian opposition."

McCain voted yes but five fellow Republicans, including potential 2016 presidential candidates Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, voted against.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought to limit the power of the president to "unilaterally authorize a military attack" where there is no imminent threat, said he was unconvinced that Obama's plan would achieve its goals.

"I frankly think that bombing Syria increases the likelihood of additional gas attacks, may increase attacks on Israel and Turkey, may increase civilian deaths, may increase instability in the Middle East and may draw Russia and Iran further into this civil war," he said.

Senate Democrat Tom Udall, an opponent of military intervention, introduced an amendment that would have narrowed Obama's military options as the lawmaker sought to prevent greater US involvement.

The Udall amendment, which McCain dismissed as "micromanagement," was defeated.