President Obama used his State of the Union address Tuesday to threaten a veto of any congressional plan to slap Iran with new sanctions, and he just might have gotten his way.
The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee thinks Obama is “naive” to believe the U.S. is having any “great success” in persuading Iran to curb parts of its nuclear program — but he is not optimistic there’s enough momentum in the Senate, all told, to ram through new sanctions against the wishes of the president.
“[Obama] said last night he would veto any [new sanctions],” Sen. Jim Inhofe said in an interview. “The question is, is there support to override a veto on that? I say, ‘No.’ “
The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, authored by two senators, Illinois Republican Mark Kirk and New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, has 59 cosponsors, and includes measures to punish Iran’s oil industry if it breaches diplomatic commitments. Inhofe does not believe a vote now would result in the majority necessary to override a presidential veto, because enough Democrats would still side with their president.
Even some of the Senate bill’s Democratic cosponsors, including Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Christopher Coons of Delaware, have also backed away from the sanctions bill since Obama’s speech, The Hill reported.
In his address Tuesday night, Obama defended the interim deal, which he said “has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program—and rolled parts of that program back—for the very first time in a decade.” Iran has started eliminating its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium, Obama said, and is no longer installing advanced centrifuges. If diplomacy fails, then all options—presumably even military force—remain on the table, Obama promised. “I will be the first to call for more sanctions, and stand ready to exercise all options to make sure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.”
Inhofe, though, isn’t buying it. New Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is not to be trusted; inspections won’t be enough, he said. “They,” Inhofe said, referring to the Obama administration, “seem to think, for some reason, that this new president is a president they can talk to, and negotiate with”¦. This guy, I don’t think we can trust him more than anybody else, [even former President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad.”
Even though the momentum may be slipping, Inhofe said, Democrats loyal to Obama are quickly becoming “endangered species.” So if talks between world powers and Iran fall apart, or new revelations emerge that Iran is breaking its diplomatic commitments, it’s possible the political winds could shift.
For now, though, Obama may be in the clear.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified Sen. Menendez’s party; he is a Democrat.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."