Why did Bernie vote against Russian sanctions?

[BigmanPigman]

[Revanchist]

1. I'll save everyone the trouble of reposting what they've already said on this matter

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029319070

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029385320

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029210283

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029218925

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029209104

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029319688

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029209070

this should answer your question

[Warpy]

3. Thank you. Sanders's rationale is in there somewhere, too

It's a sound rationale. I suggest the OP look for it and stop asking questions that have already been done to death.

[lapucelle]

10. Here's the statement Sanders released in June:

"I believe that these new sanctions [against Iran] could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015."

However, Richard Nephew, who served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015 and who was a lead negotiator of the treaty, told CBS news that "these secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement. Obama administration officials were unable to win that demand in the deal."

Nephew also noted that, "It's unclear if the [Iran sanctions] legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill".

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

[BigmanPigman]

4. Thanks. I didn't read about it and just watched today's Keith Olbermann

and was surprised to hear his name on the list that Keith read.

How does this question make me a troll?

[Revanchist]

5. Don't ask me, I'm not the one who made that claim. EOM

[Jim Lane]

11. About "troll"

If someone knew that this question had been repeatedly asked and answered, but nevertheless posted it again, that person would be a troll.

You posted it, which means that either
(a) you're a troll, or
(b) you didn't happen to notice any of the earlier threads.

Option (b) seems quite plausible to me. I'm prepared to believe that plenty of DUers don't read the same threads I do. My guess is that some people reject option (b) on the assumption that there were so many threads that no one could have missed them, but I think that assumption is unfounded.

[BigmanPigman]

14. Option "b" applies here. I read General Discussion posts and pick and choose from the other groups.

I don't have time to read everything that is posted and some things don't interest me.

I thought a troll was someone who likes to start fights or bother others.

[Jim Lane]

15. In case I wasn't clear, I agree with you.

I didn't think you were trolling.

You write, "I thought a troll was someone who likes to start fights or bother others." In this instance, someone who was aware of the prior threads might post about this because he or she likes to start fights and wanted to goad the Bernie-bashers into another round of Bernie-bashing. I assume that's why you were suspected of trolling.

[BigmanPigman]

17. OK. I don't feel slighted. Thanks.

[onecaliberal]

2. Shoo fly.... The trolls are back

[stonecutter357]

6. who is the troll ?

[stonecutter357]

7. K&R

[mwooldri]

8. Iranian sanctions.

Dems voted for the bill as they saw Russian sanctions and a way to stick it to Putin/Trump. Repubs saw Iranian sanctions and a way to stick it to the Iranian no-nukes deal and Obama.

Bernie ready to vote for Russian sanctions but not on Iranian ones as he wants the no-nuke Iran deal preserved.

[lapucelle]

9. The bill is not a threat to no-nuke Iran deal

Last edited Sat Aug 5, 2017, 07:08 AM - Edit history (1)

according to a lead negotiator of the treaty. Richard Nephew, principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015, told CBS news that

"...the measure wouldn't harm the nuclear deal..."

As per CBS news:

"The Senate... overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose new U.S. sanctions that would target Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal."

snip--------------------

"These secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement. Obama administration officials were unable to win that demand in the deal. While they are separate programs, Iran wants them to operate hand in hand."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

[MrsCoffee]

12. That makes Sanders argument rather weak.

[R B Garr]

18. Interesting, great link, lapucelle.

I wonder if he will be asked about this now.

[lapucelle]

19. He let the June 15 statement stand as written.

There have been no further remarks. and no journalist has thought enough about it to get any clarification.

[LWolf]

13. Answer available in a 5 second search:

[lapucelle]

20. A lead negotiator of the treaty told CBS news

that those fears are unfounded because the sanctions do not violate the terms of the treaty.

The Senate...overwhelmingly passed legislation that would impose new U.S. sanctions that would target Iran's ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and human rights violations, and yet it would still comply with the Iranian nuclear deal.

snip-------------------

Richard Nephew [a lead negotiator of the nuclear deal who previously served as principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the State Department from 2013 to 2015] said he has no problem closing loopholes in existing sanctions law, but he doubts that it would add to the U.S.'s already robust sanctions architecture. He said the measure wouldn't harm the nuclear deal.

snip-------------------

"It's unclear if the legislation is even needed -- the Trump administration already has the authority to execute what is already covered under the bill, Nephew said" ...These secondary sanctions would comply with the nuclear deal because Iran's missile program is excluded from the agreement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-eyes-irans-ballistic-missile-program-with-new-sanctions/

Moreover, it was reported in Al-Monitor/Iran Pulse that

Nasser Hadian, a prominent professor of international relations at the University of Tehran... does not believe that the new sanctions would explicitly violate the nuclear deal, though they defy the intent of the JCPOA. Hadian believes there is coordination and agreement between the United States and the EU in the escalation of pressure on Iran over its missile program, while avoiding explicit violation of the nuclear deal.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/07/iran-us-senate-bill-sanctions-reactions-nuclear-deal.html#ixzz4ovssh49P

The impact of the sanctions on Russia (rather than those on Iran) seemed to be the focus of the foreign press.

Because Senator Sanders's messaging video specifically invokes a "warning" from former SOS John Kerry, I was especially interested in reading his testimony. I couldn't find it in the Congressional Record.

Apparently the warning came, not in testimony, but via Twitter and a week later in remarks at a fundraising event.

“After Rouhani’s reelection, there is much up in the air/room for misinterpretation. This is not the moment for a new Iran bill,” Kerry tweeted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/335004-john-kerry-issues-tweet-storm-over-senate-considering-iran

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous

[CK_John]

16. I assume that EB-5-funded project in Jay Peak will resurface.