Iranian General Dead, What's Next, Asks Physicians for Civil Defense

Tucson, AZ - January 6, 2020 - (The Stuff Gazette) -- After Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was killed by a U.S. drone strike, Iran has vowed reprisals. A senior commander of Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps claims that up to 35 "vital" US and Israeli targets are within Iran's reach.

Physicians for Civil Defense observes that in this age of "asymmetric warfare," civilians here, not just military installations "over there," are at risk.

"Iran's aspirations of being a nuclear power, with ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads to America, have apparently not yet been achieved, but other methods of causing mass casualties and disruptions are available," states Jane M. Orient, M.D, president of Physicians for Civil Defense.

Scenarios include a mass hostage situation; a "dirty bomb"; and widespread blackouts and disruption of essential services because of cyberwarfare or terrorist attacks on the electric grid.

The horrific 2004 school siege in Beslan, Russia, could be reenacted here. Are local and federal authorities prepared?

The first radiation dispersal device (RDD or "dirty bomb") was found in a Moscow park in 1995. Besides the damage from the conventional explosion, the most devastating effect would be panic from fear of radioactive contamination. U.S. governmental authorities still do not make appropriate radiation-monitoring equipment widely available despite the existence of excellent, affordable technology, Dr. Orient states.

The electrical grid is vulnerable as shown when a sophisticated, professionally coordinated attack with military weapons took down the Metcalf electrical substation in Silicon Valley in 2014. Gunmen temporarily knocked out telephone and 911 service, and shot up 17 transformers. Physical control systems used in electric utilities, manufacturing, and oil refineries are being targeted by Iranian hackers.

"Americans have had another wake-up call about the dangers in our world," Dr. Orient said. "They should at the very least assess their ability to shelter in place for a period of time. They need to learn how to help themselves and their neighbors, and not assume the government will be immediately available to save them."

Physicians for Civil Defense distributes information to help to save lives in the event of war or other disaster.

More Stuff in the News: Iran, Flood Protection, Cadillac Tax, Veterans, Environmental Protection Agency

Senate Democrats blocked an amendment cosponsored by Enzi that would prohibit the president from waiving or limiting Iran sanctions unless Iran releases Americans currently held in Iran. The amendment would require formal recognition of Israel as a sovereign and independent state.

U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp reinforced the need for strong federal investments in permanent flood protection for North Dakota’s communities during a conversation with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Shaun Donovan. During the discussion, Heitkamp who has been a vocal proponent of securing comprehensive flood mitigation efforts in both the Fargo-Moorhead region as well as the city of Minot and the Souris River Basin, stressed to Donovan the need for budgetary support for efforts to advance permanent flood protections in these regions. OMB has to sign off on any federal funding for these projects. Heitkamp worked to secure a meeting with Fargo city officials for later this month with OMB and the White House’s National Economic Council to further discuss the use of a public-private partnership to advance the diversion. Donovan also committed to working with Heitkamp to set up a meeting for Minot city officials with OMB about a new study start for flood protection.

U.S. Senators Dean Heller (R-NV) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced bipartisan legislation to fully repeal a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) known as the “Cadillac Tax” which taxes high-cost health insurance plans. The two Senators introduced a Senate companion to U.S. Congressman Joe Courtney’s (D-CT02) House legislation. Beginning in 2018, the “Cadillac Tax” would tax employers whose health insurance plans cost more than $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,450 a year for families at 40 percent of the cost above those limits.

Senators Mazie K. Hirono and John Boozman (R-AR), members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, introduced legislation Thursday to authorize federal homeless veteran programs for the next fiscal year. The Keeping Our Commitment to Ending Veteran Homelessness Act would reauthorize seven Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Labor programs for the next fiscal year. Without Senators Hirono and Boozman’s action, authorization for critical programs that provide outreach and services to homeless veterans and their families would expire on September 30, 2015.

At a Senate committee hearing this week, Senator John Hoeven pressed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy to provide greater transparency and accountability in the EPA’s regulatory process. Hoeven called for the EPA to meet with North Dakota industry to explain the EPA’s carbon dioxide regulations and account for the agency’s greatly increased requirements for North Dakota. Under the agency’s proposed rule, North Dakota was set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 11 percent. The reduction level for North Dakota was increased to 45 percent in the final rule, the biggest increase for any state. The change occurred without the agency issuing a new proposed rule, thereby avoiding the required public comment period. Hoeven said the EPA has not been forthcoming in explaining this drastic change, and he pressed Administrator McCarthy to explain the new, more costly rules.

Stuff in the News: Housing Finance, Crude Oil, Iran, Federal Land, Export/Import Bank

In an effort to spur substantive and structural housing finance reform, U.S. Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), David Vitter (R-La.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), all members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, reintroduced the “Jumpstart GSE Reform Act.” The legislation would prohibit any increase in the guarantee fee – which is required to be charged by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – from offsetting other government spending while also prohibiting the sale of Treasury-owned senior preferred shares in the GSEs without congressional approval and structural housing finance reform.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed H.R. 702, a bill that would lift the 40-year ban on the export of crude oil.

The Senate failed to pass the resolution to reject the President’s nuclear deal with Iran by a vote of 56-42, failing to invoke cloture on the measure.

The Fiscal Year 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act, passed in December of 2014, included a 2-year extension of the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). Current authorization will expire at the end of 2016. The House and Senate Interior Appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2016 include another year extension of FLREA until the end of 2017. The Act permits federal land management agencies to continue charging modest fees at campgrounds, rental cabins, and at day use sites that have certain facilities.

The Ex-Im Bank serves as the official export credit agency of the United States and helps facilitate the export of American goods and services to international markets. Congress failed to act to reauthorize the Bank’s charter by June 30, 2015, and as a result, the Bank has not been allowed to provide American businesses with any new financing. Since 1992, the Export-Import Bank has returned more than $7 billion in profits to the Treasury Department, with $675 million of that coming in fiscal year 2014. The Export-Import Bank approved $20.5 billion in authorizations in fiscal year 2014 alone, which supported an estimated $27.5 billion of U.S. exports and more than 164,000 U.S. jobs. According to the Export-Import Bank, since 2007, the Bank has directly helped approximately 140 Hoosier companies export more than $4 billion in goods and services overseas. During its 80-plus year existence, the Export-Import Bank has garnered support from every President during that span and previously been repeatedly renewed with bipartisan support by Congress.

Stuff in the News: E-Warranty, Iran, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fishery, U.S. Postal Service

On September 8, 2015, the House voted to pass S. 1359, the E-Warranty Act of 2015 by a vote of 388-2. This bill will bring America’s warranty rules into the 21st century by giving manufacturers the option to post written warranty terms online in an easily accessible electronic format. In doing so, the E-Warranty Act will increase consumer access to warranty information while also allowing companies to leverage new technologies and reduce waste.

Representative Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) introduced a joint resolution permitting the sitting President or his successors to use the armed forces of the United States, if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, two days before the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 411, Finding that the President has not complied with section 2 of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, requiring the State Department to turn over the entire nuclear agreement, including any agreements made between Iran and other parties. The President failed comply with the law and once again is prepared to move forward with a major policy without Congressional approval.

Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler announced that she and Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) had introduced the Timely Permitting Accessibility Act to allow private entities to pay for additional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff to help expedite the permitting process for important economic development projects. To maintain the integrity of the process and avoid unnecessary environmental risk, additional staff would be employed by the Army Corps – not the organization funding the position – and permits must meet the exact same standards as projects processed in the traditional way. In addition, the law specifically prohibits this program from interrupting or delaying traditional permitting, improving wait times for all permit applicants.

Jaime Herrera Beutler’s bill to permanently extend a 19-year fishery management agreement that has been vital to Washington state’s Dungeness crab fishery was approved by the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. The next step in the legislative process would be a vote by the entire U.S. House of Representatives.

In a letter to the U.S. Postmaster General, Congressman Brian Higgins (NY-26) is calling on the United States Postal Service (USPS) to abandon plans to consolidate mail processing centers, including the facility on William Street in Buffalo, after a preliminary review by the USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG) finds significant delays in mail delivery following plant closings and service standard reductions.

20 House of Representatives Member Comments on Iran Agreement

Lou Barletta (R-PA, 11th)

“With an issue as monumental as national security at stake, this is not the time to be burnishing legacies or campaigning for the next Nobel Peace Prize. Congress must carefully examine the agreement and its impact on this country and our allies, particularly Israel. I am mindful of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration that if Iran wants to be treated as a normal nation, it should act like one. As a consistent and belligerent state sponsor of terrorism, Iran has certainly not kept its part of the bargain."

Andy Barr (R-KY, 6th)

“As a member of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I am particularly concerned that the Obama Administration would lift sanctions on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Giving the Iranian regime access to billions of dollars in frozen assets will further destabilize the region and help finance their terrorist allies.”

Joe Barton (R-TX, 6th)

“I think it would be absolutely insane to ratify this deal. This is nothing more than a speed bump in Iran’s road to a nuclear weapon. They are the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They have a terrible human rights record. Why we would allow them to maintain the capability over time to create weapons grade material when this deal expires? It makes no sense. I am unalterably opposed to the deal.”

Joyce Beatty (D-OH, 3rd)

“Today President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and our P5+1 partners announced a nuclear agreement with Iran. I will be thoroughly reviewing the agreement in order to ensure that it prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability.”

Xavier Becerra (D-CA, 34th)

“An agreement to halt nuclear proliferation cannot be built on trust but on verifiable, enforceable requirements. The hard work of President Obama, Secretary John Kerry and Secretary Ernest Moniz has brought us a step closer to an historic opportunity to prevent Iran’s nuclear weapons development. The unity of the international community has made the economic and trade sanctions work in pressuring Iran to negotiate a deal.

“Now that an agreement has reached Congress, it is our responsibility to review it. Every word will count in this agreement and we need to know the meaning of each provision of this deal. It must constitute measurable progress in halting nuclear proliferation and in driving the region and the world farther away from nuclear Armageddon.”

Don Beyer (D-VA, 8th)

"I commend our diplomats for skillfully averting a global showdown and blocking Iran’s efforts to obtain the bomb."

We cannot allow a nuclear Iran and this deal will serve as a lasting deterrent to keep the United States out of another devastating war in the Middle East. Now I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to ensure this deal goes forward unhindered.”

Gus Bilirakis (R-FL, 12th)

“At first glance, the so called Iran Nuclear deal is not an acceptable deal for America and our allies. As I suspected, this agreement will threaten our national security interests at home and abroad. It is now up to Congress to examine the specifics of the deal and ensure the most dangerous regime in the Middle East halts its nuclear armament progress in order to prevent further regional conflict and an international arms race.”

Sanford D. Bishop, Jr (D-GA, 2nd)

“The opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran could potentially lead to greater stability in a region torn apart by war and religious strife. Nevertheless, we must not be naïve. The prospect of peace and stability can only be realized if the world is assured Iran will not threaten its neighbors with nuclear aggression."

Mike Bishop (R-MI, 8th)

“Lifting sanctions while allowing the Iranian regime to simply slow their nuclear operations – in addition to not releasing the three Americans held captive under their watch – sends the wrong message to the world and is downright dangerous. I will remain highly skeptical of any deal without stronger provisions.”

Rob Bishop (R-UT, 1st)

“I’m concerned that this deal could do much to embolden the threat of terror in the Middle East and the United States. The potential lifting of sanctions frees up $150 billion for Iran to spend on further arming terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. In addition, no Middle-Eastern Sunni nations were represented in these negotiations. ISIS forces can use this fact to foster potential support among Sunnis who may be leery of the U.S. making deals with a Shia Iran.

“This deal threatens the safety of America and her allies. A US President should be in the business of protecting the US, not simply seeking to secure a faux legacy built on bad deals.”

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR, 3rd)

“As we all carefully assess this agreement, we must remember that measuring the framework against the unobtainable is likely to exhaust the patience of countries like China, India, and members of the European Union that have been critical members of the international effort to sanction and isolate Iran. Such a fracture would be devastating because we’ve tried the go-it-alone approach with sanctions and it didn’t work. We must also compare any agreement to the alternatives. The American public has made clear they will not likely support another military engagement in the Middle East. Even if money were no object, there is no amount of U.S. troops, bombs and military acumen that could guarantee an Iran free of nuclear weapons. That’s a gamble we should not be willing to take.”

Kevin Brady (R-TX, 8th)

“Congress will have time to assess the proposed Iran agreement, but clearly this is not about Republican versus Democrats, it’s about true security versus false security at a key moment in global history. Does President Obama’s agreement stop Iran’s nuclear capability for the long term? Does it prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East? And does it make America and our allies like Israel safer? I suspect the answer to all three is ‘no’.

Nothing less than complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program is acceptable.”

Jim Bridenstine (R-OK, 1st)

While I will keep an open mind, let’s remember who we’re dealing with: Iran is the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism. Tehran’s proxies effectively control four Middle Eastern countries: Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Iran continues to violate its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments and numerous UN Security Council resolutions. Just last week, top Iranian officials chanted “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” in the streets of Tehran. A nuclear weapons-capable Iran is a threat to the United States and our allies, especially Israel, and a destabilizing force in the world’s most volatile region. As a nuclear threshold state, Iran would also spur nuclear weapons proliferation across the Middle East as its Sunni Arab neighbors attempt to deter Iranian aggression.

Susan W. Brooks (R-IN, 5th)

“No deal is clearly a better outcome than a bad deal and I’m extremely concerned the Obama administration has negotiated a bad deal. My colleagues and I will leave no detail of the final negotiated terms unexplored as this decision comes with consequences that will reverberate for generations moving forward. If this agreement allows for a nuclear Iran and puts our security at risk, Congress must not support it.

The Obama administration only has itself to blame for the skepticism it now faces from members of both political parties. Throughout this process, critical negotiating objectives have been repeatedly ignored or altered. Iran has practiced violence and deception for decades. The world cannot afford a nuclear Iran and thus cannot afford a deal with unacceptable terms.”

Michael Burgess (R-TX, 26th)

“Despite assurances from the Obama administration that these negotiations would end Iran’s nuclear programs and that sanctions would not be lifted until their nation met concrete demands, this deal reflects otherwise,” Rep. Burgess said. “This agreement means billions in sanction relief, and an open door to continue their reckless foreign policy agenda. “Though I am relieved to see negotiations conclude, this product – which paves the path toward a nuclear Iran – is a risk to our national security and global interests.”

Bradley Byrne (R-AL, 1st)

“From the start of these talks I have warned that President Obama and his negotiating team were desperate for a foreign policy victory, and I fear the safety of Americans and our allies in the Middle East will be at greater risk because of this deal.

“Iran is no friend of the United States, and we should all be concerned about what they will do with billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey has stated that sanctions relief would allow Iran to send more money to terrorist groups in the Middle East.

“Congress will now have an opportunity to closely scrutinize and vote on this agreement, and I call on my colleagues to look past the short-term rhetoric and instead focus on the long-term implications this deal could have on our national security and the safety of our allies abroad.”

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA, 7th)

I have always hoped for a negotiated resolution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The general outlines of the deal, made public this morning, appear reasonable and encouraging. However, I will carefully review the details and discuss the scientific aspects of the agreement with qualified scientists. I have never expected a perfect agreement because that is an impossible standard. For me, the most important question is, if this deal is not acceptable, then what does the United States do next? Some argue for continued sanctions but it’s clear to me that Russia and China won’t go along with that. Moreover, I fear Europe would not support the U.S. in continued sanctions so we would be left with unilateral sanctions and historically these have been ineffectual. Nor do I think a military option is prudent or feasible at this time. Congress has 60 days to review this agreement and I will carefully consider all aspects of it before making a final decision.

Buddy Carter (R-GA, 1st)

"I fear this will be a legacy making deal for the Obama Administration but not the legacy it is looking to make,” Carter said. “This dangerous deal threatens to unleash a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region in the world, imperils our closest ally Israel, and signals to other regimes that America will not maintain its resolve to combat extremism.”

Kathy Castor (D-FL, 14th)

The historic nuclear disarmament agreement announced today between the United States, Iran, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union requires thorough review and analysis over the coming weeks. My overriding concern is whether or not the agreement is in the national security interest of the United States. Iran must be blocked from proceeding any further towards developing a nuclear weapon. Aggressive, enforceable restrictions and thoroughly transparent inspections at any time are fundamental to approval of such an agreement. I have no illusions about the dreadful record and conduct of the Iranian regime, or the destabilizing influence Iran continues to have in the region. No matter what, all options must remain on the table in case Iran deviates from the terms of this agreement in any way.

Here’s what we have been told so far: (1) The parties have negotiated a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Advocates say that every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off. (2) The agreement is not built on trust; it is built on verification. Inspectors will have 24/7 access to Iran’s key nuclear facilities. (3) Iran currently has a stockpile that could produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. Under the agreement, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. This stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. Iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium that form the raw materials necessary for a nuclear weapon. (4) Iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Joaquin Castro (D-TX, 20th)

“I commend Secretaries Kerry and Moniz for their tireless efforts negotiating this agreement and for their and President Obama’s steadfast commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This agreement has the potential to position the United States and our allies toward a future of peace and security. Initial readings of the deal’s text indicate it contains stringent accountability measures that protect against the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Congress will now have a say in how the United States proceeds, and I hope that my colleagues will take time to thoroughly and thoughtfully evaluate the details of the agreement our negotiators achieved.”

Curt Clawson (R-FL, 19th)

“With mounting concern on the details over the Administration’s deal with the regime of Iran, the world's largest state-sponsor or terrorism, it is not in the interest of the American people to have the deal ratified by the United Nations before Congress can speak with a united voice. A deal with Iran is the Administration’s ‘Flounder’ moment. We all know what happens in Animal House when Flounder gave the keys to his brother’s car to his fraternity brothers. Why are we giving the keys to nuclear technology to the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, who has also called for the elimination of Israel, our strongest ally in the region. Today I join with many others, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, in saying, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal.’”

Obama has successfully given Iran the ability to continue funding terrorism, thereby increasing terrorist activity throughout the world.

Senator David Perdue (R-GA)

"Let's be clear, this agreement is not final. Georgians and the American people, through Congressional representation, must sign off on the negotiated terms, and because of our bipartisan efforts Congress will have 60 days to do so. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I will review this agreement with the utmost scrutiny to ensure we remain steadfast in our efforts to halt the expansion of nuclear arms now and down the road.

"Right now, I remain extremely concerned that this deal does not go far enough to fully prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability and ensure anytime, anywhere inspections access of all nuclear and military sites. If this requires walking away from such a deal and strengthening sanctions, I will encourage President Obama to consider this course of action. To be clear, rejecting this agreement is not condoning war, it is standing firm for peace and against Iranian aggression."

Senator Rob Portman- (R - OH)

“I look forward to reviewing details of the nuclear agreement reached earlier today in Vienna. As I have said since the start of this process, I will weigh this agreement on the merits. I will be reviewing whether it is enforceable—both through effective international monitoring and the ability to re-impose sanctions if violations occur while assuring that sanctions relief is not given unless and until Iran meets its commitments—and whether the agreement prevents Iran from developing a nuclear weapon capability. This is of the utmost importance for our own national security, as well as for our close allies in the region such as Israel. Congress has a responsibility to carefully review the agreement to ensure it is in the best interests of our national security.”

Senator Jack Reed - (D - RI)

“It has taken nearly two years of persistent, rigorous negotiations to reach this point. President Obama and his negotiating team - at every echelon, including our scientists and nuclear experts - deserve the nation’s thanks."

Senator Harry Reid- (D - NV)

“Today’s historic accord is the result of years of hard work by President Barack Obama and his administration. The world community agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable and a threat to our national security, the safety of Israel and the stability of the Middle East. Now it is incumbent on Congress to review this agreement with the thoughtful, level-headed process an agreement of this magnitude deserves.”

Senator James E. Risch - (R - ID)

"This deal falls disastrously short of what the Obama Administration originally promised and gives the Iranian government what it desires. The West will have to live with a nuclear Iran and will abandon our closest ally, Israel, under this horribly flawed agreement."

Senator Pat Roberts- (R - KS)

“After months of delays in which Administration negotiated to Iran’s demands, President Obama calls this deal a success. The only way I can see a success is if the agreement denies Iran a nuclear weapons capability and does not provide the rogue nation with billions of dollars in sanctions relief. It’s imperative that Congress cautiously reviews this deal and ensures that it holds the Iranians accountable so that the world doesn’t become an even more dangerous place for the U.S. and our allies. That’s the standard by which I will judge the agreement when all of the details are submitted to Congress.”

Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD)

“I’ve said all along that anything short of stopping the Iranians from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. Based on what we know so far, it appears this deal not only fails to meet this essential goal, it emboldens the Iranians, who will receive $150 billion in sanctions relief, a phased out lifting of a UN arms embargo and be allowed to test more advanced centrifuges over 10 years. Today’s testimony from General Selva confirms that under this deal, Iran will have the ability to continue funding terrorism, thereby increasing terrorist activity throughout the world.”

Senator Marco Rubio - (R - FL)

“I have said from the beginning of this process that I would not support a deal with Iran that allows the mullahs to retain the ability to develop nuclear weapons, threaten Israel, and continue their regional expansionism and support for terrorism. Based on what we know thus far, I believe that this deal undermines our national security. President Obama has consistently negotiated from a position of weakness, giving concession after concession to a regime that has American blood on its hands, holds Americans hostage, and has consistently violated every agreement it ever signed. I expect that a significant majority in Congress will share my skepticism of this agreement and vote it down. Failure by the President to obtain congressional support will tell the Iranians and the world that this is Barack Obama's deal, not an agreement with lasting support from the United States. It will then be left to the next President to return us to a position of American strength and re-impose sanctions on this despicable regime until it is truly willing to abandon its nuclear ambitions and is no longer a threat to international security.”

Senator Bernard Sanders - (I - VT)

“I congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the leaders of other major nations for producing a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East. I look forward to learning more about the complex details of this agreement to make sure that it is effective and strong.”

Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE)

“Sadly, the Administration just lit the fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We all know Iran’s neighbors will not sit idly as the world's largest state-sponsor of terror becomes a nuclear-threshold state.

Senator, Brian Schatz - (D - HI)

“The accord announced in Vienna today marks a watershed moment in our pursuit to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I will review the final deal to ensure that it effectively prevents Iran from acquiring the material it would need to develop a nuclear bomb, has sufficient limits on Iran’s nuclear weapons-related infrastructure, and that the inspection and transparency regime for holding Iran accountable is robust and will protect the interests of the United States and its allies, especially Israel. If this is a good deal, it is the first step in a long road to blocking Iran’s access to a nuclear weapon, and we must remain vigilant to ensure Iranian compliance. Our guiding principle must continue to be distrust but verify.”

Senator Jeanne Shaheen - (D - NH)

“Throughout negotiations, I’ve been adamant that the United States must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that hardnosed diplomacy is the preferred means of doing so. Earlier this year, Congress passed legislation, which I supported, that allows the House and Senate to consider this weighty agreement in all its detail. It is critical that Congress take the time necessary to conduct this review. My support for this deal hinges on whether we can verify that Iran’s paths to obtaining a nuclear weapon are thoroughly blocked. I want to congratulate Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz and the rest of the negotiating team for their tremendous persistence in reaching this agreement, and I look forward to a thorough review with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee.”

Senator John Thune - (R - SD)

“Now that a deal has been struck, the onus is on President Obama to convince the American people that the contents of this deal are beneficial to the safety and security of our nation. I look forward to further reviewing details of the agreement, but I am deeply skeptical that it will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and I am gravely concerned that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will soon have access to billions of dollars and other resources to finance its campaign for increased regional influence.

Senator Patrick J.Toomey - (R - PA)

"I look forward to closely examining this nuclear agreement during the upcoming 60 day Congressional review period. Preliminarily, I have deep concerns that this deal will provide hundreds of billions of dollars to an untrustworthy Iranian regime's support for terrorism, while ushering in a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East."

Senator Tom Udall - (D - NM)

"The next critical step is for Congress to review the agreement, and I will be carefully considering the details, as well as the alternatives. It is vital for Congress to hear from our experts, including those at New Mexico's national labs, in order to understand how this deal will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I urge Congress to study the agreement thoughtfully - not with an eye to U.S. politics but on what will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or the materials to develop one. We all agree that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat that must be prevented. This is the greatest nuclear nonproliferation challenge of our time, and it is a challenge that we must meet."

Senator David Vitter- (R - LA)

“First, under its own terms, the deal accepts Iran eventually getting nuclear weapons. Second, there are huge holes in verification which, to me, make it certain that Iran will successfully cheat.”

Senator Mark R.Warner - (D - VA)

“I will review this agreement with the utmost attention to detail, given the incredible importance of getting an agreement of this magnitude right. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which I supported, Congress will have 60 days to analyze this agreement and carefully consider whether it substantially advances the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In particular, I will pay close attention to the dismantling of Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program; ensuring an intrusive and reliable verification process; and ensuring a graduated process of sanctions relief entirely dependent upon Iran’s compliance, along with a process for re-imposing U.S. and international sanctions if Iran violates terms of the agreement.”