Posted on 07/26/2015 1:30:22 PM PDT by Kaslin
You have to give President Obama credit. The man is an optimist. He believes a country that has spent the better part of its existence since overthrowing the Shah in 1979 -- sticking its thumb in the eye of America and our allies -- will abide by an agreement and potentially create a new world order. That man glows with optimism. You have to love it.
Since the nuclear deal has been announced there has been a flood of analysis. I have read both sides, though I have to say there was a lot more condemning the deal than defending it. I believe for the most part it is all talk since the chances of the Congress overriding a presidential veto are almost nil as Obama will browbeat Democrats, threatening them with the demise of his legacy and worse telling them they are accomplices on the path to war.
When I listened to and read the interview Mr. Obama gave to Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist who is his handpicked megaphone, it hit me about something that I had not read in the other analyses by many people smarter than I on the issue of foreign affairs and the Iranian situation. Most of those people focused on the facts of the agreement like length of term, number of centrifuges, inspection regime and sanction relief.
Though many had mentioned the fact that others matters were not included in this deal, this topic had been beaten back for a long time by the Obama team. They had stated that these other matters did not fall within the scope of the negotiations. At various times Obama stated that this agreement was not about regime change. Well, not too many, if any, people I have read had said it was despite their hope for that happening at some point, and the sooner the better. Any promise of that was abandoned when Obama would not back the Iranian protesters in 2011-2012, when some hope of a cascading situation would level the Ayatollah.
President Obama stated in the interview “What has been striking to me is the critics shifting off the nuclear issue and they are moving into ‘well even if the nuclear issue is dealt with they’re still going to be sponsoring terrorism and get sanctions relief and they are going to have more money to engage in these bad activities.’ That is a possibility. The central premise is if they get a nuclear weapon that will be different.” He then stated we would have to work with our allies to control Iran’s other actions.
One can accept that he earnestly believes what he stated there. I just don’t see how. The premise he is really laying out is that on one hand we will stifle Iran’s nuclear program through a treaty (if you wish to call it that) yet be at war with them all over the Middle East. Our allies are in an international war with Hezbollah, a medium hot war with Hamas and a hot war with the Houthis. The common denominator is they are all sponsored by Iran. Iran was also the sponsor of the Syrian regime before that mess happened and are very much responsible for the death of over 200,000 Syrians and a flood of refugees into our ally Jordan. Additionally, they are stirring up trouble in throughout South America. Just think how their activities will be enhanced with $100+ billion to throw around. Yes, we may be controlling one aspect of their regime, but we and our allies are in an armed struggle with them and will remain so after this agreement.
While negotiating with an adversary, you wish to establish some levels of goodwill with them. There appears to be none established here. We could not even get four Americans released as part of the agreement. Even if you did not want to have them used as a bargaining chip for the deal, you could have moved to get them released. I have negotiated many agreements and even some with Persians (though far more civil than these Persians). After the deal was done, I would have leaned across the table and looked my negotiating partner in the eye and say “We worked hard here. It would show a great amount of goodwill and earn a lot of respect for your country moving forward if you released the four Americans you are holding. It means a lot to the American people. Can you work with me here?” Our people did not even get that. It appears the Iranians did not even consider it as a gesture? We were able to extract a war criminal (Bowe Bergdahl) out of the Taliban, but could not even garner a small matter of benevolence from Iran. And we are supposed to believe we have moved our relationship forward. The Ayatollah does not think so nor should we.
Sure it would be great to get regime change, but we did not even get minor behavioral modification. How can you possibly believe matters will go well with Iran in the nuclear area where zero has been asked to change and zero has been indicated it will change on other aspects of their behavioral patterns? It would suggest that Iran would be operating under a split personality, joyful to be a good citizen over here and committing mayhem over there.
Frankly, the proposition is nuts, will never work, and should be the true focus of the failure of this agreement.
Only one?
This is a Dorkbama/Kerry fiasco.
It is a googol of flaws.
At a minimum.
Where would a “veto” come in to the Senate duty to accept or reject. That is not subject to Presidential action, though of course politics is vulnerable to Presidential clowning.
This writer is out to lunch. Obama wants Iran to have nukes and is seeing to it.
I took this as satirical
You got that right
Bialosky, like so many others, doesn’t understand Obama’s intent at all.
This is an arms transfer agreement, at its core, wrapped in the cloak of arms control language.
God willing, we will get regime change in the USA, and be done with these treasonous bastards like Obama and Kerry and their quest to destroy this country. And yes, Iran needs regime change as well.
There is no deal to “stifle” Iran’s nuclear program. It is the complete opposite and while most of us see it here, it surprises me that so few in even the “conservative” media see it.
This agreement does the precise opposite. It provides Iran with a window allowing them to develop nukes unmolested. We guarantee the safety of their program. We undertake to make sure that not only will we not stop them, we will protect them from anyone else who might try to stop them. And we undertake to provide $160 billion dollars to fund their program.
This agreement is the precise opposite of how it is presented to be. The Obama regime has sided with Iran. The regime has sided against Israel. So why do we not get anything for doing so? Because America is still Iran’s enemy, despite the regime’s alliance with them. That should tell you that the regime is also America’s enemy and has been from day one.
As some have pointed out, the Obama regime is now the number one “state sponsor of terrorism” in the world. Now think back to exactly how ISIS (or ISIL as the regime prefers to call them) was born.
What makes you think that the the author does not understand that arrogant pos’ intend?
It’s amazing how much the Democrats have changed. Roosevelt and Truman demanded the unconditional surrender OF our enemies, but Obama surrenders TO them.
Flaw? As in singular; only one?
Flaws!
Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________
That's true for a treaty, but this abortion is not considered a treaty.
What would be subject to veto here is the vote provided for by the Corker bill, which Zero signed. The Corker bill allows Congress to vote to disapprove the agreement. But in order to overcome a veto of such a disapproval, two thirds of each house would have to vote to disapprove.
A successful Corker bill vote, unlikely as it is, would keep the US sanctions in place. However, the UN is already moving forward to remove the international sanctions.
So, it's an epic fail no matter what.
Given that Obama's stated goal is to fundamentally destroy, i mean, "TRANSFORM", the United States of America, words like "fail" take on a whole different meaning.
|
|||||||||
His words. “While negotiating with an adversary” - Iran and Obama are simpatico, not adversaries.
We propped up the Soviet Union too. Why should we treat mad-dog Islamists any differently? /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
