Posted on 12/23/2015 8:31:43 AM PST by Kaslin
Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, opened a hearing last week with these candid, if not immortal, words: "I think the agreement is off to a really terrible start."
The agreement in question is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). It is to provide more than $100 billion in unfrozen assets to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. In exchange, Tehran is supposed to halt a nuclear weapons program whose existence it has consistently denied.
More on that in a moment but first, this point: A deal so consequential ought to have been framed as a treaty. But treaties require congressional advice and consent. President Obama was uninterested in the former and unwilling even to try for the latter.
Initially, the deal Mr. Obama cut was termed an "executive agreement." But in a Nov. 17 letter responding to a query from Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, the State Department revealed that the plan of action does not fall into that category either. In fact, it's not even a "signed document." It merely "reflects political commitments" — commitments that are not "legally binding."
Why make enormous concessions in exchange for anything so fuzzy? Said the State Department to Mr. Pompeo: "The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran's understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments."
In case you missed it: Both those claims have since been tested.
Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ended its investigation into the "possible military dimensions" of Iran's nuclear programs — its attempt to verify whether Iranian officials have been telling the truth when they’ve claimed they've never had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons.
No surprise: Iranian officials have been lying. Iran did indeed conduct nuclear-weapons research — a lot of it prior to 2003 (when the United States invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein) and some as late as 2009.
In fact, the IAEA found that "Iran's clandestine nuclear activities represented a parallel nuclear program (from mining to uranium conversion and enrichment) carried out alongside its declared one," according to Olli Heinonen, former IAEA deputy director general and head of its Department of Safeguards.
True, the inspectors found no evidence of weaponization work after 2009 but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not finding much doesn't mean much given the fact that Iranian officials have "refused to come clean," as Mr. Heinonen phrased it. And Iran coming clean is what Secretary of State John Kerry vowed last April "will be part of a final agreement. It has to be." Well, Mr. Kerry, it's not.
I was surprised by how many journalists chose not to report this. On the BBC's "Newshour" with Razia Iqbal, a correspondent from the BBC's Persian Service said not a word about Iran's now-proven nuclear deceptions. His sunny spin: The IAEA “will end investigations and look to the future — no more looking to the past.â€
As to the future, this much is clear: The nuclear deal does not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In the words of my colleague, Mark Dubowitz, it "opens a patient path." If Tehran abides by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it can have a massive nuclear weapons program 10 years or so after Mr. Obama leaves office.
And consider what Iran's rulers are doing in the present: In October and November, they test-fired ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Not only does that ignore Iran's "political commitments," it's also a flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The message, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan explained, is "to tell the world that the Islamic Republic of Iran acts based on its national interests and no country or power can impose its will on us."
Iran's rulers have been sending that message in other ways as well, e.g., launching cyber-attacks against the U.S. State Department; continuing to support their mass-murdering Syrian client, Bashar Assad, with both Iranian forces and those of Hezbollah, their Lebanon-based foreign legion; attempting to turn Yemen into a satellite; and keeping American citizens — including a Washington Post correspondent and a former U.S. Marine — imprisoned on trumped-up charges.
Will Mr. Obama, in response, "re-impose — and ramp up — our sanctions," as Mr. Pompeo was assured? No. At last week's hearing, Stephen Mull, the administration's coordinator for implementation of the Iran nuclear deal, revealed that sanctions may be lifted ahead of schedule, as early as next month.
Some members of Congress, from both parties, are distressed. Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has filed legislation to prohibit sanctions relief unless the administration can certify that Iran has "verifiably ended all military dimensions of its nuclear program." Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has introduced the "IRGC Sanctions Act," aimed at limiting the ability of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to fundraise and export terrorism. And a bill introduced by Republican Rep. Pete Roskam of Illinois would lower the threshold for the Treasury Department to designate IRGC-controlled entities.
I'll be surprised if Mr. Obama does not oppose these measures — vetoing them if they pass or, more likely, arranging for filibusters to block votes in the Senate.
So why should members of Congress try? For one, because that's their job. Second, such bills at least provide guideposts for whoever will occupy the White House next. Will the new president take the steps necessary to prevent the Islamic republic from acquiring the nuclear weapons it needs to further the jihad it has declared? I'm doubtful. But I'm always willing to be surprised.
“Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, opened a hearing last week with these candid, if not immortal, words: “I think the agreement is off to a really terrible start.”
But this little worthless Tennessee Tick Turd will “fix” everythinga and get it passed anyway. Corker is as detestable as McScrotum Neck.
Corker made the deal possible. Many people warned the deal would be a disaster. Corker was either a willing accomplice or a complete idiot. Either way he is unqualified for office.
He is up for reelection in 2018. The people of Tennessee reelected him in 2012 with 64% of the vote against a conservative Democrat who was disavowed by the DNC. Will a conservative primary him in 2018?
Obama and Kerry gave it all away...
No one in the government can be trusted anymore. NO ONE! They all have a price and the price is easily met. Tar, feathers, pitchforks and guillotines may be the only remedies remaining.
If we had an honest press they would ‘interview’ some of these overseas groups and see exactly how our people are being bought off..
Corker and Lamar Alexander are both RINOs and are unfortunately my senators
This is what you get when a truly horrendous Pres__ent has no adult supervision.
The dude who ran against Corker as a democrat was a conspiracy nutbag, far from a normal conservative. His chances of winning were 0%.
Joe Carr (ran against Lamar! in the primary last year) should give it another go. Or another serious conservative Republican.
I always have a feeling that Corker and Alexander couldn’t care less about Clarksville; which is the 5th largest city in TN, and Montgomery County. <p I did vote Joe Carr in primary in the last election, but he didn’t win.
I voted for Corker’s DINO opponent in the general. I’m done supporting RINOs. Either vote Conservative in DC or in Nashville or you’re not getting my vote. I’m done supporting the Big Gubmint Socialist-Communist Fascist Uniparty.
Did you vote for Lamar! in the general ? I voted for Tom Emerson, Jr., the Tea Party candidate in the general. Are you going to scream at me for not voting RINO Socialist again ?
Yeah, but I literally held my nose, because I wouldn’t my vote go automatically to the rat candidate, and I will not vote for a third party candidate who has 0 chances.
So you keep playing the game set up by the left. You consent to being their puppet by voting for their pre-selected nominees who do nothing but keep this corrupt system perpetuated.
It doesn’t matter if you held your nose, you still voted the way the puppetmasters demanded of you. I won’t play that game anymore, no matter how much you and others scream and berate me. That you seriously think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans shows how much you’ve been indoctrinated and brainwashed. It’s time for you to wake up.
Merry Christmas.
I understand. I might support a kook like that if they were the Republican running against a democrat commie. But I’ll take RINO over a conspiracy kook running as a democrat who’s certain to lose anyway, or go none of the above. If that chump were actually elected he’d have been embarrassing to the conservative movement.
DJ: “That you seriously think there is a difference between the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans shows how much you’ve been indoctrinated and brainwashed.”
There’s a huge difference. GOP didn’t pass Obamacare.
See my reply same subject to some guy this morning
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3375322/posts#22
I understand people’s frustration but we know from past experience that horrible shite happens when the dems are in charge so obviously there is an appreciable difference even if the GOP isn’t good enough and can’t get rid of the shite that the dems passed when they’re back in power.
No need to master debate pointlessly about this now.
Anyway, Kaslin, Carr did pretty well, lost by only 9 points despite so called conservative leaders ignoring him until it was too late. If they gave him the push they gave that stupid doctor in Kansas, he’d have won. If he got all the votes that went to 5 losers who had no business running and splitting the vote he would have won without any extra help.
Given that the outcome was certain in the general election I don’t see a reason to castigate either of you, Kaslin for voting RINO or DJ for casting a protest vote for a certain loser.
If you wanna get rid of the loser RINO Senators a primary is the only way to actually make it happen. Some alleged conservative conspiracy nut running as a dem will never win, nor will some random person with no money running as an Independent. Supporting viable conservative primary candidates should be the priority. On that we should all be able to agree.
Merry Christmas my friends.
Remember, though, he’d be elected as a Democrat. I already discovered back in the ‘90s that when a dissident Democrat manages to get the nomination and they can’t dump them from the ballot, the party establishment WILL help the RINO. They did that with good ole ex-Gov. Don Scumquist in 1998. I voted for the dissident Democrat, John Jay Hooker.
Well, what we’ve seen is the same crap since after FDR was elected in 1932. Before the term RINO was used, and even (I believe) “Eastern Establishment”, there was the “me-too’er.” These “Me-too’ers” were ones who dismissed wholescale the Harding-Coolidge Conservative agenda and embraced everything Democrat. They supported the leftist agenda with the argument they would not change anything, only that they could manage Big Gubmint Socialism more efficiently than the Democrats.
So what have we seen with our “Republican Majority” ? Management, not elimination, of Democrat Socialist policies. It’s a total joke. Dems enact it with desultory “wink-wink” opposition from the GOP and then the GOP adds on to it once in power. We keep getting rolled and rolled.
At this point, it’s time to destroy this whole entire dog and pony show.
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.