Posted on 03/11/2015 2:47:55 PM PDT by cotton1706
Via the Examiner, he’s not the only State Department official to admit this within the past 24 hours. Jen Psaki also acknowledged last night that a nuclear deal with Iran wouldn’t be legally binding, with good reason. The only way to give an international agreement the force of law vis-a-vis future presidents and Congresses is to have the Senate ratify it under its treaty power. Until that happens — and it won’t happen — this is a deal between Barack Obama and the Ayatollah Khamenei. Once one of them is gone, the deal remains valid if and only if his successor feels like abiding by it.
Which raises an obvious question.
@SenTomCotton So then what exactly are you doing? RT @joshrogin: Kerry: "We are not negotiating a legally binding plan" with Iran.
@SenTomCotton Follow Important question: if deal with Iran isn't legally binding, then what's to keep Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?
The answer, I take it, is “inspections.” Any deal with the U.S. would — I hope — insist on unrestricted access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure for UN inspectors along with an initial scaling down of uranium enrichment. If Iran declares the deal off, kicks out the inspectors, and tries to “break out” by ramping up enrichment, that would be America’s cue to bomb. Except America’s not going to bomb, certainly not while Obama’s in charge and quite possibly not after his successor takes over. The potential costs are high and the potential benefit, halting Iran’s program for a few years while they rebuild, is relatively low.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The potential benefits part doesn’t make sense. No one is interested in another war but how is it that ‘potential benefits’ doesn’t include preventing a regional nuclear war that would almost certainly escalate to worldwide nuclear war?
What you clowns are doing is giving Iran Nuclear capability in exchange for Iran cleaning up your absolute mess in Iraq regarding ISIS.
ValJar is a little short on the strategery thing.
"Inspectors document violations; they don't stop them,"
IMO. I see the treaty as a pre-emptive strike against Republicans in campaigning during the 2016 election. Democrats are the “Peace Party”, and all the Republicans want is a War. Iran is too smart to rattle their ICBMs until after the US election.
Well, ya see, that's the tricky part that Kerry & Obama & friends are missing: Iran WANTS a war. They're building nuclear weapons precisely because their constitution makes an imperative & priority of destroying Israel.
"how is it that ‘potential benefits’ doesn’t include preventing a regional nuclear war"
Well, ya see, that's the other tricky part which Netanyahu made really clear to anyone who actually listened to his speech: the deal, as the Obama & Kerry are constructing it, means that Iran can build all the nuclear bomb construction facilities they like - they just can't use those facilities for 10 years ... at which point they'll have so much equipment & supplies in place that they'll be able to turn out numerous nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks.
Oh, and the other thing Bibi pointed out: if Iran reaches the fast-production capability _before_ the 10 year period is up, they can just go right ahead and use it all anyway and build those weapons in violation of the agreement ... and all the inspectors can & will do is say "yup, they're building nuclear weapons real fast now." By the time anyone else says "oh $#!^ they're serious about this", Iran will be sending those nukes to Israel via express delivery.
But...But...But...what about his phone and his pen????
“What you clowns are doing is giving Iran Nuclear capability in exchange for Iran cleaning up your absolute mess in Iraq regarding ISIS.”
So, let’s summarize. We will give Iran Syria, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon and Iraq in exchange for letting them build a bomb in 10 years.
Any questions?
The 47 Republicans did the right thing. What Obama did was sign an executive agreement like Roosevelt did in WWII. The country did not want to go to war; but the English, our ally, was getting the crap kicked out of them; so we went. The difference is Obama is helping our enemy, Iran.
Iran has their own self interest to contain ISIS. We could support the Kurds, who don’t have a state and are nowhere close to nuclear weapons and are fighting like heck to push ISIS back. Between the Kurds and the Iranian and the Wahhabis, ISIS would be trapped between Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. They might make a mess in Iraq and problems for Saudi Arabia but these places would also be messy for ISIS especially if they have to watch their flank all the time for Kurds, Jordanians and Shia.
I don’t know why I said Pakistan when I meant Turkey.
Won’t be 10 years. More like 10 months. And Iran is going into Yemen and Libya ? Thought the US/Euroweenies were giving those to the Muslim Brotherhood ? Syria is a three way clusterpuck. Will be fought over for years if not decades. And that Syria fight has already spread to Europe. France has now permanently deployed troops at home to protect its assets.
Yeah well the Kurds should have had their state 10 years ago. ISIS would never have gone as far as they have with a strong autonomous Kurdish state standing in their way. But alas, we are destined to be ruled by idiots.
” And Iran is going into Yemen and Libya ?”
If they are going to chase ISIS they will.
Iran is just concerned with ISIS attacking Shiites. So they won’t be in Libya but who knows about Yemen. My initial comment was just based on ISIS in Iraq.
then wtf are you doin....
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.