Tag Archives: Iran nuclear deal

International news

Nuke deal becomes partisan numbers game

iran nuke deal

There once was a time — it seems like an eon or two ago — when foreign policy decisions weren’t divided along party lines.

Those days are gone. Maybe they’ll be back. Eternal optimist that I am, I remain hopeful for a return of sanity in our federal government.

The Iran nuclear deal is the most glaring example I’ve seen of how partisanship now supersedes national unity in the face of threats from adversaries.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, became the 31st Democrat to endorse the deal brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and officials from five other great powers. Its aim is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. IranĀ has insisted it intendsĀ only to provide energy for its people; of course, no one believes that.

Congressional Republicans appear united in their opposition to the deal. Democrats are mostly united in favorĀ of it, althoughĀ some have declared their intention to vote “no” when the issue comes up for a vote.

Merkley said something quite wiseĀ in announcing hisĀ support of the deal: ā€œThe future, whether we approve or reject the deal, is unknowable and carries risks. But the agreement offers us better prospects for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and more tools and leverage to ensure that outcome.ā€

We cannot predict the future with absolute certainty, he said.

Democrat backs Iran deal

Is the deal perfect? No, but then again, when have we ever struck the perfect foreign policy agreement with anyone?

The agreement aims to derail whatever intentions the Iranians have of developing a nuclear bomb. It allows inspections of sites. It dismantles centrifuges. It allows the rest of the world to bring back strict economic sanctions if the Iranians are caught cheating on the deal.

None of that is enough to persuade Republicans to back it.

So, the world’s greatest military power is now showing to the world that its foreign policy team is being undercut by partisan political divides when it should be demonstrating an unflinching resolve to stand united against a rogue nation.

It’s turning instead into a numbers game, with Democrats seeking to pile up enough votes to filibuster Republican opposition to the deal while also gaining enough votes to sustain a certain presidential veto of any GOP rejection of the deal.

This is no way to conduct foreign policy.

Ā 

International news

Deal makes it easier to bomb Iran

iran20a

You’ve got to hand it to the Obama administration. It’s finding intriguing ways to sell a nuclear arms deal to its critics.

Consider a tactic being employed by President Obama’s team as it seeks congressional support for the deal that blocks Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

It goes like this: Allowing inspection of nuclear development operations will give the United States greater intelligence capabilities — in case it decides to bomb the Iranians.

What a deal. Such intelligence thus, the theory goes, placates those who hate the deal because it’s the result of negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which they don’t trust as far as they can throw them. Heck, they’d rather bomb them than talk to them. This deal, though, makes it easier to bomb Iran if they break the rules regarding inspections.

As one who supports the deal, I find this marketing strategy quite intriguing.

Politico reports: ā€œIf you want to bomb the program, you should be super-excited about this deal,ā€ said Austin Long, a professor at Columbia Universityā€™s School of International and Public Affairs who studies U.S. military options against Iran. ā€œThe more you know about Iranā€™s nuclear program and the industrial infrastructure behind that program, the better you will be able to target it.ā€

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-argument-bomb-121613.html#ixzz3jq412Fxk

The Obama administration — along with the officials from the other great powers that negotiated the deal — insist that it “blocks all pathways” to Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon.

They have rules they must follow. If they don’t, we’ll have inspectors on the ground collecting intelligence.

Then it could be “bombs away!”

 

International news

GOP = Iranian anti-U.S. chants? Please, Mr. President

Just as Adolf Hitler’s name shouldn’t be uttered aloud in discussions about contemporary U.S. policy, how about declaring a similar moratorium on using “death to America” chants by Iranian protesters?

President Obama made a startling comparison this week in a speech at American University in which he said that those who yell “Death to America” have “common cause with Republicans” who oppose the nuclear deal that seeks to block Iran from developing an atomic bomb.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/05/obama_iranians_who_yell_death_to_america_have_common_cause_with_republicans.html

I get that the president feels frustrated because the “loyal opposition” keeps resisting all of his policies — both foreign and domestic.

However, the “death to America” chants we hear from street demonstrations in Tehran have no bearing on domestic opposition to the issue at hand.Ā Obama said the Iranians who oppose the nuclear deal are those who utter the frightening chant.

The president drew a lot of laughs from the crowd that heard his crack about GOP kinship with the anti-American demonstrators.

Please, Mr. President, spare us the laugh lines and stay away from the demagoguery.

political news

‘Huck’ tries to out-Trump The Donald

3 Comments

Donald Trump makes light of John McCain’s heroism during the Vietnam War and refuses to apologize for it.

His payoff? A surge in the Republican Party presidential primary polls.

Now comes Mike Huckabee to say the Iran nuclear deal brokered by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and five other world powers will lead “Israel to the door of the oven.”

It’s an obvious and hideous reference to the Holocaust and has enraged some Jewish leaders for its insensitivity to the suffering that families of Holocaust victims feel to this very day.

Is Huck backing off? Oh, no. He’s keeping up the fiery rhetoric.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jewish-groups-react-mike-huckabees-oven-remarks?cid=sm_fb_lastword

This, I fear, is what Donald Trump has introduced into the GOP primary contest. He has set a new standard for the level of commentary that voters will accept.

Huckabee has seized upon it and has now added a new twist: invoking the ghastly memory of Adolf Hitler and Neville “Peace in Our Time” Chamberlain to criticize the deal that seeks to end Iran’s nuclear program. You know about Hitler. Chamberlain was the British prime minister who met with Hitler in 1938 as the Nazi tyrant was about to launch World War II and said he was confident thatĀ the worldĀ could achieve “peace in our time” in Europe. Well, it didn’t work out that way.

Huckabee’s reference is as the National Jewish Democratic Council described it:Ā The councilĀ called the remark ā€œnot only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.ā€

But what the heck. A candidate’s got to do what he’s got to do to get on that debate stage with those who are atop the polls.

As Trump has shown, outrageousness sells these days.

International news

Sanctions lifted now, Iran? Think again

The world must have been hallucinating when the great powers announced that framework agreement with Iran that calls for the Iranians to scale back dramatically their nuclear development program.

Many of us out here thought for sure the economic sanctions on Iran would be lifted after the Iranians complied with each step of the agreement.

Now we hear from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that he wants the sanctions lifted before he puts his name on an agreement.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/politics/iran-nuclear-bill/index.html

I must have been dreaming the agreement that was announced. How can the Iranian leader say with a straight face that the sanctions must go and then he’ll sign?

That’s how these things are supposed to go.

President Obama is facing a tough choice here. Does he stick with the agreement and try to talk Rouhani out of his nonsensical demand or does he possibly walk away from the deal?

Some on the right think he needs to walk away. Maybe, but not yet.

I think that the head of state of the world’s greatest military and economic power needs to tell Iran — through intermediaries, of course — that the sanctions are going to remain until the Iranians do what they’ve agreed to do. They’ve agreed to scale back their centrifuges and they’ve agreed to strict inspections from international observers.

If they comply with all they’ve agreed in principle to do, then the sanctions can come off.

Not before.

 

 

International news

Time for Walker to 'bone up'

Scott Walker says he’d toss the Iranian nuclear deal negotiated by the United States and its allies into the trash if he’s elected president of the United States next year.

To which the current president, Barack Obama, says the Republican Wisconsin governor needs to “bone up on foreign policy” to realize the foolishness of such a pledge.

Score one for the 44th president.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/07/397928604/obama-to-scott-walker-bone-up-on-foreign-policy?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fb_ref=Default

The sole intent of the deal is to deny Iran the chance to develop a nuclear weapon. It was a painstaking negotiation. It reduces the number of centrifuges Iran can use. It allows for careful international monitoring of Iran by inspectors to ensure the Iranians are complying the with the deal. It won’t lift economic sanctions on Iran until it does comply.

So, what are the spectators in the peanut gallery — such as Gov. Walker — proposing? Do we bomb the Iranians? Do we invade? Do we just impose more sanctions and then hope they will prevent the Iranians from doing what they damn well please with respect to nuclear weapon development?

The president spoke to National Public Radio about the deal. “I am confident that any president who gets elected,” Obama told NPR host Steve Inskeep, “will be knowledgeable enough about foreign policy and knowledgeable enough about the traditions and precedents of presidential power that they won’t start calling [into] question the capacity of the executive branch of the United States to enter into agreements with other countries. If that starts being questioned, that’s going to be a problem for our friends and that’s going to embolden our enemies.”

All this tough talk and bluster from those who oppose the deal go the heart of a concern some of us out here have raised about whether the United States should be speaking with a single, clear, strong voice regarding Iran.

Yes, Congress should be heard. However, let us not undermine the executive branch’s authority to negotiate in good faith — even with our enemies.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal worth the gamble

The more I read about the Iran nuclear deal framework, the more inclined I am to give it a chance to work.

It’s not going to gather much support among Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. They’re going to oppose it no matter what, given that it was hammered out by a negotiating team sent to the bargaining table by President Barack Obama.

The Los Angeles Times has editorialized correctly that the framework requires some patience, but that it does hold the promise of making the Middle East safer.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran-nuclear-framework-20150403-story.html

The critical point, according to the Times, lies in the verification process.

Nuclear agency officials will have ample opportunity to ensure that Iran complies with its pledge to reduce its centrifuges. Iran also has agreed to limits on its enrichment of uranium. The economic sanctions? They’ll remain until Iran complies. If it doesn’t, the sanctions remain.

That won’t stop congressional Republicans from a knee-jerk opposition to the agreement. They are dead set against this deal. Their reasons baffle me. They use fiery demagoguery language by referring to the U.S.-led negotiating team to the “appeasers” who gave Europe away to Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

How about settling down?

This framework could fall apart. There remain a lot of details to work out. Absent a binding agreement, Iran will be free to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon as it sees fit. What then? Do we bomb them? Do we start a war in the Middle East? Do we really want to let the bombs fly, putting the entire region at risk?

The agreement needs a chance to work.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal: good or bad for the world?

I’m going to withhold final judgment on the Iran nuclear deal for a little while as I try to wrap my arms around what President Obama calls “historic” and what his critics — to no one’s surprise — call an “appeasement.”

I remain hopeful that the framework, as I understand it, is going to cut off “pathways” for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, as the president said today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/237747-obama-hails-historic-iran-nuke-deal

If I had one misgiving about the impending deal it is the end of the economic sanctions. The European Union is going to end the sanctions on Iran almost immediately, while the United States will lift them in accordance with verification that Iran is remaining faithful to the terms of the agreement.

The U.S. portion of the sanctions removal sounds reasonable and verifiable, to my understanding of what was hammered out over the course of several months.

There are lots of nuts and bolts to this deal. The Iranians are going to stop enriching uranium at some locations, will transfer capabilities from one nuclear plant to another and juggle all kinds of contingencies in accordance with what the bargaining nations agreed on.

The result, though, must ensure that Iran does not build a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis, of course, oppose the deal. They’ve said all along that no deal is better than virtually anything that was discussed publicly with regard to the negotiation.

Congressional Republicans are blasting the framework. One GOP lawmaker used the “appeasement” language, conjuring up memories of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s declaration that Europe had found “peace in our time” in negotiating with Adolf Hitler just before all hell broke loose in September 1939.

Let’s not go there.

Instead, the principals have until June to hammer the details out. Congress will get to weigh in.

Iran’s nuclear program appears headed in another direction — away from its construction of a nuclear bomb.

I’m left to wonder initially: What can be so wrong with that?

 

Uncategorized

Iran must pay huge price for non-compliance

Congress is going to step into the Iranian nuclear program dismantling discussion if the need arises.

Go for it, lawmakers.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-eastnorth-africa/191416-congress-prepares-to-punish-tehran

The deal hammered out over the weekend between several of the great powers and Iran calls for the mullahs to take down its nuclear program over time. They must not develop a nuclear weapon. In return Iran will see a partial lifting of economic sanctions that have punished that country’s economy — and which, in my view, have helped bring the Iranians to the negotiating table after years of refusing to discuss their nuclear development program.

Iran has six months to make good on its promises. If it doesn’t, or if it reneges on any element of the agreement, then Congress is going to take action to clamp down even tighter on the Islamic Republic.

The decision to take action if Iran doesn’t comply forestalls any effort to derail the agreement brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry and the Iranian foreign minister. Yes, the agreement has drawn heavy fire from congressional Republicans and Democrats, not to mention from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who calls the agreement a “historic mistake.”

Israel remains prepared to take unilateral military action against Iran if it feels threatened. Who can blame the Israelis, given the constant battles they fight with many of their neighbors who are intent on destroying Israel?

The agreement might not be perfect, but Iran has paid a heavy price already for its refusal to talk — until now — with the rest of the world about its nuclear intentions. As for Israel’s security, Kerry says our nation’s key Middle East ally will remain secure and that the United States will continue to stand foursquare behind it.

Meanwhile, Congress is right to prepare a punishment option to have ready in the event Iran doesn’t comply with the agreement.

The task now is to persuade the Iranians that additional suffering makes it necessary for them to follow through.