Tag Archives: Iranian nuclear deal

International news

Now he’ll meet with Iranians … after issuing dire threat

This is how Donald J. Trump rolls.

He threatens a world leader with annihilation, then tosses out a suggestion that he might be willing to meet with him.

Trump threatened North Korean dictator Kim “Little Rocket Man” Jong Un with “total destruction,” then met with him in Singapore ostensibly to persuade the North Koreans to get rid of their nukes.

They didn’t agree to it. The meeting hasn’t been nearly as fruitful as Trump describes it.

Now it’s Iran’s turn. Trump fired off an all-cap tweet threatening to blow Iran to bits. Now he wants to talk to them.

Hey, let’s talk.

I happen to support any discussion that pre-empts military conflict with Iran. The president wants to talk about a new nuclear deal that Trump tossed aside, calling it a terrible deal.

Trump’s track record on negotiating anything at any level is quite suspect. Still, if he’s willing to talk directly to the Iranians, then he ought to proceed.

I believe it was Winston Churchill who once said it is better to “jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war.”

Keep jawing, Mr. President.

International news, national news, political news

Bibi shows his petulant side

netanyahu.si_

Readers of this blog know — at least I hope they know — that I am a fervent advocate forĀ the U.S.-Israel alliance.

I want it to be strong. I have long understood the Israeli point of view as it regards the war against international terror. I got to spend a month in Israel in May-June 2009 and saw up close the proximity with which the Israelis deal with nations that want to destroy their country.

I get that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to protect his country with all the might he can muster.

Why, though, did Bibi cancel his planned visit to the United States without telling the White House? Why does he keep wanting to stick it in President Obama’s eye?

The White House stands firm on its belief that Netanyahu showed bad manners when he canceled his trip, which was supposed to include a meeting with the president.

Yes, the two men have had a frosty relationship, although they’ve both spoken of their nations’ commitment to each other. President Obama has been clear: We’re going to stand with Israel always when violence erupts. How much clearer does he have to make it?

But the prime minister is still fuming over the Iranian nuclear deal that seeks to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Several nations worked diligently to craft an agreement that seeks to create a safer Middle East.

Bibi isn’t buying it. Oddly, though, I get his reluctance. Iran has stated it wants to destroy Israel and the Israelis aren’t willing for forget that blatant threat.

A meeting, though, between two heads of government need not have been canceled because of it. If anything, Netanyahu could have come here and voiced his displeasure to Barack Obama’s face, in private, with no one else in the room.

He didn’t do that. He chose instead to make a grandstand play.

Maybe it’s all part of the political climate these days. Those Republican presidential candidates have been a pretty petulant pack themselves these days. It must be rubbing off on Bibi.

 

International news

Bipartisanship returns to Senate

corker and cardin

Take a look at this picture.

You see two U.S. senators — Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee and Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland — yukking it up after the Senate approved a measure to require senatorial review of the Iranian nuclear deal worked out by the Obama administration with the mullahs in Iran.

Why is this picture so noteworthy? It’s because the measure passed 98-1 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan manner.

It’s not often these days you see Democratic and Republican congressional leaders standing side by side in front of cameras to bask in something they’ve done together.

They did so this week.

Good for them.

What’s brought the smiles to both men? It’s a measure that says the Senate gets to sign off on a treaty that administration officials hope to finalize later this spring or perhaps in early summer. It calls for Iran to scale back dramatically its nuclear development program and its aim is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon — which Israel says it intends to do and which no one this side of Tehran wants to occur.

It’s good that the Senate and the HouseĀ will weigh in when the time comes.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, “The legislation gives Congress 30 days to review a deal once the full details are submitted to them. They then have the right to approve or disapprove of the deal, or do nothing, which would allow it to go forward. If they disapprove, President Obama can veto that measure, which would require 67 votes to override and actually halt an agreement, an unlikely outcome.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/07/senate_nearly_unanimous_in_backing_review_of_iran_deal_126524.html

The lone “no” vote came from upstart freshman Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the author of that letter that GOP senators sent to the Iranian mullahs threatening to void any treaty that President Obama signs.

Well, that’s Cotton’s view.

I prefer to hope that the Senate will deliberate this treaty carefully when it arrives on Capitol Hill.

I also prefer that it do so in the same bipartisan spirit it showed in approving the measure granting its authority to do so.

Now the House of Representatives will consider it. Follow the Senate lead, House members.