How the White House Lost Control on Iran

[eohrnberger]

and if it uses one, every member of the regime will be killed, along with a lot of the population. i know that some argue that they actually want this to happen, but they don't. they like being alive and in power too much.

By that time it's way too late, and frankly, there are dooms day scenarios which have a nuclear weapons detonation in the ME as their starting point.

yes. i think that interventionism in the Middle East has resulted in increasing levels of destabilization. every time one hydra is struck by a sword, it grows another more dangerous head.

Aside from the fact that Bush handed over a pretty stable ME to Obama. All Obama had to do was stay the course, and it would have remained so.

instability and extremism in the Middle East isn't just our problem. it's Saudi Arabia's problem, too, and for Saudi Arabia, the problem is much more immediate. however, it has been largely allowed to abdicate its responsibility, as the US is so heavily involved in the region. it's time that they clean up their own back yard.

I think you are searching for the words 'Obama abdicated the US's influence in the region'.

i doubt that will happen. too many leaders in the region have too much at stake. eventually the region will stabilize. the transition will be rocky, though, as transitions tend to be after interventionism or colonialism.

Given the extremism of the Muslim Islamic Fundamentalists (just listen to their rhetoric), then equipped with nuclear weapons and head of a theocratic state, it's like hitting the trifecta of all things that could possibly be bad and destabilizing, with an awful high cost of betting on sane and reasonable response form a nation and group that's anything but.

I think it's foolish to place those bets there. Seems like you clearly disagree.

 

[iguanaman]

No. What consequences would there be?

First of all Obama can veto it and it will most likely stand. Second, they will be trying to thwart something our closest allies have already agreed to through a long and difficult process. They will look like warmongers and obstructionists.

 

[eohrnberger]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I've wondered a lot lately about what our allies think of the millions of us that have little say on what our elected officials do. Do they wonder if we're uncaring, unaware, or just plain idiots? If asked, I would have to say it may probably be a combination of all three for many of the people, but certainly not all of them. I'd like to let our allies know that we are not the spineless pushovers that we might appear to be, and when we have had enough bovine excrement thrown at us, we fight back and change things. That's the beauty of the checks and balances we have in place via our Constitution, and they work, more often than not.

No, I think they see it for what it is. It's not like the US doesn't have regularly scheduled elections and shifts in diplomatic positions, but I have to say that I'm sure that they'll be glad after Obama's administration comes to an end.

 

[Fletch]

First of all Obama can veto it and it will most likely stand. Second, they will be trying to thwart something our closest allies have already agreed to through a long and difficult process. They will look like warmongers and obstructionists.

They might look that way to liberals, but they look that way to liberals now so who really cares. If it is a bad deal, it should be opposed regardless of how many of our allies go along with it. The only thing that matters is if it is in our national interest.

 

[polgara]

Obama changed his mind when the bill became bipartisan and dropped the GOP added stipulations like Iran recognizing Israels right to exist. We will see if it gets through the House unscathed. If they add back all the junk I expect them to he may still veto it and it will not be over-rided. The GOP House is not very big on bi-partisanship or giving Obama what he wants.

Did Obama not remember that the Democrats that voted in favor might have constituents that they had to consider? Perhaps bipartisanship isn't a pipedream after all....

 

[iguanaman]

I guess that depends on the deal, now doesn't it.

Unless it is a deal that Obama and all our allies approve there will be no vote. Then Congress will be in no position it be the "decider". That is the joke.

 

[joG]

Russia will lift sanctions regardless of whether an agreement is made. That is what many here are so clueless about. The sanctions were never going to last.

I was surprised they lasted so long and were so relatively well maintained.

 

[iguanaman]

Did Obama not remember that the Democrats that voted in favor might have constituents that they had to consider? Perhaps bipartisanship isn't a pipedream after all....

The Dems in Congress will not allow the GOP to kill a deal that the rest of the world agrees to. You are dreaming if you think otherwise. Getting Congress to approve the deal does not hurt Obama, quite the opposite.

 

[iguanaman]

They might look that way to liberals, but they look that way to liberals now so who really cares. If it is a bad deal, it should be opposed regardless of how many of our allies go along with it. The only thing that matters is if it is in our national interest.

You mean it is a political disaster for the the GOP if a deal is made. That it will go through regardless of their objection is even worse for them. I believe many of them will jump on board to prevent them from looking like total a-holes.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I've wondered a lot lately about what our allies think of the millions of us that have little say on what our elected officials do. Do they wonder if we're uncaring, unaware, or just plain idiots? If asked, I would have to say it may probably be a combination of all three for many of the people, but certainly not all of them. I'd like to let our allies know that we are not the spineless pushovers that we might appear to be, and when we have had enough bovine excrement thrown at us, we fight back and change things. That's the beauty of the checks and balances we have in place via our Constitution, and they work, more often than not.

The glib answer is yes. From afar the view is often more accurate. Among those interested here, and that would be a minority since we tend to ignore our own politics, but the "idiots" label was earned back with Clinton when he lied under oath and got away with it. We thought getting head in the Oval Office was neat, but then we have had a lot of bachelor Prime Ministers, see Pierre Trudeau "affairs and lovers" and his "government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" in the 60's virtually clearing the way to gay rights.

He lied and got away with it so then we got Bush and while I think he was adequate for the times, he is despised universally here because of 10,000 permanently lost jobs in the softwood lumber dispute. Obama was a rage until he said he would tear up NAFTA in Ohio and then phoned the Canadian Embassy to say "it's for public consumption."

We also see you as incredible hypocrites while waging a "war on terror" and using absolutely horrific tactics like torture, water boarding and renditioning while at the same time demanding civil rights changes in neighbors, Cuba being the biggest offense because of the duplicity of Gitmo.

That's the over all political view. As individuals we love Americans and generally sympathize, it was Canadian shoe leather first on the ground at ground zero and tghere was not one Canadian who did not support that. But we are confused as to how such good people end up with a choice between the likes of John McCain and a rookie so stupid as to **** with international treaties and think no big deal [he drove a spike of distrust before getting into office]. We stand agape and horrified at a petty little prick who badmouths a world leader, while wondering about these Americans, 40% who still love the guy.

I guess you could sum it up by saying Canada sees this as good friends with a crack problem and we can't do anything about it.

 

[Helix]

By that time it's way too late, and frankly, there are dooms day scenarios which have a nuclear weapons detonation in the ME as their starting point.

Aside from the fact that Bush handed over a pretty stable ME to Obama. All Obama had to do was stay the course, and it would have remained so.

some people believe that, i'm sure. it isn't true. not to mention that the people who believe that we should pick a side in a sectarian war that has lasted centuries and then occupy large parts of the region for decades aren't even willing to pay more taxes to fund it. i see very little chance that more interventionism is going to lead to some different, more preferable outcome when it has not done that yet.

I think you are searching for the words 'Obama abdicated the US's influence in the region'.

no, i said what i meant to say. the Middle East is the responsibility of regional hegemons.

Given the extremism of the Muslim Islamic Fundamentalists (just listen to their rhetoric), then equipped with nuclear weapons and head of a theocratic state, it's like hitting the trifecta of all things that could possibly be bad and destabilizing, with an awful high cost of betting on sane and reasonable response form a nation and group that's anything but.

we aren't preventing a nuclear Iran. we're just slowing it down some, and probably not even that much.

I think it's foolish to place those bets there. Seems like you clearly disagree.

yes. i have very little hope that democracy can be imposed on the Middle East, or that interventionism is going to accomplish any of the advertised goals.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Did Obama not remember that the Democrats that voted in favor might have constituents that they had to consider? Perhaps bipartisanship isn't a pipedream after all....

Obama is a rookie still.

He is ego centric and does not tolerate criticism. His instinct was to continue the partisan attack after winning. As a rookie who had waged ONE campaign before, he found comfort in being able to whip his opponents and gain applause from his adoring but hate filled fans.

It was his biggest and most painful mistake. One you harden your enemies so they won't work with you even if it is to their advantage and sooner or later you run into a brick wall like Iran nukes when your semi-adoring fans have had enough. For him, so removed from "constituents" it was not a factor. He simply assumed everyone would fall in step and stay there because he is the star of the show

 

[MMC]

First of all Obama can veto it and it will most likely stand. Second, they will be trying to thwart something our closest allies have already agreed to through a long and difficult process. They will look like warmongers and obstructionists.

BO can't veto the Corker Bill.....its why he changed his stance at the very last second. That morning as a matter of fact. Once he learned all the Democrats voted for it. Its why Corker said what he did. BO's veto was going to have some smackdown put on it. So BO opted out for the political move knowing he had lost.

 

[Fearandloathing]

First of all Obama can veto it and it will most likely stand. Second, they will be trying to thwart something our closest allies have already agreed to through a long and difficult process. They will look like warmongers and obstructionists.

You do know that Obama has said he will comply with the bill, right?

Or have you knowledge of a planned deception?

 

[Fletch]

You mean it is a political disaster for the the GOP if a deal is made. That it will go through regardless of their objection is even worse for them. I believe many of them will jump on board to prevent them from looking like total a-holes.

I don't see how it is a disaster for the GOP if a deal is made. If it is a good deal they will support it. But again I don't expect a deal unless the US caves to Irans demands. If that is the case opposing it will be the right decision.

Opposing Obama has NEVER been a disaster for republicans. And it wont be this time either.

 

[iguanaman]

I don't see how it is a disaster for the GOP if a deal is made. If it is a good deal they will support it. But again I don't expect a deal unless the US caves to Irans demands. If that is the case opposing it will be the right decision.

Opposing Obama has NEVER been a disaster for republicans. And it wont be this time either.

You keep ignoring that the US alone cannot agree to a deal, it is a collaborative effort. Obama "caving" will not make a deal that is acceptable to all parties so that is a non-issue. Any deal that the coalition agrees on will be a deal the GOP must support and vote to approve or be branded as warmongers and obstructionists

 

[US Conservative]

Obama is acting sort of uptight for a President. As though he were under pressure and against a wall and under deadly fire. As though he did not understand that it is not important who does the Iran deal or the Cuban one. It is not a question of vanity. It is national security this is about. He only needs to step back and take a deep breath and stop his agitated and lonesome hyperactivity, which is only making the situation he has created worse. Negotiate with the guys in the Senate and put together a good and transparent deal and it will fly. But the way he has been going, it could all end in tears.

His narcissism will prevent him from doing anything else. Its now the world against Obama (including Iran), he's been outmatched once again on the world diplomatic stage, but he wont let that stop him.

 

[iguanaman]

You do know that Obama has said he will comply with the bill, right?

Or have you knowledge of a planned deception?

The bill is to allow a vote on supporting the agreement or not. The results of that vote may be vetoed too.

 

[US Conservative]

Congress finally realized what our foreign adversaries have known for some time. A red line isn't a red line if one gets in Obama's face. He's weak.

He's lost all credibility and his political capital. And it was all by his own hand.

 

[iguanaman]

BO can't veto the Corker Bill.....its why he changed his stance at the very last second. That morning as a matter of fact. Once he learned all the Democrats voted for it. Its why Corker said what he did. BO's veto was going to have some smackdown put on it. So BO opted out for the political move knowing he had lost.

Except that he may also veto the results of the vote and that will very likely stand. In other words Congress can vote to not accept the agreement but Obama can veto that. The Dems will not override that veto either.,

 

[US Conservative]

Morning, Pol. What has happend with the sale of the S-300's to Iran - which blind-sided this administration - is that Obama has likely pushed Israel into taking action before those systems become operational. That would put the schedule for an attack within the year. If Israel takes that route, we will not be advised in advance.

Why would Israel notify Washington? The first thing that will happen is Obama will warn Iran.
"Peace in our time" :doh

 

[US Conservative]

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

I'm very glad that Congress chose to get hardnosed about BHO's overreach on this matter, and voted overwhelmingly bi-partisan to accomplish it. Why shouldn't they have - this affects every one of us, and the rest of the world, too, for that matter! "Secret talks," indeed - on a matter like this? Hogwash!

Who'd have thought all it takes to get bipartisan support is opposition to Obama.

 

[US Conservative]

Did Obama not remember that the Democrats that voted in favor might have constituents that they had to consider? Perhaps bipartisanship isn't a pipedream after all....

He knows, he was a senator-he just doesn't care. He's drove his party into the ground for his personal agenda.

 

[US Conservative]

Except that he may also veto the results of the vote and that will very likely stand. In other words Congress can vote to not accept the agreement but Obama can veto that. The Dems will not override that veto either.,

They voted for the Corker bill, if they let a veto stand they will have demonstrated they are willing to let a bad deal stand for politics-which is the last thing they need before 2016.

I think you are overestimating Obama's political clout here-he's dragged his own party down and is not up for reelection, there are no illusions here-the dems will need to take care of themselves-hence this bill.

 

[MMC]

Except that he may also veto the results of the vote and that will very likely stand. In other words Congress can vote to not accept the agreement but Obama can veto that. The Dems will not override that veto either.,

From Post 5. Bo wont Veto this Bill.....they have the override and he doesn't want that to be on his record.



Panel unanimously approves Iran bill after surprise White House retreat

Just hours after the White House withdrew its opposition to a bill requiring Congressional oversight on any nuclear deal with Iran, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved the legislation, called the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, prompting a victory lap by the bill’s author, committee chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

“This legislation is exactly the congressional review that we’ve been working on since day one,” Corker said in his opening remarks to the notably uncontentious hearing. His tone mixed delighted disbelief with a not-too-subtle thumb in the eye of the administration, which had reversed its long-standing position against any encroachment on the president’s foreign-policy prerogatives. “I know they’ve relented because of what they believe the outcome is going to be here,” Corker said. “I think that the reason the White House has taken this position over the past two hours is that they see how many senators are supporting this.”

Hours earlier, Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had briefed senators on the ongoing multilateral nuclear negotiations. They reiterated the administration’s opposition to Congress moving forward on the Corker legislation before the P5+1 negotiators reached a potential agreement in June, according to members leaving that meeting, including Corker himself......snip~