Last Saturday morning the weather was too bad to go outside.
I was bored with nothing to do.
Suddenly there was a knock on the door.
I opened it to find a young, well dressed man standing there who said:
"Hello sir, I'm a Jehovah's Witness."
So I said, "Come in and sit down."
I offered him a fresh cup of coffee and asked, "What do you want to talk about?"
He said, "Beats the shit out of me. Nobody's ever let me in before."
===
===
Will Huma Fall on Her Sword for Hillary?
BY ROGER L. SIMON (See 1 below.)
These two other postings are a reminder of what I have written in previous memos:
a) The courts Could become the final SAVIOR of our Republic as they force respect for and Adherence to the law
and
b) Kim Strassel suggests Hillarious' future rests on an honest search by the FBI for the truth Or could be Squelched by Obama should he choose to do so. After all The FBI white washed the IRS. (See 1a and 1b below.)
===
Has ISIS begun to use gas? (See 2 below.)
===
Prager responds and debunks Obama's IRAN Deal! (See 3, 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
====
Rep. Buddy Carter, has graciously asked me to introduce him thursday, August 20th. (See 4 below.)
===
As I posted several days ago, whomever the Republican candidate they will still be running against Obama in 2016, who will not disappear from the scene. (See 5 below.)
====
I had lunch today with one of Savannah's most charitable citizens, my most severe critic, a fellow memo reader who disagrees with me politically but when we dig into details he begins to realize we are more in agreement than he admits . However, he cannot avoid saying I am to the right of ATTILA. Then I respond by telling him he resorts to name calling because he has no legitimate response to my premise. I truly love the guy and always enjoy our lunches and encounters. One day he is going to come over to my side. he just does not realize it yet.
My friend responded: "You are a dreamer, but are terrific" I responded back: ".dreams often come true."
===
Satloff offers a way out for those who are conflicted. (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)- They say it’s not the crime, but the cover up. But sometimes it’s the crime and the cover up. Hillary Clinton’s metastasizing email scandal is beginning to look more and more like a case of both.
Back in the seventies, Charles Colson of Watergate fame boasted he would “walk over my own grandmother” to assure the election of Richard Nixon. Hillary Clinton — who cut her teeth on the very Watergate investigation before she was “let go” by the House Judiciary Committee under disputed circumstances — now may have to demand the same kind of loyalty from longtime “girl Friday” Huma Abedin. From Politico:
Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s most trusted confidante, is increasingly becoming a central figure in the email scandal that’s haunting her boss on the campaign trail, as Republicans and federal judges seek information about Clinton’s communications while she was running the State Department.The 2016 Democratic front-runner on Monday told a federal judge that Abedin — long considered her boss’s keeper and even dubbed her “shadow” — had her own email account on Clinton’s now infamous home-brewed server, “which was used at times for government business,” Clinton acknowledged. That’s an unusual arrangement, even for top brass at the State Department.
Unusual? How about extraordinarily unusual? Clinton controlled the entirety of her government email correspondence on her unsecured family server to which, as far as we know now, only she and Huma had access. Bill has assured us he doesn’t do email. Cheryl Mills is still a possibility, though less direct.
Now we have learned, despite Hillary’s initial protestations, that of the first forty (of tens of thousands) emails to be examined, if they have not been permanently erased, an inspector general found four (one out of ten) contained classified intelligence material. Two of those were considered TOP SECRET and included satellite photos from government, presumably NSA, sources.
Mrs. Clinton, as she is quaintly known in the NYT, is now suddenly claiming she wasn’t aware these emails were classified. This was all an accident. She was just a poor, ignorant (daffy?) secretary of state, overwhelmed with detail. Or perhaps the classification markings were expunged from the emails by some eager acolyte anxious to give the former secretary what is known in the parlance as “plausible deniability.”
Whatever the case, we don’t know yet how many more of these emails existed on her unsecured server or what they say — and certainly not which foreign intelligence agencies and independent hackers (other than Guccifer, who has made known a small amount of his trove) had access to them. We can assume quite a few. One can safely say if Hillary were a Republican, she would be halfway to prison by now. Maybe she is anyway.
Like Nixon before her, Hillary is in bad need of a firewall, someone to take the heat for her, someone to say her boss didn’t know anything, someone willing even to go up river for the former secretary of state, a Colson of her own. Who else could really do that but Huma? But will she? The Politico article continues:
Abedin has hired a team of lawyers, one of whom is a former Clinton aide, who are responding to information requests from the courts and State. They’ve denied any wrongdoing on the part of their client and said Abedin is cooperating with requests for official emails in her possession, aiming to turn over all her correspondence by the end of August.But her lawyers — Karen Dunn and Miguel Rodriguez — didn’t respond to questions about emails on Clinton’s separate server. Dunn is a partner at Boies, Schiller; Flexner, and she served as a senior advisor to Clinton when she was in the Senate.After an inspector general found that Clinton had at least two “top secret” emails stored on her unsecured computer network, Abedin is likely to face more questions from congressional investigators, and perhaps others, about her access to Clinton’s system.Abedin had been granted “special government employee” status, allowing her to work both for Clinton and the private sector — and it’s unclear if she continued using the server that appears to have held classified information following her departure from her full-time State gig.
One thing is clear — in Clintonland, security was never a serious issue to be concerned with. Abedin is still married to Anthony Weiner, a man notorious for having exposed his genitals to random women over the Internet on multiple occasions. Whatever you think of Abedin’s decision to stay with the pseudonymous “Carlos Danger,” the idea that she still has security clearance for classified material while married to such a person, or even if not, borders on the insane. Or maybe she didn’t have security clearance at all but still had access to the Clinton server that had such information. Who knows?
The question remains, however, what will Huma say or do when interrogated. Her legal troubles are not just limited to protecting Hillary, as this article at National Review indicates. She is being investigated for improprieties, again multiple, surrounding her work for Teneo Holdings. Will she think of herself first? What will her attorneys advise her to do? At least one of them, Karen Dunn, works with and for David Boies, whose involvement at the highest reaches of government goes back to being Al Gore’s lawyer in Bush v. Gore. As will be recalled, he lost that one. Will they be on the side of their client or Mrs. Clinton? Time will tell.
Or maybe it won’t, because increasing numbers of Democratic leaders are trying to figure out ways to usher Hillary offstage before its too late for their party in 2016. I wouldn’t be surprised if a quiet compromise is worked out, a sudden illness discovered, as Joe Biden is rushed in, riding on a whitish horse while Huma disappears mysteriously from the scene.
1a) All the Secretary’s Women
Hillary Clinton has made a career of stiff-arming Congress, inspectors general and the press. So it looks like it’s up to the courts and law enforcement to get to the bottom of her email scandal.
1a) All the Secretary’s Women
The Clinton email cover up keeps unraveling, thanks to the courts.
Hillary Clinton has made a career of stiff-arming Congress, inspectors general and the press. So it looks like it’s up to the courts and law enforcement to get to the bottom of her email scandal.
That’s the real meaning of this week’s news in the email case, as the Clinton stonewall becomes harder to sustain. Mrs. Clinton is turning over to the FBI the private server she used to conduct government business while Secretary of State, as well as three thumb drives containing her government-related email. The Clinton campaign won’t say she did this voluntarily, or in response to an FBI demand. And the FBI won’t say why it sought the server. But the handover follows news that top-secret information traveled across her private system, despite her previous denials.
Meanwhile, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan has now verified that Mrs. Clinton will not certify that she has handed over to the State Department all of her work-related records. Two of her closest aides are also dodging Judge Sullivan’s request to hand over their work-related documents to State, and we now know that one of Mrs. Clinton’s aides was using the unsecured Clinton system for government work.
Judge Sullivan is overseeing a Freedom of Information Act case brought in 2013 by Judicial Watch. The watchdog group sought documents relating to the employment ofHuma Abedin, who was allowed to work outside the government even as she served as a top Clinton State Department aide. State told Judicial Watch in 2014 it had turned over everything relevant, and the group then dropped its lawsuit.
But the news of previously undisclosed Clinton emails convinced Judge Sullivan in June to take the rare step of reopening the Abedin case. To ascertain whether State was finally searching through every record, he ordered State on July 31, to request that Mrs. Clinton and two of her aides—Ms. Abedin and Cheryl Mills—confirm under penalty of perjury that they had produced all government records in their possession, and that they describe their use of Mrs. Clinton’s server for government business. That response deadline was last Friday.
Mrs. Clinton’s reaction to the deadline was a classic. “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody, that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done,” she wrote in a declaration submitted to the court. Translation: If everything wasn’t turned over, it’s not her fault.
But her declaration to the court did disclose that Mrs. Abedin had an “account” on Mrs. Clinton’s server “which was used at times for government business.” The admission that her aides were also using her server demolishes Mrs. Clinton’s previous claim that she used this server for personal “convenience.” She was really running a parallel mini-State email operation.
Both aides were also supposed to submit declarations that they had turned over all government records to the State Department. Instead, they blew off Judge Sullivan and directed their attorneys to explain that they are still searching their private records and in time will get around to supplying them. This is remarkable given that State first requested they turn over any work-related records in March.
Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers have been careful to never use the word “delete” regarding her emails. Mrs. Clinton said that she “chose not to keep” her yoga diary and the rest. Her lawyer, David Kendall, has said emails no longer exist on the server. But do those emails still exist in another location—on a hard drive or thumb drive—or in someone else’s possession? The FBI has the forensic ability to retrieve the emails if they still exist, assuming that the agency isn’t merely going through the pro-forma motions.
Keep in mind that none of this would have happened without Judge Sullivan enforcing the freedom-of-information law. Credit as well goes to federal Judge Rudolph Contrerasfor ordering the State Department to start producing the Clinton records, and to federal Judge Richard Leon for rapping State over its delays producing the emails. CongressmanTrey Gowdy’s House committee on Benghazi has also been indispensable in pressing the server issue.
***
The Clinton campaign released two memos to its supporters this week, telling them to calm down, the email storm is merely the Republican attack machine at work, and Mrs. Clinton is still beating GOP candidates head to head in the polls. If they can tough it out until Election Day, they think they’ll win.
But the federal judiciary isn’t partisan, and the real lesson from the email fiasco is that this is how the Clintons act when they’re in power. They play by their own rules, and when they’re caught they stonewall and obfuscate and blame it all on partisanship. Maybe her sinking poll numbers mean that voters are finally catching on.
1b) The Clinton Ship Takes on Water
Hillary feels compelled to issue an everyone-remain-calm memo 15 months before the election.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
The Titanic was a beautiful ship. It was a colossus—the culmination of decades of wisdom and design. It was financed and booked by the world’s rich and famous. It was unstoppable. And because it was, it steamed full ahead. Until it sank.
Democrats are this week beginning to freak out that Hillary Clinton is their Titanic, and to debate whether they might be better off on this 2016 political crossing in a less awesome, but more prudent, boat. The debate is overdue. The Clintons are masters at projecting invincibility and lulling their passengers into blanking the danger signs. But holes in a hull have a way of focusing minds.
It’s never a good sign when your party’s putative nominee feels compelled to send out an everyone-remain-calm memo 15 full months before an election. Campaign spokeswomanJennifer Palmieri’s reassurance to supporters was classic Clinton—the perfect combo of airy dismissal (Server? FBI? It means nothing!), misdirection (this whole “classified” thing is really “complicated”), table-turning (Republicans hide things too, you know), and attack (this is just a “partisan witch-hunt”). Still, you don’t send out 700-word explanatories unless party leaders and donors are lighting you up with panic calls.
When Mrs. Clinton handed over her private email server to the Justice Department, Democrats sniffed vulnerability and took a wider look around. What they see is polls showing more than half of America now holds an unfavorable view of their front-runner, and that a mere one-third of the country trusts her. They see surveys showing her only tied with top-tier Republicans in a general matchup—down from a 10-point advantage in May—and losing head-to-head in key battleground states.
They see an insurgent wing of the Democratic electorate that is unenthused by the old Clinton machine and eager for fresh blood. Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders surged past Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire primary poll released Tuesday. His recent rally in Los Angeles drew more than 27,000 people—five times the size of any recent Clinton event. They see another part of the electorate that is fine with old blood, so long as it is any type but Clinton blood. Joe Biden—who isn’t even in the race, and who is . . . Joe Biden—is doing as well in general matchups against Republicans as is Mrs. Clinton.
They see a campaign that—if it went by any other name—might be accused of ineptitude. Mrs. Clinton is disciplined and experienced, no doubt. But her operation has stumbled along. It has been buffeted by gaffes, criticized for drifting “listening tours,” beset (as in 2008) by infighting. It was inexcusably late to the Super PAC game.
Democrats also see new weakness in their favorite themes. Here is Mrs. Clinton trying out an inequality argument, as she builds up her personal bank account. Here she is floating the “war on women” theme, as her foundation takes donations from countries that whip rape victims. Here she calls for lower college costs while charging these institutions $250,000 for a speech. Here is a candidate who was in the past for Keystone, and for trade, and for more intervention overseas. And who maybe now is not. Though they don’t really know. Which is also a problem.
And now, they see danger. The party trusted the Clintons to handle the email scandal in their usual way—to ignore it until it faded. But there’s no ignoring stories containing the words “FBI,” “criminal inquiry,” “classified” and “secret”—all in one sentence. On Tuesday, her use of private emails while serving as secretary of state turned from a political problem into a potentially legal problem. Thousands of Democrats woke Wednesday morning from nightmares of landing an “unsinkable” nominee that gets indicted.
For now, no one significant is jumping off the Clinton ship. That's mostly because the party believes it has no other ship to jump to. Martin O’Malley? Jim Webb? Heck, even Mrs. Clinton’s rivals seem convinced she’s a better bet than they are. Amid all the news this week, not one of them—not even Mr. Sanders—said boo about her ethics.
The Clintons might also trust that Barack Obama still sees her as his best bet to win and preserve his legacy. This administration, of course, exercises influence over the Justice Department (don’t forget that FBI non-probe into the IRS scandal). And so it remains a possibility the feds took Mrs. Clinton’s server as a means of safeguarding it from other prying hands—the courts, inspectors general, Congress—until this election is over. If the FBI now goes quiet, and other agencies start using the FBI probe as an excuse to stop any further action on Clinton emails, that will be the tipoff.
Then again, the Clintons have now reached the point at which all it might take is one, big first-class passenger heading for a lifeboat to inspire an exodus. It might be Mr. Obama, who could signal his view by giving the FBI free rein. Or Sen. Elizabeth Warren might see her moment. Or maybe a respected party elder who calls out the candidate. Let’s hope so. The Democratic Party deserves to steer its own future. Not just lash itself to the RMS Hillary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2) -Islamic State Suspected of Using Chemical Weapon, U.S. Says
Militants likely used mustard agent on Kurdish forces in Iraq, officials say
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON—Islamic State militants likely used mustard agent against Kurdish forces in Iraq this week, senior U.S. officials said Thursday, in the first indication the militant group has obtained banned chemicals.
The officials said Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Syria, whose government admitted to having large quantities in 2013 when it agreed to give up its chemical-weapons arsenal.
The use of mustard agent would mark an upgrade in Islamic State’s battlefield capabilities, and a worrisome one given U.S. intelligence fears about hidden caches of chemical weapons in Syria, where Islamic State controls wide swaths of territory.
It raises new questions about the evolving threat posed by Islamic State and the ability of U.S. allies on the ground to combat it. Frontline Kurdish, Iraqi and moderate Syrian forces say they aren’t getting enough U.S. support now to counter Islamic State’s conventional capabilities.
Officials say these forces may need specialized equipment and training to help protect them against unconventional weapons if they become a fixture on the battlefield.
U.S. intelligence agencies thought Islamic State had at least a small supply of mustard agent even before this week’s clash with Iraqi Kurdish fighters, known as the Peshmerga, U.S. officials said. That intelligence assessment hadn’t been made public.
The attack in question took place late Wednesday, about 40 miles southwest of Erbil in northern Iraq. A German Defense Ministry spokesman said about 60 Peshmerga fighters, who help protect Kurdish areas in northern Iraq, were reported to have suffered injuries to their throats consistent with a chemical attack while fighting Islamic State.
Mustard agent, first employed as a weapon in World War I, can cause painful burns and blisters, immobilizing those affected by it, but it is usually deadly only if used in large quantities.
“These were apparently chemical weapons. What it was exactly we don’t know,” the German ministry spokesman said, adding that experts were on their way to the scene to conduct a fuller analysis. He said German personnel weren’t present at the scene of the attack.
The possibility that Islamic State obtained the agent in Syria “makes the most sense,” said one senior U.S. official. It is also possible that Islamic State obtained the mustard agent in Iraq, officials said, possibly from old stockpiles that belonged to Saddam Hussein and weren’t destroyed.
U.S. intelligence agencies are still investigating the source and how it could have been delivered this week on the battlefield, officials said.
Islamic State has taken control of territory in Syria close to where President Bashar al-Assad’s forces stored chemical weapons, including mustard agent. The regime said in 2013 that all of its mustard stockpiles had been destroyed, either by Syrian forces themselves or by international inspectors.
Inspectors, however, have subsequently said they weren’t able to verify claims by the Syrian government that it had burned hundreds of tons of mustard agent in earthen pits. U.S. intelligence agencies now say they believe Damascus hid some caches of deadly chemicals from the West, possibly including mustard.
Intelligence officials and chemical-weapons experts have expressed concerns in recent months that some of those banned chemicals could fall into the hands of Islamic State or other extremist groups.
U.S. intelligence agencies have also warned the White House that the Assad regime could use chemical agents it still has to defend its remaining strongholds if they come under siege.
In addition to mustard, the Assad regime admitted to having deadlier nerve agents, such as sarin and VX. But officials said U.S. intelligence agencies don’t have any evidence to suggest Islamic State has either sarin or VX, which would be far more lethal on the battlefield.
The intelligence agencies have said that they believed Islamic State has used chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Chlorine isn’t a banned chemical agent but its use as a weapon is prohibited under international law.
U.S. officials have also accused the Assad regime of using chlorine gas in attacks against opposition forces, a charge Damascus denies.
It is unclear how much mustard agent Islamic State might have obtained. A senior military official said the amounts weren’t believed to be large.
Pentagon officials sought to play down the dangers to U.S. military personnel in Iraq since they aren’t taking part in combat operations alongside Peshmerga fighters or other Iraqi forces.
“Mustard isn’t VX or sarin,” the senior U.S. military official said. “It has to be used in high concentrations to be fatal.”
Another Pentagon official said the development was worrying, especially if mustard agent is used in more attacks, because of the physical and psychological effects its use on the battlefield could have on U.S. allies.
Alistair Baskey, a White House National Security Council spokesman, said the administration is aware of the reports and is seeking additional information. “We continue to take these and all allegations of chemical weapons use very seriously,” he said.
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British army’s chemical-weapons unit, said the use of mustard agent by Islamic State could give a boost to the group’s “psychological warfare campaign.”
“You mention chemical weapons, people immediately freeze and are irrational. That’s why Islamic State wants to use them,” he said. While U.S. and international forces are trained to deal with the threat, the Peshmerga, Iraqi forces and moderate Syrian rebels may not be, he added.
—Anton Troianovski in Berlin and Felicia Schwartz in Washington contributed to this article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)RESPONSES TO OBAMA'S ARGUMENTS FOR THE NUKE DEAL
Debunking the president's talking points.
At American University last week, President Barack Obama gave a vigorous defense of the Iran nuclear agreement. In the belief that every student who was present — indeed, all Americans — should hear the other side, here are responses to claims the president made. (For the information of my readers, I made a Prager University video on the agreement released last week that has about five million views on YouTube and Facebook — found at www.prageruniversity.com. Americans obviously want clarity on this issue.)
—President Obama: "With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time (when John F. Kennedy gave his peace speech at American University during the Cold War)."
I lived through the Cold War and studied the Russian language and the communist world at the Russian Institute of Columbia University's School of International Affairs. I do not believe the world was "much more dangerous at that time."
First, in the 1960s, when JFK gave his speech, the Soviet Union was headed by people who valued their own lives and even those of their fellow countrymen incomparably more than the Islamic leaders of Iran do. They therefore had no interest in nuclear war, which is why the doctrine known as mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked. Regarding Iran's Islamist regime, however, MAD does not necessarily work. The Islamist fanatics who rule Iran might actually welcome a nuclear exchange with Israel. Iran has almost 10 times Israel's population and nearly eight times its landmass.
Second, the Soviet Union never seriously or repeatedly called for the extermination of another country, as the Islamic Republic of Iran does with regard to Israel. It is preposterous to compare Nikita Khrushchev's promise, "We will bury you," to the ayatollah's aim to "annihilate" Israel. It was simply a rhetorical flourish about communism's eventual triumph over democratic capitalism.
Third, almost no one in any communist country believed in communism. The biggest believers in communism tended to be Western intellectuals. And communists in the West weren't beheading people or plotting mass murder. On the other hand, at least a hundred million Muslims believe in imposing — by force, if necessary — sharia on other people. And while communists in Western European countries posed an electoral threat to democratic capitalism, more than a few Muslims in European countries pose life-and-death threats to Europeans.
Obama: "In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision."
If there really were "a number of strategists" who called for "military action" against the Soviet Union during Kennedy's presidency, that number was so tiny and so irrelevant that the president's statement is essentially a straw man.
—Obama: "After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
This might be the whopper of the speech. Only an academic audience could find this statement persuasive.
To begin with, Iran has been "permanently prohibited" from obtaining nuclear weapons since 1970, the year Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So this arms deal prohibits nothing that wasn't already prohibited more than 45 years ago.
Even more important, the statement is utterly meaningless. It is like saying, "The United States has permanently prohibited murder." It's true, but so what? Iran's behavior clearly indicates that it wants to develop nuclear weapons, and being "prohibited" from doing so did not and will not stop it. Again, it would be like saying, "Nazi Germany was prohibited from attacking Poland."
—Obama: "It cuts off all of Iran's pathways to a bomb."
The only question is whether Obama believes this.
There are two types of lies: those one knows to be falsehoods and those the person believes. The former is more immoral. The latter, though not literally a lie, is more dangerous.
Even if one believes the agreement to be effective, it does little or nothing to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons in 10 years.
Furthermore, the agreement enables Iran to cheat the whole time. There is no inspection "anytime, anywhere" — which is the only type of inspection that matters.
a) If the IAEA suspects cheating, it gives Iran up to a 24-day notice. If Iran objects, the issue goes before the P5+1 nations, which, of course, include Russia and China. Charles Krauthammer quoted comedian Jackie Mason as observing that New York City restaurants get more intrusive inspections than the Iranian nuclear program.
b) The United States is prohibited from ever sending in its own inspectors.
c) No military sites can ever be inspected. Iran can therefore establish or move nuclear facilities to whatever area it wishes and label those areas "military."
d) How are Congress and the American people supposed to trust the president's claim given the existence of two secret appendices to the agreement?
—Obama: "It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program."
In light of all of the agreement's fatal weaknesses in preventing Iran from cheating, "most comprehensive ever negotiated" means nothing.
—Obama: "Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough, or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world."
Since when does "vast majority of the world" matter to making America — and, for that matter, the world — secure? President Ronald Reagan put Pershing missiles in Europe "over the objection of the vast majority of the world." Good thing Reagan did. Israel knocked out Saddam Hussein's Iraqi nuclear reactor "over the objection of the vast majority of the world." Good thing Israel did.
—Obama: "Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising."
There can be only one reason the president mentioned "backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising": to imply that there is something nefarious about such ads. The president and the rest of the American left are beside themselves over the fact that their views are not the only ones Americans get to hear. In Europe, this is not a problem for the left. There are essentially no paid ads for alternate political views, no talk radio, no Fox News, no Wall Street Journal Opinion Page (or at least none with anywhere near the clout of the American edition), no huge non-left intellectual and activist presence on the Internet, etc.
The left has the presidency and dominates education from pre-K through post-grad as well as mainstream print and electronic news and entertainment media. But that's not enough. Paid ads that differ with the left must be delegitimized. Of course, there are also millions of dollars in advertising for the agreement — but somehow that's legitimate.
But there is an even more sinister aspect to the president's comment.
He doesn't say it outright, but the left does. Those "tens of millions of dollars" are assumed to be Jewish dollars. This is now a major theme on the left: that the "Jewish lobby" and its money are the primary reasons for the opposition to Obama's Iran agreement.
A good example is a piece published this past weekend in the Huffington Post by a left-wing Yale University professor of English, David Bromwich. He labels as "treason" an address given by the Israeli prime minister to the annual meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America on reasons to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement. That's the oldest of antisemitic libels: that Jews are disloyal to the countries in which they live.
And the title of Bromwich's article — "Netanyahu and His Marionettes" — exemplifies another age-old antisemitic libel: of Jews pulling the strings of the world's major nations.
The president's reference to "tens of millions of dollars" has only helped reinforce those libels.
—Obama: "Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal."
Many of the same people — such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden — who voted for the war in Iraq are now making the case for the Iran nuclear deal. So the point is just an ad hominem attack on the deal's critics.
Moreover, whatever one thinks of the war in Iraq, the reason the Islamic State has taken over large parts of Iraq is not the war in Iraq. It's that Obama, against the advice of his military advisers, removed all of America's troops from a pacified Iraq, creating the vacuum the Islamic State now fills.
—Obama: "There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran's key nuclear facilities."
This is a sleight of hand. There is no 24/7 monitoring of anything Iran doesn't want monitored 24/7 and no monitoring at all of any facility Iran labels "military."
—Obama: "If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place."
"Can" is the operative word here — as in "a third-party candidate can be elected president." It theoretically can happen, but it won't. Does the president believe that Chinese and Russian sanctions will "snap back" if Iran cheats? If he does, he is frighteningly out of touch with reality. Nor will European sanctions likely snap back. French and German companies are already negotiating deals with the Iranian regime.
—Obama: "Unfortunately, we're living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism... Before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition."
As usual with Obama, opposition to his policies is "partisan." But support for his policies is nonpartisan.
—Obama: "The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will."
That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that Iran will cheat, we won't always catch them, and the Obama administration will likely have little inclination to call Iran out on it. In fact, the Iranians are already cheating. As Bloomberg reported last week: "The U.S. intelligence community has informed Congress of evidence that Iran was sanitizing its suspected nuclear military site at Parchin, in broad daylight, days after agreeing to a nuclear deal with world powers."
There are so many loopholes that we will awaken one day to find out that Iran is testing nuclear weapons just as North Korea did after signing its nuclear agreement with the United States.
—Obama: "Third, a number of critics say the deal isn't worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Now, let's be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That's the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief."
If America had held firm for anytime/anywhere inspections, Iran either would have agreed to such inspections or, if not, sanctions might well have remained in place. Our European allies were on board. As recently as June, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was warning that "a possible nuclear deal with Iran risks sparking a nuclear arms race in the Middle East unless the agreement grants international inspectors access to Iranian military sites and other secret facilities. ... The best agreement, if you cannot verify it, it's useless."
But America is led by a president who wanted any agreement, even a useless one.
—Obama: "Our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people."
Even if that is what happens, this money massively strengthens the Iranian regime. But everyone knows that much of the $40 billion to $140 billion to be released will go to Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and other pro-Iranian terror groups.
—Obama: "Contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges."
Every country — whether free or a police state — has "its own set of challenges." That point is meaningless. But it is hardly "alarmist" to fear Iran seeking to dominate the Middle East and helping to prop up anti-American regimes around the world. It is already doing so in Latin America.
—Obama: "We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly."
Well, that's reassuring. If the U.S. president and secretary of state couldn't even get Iran to release four illegally imprisoned American citizens in exchange for the ending of sanctions and a porous nuclear agreement, how will he get them released now?
—Obama: "Just because Iranian hardliners chant "death to America" does not mean that that's what all Iranians believe."
This comment is noteworthy — for its foolishness. Of course not all Iranians believe in death to America. But the Iranians who don't believe in it are irrelevant in Iran, just as good Germans were irrelevant in Nazi Germany and good Russians were irrelevant in the Soviet Union. All that matters in a police state is what the regime believes.
—Obama: "It's those hardliners chanting "death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus."
Likening Iranians who chant "death to America" to Republicans may be a new low in American presidential rhetoric.
And it's not just mean-spirited. It's factually wrong. If anyone is "making common cause" with the Iranian hardliners, it is Obama and his supporters. The hardliners in Iran want sanctions dropped and to be able to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Now they can.
—Obama: "As members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns."
So do those of us who oppose the Iran nuclear agreement. But it's the Democrats who cannot set aside political concerns. Let's be real: If a Republican president had negotiated this deal, the vast majority of Democrats would oppose it — and so would the vast majority of Republicans.
—Obama: "My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children."
On that, we agree
"The point about Iran is not that many of its people don’t want change but that they have no way to change their government’s policies. More to the point, far from undermining the theocratic regime, the influx of cash and business will strengthen its leaders and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their support for terror far more than it will enrich its people."
3a)
3a)
|
The US Congress will disapprove the Iran deal when it votes on the matter by September 17, and may even be able to override a presidential veto on the matter, Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy predicted as he spoke with reporters in Jerusalem on Thursday. “I do not know if the Democrats have whipped this vote [trying to enforce party discipline],” McCarthy said, adding, “We [Republicans] have not whipped the vote either.” McCarthy added that he was not aware of any Republicans that intended supporting the nuclear agreement, stating that “I have watched a number of Democrats oppose it.” The California congressman spoke of his party’s opposition to the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program that was concluded between Tehran and the six world powers in Vienna last month. Democrat supporters of the deal and the Obama administration, including US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, are already speaking about the day after the deal is set in motion. McCarthy had an entirely different take on the future of the Iran deal, however. “It will go to the president’s desk with a [congressional] disapproval, that is very safe to say,” McCarthy said as he explained that the real question is whether there is enough opposition to prevent US President Barack Obama from vetoing the congressional vote. “There is a possibly that if [Obama] vetoes it, it will be overridden [by Congress],” McCarthy said. The high-ranking politician is in Israel along with 35 other visiting Republican congressmen. They arrived as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer wrapped up his visit along with 23 Democratic congressmen. Both trips were sponsored by the American Israel Education Foundation, which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a group that traditionally funds such trips during the summer. This year, in light of the upcoming US vote on the Iran deal, both groups focused heavily on learning more about Israeli viewpoints on the accord, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took a back seat. McCarthy said that opposition to the deal transcends US party politics, saying that there is a bipartisan belief, he said, that “a much better deal can be achieved.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has been outspoken about his belief that the Iran deal is a historic mistake, was uncharacteristically quiet after meeting with McCarthy’s delegation on Wednesday and with Hoyer’s group on Sunday. On Sunday, Obama told CNN that Netanyahu has interjected himself into the dialogue of Washington politics more forcibly than any other foreign leader. On Thursday, however, McCarthy rebuffed the US president, said that Netanyahu was simply doing his job as Israel’s leader. “I do not see where Benjamin Netanyahu was interfering with anything,” said McCarthy, just one day after he and 35 other visiting Republican congressmen met with the prime minister. Given “everything I have seen from Iran, their policies have not changed,” he said, adding that Iran has only increased its funding of terrorist organizations. “One of the biggest concerns is the billions more Iran would have [with the deal] what will they do with it, who would fund it,” the congressman warned. In the past Obama urged critics to quell their voices until they knew the details. Now that the information is known, he has warned that the only alternative is war. Obama, McCarthy said, is spinning out lines that are not true, such as, “it is only this deal or war.” “No one believes this to be true,” he said. McCarthy said he believed that it was possible to achieve a better agreement with Iran and that the choice was between a bad deal and a better deal. A better deal would not allow Iran to have nuclear capability within 13 years, he said. “If we are trying to capture peace, we are measuring it in a 13-year-old time frame,” McCarthy said as he tried to explain what 13 years meant to him. “My wife and I have a son and a daughter. They have a life time in front of them. I will not walk away and make the world more unsafe and more dangerous because I wanted someone to say we captured peace for this moment but jeopardized freedom for the future.” With regard to the US-Israel relationship, McCarthy said that he did not believe the public spat between Netanyahu and Obama would harm those ties. “These are two personalities. The bond between Israel and America is a bond that does not break over personalities.” Rather, it’s a bond that is created by the shared values of justice, liberty, freedom and democracy, McCarthy said. 3b) Iran and Russia Play Obama for a Fool
“General Suleimani has long been of concern to the United States,” the Times reported. “In 2011, the Treasury Department put him on its sanctions list after the Obama administration charged that he had been involved in a plot to kill Adel al-Jubeir, a former Saudi ambassador in Washington who is now Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister. The Treasury Department has also subjected him to sanctions for his role in Syria and for the Quds force’s support for the Taliban and other militant groups.”
It is not merely Suleimani’s flagrant display of contempt for the United Nations and the West that’s troubling, but also Russia’s. It was Moscow that demanded the missile and arms embargos on Iran be lifted as part of a last-minute condition to the Iran nuclear deal – a stipulation that will likely result in greatly increased profits to the Russian defense sector. What the United States received in exchange was, supposedly, a Russia that would be a reliable enforcer of the terms of the deal and a guarantor of the consequences associated with non-compliance. Suleimani’s Moscow visit in violation of the UN sanctions confirms what any observer even remotely acquainted with Russian grand strategy already knows: Moscow has no intention of ever punishing Iran for failing to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal.
“Russia (and others) will have a stake in sustaining access to Iran’s markets, not re-imposing sanctions,” Charles Duelfer, a former CIA official in charge of overseeing Iraq’s WMD programs, wrote in April. “The track record of [President Vladimir] Putin and [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov in the Iraq case suggests that they will be working bi-lateral deals with Tehran.”
Russia’s casual defiance of the West confirms the wisdom of the fatalists. Not only is the Iran deal a fait accompli, but the sanctions regime will never “snap back.” In July, shortly after the terms of the deal were revealed to the public, Lavrov announced to the Russian public that President Barack Obama would now have to make good on his pledge to abandon plans for missile defense systems in Europe because the Iranian nuclear program had been “successfully regulated.” The Kremlin’s utter disregard for the cautious political dance underway in the West is revealing.
Iran is playing the United States for a sucker. Russia views America as a paper tiger to be disregarded. And all the administration can do is feign insult and pledge to take their grievances to the United Nations, where they will die a quiet and ignominious death. If this White House were still capable of embarrassment, this development would inspire fits of it. Perhaps the members of this administration are just too busy calling opponents of the deal traitors to notice how they have enabled America's true adversaries to outmaneuver them.
3c)You Can Make a difference
SIRC Phone Bank “NO” to Iran Nuclear Agreement
1. Call between 7;00 pm and 6:00 am You can break up calls into short periods
2. Leave message on answering machine.
3. Names with * Thank them for not supporting Iran Nuclear Agreement. The purpose of this is to keep them committed to voting “NO”.
4. This is just half of the list. The other half will be sent next week for you to call.
SCRIPT
Hello, this is _____Name_______. I am calling to ask you to vote NO on the Iran Nuclear Agreement. Put politics aside and vote for what is best for America. The agreement didn’t bring back our citizens held in Iran. The money we give them will be used to strengthen their terrorist organizations and their nuclear expansion. And most of all, it is detrimental to the security of the United States of America. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)As the Obama Administration attempts to finalize an agreement on the Iranian nuclear deal, I plan to participate in a mission with colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to Israel to see the serious ramifications this deal could have on the only democracy in the Middle East and one of our closest allies. It is important to hear of the grave dangers that haunt Israel because these threats are not only perilous to them, but also to our own national security.
Once I return, I hope you will you join me on Thursday, August 20, for an open and important discussion so I can hear your thoughts on this deal. Congress now has limited review time left and it's important for you to have a say to ensure the Iranian regime is held accountable and the threat of their nuclear program is eliminated.
Israel Roundtable
Thursday, August 20, 2015
1:30 PM – 2:30 PM
Jewish Educational Alliance
5111 Abercorn Street
Savannah, GA 31405
I hope you will join us for a productive and important conversation. The potential consequences of this deal are far too serious to sit idly.
Please do not hesitate to call my Savannah office at 912-352-0101 or visit http://buddycarter.house.gov/ for more information.
Sincerely,
Earl L. "Buddy" Carter Member of Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) The Three Presidential PrimariesThere’s ‘More Obama.’ Then there’s ‘Less Obama,’ which is being overshadowed by ‘Trump.’
By Peggy Noonan
There are not two presidential primary contests going on but three: “More Obama,” “Less Obama,” and “Trump.”
Something big is going on among the “More Obama” people: It is getting impossible to believe their race will remain confined to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both will be as similar as they need to be in terms of policy and approach. Their real contest is over trustworthiness, integrity, heart. In 2008 I wrote in this space that Barack Obama may lie to you and John McCain may, but Hillary will. I quoted William Greider, who observed in the venerable left-liberal magazine the Nation that the Clintons are “high-minded” on the surface but “smarmily duplicitous underneath.”
That perception has always been alive on the left—it’s what took down the Clinton machine in ’08—and is newly alive now. Mr. Sanders just pulled ahead in New Hampshire for the first time, 44% to 37%, according to a Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll. He is speaking to massive crowds. Monday night in Los Angeles he pulled 27,500 people—roughly five times as large as any crowd Mrs. Clinton has drawn this cycle, according to the Washington Post. He was introduced by comedian Sarah Silverman, an antic rallying force for Obama in ’08. She told the crowd: “Bernie always seems to be on the right side of history.” Meanwhile Mrs. Clinton’s staffers send memos to supporters telling them to keep calm and repeat certain talking points.
There is no joy or brio, no wild, glass-breaking energy, in this endeavor. It is taking on the stale air of the bunker. When you mention to Democrats that Nixon never burned the tapes but Hillary surely burned that server, they nod, smile or half-wince. No one grows defensive for her. It does not seem possible that more candidates, big ones, won’t get in.
“Less Obama” is the Republicans, who’ll overturn this and roll back that. It is a deep field, the most impressive since 1980—accomplished big-state governors, senators, others. They operate under the normal rules of political comportment. Many are talking about serious issues but they are still and for the immediate future overshadowed by “Trump.”
I have said that his great power, the source of his confidence, is that he has nothing to lose. If he doesn’t become president, he’s still Donald Trump, only more famous, more everything. I was sharply corrected this week by a New Yorker who has done business with Mr. Trump. “You don’t get it,” he said. He raised a knife and moved his finger along the blade: “He is walking the edge of the knife, and if he gets to the end he is president. He can lose the presidency. He does have something to lose.” Mr. Trump is serious and doing his best under the belief he can win, the businessman said. (No, he is not a Trump supporter.)
Others have written of Mr. Trump’s appeal, as have I. When citizens are consistently offended by Washington, by both parties’ leadership, they become contemptuous. They see Mr. Trump’s contempt and identify. What the American establishment has given us the past 20 years is sex scandals, money scandals, two unwon wars, an economic collapse, an inadequate recovery, and borders we no longer even pretend to control. They think: What will you give us next, the plague?
In circumstances like this a swaggering, charismatic rich man who shares and speaks the public’s indignation—and shows a bit of its raucousness and humor, too—will find fertile soil. Especially if he’s famous in a country that worships fame, successful in a nation that honors success, and rough around the edges, like an American. When his critics say he’s a freak show you know his supporters are thinking: “The world’s a freak show, Putin’s a freak show, he’ll fit in.” Nothing has captured this like a brilliant Washington Free Beacon satire of how President Trump would react on Twitter to an Iranian decision, in 2017, to kick out inspectors and test missiles:
“Very disappointed in @khamenei_ir, a liar and disrespectful man. Trump is his worst nightmare.” Soon after: “I will be on @oreilly factor tonight on @FoxNews.” Deeper into the crisis: “Have you seen @khamenei_ir’s wife? Neither have I, he is a pig who makes her dress like a ninja.” He instructs the ayatollah to check his direct messages. He tweets: “America will not bow to degenerate slob like @khamenei_ir, beard like low class tramp full of greasy rice every time we Skype!” He tweets a new poll showing his approval rating at an all-time high. He sends Khameini a taunting Toby Keith lyric: “And the eagle will fly / Man, it’s gonna be hell / When you hear Mother Freedom / Start ringin’ her bell.”
Vice President Bruce Jenner calmly tweets: “Iranian nuclear test is a threat to world peace and our allies in the region. America will respond.” Mr. Trump: “@khamenei_ir called me after my landslide election and begged for money. Tehran is an ugly city I’ll never build a hotel there.” The Associated Press sends breaking news: The Supreme Leader of Iran has issued an apology and agreed to disarm. Mr. Trump notes he’ll be on CNN with Don Lemon. His final tweet: “The Ayatollah is a pathetic negotiator and his English is very bad. Guess he didn’t go to Wharton. No match for Trump.”
I thought of a Trump supporter I know. If she read it she’d cheer.
Should he be thrown from the party, ejected by its elders, whoever they are? After all he’s not really a Republican, his views are heterodox, he won’t vow to support the party nominee in 2016, he’s only a celebrity. But the party elites don’t have the power they once had. They’ve been undone by a generation of bad leadership. They’re afraid: A monster just came out of a swamp and is lurching their way. Journalistic elites have damned Mr. Trump, to no effect except incendiary comment threads. Once they were the cops on the ideological beat; they ran that into the ground during the Bush years, using too many nightsticks.
The harder people come down on Trump, the more his supporters believe he’s the only honest one. “Entwined, entrenched interests hate him: Then I’m for him!”
Republican leaders will be patient because there’s no other choice. They can’t take him down, and even if they could they’d be damned by his embittered supporters, and Trump would run third-party. He will rise or fall depending on how he acts and speaks, what oppo comes his way, and how he responds. He has a history of falling off the edge of the knife. He will change tack or get out depending on whether he comes to believe he is hurting his brand. Republicans should argue with him on policy, take on his positions, hit him hard, often and above the belt.
I don’t know what happens with Mr. Trump, but Trumpism? That’s here now—outlandish candidates backed by indignant, enraptured people who’ve lost their judgment. Congratulations to the leaders of both parties: The past 20 years you’ve taken us far. We’re entering Weimar, baby. The swamp figure is up from the depths.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)There Is a Path to a Better Deal with Iran
Because a 'no' vote on the Iran deal would have little practical impact until next year, lawmakers have time to work with the president on making reasonable fixes to the agreement even if they disapprove it in the short term.
Imagine you're a conflicted lawmaker in the U.S. Congress. You've heard all the arguments about the Iran nuclear agreement, pro and con. A vote on the deal is coming up in September and you have to make a decision. But you are torn.
Most of your colleagues don't share your angst. They have concluded that the risks of the nuclear accord far exceed its benefits. They will vote to disapprove.
Some take the opposing view. They accept President Barack Obama's argument that the agreement will effectively block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon for a very long time at little risk to U.S. interests.
You are in a third group. You recognize the substantial achievements in the deal, such as Iran's commitment to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, gut the core of its plutonium reactor, and mothball thousands of centrifuges. But you have also heard experts identify a long list of gaps, risks, and complications. These range from the three and a half weeks that Iran can delay inspections of suspect sites, to the billions of dollars that Iran will reap from sanctions relief -- some of which will surely end up in the hands of terrorists.
For his part, the president seems to believe that he negotiated a near-perfect deal. In his recent speech at American University, he described the pact as a "permanent" solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. It was a shift from when he told an NPR interviewer in April that once limitations on Iran's centrifuges and enrichment activities expire in 15 years, Iran's breakout time to a nuclear weapon would be "shrunk almost down to zero." Both statements -- achieving a "permanent" solution and Iran having near-zero breakout time -- cannot be true.
The president has said a "better deal" is a fantasy. But you never took seriously the unknowable assertion that the Iran accord is "the best deal possible," as though any negotiator emerging from talks would suggest that what he or she has received is anything but "the best deal possible." And you cringe whenever advocates of the agreement hype its achievements as "unprecedented," knowing this is not a synonym for "guaranteed effective."
You may not believe in unicorns, as Secretary of State John Kerry said you must to accept the idea of a "better deal," but you have been impressed by suggestions on how to strengthen the agreement. The United States could even implement many of these proposals without reopening negotiations with the Iranians and the P5+1 group of world powers. Here are several such options:
You wish the president would embrace these sound, sensible suggestions. Inexplicably, he hasn't. And nothing in the administration's public posture suggests that he will change course before Congress votes. So, what will you do?
Some of your colleagues have floated the idea of a "conditional yes" as an alternative to "approve" and "disapprove." They, like you, recognize that the agreement has some significant advantages but are deeply troubled by its risks and costs. They want to attach strings to their "yes" vote, in the belief that this will bind the president and improve the deal.
But the legislation enabling Congress to review the Iran deal does not accommodate a "conditional yes." Votes are to "approve" or "disapprove." Legislators may negotiate with the White House over every comma and colon in a resolution of conditionality, and they may even secure one or two grudging concessions from the White House. But neither a resolution of Congress calling for these improvements nor ad-hoc understandings between the White House and individual legislators has the force of law or policy. According to the Iran-review legislation, the only thing that matters is a yea or nay on the agreement.
Is there really no "third way"? The answer is yes, there is. Pursuing it requires understanding what the relevant congressional legislation is really about.
Advocates of the agreement have characterized a congressional vote of disapproval as the opening salvo of the next Middle East war. In reality, a "no" vote may have powerful symbolic value, but it has limited practical impact according to the law. It does not, for example, negate the administration's vote at the UN Security Council in support of the deal, which sanctified the agreement in international law. Nor does it require the president to enforce U.S. sanctions against Iran with vigor. Its only real meaning is to restrict the president's authority under the law to suspend nuclear-related sanctions on Iran.
Here's the catch: By the terms of the nuclear agreement, the president only decides to suspend those sanctions after international inspectors certify that Iran has fulfilled its core requirements. In other words, congressional disapproval has no direct impact on the actions Iran must take under the agreement to shrink its enriched-uranium stockpile, mothball thousands of centrifuges, and deconstruct the core of its Arak plutonium reactor. Most experts believe that process will take six to nine months, or until the spring of 2016.
Why would Iran do all of these things if it can't count on the United States to suspend sanctions in response? While it's impossible to predict with certainty how Iranian leaders would react to congressional disapproval of the agreement, I'd argue chances are high that they would follow through on their commitments anyway, because the deal is simply that good for Iran. After Iran fulfills its early obligations, all United Nations and European Union nuclear-related sanctions come to an end. They aren't just suspended like U.S. sanctions -- they are terminated, presenting Iran with the potential for huge financial and political gain.
The "deal or war" thesis propounded by supporters of the agreement suggests that Iran, in the event of U.S. rejection of the deal, would prefer to bypass that financial and political windfall and instead put its nuclear program into high gear, risking an Israeli and American military response. But that volte-face makes little sense, now that Iran has painstakingly built a nuclear program that is on the verge of achieving the once-unthinkable legitimacy that comes with an international accord implicitly affirming Iran's right to unrestricted enrichment in the future. In such a scenario, Iran would reap an additional benefit in continuing to implement the agreement: The United States, not Iran, would be isolated diplomatically.
The key point is that a "no" vote on the Iran deal has little practical impact until next year. Between now and then, such a vote buys time, adding up to nine months to the strategic clock. If, before the vote, Obama refuses to adopt a comprehensive set of remedial measures that improves the deal, then a resounding vote of disapproval gives the president additional time to take such action and then ask Congress to endorse his new-and-improved proposal.
Chastened by a stinging congressional defeat in September -- one that would include a powerful rebuke by substantial members of his own party -- the president might be more willing to correct the flaws in the deal than he is today. That would surely be a more responsible and statesmanlike approach than purposefully circumventing the will of Congress through executive action that effectively lifts sanctions -- an alternative the president might consider if he is hell-bent on implementing the agreement.
Those who claim that a "no" vote would destroy the agreement argue that Europe would simply stop enforcing sanctions against Iran should Congress reject the deal. But this too doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. In my view, the Europeans are more likely to wait six to nine months to see whether Iran fulfills its core requirements under the deal so that they can claim validation for their decision to terminate sanctions. If Congress were to approve Obama's new-and-improved proposal before Iran complies with its requirements, the United States would still be on schedule to waive its sanctions at the same time that the European Union and United Nations terminate theirs.
So, if you are among the legislators who view the Iran agreement as flawed and are frustrated by the administration's unwillingness to implement reasonable fixes, there is a way to urge the president to pursue the "better deal" that he keeps urging his detractors to formulate, but that he can't seem to accept as a possibility. "No" doesn't necessarily mean "no, never." It can also mean "not now, not this way." It may be the best way to get to "yes."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment