What's new

Obama Administration Falls Into GOP’s Iran Letter Trap

Militant Atheist

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
957
Reaction score
-3
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United States
The Republicans’ much-maligned open letter to Tehran has forced the White House to admit an uncomfortable truth: The deal might not outlast the Obama presidency.
Beyond the theatrics of the open letter that 47 Republican senators sent to Iran, it features a core of truth: the Obama administration is negotiating a deal that cannot be guaranteed beyond the president’s current term.

The Obama administration was so outraged with the Republican attempt to undercut the president’s foreign policy negotiations that it sent the Vice President, the White House press secretary, and others to attack the letter rather seriously—instead of treating as the “cheeky” reminder of Congress’ role that GOP senators intended.

In the process of engaging, the Obama administration highlighted that any deal with Iran would be, like many other past international security initiatives, a “non-binding” agreement. And by taking this bait, the administration undercut its own credibility in making longer-term assurances about American sanctions relief.

“A non-binding agreement with Iran is easier to make (because the President can clearly do it on his own) and easier to break (because there is no domestic or international legal obstacle to breaking it),” wrote Jack Goldsmith, a former Assistant Attorney General who now teaches law at Harvard, at Lawfare on Wednesday.

The letter, which was conceived of by freshman GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, was influenced in part by prominent national security hawk and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Kristol said he had no part in drafting or editing the letter, but did consult with the senator about it.

“I did discuss it with Tom as he was conceiving it and pondering whether and how to do it. I know he consulted with others as well with some government and foreign policy experience, as you’d expect,” Kristol told The Daily Beast.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted on Tuesday that the Iran nuclear agreement wasn’t exactly novel. Lots of previous international deals were “non-binding,” too.

“It will be the same kind of arrangement as many of our previous international security initiatives—such as the framework negotiated with Russia to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, the Proliferation Security Initiative, the Missile Technology Control Regime, and non-security initiatives such as the recent U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change,” a senior State Department official told The Daily Beast.

Secretary of State John Kerry made the same argument before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. “We’re not negotiating a, quote ‘legally binding plan.’ We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. We don’t even have diplomatic relations with Iran right now,” he said.

The Obama administration highlighted that any deal with Iran would be a "non-binding" agreement. And by taking this bait, the administration undercut its own credibility in making longer-term assurances about American sanctions relief.
A senior State Department official also argued that “the overriding reason to prefer a non-binding international arrangement to a treaty is the need to preserve the greatest possible flexibility to re-impose sanctions if we believe Iran is not meeting its commitments under a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

Some Republicans thought twice about whether the open Iran letter was a needless agitation that hurts bipartisan Congressional efforts to prevent a bad nuclear deal.

But several days after its release, the effect of the open letter has been to clarify how precarious a deal with Iran could be after January 2017.

This raises questions about the durability of a deal that President Obama has saidcould have Iran agreeing to roll back its nuclear capabilities “for 10 years or longer.”

The open letter to Iran (PDF) had two points: the power to make binding international agreements required Congressional buy-in, and the fact that many of the senators would remain in office long after President Obama’s second term had expired.

“The letter forced the administration to explain why they’re icing Congress out of Iran negotiations, and now that explanation has ignited a firestorm,” said Omri Ceren, press director for the pro-Israel group The Israel Project. “The administration looks like it intentionally chose a weaker, non-binding arrangement, rather than a treaty, to avoid Senate oversight.”

On one of the letter’s core points, sanctions experts agree that an executive agreement could be undermined if the next president decides to change American policy.

“Changes the president makes now under his executive powers may not be agreeable by his successor. The next president, for example, could adopt a different posture regarding Iran and usher in new, harsher executive directives to financially constrict its access to international markets,” said Stuart Jones, Jr., a former senior Treasury Department official who now advises on matters of financial integrity for Ernst & Young in the Middle East. “Such a shift is not without precedent, however, it does project a higher degree of uncertainty around what ‘guarantees’ mean in the medium-term.”

If an agreement with Iran is reached, President Obama could make it more difficult for a successor to withdraw from the agreement by gumming up the bureaucratic works.

Through executive orders and changes in State Department organization and policy, even a non-binding agreement could strengthened. It’s more difficult to shift a policy, for example, when there’s an assistant secretary whose job depends on it.

“The President could use an executive order to advance policy, and even instruct other federal agencies to create new offices or policies within his existing authority and using already appropriated funds,” said Michael Zolandz, chair of Dentons’ Public Policy & Regulation Practice. “Nevertheless it’s still temporary… In this context, permanence is defined by the political will to change something.”

Iranian news outlets were quick to point out that the ongoing nuclear negotiations were not bilateral, and that if a future American president were to withdraw from an agreement, the United States could become diplomatically isolated.

“Iran will close a nuclear deal with the P5+1 members, of which America is only one member,” an editorial from Iranian pro-reform daily Arman-e Emruz read. “So if the next [U.S.] administration or the Congress sabotage such an agreement, America will be isolated and discredited in front of other world powers.”

—with additional reporting by Shane Harris


Obama Administration Falls Into GOP’s Iran Letter Trap - The Daily Beast

-----

Seems that they want to take away Iran's nuclear capacity and then weasel out of the deal. At least based on what Kerry is saying.

I also found it interesting that US-Sponsored Persian speaking media chosen their titles deceitfully, as always.

جان کری: کنگره اختیار تغییر توافق اتمی ایران و آمریکا را نخواهد داشت
جان کری در سنا: کنگره قادر به تغییر توافق اتمی با ایران نخواهد بود

They just mention that Congress can't change the terms of the agreement without much emphasis on its enforcement after Obama term ends, meaning if a republican came to office they could up the sanctions and scrap the deal any time they desire.
 
Last edited:
So basically Obama gets the deal and gets his legacy, and I trust the terms of the agreement will be honored, at least during his time, but Congress can **** it up anytime they want. It's also another way of circumventing the Congress (not making it legally-binding and using his executive order), but as Tom Cotton said it could be scrapped.
 
942570_291.jpg
 
So basically Obama gets the deal and gets his legacy, and I trust the terms of the agreement will be honored, at least during his time, but Congress can **** it up anytime they want. It's also another way of circumventing the Congress (not making it legally-binding and using his executive order), but as Tom Cotton said it could be scrapped.
If a Republican wins in 2017 it'll be all over. They already have the senate and the congress. I'm torn between this tbh. On one hand I want the sanctions removed, on the other hand I don't want the mullahs to get a deal. We'll see what happens.

Ok so americans want another war ?

fine then
You seem to forget what the Americans did to Iraq. They carpet bombed the country and killed a couple of million people directly and indirectly. A lot of you guys on this forum will lose family members. Iranian cities are more dense and urbanized compared to Iraqi cities. They dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq in the first years alone. Can you imagine a 2 ton bomb in Tehran? Most apartments in Tehran aren't build up to proper codes. A couple of 2 ton bombs in a dense block will kill a thousand people. Half the apartments in the street will collapse on each other. Now multiply that by tens of thousands across Tehran and Iran.
 
You seem to forget what the Americans did to Iraq. They carpet bombed the country and killed a couple of million people directly and indirectly. A lot of you guys on this forum will lose family members. Iranian cities are more dense and urbanized compared to Iraqi cities. They dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq in the first years alone. Can you imagine a 2 ton bomb in Tehran? Most apartments in Tehran aren't build up to proper codes. A couple of 2 ton bombs in a dense block will kill a thousand people. Half the apartments in the street will collapse on each other. Now multiply that by tens of thousands across Tehran and Iran.
lol , that easy huh ?

ok then , why are they waiting ? Iran is their ultimate nemesis as we are and we have always been (in the past 15 years) a Major topic of daily discussion between US politicians . why did they attack Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Iran ? why don't they attack iran now ? and spare me the BS about costs of war . a couple of hundred billion dollars is 1/6th-1/3rd of US military budget alone .

Either way , we are ready . they want a war , what can we do ? we'll give them a good welcoming in the NY .

BMs baby :lol:
 
Last edited:
lol , that easy huh ?

ok then , why are they waiting ? Iran is their ultimate nemesis as we are and we have always been (in the past 15 years) a Major topic of daily discussion between US politicians . why did they attack Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Iran ? why don't they attack iran now ? and spare me the BS about costs of war . a couple of billion dollars is 1/6th-1/3rd of US military budget alone .

Either way , we are ready . they want a war , what can we do ? we'll give them a good welcoming in the NY .

BMs baby :lol:
An attack on Iran costs a lot more. It will also create a lot of headaches. Iranian missiles will also fly around and hit neighboring countries. Stock markets will be affected. Oil tankers will be sunk here and there. Oil markets will go crazy. It's not a couple of billion dollars Haman. We're talking trillions in direct costs and multiple times that in indirect costs if stock markets go crazy and oil goes up drastically. Iranian missiles are also a threat to the region's most important financial and shipping hub: UAE. If a few missile land in the UAE, the markets will go ape shit. The world economy can't handle unstable oil and financial markets these days. Europe will literally go bankrupt if oil goes over 150 right now. They're already struggling.

Now all that aside, no matter how strong the mullahs are or aren't, the biggest loser will be Iran. Millions will be wiped off. Again, Iran is much much denser than Iraq and Iraqi cities. Tehran is like an ant colony. The Americans dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq. Even if we go by the same number, millions will die in Tehran alone. The Americans were defeated in Vietnam, but they still wiped out millions of Vietnamese in the process. They lost in Iraq, but they still flattened the country and killed millions.

War is a game for the Americans. They will kill millions and life will go on for them. Now keep wishing for war.

carpet-bombing.jpg


120321_cambodia6.jpg
 
If a Republican wins in 2017 it'll be all over. They already have the senate and the congress. I'm torn between this tbh. On one hand I want the sanctions removed, on the other hand I don't want the mullahs to get a deal. We'll see what happens.


You seem to forget what the Americans did to Iraq. They carpet bombed the country and killed a couple of million people directly and indirectly. A lot of you guys on this forum will lose family members. Iranian cities are more dense and urbanized compared to Iraqi cities. They dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq in the first years alone. Can you imagine a 2 ton bomb in Tehran? Most apartments in Tehran aren't build up to proper codes. A couple of 2 ton bombs in a dense block will kill a thousand people. Half the apartments in the street will collapse on each other. Now multiply that by tens of thousands across Tehran and Iran.

For real !?

Is this all you got from military knowledge !?

Even Israeli generals don't have such imagination !!!

Your hate from IRI & Islam made you completely blind ...
 
It's not a couple of billion dollars Haman
my bad , wanted to say "a couple of hundred billion dollars" .

Now keep wishing for war.
I agree with everything you said except :

1- You also are forgetting the fact that Iranian AD network is not Iraq's . its a hundred times more dense and sophisticated . Iraqi army literally threw a red carpet in front of US Army , do you think the same can be said about iran ? 2-Trust me , the human loss of US will not be much less than Iran . but in general i agree that a possible war will cause Iran to go back about 30 years . it will ruin our infrastructure . it will also plunge US economy as you said .

Now keep wishing for war.
Is it really Iran who is wishing for war ?

I'm just saying that a deal is possible , now they try to undermine a possible deal so they want a war .

If so , they should bring it on then .
 
Just saying ...

I know it's not still public but I just want to make something clear !!!

We have ICBMs ... Like it or not we have !

Do you think we can't scrap their nuclear power plants !?

What will happen !?

Next year is the show time !

We are going to show more to the public ...

Indeed ... CIA/Mossad already know the matter ...
 
hey babe..
If a Republican wins in 2017 it'll be all over. They already have the senate and the congress. I'm torn between this tbh. On one hand I want the sanctions removed, on the other hand I don't want the mullahs to get a deal. We'll see what happens.


You seem to forget what the Americans did to Iraq. They carpet bombed the country and killed a couple of million people directly and indirectly. A lot of you guys on this forum will lose family members. Iranian cities are more dense and urbanized compared to Iraqi cities. They dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq in the first years alone. Can you imagine a 2 ton bomb in Tehran? Most apartments in Tehran aren't build up to proper codes. A couple of 2 ton bombs in a dense block will kill a thousand people. Half the apartments in the street will collapse on each other. Now multiply that by tens of thousands across Tehran and Iran.[/QUO
An attack on Iran costs a lot more. It will also create a lot of headaches. Iranian missiles will also fly around and hit neighboring countries. Stock markets will be affected. Oil tankers will be sunk here and there. Oil markets will go crazy. It's not a couple of billion dollars Haman. We're talking trillions in direct costs and multiple times that in indirect costs if stock markets go crazy and oil goes up drastically. Iranian missiles are also a threat to the region's most important financial and shipping hub: UAE. If a few missile land in the UAE, the markets will go ape shit. The world economy can't handle unstable oil and financial markets these days. Europe will literally go bankrupt if oil goes over 150 right now. They're already struggling.

Now all that aside, no matter how strong the mullahs are or aren't, the biggest loser will be Iran. Millions will be wiped off. Again, Iran is much much denser than Iraq and Iraqi cities. Tehran is like an ant colony. The Americans dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq. Even if we go by the same number, millions will die in Tehran alone. The Americans were defeated in Vietnam, but they still wiped out millions of Vietnamese in the process. They lost in Iraq, but they still flattened the country and killed millions.

War is a game for the Americans. They will kill millions and life will go on for them. Now keep wishing for war.

carpet-bombing.jpg


120321_cambodia6.jpg

fellow :) ..a year later many things may happen..look deep in nakhchivan..where the israeli drone had flew..israelis put that area in danger of loss to armenia..i mean at lease at the 2017 or 2018 you will be very busy with your losts in Caucasus..
 
Which country is that on the map? Cambodia? Why would US bomb them?
Yeah they were bombing the shit out of that whole area, but unofficially. Officially they were just in Nam. It only came out at the end. Supposedly b/c there were troop movements. It's shocking how they carpet bombed the area. Carpet bomb is an understatement. It makes the Iraq war look like a 6 year old's tea party.

my bad , wanted to say "a couple of hundred billion dollars" .


I agree with everything you said except :

1- You also are forgetting the fact that Iranian AD network is not Iraq's . its a hundred times more dense and sophisticated . Iraqi army literally threw a red carpet in front of US Army , do you think the same can be said about iran ? 2-Trust me , the human loss of US will not be much less than Iran . but in general i agree that a possible war will cause Iran to go back about 30 years . it will ruin our infrastructure . it will also plunge US economy as you said .


Is it really Iran who is wishing for war ?

I'm just saying that a deal is possible , now they try to undermine a possible deal so they want a war .

If so , they should bring it on then .
The Americans will lose the same amount of men or just a few more than what they did in Iraq, but the financial cost will be enormous. Iran isn't like the surrounding countries. There's no tribalism, gun culture etc... Even the basij needs a command structure. The whole command structure in Iran will be taken care of within weeks, if not days. I know you're gonna drag this discussion on and thump your chest, but cool your head for a second and drop the jingoism. They will park 3-4 carrier groups in the Indian Ocean and let their birds free on the whole country and there's not a thing you can do about it. They will also send in jets from Kuwait and every other available base. Iran will send a bunch of missiles to UAE, Kuwait etc... NYSE will drop by 500 points. Oil will shoot up if Iran gets in direct hits in the UAE and manages to sink a few oil tankers. But within the first couple of weeks the whole command structure will fall.

So you'll be left will tens of millions of people with no guns and no tribal culture just sitting there playing with their thumbs. With no access to information and most likely without power. Every military base in Iran will be erased in the first week of combat. Between the constant bombing runs and cruise missiles, after the 1st month they will have softened Iran to the point that troops can start walking in. Again, Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. People don't carry weapons. I don't know how it is in the more tribal areas like Kurdistan, but in a place like Shiraz, where I grew up, people rather carry Hafez in their back pockets than even a knife. There will be limited guerrilla warfare. Once all the leadership is killed, IR will fall and so will the resistance from the last few remaining hardcore basij extremists.

In their path the Americans will leave a country in total ruin and possibly millions dead depending on how hard they bomb Tehran. Another thing you guys don't realize is that Iranian "padegans" are in city limits. Foreign countries don't operate like that. For example in Canada bases are out in the boonies. In Iran they're right in the city and all around Iran they will be bombed day and night. Collateral damage will be in the tens of thousands from those Padegans alone.

And yes, you're hoping for war. That's what you said at the start of this thread.

Just saying ...

I know it's not still public but I just want to make something clear !!!

We have ICBMs ... Like it or not we have !

Do you think we can't scrap their nuclear power plants !?

What will happen !?

Next year is the show time !

We are going to show more to the public ...

Indeed ... CIA/Mossad already know the matter ...
Ballistic missiles without nuclear warheads are glorified 2 ton bombs. Woopdedoo. What is that gonna do? Iran doesn't even have a GPS. It's basically one step above loading a plane with TNT and giving it a coordinate. Ballistic Missiles were designed by the Soviets and Americans as nuclear warhead carriers. Saddam also had scud rockets. He fired a bunch that landed in Saudi deserts. Even if they were proper ballistic missiles that had landed in the middle of Riyadh, so what??? Would he have won the war? His fate was the same, he would just take out Abdul and his camel in the middle of Riyadh.

wooooopdefuckingdooo
 
Ballistic missiles without nuclear warheads are glorified 2 ton bombs. Woopdedoo. What is that gonna do? Iran doesn't even have a GPS. It's basically one step above loading a plane with TNT and giving it a coordinate. Ballistic Missiles were designed by the Soviets and Americans as nuclear warhead carriers. Saddam also had scud rockets. He fired a bunch that landed in Saudi deserts. Even if they were proper ballistic missiles that had landed in the middle of Riyadh, so what??? Would he have won the war? His fate was the same, he would just take out Abdul and his camel in the middle of Riyadh.

wooooopdefuckingdooo

Do you know americans care about israel more than america !?
 
Back
Top Bottom