Friday, May 8, 2015

why the 98-1 vote on Senate review of Obama deal on Iran won't stop Obama from this catastrophic deal

Iran Is Lying, and We Know It - Harold Rhode and Joseph Raskas
There is little doubt that Iran is lying, and will continue to lie, but that doesn't seem to matter to those negotiating with it. The White House and its negotiating partners first eased the sanctions that had been compelling Tehran to negotiate and then effectively tabled the military option. Since then, they have made a seemingly unending catalog of tangible and irreversible concessions, to which the Iranians have responded with increased hostility.
    Given that Iran has for decades refused to come into compliance with its international obligations, has sought to destabilize the Middle East, and has waged a deadly war against America and its allies when pressure was in place, it stands to reason that when that pressure is removed, Iran will ramp up its illicit nuclear activity, tighten its grip on the Middle East, and intensify its attacks against Western targets.
    The White House has become captive to its own desire to achieve a deal, and that has caused Iran to make even greater demands. Harold Rhode served for 28 years as an analyst covering Iranian and Middle Eastern affairs at the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Joseph Raskas is a combat veteran of the Israel Defense Forces. (National Review)

Obama refuses to submit iran deal as a treaty requiring 2/3 senate approval. So then what?

Corker-Menendez will allow a majority in Congress to review and oppose to the utterly humiliating arrangement in process with Iran, even if the failure of Congress to override Obama’s veto will confuse the issue.
Yet Corker-Menendez is problematic at best. President Obama refuses to submit the arrangement in process to the Senate as a treaty. Congress can’t make him do it, even if by tradition he should. Corker-Menendez gives Congress a role, but it inverts the constitutional sense of the matter.

Under Corker-Menendez, Congress needs overwhelming majorities to register disapproval of a deal, and a supermajority in both chambers for overriding an inevitable Presidential veto. One can imagine a scenario in which 65 Senators vote to override a Presidential veto, falling short of a supermajority. The White House would need to have a very low opinion of journalists to try to tell them that counts as “Congressional approval.”
In any case, that’s a messaging war for the coming days and weeks. The Senate just rebuked the President’s Iran diplomacy 98-1. It was bipartisan to such an extent that the only nay came from a Republican. That’s a very difficult thing to spin.
Senator Cotton has posted the following statement opposing the bill on his site:
A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary—especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime—should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution. President Obama wants to reverse this rule, requiring opponents to get a two-thirds vote to stop his dangerous deal. But Congress should not accept this usurpation, nor allow the president any grounds to claim that Congress blessed his nuclear deal. I will work with Republicans and Democrats to stop a dangerous deal that would put Iran on the path to obtaining a nuclear weapon.

No comments:

Post a Comment