Obama..iran
 

With no editorial comments, I simply pose this question....

President Obama has sent signals that he does not want to offer to congress any deal he makes with Iran. He will decide and they will not be involved.

What does everyone think about this nuclear deal being made with NO congressional input, and made by one man ?

The link below is simply a link to an article based on congressional hearings where the President's feelings were made...

Obama Administration Doesn't Want Congress to Play Role in Iran Negotiations - US News

please give us specific examples of the manner in which congress was pre-consulted in negotiations with foreign adversaries. What was the input in nuclear arms negotiations with the USSR? What was the congressional input sought before FDR met with Stalin? What was the input when Reagan negotiated with Iran to free our hostages?

I do not know why you are asking those questions.

I am the OP and asked a simple question....I did not make any comments about the good or bad. Just wanted opinions. And I did not mention PRE CONSULTED.

Thank you

But since you asked....

SALT 1 USA AND USSR...


"Debate over SALT-II in the U.S. Congress continued for months. In December 1979, however, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet attack effectively killed any chance of SALT-II being passed, and Carter ensured this by withdrawing the treaty from the Senate in January 1980. SALT-II thus remained signed, but unratified. "

Carter and Brezhnev sign the SALT-II treaty — History.com This Day in History — 6/18/1979

The test of the SALT 2 treaty from congress...

"http://www.archive.org/stream/saltiitreatyhear04unit/saltiitreatyhear04unit_djvu.txt

Then the INTERMEDIATE RANGE NUCLEAR FORCES TREATY ....

"he Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union. Signed in Washington, D.C. by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 December 1987, it was ratified by the United States Senate on 27 May 1988 and came into force on 1 June of that year.



Of course there is the LAW....

"The Obama Administration prefers that the parties reach an agreement that significantly curtails the Iranian nuclear program. However, any agreement is sure to be controversial among hawkish lawmakers. Congress has already demanded the ability to express an opinion on the talks. In July of 2014, Representatives Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, as well as Senators Robert Menendez and Lindsay Graham, issued harshly worded letters urging President Obama to routinely consult Congress on the status of the negotiations and to allow for a vote on the final deal. The letters garnered the signatures of 344 members of the House and 83 Senators -

"See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

"While the President has not commented on Congress’s role in the negotiations and a final agreement, it seems unlikely that he wants to subject a potentially legacy-shaping international agreement to congressional debate. Precedent indicates that he may not have to. The President’s duty as Commander-in-Chief, stated in Article II of the US Constitution has established him as the main executor of the “vast majority” of national security interests and foreign affairs Although the Court held against asserting executive authority in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., it did establish that the President is the driving force and main authority behind foreign policy decisions. Other opinions simultaneously stress that the President’s authority, depending on the gravity of a given situation, is more legitimate if it is reaffirmed by an act of Congress. From this holding, one can assume that even though any accord with Iran would be more legitimate if approved by Congress, this may not be necessary. The main question will hinge on the extent to which the agreement reflects the President’s foreign affairs power without infringing on congressional duties.

- See more at: Deal or No Deal: The Legal Questions Regarding the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations | National Security Law Brief

I apologize for all the links, but you seemed determined not to answer the question without some historical reference and since you did not check it, I did for you.

Now that more than a month has gone by, current events would still indicate Obama will make a deal, any kind of deal to be able to claim he did it.

The original post above is still pertinent.
And an answer to the question still needed.....and still ignored.

The entire process is a disgrace and an embarrassment to be displaying in front of world. Congress is putting country at risk with their continuous grandstanding for purely political reasons. President is over his head but we someone needs to show some leadership. I've seen little or none from anyone.

Please study your basic political science courses. One of the President's chief duties is that of chief foreign policy maker. Unless the foreign policy issue involves a treaty, Congress does not have the advise and consent role.

It was interesting to read that Bob Corker said he did not believe any member of Congress would hinder any talk with Iran. What a schmoe.

The President is doing a great job with a difficult task. Congress should just support the elected leader of our country.

The USNews linked article was very informative.

There goes your credibility ... down the tubes

I would say it CONFIRMS the credibility status of the person.

So let's see ... Obama allows Iran to get a nuke in a few years which means nuclear jihad in the US at some point. How can any sane person, which presumably you are, possibly be in favor of that ??

So all the 'sane' posters on this forum who support going to war with Iran should just come out and say that, and stop beating around the bush.

Just one more step to put the final nail in the coffin of the US. Let the muslim president along with his Iranian advisor make the sole decision to enrich their brothers so that the takeover of this country finally becomes a reality. Pretty simple to understand. Or are the blinkers on for those who can't (or don't) want to see reality.

Could you explain to me why you believe the only 2 options are agree with what our President says and does (no questions asked) or go to war?? Here is my concern - we have a VERY INEXPERIENCED President - inexperienced in about every way imaginable. Having said that, if I was in his shoes and really wanted to make the RIGHT decision for the American people, I would not be going it alone. Wouldn't having discussions with the representatives of the American people make sense? Unfortunately, I believe this President has his own agenda, and it isn't just to make himself look good or to prove some other narcissistic point. I fear that it is much more sinister than that.

Could you explain what is the President's own sinister agenda, and what are the other options besides an agreement or going to war?

Last time I checked, the President is a representative of the American people

The congress couldn't even debate or vote on the authorization to use military force against ISSL, plus they are on vacation until mid-April while the last minute meetings continue in Switzerland.

You ask what IS it - I would have no way of knowing anything for sure, as you well know, but I am certainly not the only one who believes and/or fears that this President may have an agenda that could bring this country to its knees. For what reason(s), I cannot tell you, as I'm certainly not in his "inner circle", but his actions against Israel and toward Iran speak volumes to me. Again, I'll repeat it, because I'm sure it will come up again - I don't know anything for sure, but I tend to look at how a person walks, not just how he talks, when critiquing a situation and formulating an opinion.

As far as the second part of your question, I would agree with ongoing sanctions toward a country that appears intent on destroying mine. It's much too complicated to go into here, but I don't know how one can come to any kind of agreement with an enemy like Iran.

I look at it differently. I see the President as a leader. Yes, he represents the American people, but not in such a direct way as our Congressmen/women are elected to do so. When I have an issue or point of view that I want to be heard, I generally contact my Congressperson because they are supposed to be our voice, so to speak. A good leader does not make difficult decisions without input from others, especially when those "others" can be severely affected.

I agree - this has certainly been a huge issue in moving forward with anything in this country. Not denying that! But again, JMHO, that is where a good leader can make a real difference because good leaders bring people together and make that a priority from the start. We have not had that for quite some time now.

In name and sworn to do so only.

By actions he is not representing we the people as he continues to by pass the constitution.
The will of the people has been over whelming to support the Canadian pipeline.....so how is doing for them?
The will of the people was against the ACA....it got passed anyway.
Just to name a couple.

Well he certainly is no longer the lead dog in this adventure andymore.
The King of Jordan took the bull by the horns and went after the radicals within 24 hours of saying he would do so.

Now the other Arab countries are coming together to do the same.
And it is not taking them years to figure out what to do.
Israel will soon be going off on their own without waiting for us any longer.

Lead, follow or get out of the way......no danger that we will lead or follow so.....excuse us as we get out of the way of those commited to making something happen.

As usual, you (as a good liberal) emote vs think on this issue. If one is against giving away the store via “negotiations” on a Iranian nuke deal, then ergo one is in favor of war. Grow up … better yet, use that appendage atop your shoulders.

The first course should be reimposition and strengthening of sanctions. That’s why the Iranians are at the table in the first place. Iran is a radical Islamic state. The ONLY thing that will keep them at bay is the threat of force. Read the history and biography of the Prophet if that’s not clear … the basic faith is imperialistic and expansion oriented which means killing infidels as needed until worldwide peace is obtained etc. By the way, should that occur, and should you survive the jihad, that means you get to wear a burqa.

I don’t think Iran would be dumb enough to start a war with the US and Israel. Assuming courage and leadership at the top by the Commander in Chief (which is a shaky assumption I admit), they know they would lose and thus be deterred. They know Israel would strike so let’s express our appreciation that Bibi was reelected.

Regarding war, if it did come to that theoretically, would you prefer to fight an Iran without nukes, or wait until they have them?

You truly don’t seem to understand the most concerning aspect of this … and have never really addressed it even though I’ve posited it to you several times. If Iran gets a nuke they WILL use it at some point against the US … ie nuclear jihad. The most likely method of attack is an ICBM exploded high in the atmosphere above the Midwest to produce an EMP effect which would wipe out most electrical service across the country. In short, one explosion and you / me / all of us revert to a 19th century life cycle for 6 months to a year. Let’s hope you are a 2nd amendment supporter because you’ll need it until the lights come back on.

Just out of curiosity, do you truly not understand the risk of nuclear jihad, or would you just prefer to ignore it and hope the threat goes away??

Gosh, these are word for word the exact same arguments for going to war with Iraq. No need to write a new column, just rehash the old ones from 2002/2003.

Without the other superpowers agreeing, the US cannot impose sanctions on Iran on its own.

Be afraid, be very afraid. Sadam Hussein is loading up his balsam aircraft with nuclear weapons and heading to the US. Now where did he hide those pesky WMD's?

It sounds like the president will just keep kicking the can down the road until he can turn over the reins to President Ted Cruz.

Sorry, this is too serious a topic with which to employ the usual liberal tactics of mocking, evading and such when you can’t answer the question posed. What are you going to do to prevent Iran from getting a nuke, which means at some point, nuclear jihad. ??

I think an immediate problem is you truly don’t understand the nature of the Iranian hardliners, their whole apocalyptic views about the 12th Imam nor, most especially, the impact of a single EMP burst.

This article talks about an EMP attack on Israel but is applicable to the US

An electromagnetic pulse attack -- the 'other' Iranian nuclear threat | The Times of Israel

Now, tell us all again why you, when push comes to shove, are ok with allowing the Iranians to get a nuke??

Has nothing to do with the current Iran situation.
If you do not view or undserstand the seriousness of the Iran threat then you are either:
>naieve
>don't care as long as it is OK with Obama
>so afraid the only play left is to continually mock everybody and everything they say.
>Totally and completely unable, for what ever reason, able to discuss anything and then counterpoint with antagonism.
>I will remain polite and stop there.

How about letting the people that have been at the table negotiating with Iran for the past 18 months answer those questions, and not the armchair generals on this forum, many of whom have never seen any combat in their lives. And the same posters who get all their info from the war-mongers in the republican party, the same ones who were so wrong about Iraq who say trust us we got nothing right in Iraq but now we know what to do in Iran.

You most certainly are not the ONLY veteran on this or any other forum.

It is just too bad you choose to brag about being a Viet Nam vet in a venue where you poison everything anybody has to say.....I know too many Nam vets and let me say, based on your behavior on this forum you are truly in a class by yourself.

Congratulations.

I think you are immobilized by fear and thus unable to even discuss alternatives ... and continue to dodge the practical issue of how to prevent nuclear jihad.

By the way, we are not witnessing a "negotiation" but rather nothing more than a slow motion capitulation dressed up with only the lightest touch of lipstick

Excellent. :BigApplause:

Yes I too get tired of Mr Spittle's continual name calling, lack of substantive contribution to pretty much any topic and his infinite supply of rage.

Now he wants to compare combat records?

Here is a question that I would like to hear an answer: Do you think Israel will let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

My opinion is no way, because a country that has fought through the millenia to finally have a place to call home isn't going to take that risk. And don't think Israel doesn't have the capability of doing it quickly. Just look at June 5, 1967. Superior weaponry and, even more importantly, superior strategy wins out. And don't think other countries would cone to Iran's aid: Arabs have no love for Persians.

This in my opinion is a major reason why Obama has created the current distant relationship with Israel. He did not want his position with Iran to be compromised.
Talk about having one's priorities reversed.
There is no doubt, as they have in the past, when put in a position to defend their country, the Israelis will take action. And Obama will find out about it with the rest of us when he views it in the media.

Yes. Israel lacks the capability.

Iran has diversified its nuclear program to multiple locations and the most important facilities are hundreds of feet below ground. Last I read, even our most current version of the 20,000 lb "Daisy Cutter" would be ineffective. Use of tactical nukes to destroy these facilities is out of the question. Even a protracted multi-month conventional attack opens up a huge can of worms. All Iranian air defenses would have to be destroyed, all potential missile launch facilities destroyed, etc... The attack would most certainly invite protracted counter-attacks using unconventional means (i.e., terrorist attacks on "soft" US targets: shopping malls, sports stadiums, theaters, anywhere that large groups of unarmed civilians gather.)

In the end, unless the US intends to permanently occupy the territory, the attack merely delays the eventuality and puts the US in the crosshairs when they do become nuclear. There are numerous ways to place nukes in US cities without using ICBM's - thousands of cargo ships unloading in ports each year, cross border trucking, international air traffic, etc...

There is no "easy" military solution today. There was years ago. Economic strangulation through MUCH tougher sanctions and embargo should be immediately enacted. If the strangulation is tight and complete, Iran's economy will collapse, the people will revolt and another opportunity for regime change may present itself. I think this is perhaps the wisest, least destructive/deadly, and most durable solution to a difficult predicament. (Recall Obama had an opportunity to support a recent Iranian revolt but chose to not provide aid to those attempting an overthrow. Obama is not a leader, much less a decisive leader, so the future becomes increasingly dangerous through inept and ineffective negotiations while Iran speeds towards nuclear capability.)

Just my opinion.

Excellent and most informative post ... and from someone who actually knows what they're talking about for a change regarding Iran and nukes ... thanks

Do not underestimate Israel's capability. They're weaponry is second only to ours, and they're resolve may be second to none.

I understand your uninformed bravado, but you should probably also understand it is just that - uninformed bravado. If the US is incapable of destroying these deeply buried targets without going nuclear, I'm absolutely certain Israel is. I'm pretty sure I'm more up on the weaponry required for this operation than you, but I'm always open to being educated. Which weapon do you think would be most appropriate for this mission?

:popcorn:

EXACTLY!

I really don't expect an answer. The poster rarely is able to form more than a sentence or two opinion.

Here is the education you requested:

http://defense-update.com/20130504_m...or-fordow.html

The US has enhanced its biggest bunker buster bomb specifically to enable the destruction of Iran’s underground*Fordow uranium enrichment plant*near the city of Qom. 20 such bombs – the biggest and heaviest bomb in the US arsenal, will be delivered this year, following the completion of upgrades and testing.*The redesigned Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)*GBU-57A-B is now adapted for operations in heavily contested environment, where it will require to operate against Iran’s most protected nuclear sites.

Open the link above for instructions

Impressive capability and impressive answer from another who has added to and enhanced the discussion ... thanks and I look forward to the previous posters reply to Chi-town