DCPolitics

Romano: How To Stop The Iran Nuke Deal

WHAT ARE CONGRESS’ OPTIONS? || By ROBERT ROMANO || Love it or hate it, the Iran nuclear deal is done; and unless Congress acts to stop it, within 60 days, it will take full effect. Whether Barack Obama‘s administration was going to unilaterally lift sanctions via waivers or certain certifications…

WHAT ARE CONGRESS’ OPTIONS?

|| By ROBERT ROMANO || Love it or hate it, the Iran nuclear deal is done; and unless Congress acts to stop it, within 60 days, it will take full effect.

Whether Barack Obama‘s administration was going to unilaterally lift sanctions via waivers or certain certifications like being delisted as a state sponsor of terrorism or no longer pursuing a nuclear weapons program — none of it matters any more. It’s a moot point.

After all, when Congress overwhelmingly voted for H.R. 1191, legislation by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) in May, Obama was given all of the authority he needs to lift the sanctions.

The law provides that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief by the United States pursuant to an agreement [with Iran]… may be taken, consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action, if, following the period for review provided… there is not enacted any such joint resolution” by Congress disapproving of the deal.

Obama has already promised to veto any such resolution of disapproval, and 150 House Democrats in May signaled they will be voting to sustain such a veto.

By now, members of Congress have had an opportunity to review the deal, and to determine for themselves if it will be effective at stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned, “Iran is going to receive a sure path to nuclear weapons.” And Saudi diplomats have already told The Washington Post that the deal green-lights initiating their own nuclear weapons program.

Yet, if Congress is still intent on stopping a nuclear arms race in the Middle East — and any wars that may result from that madness — what are their options?

Without 150 House Democrats, members know right off the bat it will be impossible under the Corker law to override the President’s veto of a resolution of disapproval of the deal.

So, what to do?

(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government.  This piece (reprinted with permission) originally appeared on NetRightDaily.com.

***

Related posts

Politics

Jeff Mattox: Give Anarchy A Chance

FITSForum
Politics

Carlton Huffman: Nikki’s Fall, Nancy’s Rise

FITSForum
Politics

Palmetto Political Stock Index – 7/16/2024

FITSNews

43 comments

Manray9 July 16, 2015 at 12:18 pm

“Whether Barack Obama‘s administration was going to unilaterally lift sanctions…” It’s not unilateral. It’s a quid pro quo for designated concessions by the Iranians. That’s how diplomatic agreements work. And don’t forget, it’s not only us, but UK, Germany, France, China and Russia too.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned…” And too many of our politicians have to dance to his tune.

We’ve been carrying water for the Israelis land-grabbers and the Saudi obscurantist tyrants for too long. Let’s try something new! How about our politicians acting in the best interests of the United States?

Reply
Old Skool July 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm

It’s the same logic behind Republicans wanting to continue our failed policy with Cuba. At some point you have to try something different.

Reply
Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 4:40 pm

Our “failed policy” or Cuba’s? Is it our fault their people have suffered – or their communist government’s fault?

Reply
shifty henry July 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm

Uh Oh..!! John Deere has sold out of backhoes, and Home Depot is out of cement blocks and mortar…..

Reply
erneba July 16, 2015 at 12:24 pm

And “Anarchy ‘r’ Us” is quickly selling out of firearms and ammo.

Reply
shifty henry July 16, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Remember the morning after Lisa Marie and Michael Jackson announced their engagement? There were 3,000 sightings of Elvis in Mississippi — every one in a gun shop!

Reply
erneba July 16, 2015 at 3:19 pm

Was that to protect his daughter or protect himself when he was out buying drugs.
You almost had me on that one till I realize Lisa Marie was only about ten years old when Elvis expired on the crapper in his mansion in Memphis.
Do you remember where you were when you heard the news that Elvis had sniffed his last?

Reply
shifty henry July 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm

nope …

erneba July 16, 2015 at 3:33 pm

I do!

LD July 16, 2015 at 12:25 pm

We really don’t have a choice. If we don’t sign the other nations involved with lift the sanctions on Iran, which ends any leverage that we had. As far as nuclear weapons– Pakistan has them and they are less stable than other Middle East countries. Sign it, let’s see what happens. Use of force will always be an option, although a poor option.

Reply
Terry July 16, 2015 at 2:27 pm

You are wasting your breath, The right wing in this country and Netanyahu want war. Nothing else will ever work. No matter what answer you give their answer will always be, but you can’t trust the Iranians. Read between the lines. If you can’t trust them, we have to get rid of them.

We just have to hope they do not win this battle.

Reply
erneba July 16, 2015 at 12:39 pm

Obama’s stated objections to his critics is along the lines of “if we don’t get this deal, we get nothing.” NO, you go back to the table and use the force and standing of the US and her allies to beat these damn “sand fleas” into submission. The only problem with that is Obama is not recognized as being the leader of the “free world” after almost two terms of embarrassing foreign ventures. It not that hard, but we have to remember that it is one of Obama’s unstated priorities is to “diminish the US’s influence on the world stage. And it should be embarrassing to Obama to make the statement “we can’t put the four US prisoners on the table for negotiating because it may put the treaty in jeopardy.” Obama needs an afternoon shopping trip to “Balls ‘r’ Us.”

Reply
Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 12:47 pm

Yet Obama CAN figure out how to trade 5 Taliban killers for 1 US deserter (who got other killed looking for him) when it became politically expedient to do so. Diminish the US and weaken this country he has most certainly done.

Reply
RogueElephant July 16, 2015 at 1:03 pm

I just read that Bruce , Katlin Jenner was going to give Obummer His/her balls since it didn’t need them any more. LOL

Reply
Terry July 16, 2015 at 6:12 pm

So in your eyes what does beating them into submission mean? War. Do you really think our allies will follow us into another worthless War, after the mess Bush created? Hell do you think the American people will stand for another 3 trillion dollar war after the mess Bush created.

Reply
erneba July 16, 2015 at 7:02 pm

NO, Bombers and missiles(with nuclear weapons), kinda like a collect call.

Reply
The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 1:13 pm

Somebody tell me how we went from the president “…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” to Obama being able to veto a vote to disapprove a treaty.

Reply
Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 1:27 pm

We live in a post-Constitutional country now Colonel. Didn’t you see the SCOTUS the other day? Whatever ther ruling class wants – in this case progressive lie-berals and the RINOs in bed with them – they get. The Constitution is just a mere impediment to be avoided or ignored en route to their power and policy goals.

Reply
Tom July 16, 2015 at 2:34 pm

You people really do need to stop reading those right wing rags. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Reply
The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 4:09 pm

What “right wing rags” would those be, I clipped Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 directly from the Library of Congress web site:http://www.loc.gov/law/help/guide/federal/usconst.php

Reply
Tom July 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm

This is not a Constitutional issue. Obama cannot enter into a treaty. He can legally and Constitutionally enter into an agreement with Iran and Europe that does not rise to the level of a Treaty and he can abide by the terms of that agreement. If Congress does not ratify this treaty, it will become an executive agreement The next President can undo that if they want to; But they will do so without the support of Europe and Russia.

Europe and Russia is on board with this agreement. If Iran will not allow sufficient inspections, sanctions will be reimposed. If we had tried to do that unilaterally we would fail. Our sanctions mean nothing if they are not supported by Europe and Russia.

The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm

Semantical bullshit. In the 1780s any agreement between nations would have been called a treaty. The framers meant that the President would have to seek their approval for any agreement between the United States and another country.

Tom July 16, 2015 at 4:27 pm

See post by Manray9 above. Excellent synopsis. We have been doing this since 1789.

The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Read it, disagree that it is legal .

Tom July 16, 2015 at 5:57 pm

What other than your reading of the Constitution, do you have to back that up? Court Cases?? Do you really believe we could have entered into 18000+- such agreements and no one would have brought this issue before the courts? Do you believe every single agreement we have with other countries is a Treaty approved by Congress? Congress not only believes it is legal, they are counting on it in this case. That is why the gave Obama authority to lift the sanctions.

The President cannot unilaterally undo a Treaty, he can undo an executive agreement. They are not the same thing. They don’t have the same weight in the International courts.

Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 4:37 pm

Wrong Tom. You are clueless. If Iran is thought to have violated the deal, in order to “snap back” sanctions a dispute resolution process must be undertaken that can last two and a half months, after which the matter can be referred to the UN Security Council. At the UNSC, the re-imposition of sanctions can be vetoed by Russia, which stands to earn billions of dollars from arms sales to a non-sanctioned Iran. Do you seriously believe Russia would get back on board with re-issuing sanctions against Iran? Clueless.

Tom July 16, 2015 at 5:39 pm

They are not onboard now. Russia and Europe are not going to continue the current arrangement. What don’t you get about that? We do not have an option of status quo. Status quo is no inspections at all. Everyone says status quo is not working. We have to have a new agreement or go to war. This is the best we have been able to do. If Russia and Europe stop honoring the sanctions, which they will, we have no leverage at all. Unilateral sanctions by us are worthless. Your hatred of Obama makes you blind to everything else. What agreement could he possibly have obtained that would satisfy you? Nothing except war.

Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 6:11 pm

This “make a bad deal or go to war” has been a false dichotomy all along. Totally a false choice made up to give cover for this asinine “deal.” And there will be no inspections Tom. What don’t you get about that? Will we get to show up and inspect at a moment’s notice? No. Iran will have up to 24 days to cover any and all nuclear weapons development they have been and certainly will continue to engage in. Unless you are naive enough to believe, in your bootlicking for Obama, they Iran will honest enough to live up to their end of the bargain. They have certainly proven to honest and trustworthy in the past, no? We had all cards, the position of strength and never once threatened to walk away which should have happened for us to get a better deal. Iran needed this deal much more than we did. You think this is the best we could have done? Utterly ridiculous. And Susan Rice says today, in a shocking moment of candor, that they expect the Iranians to use part if not all of the $150B to fund terrorism??? Breathtaking the utter foolishness and idiocy of this administration and this capitulation they have agreed to.

Tom July 16, 2015 at 6:28 pm

I see you are unable to answer the basic question. What agreement would have made you happy? What agreement could he possibly have reached? No matter what agreement we reached you would say you can’t trust Obama and you can’t trust Iran. If a Republican President had reached this deal, you would not have said a word. You can lie about that all you want.

Iran did not need a deal more than we did. If that were the case we would have had a deal a long time ago. Our support for continued sanctions was collapsing. No country is ever going to agree that another country can walk into any facility, including military facilities any time without notice. Would we agree to that? Ever? No, and neither will they. The truth is you will not be happy until the bombs are falling.

But its now in the hands of Congress. They have the ability to block it. So if they don’t they don’t. What happens from here is on them.

Marie Barf July 16, 2015 at 9:01 pm

“The truth is you will not be happy until the bombs are falling.”

LOL…still pushing the false choice. No war is anywhere near imminent with Iran and nobody is pushing one, except people like you and this ridiculous choice to justify this so-called “deal.” You know as well as I do this wasn’t about avoiding a war – this was about trying to save some semblance of a foreign policy legacy that’s been a complete disaster under this administration.

As to what agreement I would have made, that question is completely irrelevant because these bunch of stooges are in charge it was up to them to come up with something acceptable for the best interests of the US. At which they spectacularly failed. But what would have made me happy would have been 1) give us our hostages and we’ll talk deal 2) no, you are not getting ballistic weapons technology, to which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just last week said we should never think about. Of course, for some insane reason, we threw that in at the last minute. And if the POTUS could figure out how to obtain one US deserter for 5 Taliban killers he couldn’t find a way to get 4 hostages for everything under the sun we gave Iran?

TontoBubbaGoldstein July 16, 2015 at 1:46 pm

…the disaster the last few years has made of the US Constitution.

Goes back at least to “The Recent Unpleasantness.”

Reply
The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 1:48 pm Reply
Tom July 16, 2015 at 2:37 pm

This is not a Constitutional issue. Obama is not doing anything unconstitutional here.

Reply
The Colonel July 16, 2015 at 5:15 pm

No, no “constitutional scholar” would ever do anything like that – (in a Doctor Evil voice) riiiight.

Almost makes you think he studied law to look for ways to subvert it.

Reply
Tom July 16, 2015 at 2:32 pm

He can’t enter into a treaty without the consent of Congress, but he can abide by the terms of an unratified treaty. He has the authority to lift sanctions, independent of approving the treaty. That is what he proposes to do if the treaty is not approved. If we don’t Europe will do it anyway.

Reply
Manray9 July 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Good question. The answer is it’s an executive agreement and not a treaty. Here’s what I read:

“The Congressional Research Service explains that “treaties generally require parties to exchange or deposit instruments of ratification” that “may more narrowly refer to a particular subcategory of binding international agreements.”

Executive agreements also represent international agreements, negotiated by the executive branch, but they aren’t submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent. Their use dates back to the time of George Washington.

Since World War II, most international agreements negotiated by the United States are executive agreements, and not treaties. The CRS said that as 2014, the United States had entered into 18,500 executive agreements and 1,100 treaties since 1789.”

Reply
shifty henry July 16, 2015 at 3:25 pm

STOP DESTROYING OUR PLANET ….. IT’S WHERE I KEEP ALL MY STUFF..!!

Reply
erneba July 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm

Not unless you join that guy from the Libertarian Party and set up a colony on the Moon. You could take all your “stuff’ to the moon and keep it in storage until your home is built.
See, that Libertarian guy knows what he talking about, we are ruining this place.

Reply
James July 16, 2015 at 4:11 pm

I think all the theater is hilarious. Here is what I think has happened. The truth is that a lot of Republicans want a deal with Iran. They know the only alternative is war, and they also know the American people will not support war. They also knew the wing nut base would never agree to them approving any treaty Obama could possibly reach with Iran and Europe. Why? because Obama did it, and he is a Kenyan Muslim out to destroy Merica.

So they gave themselves a back door. They gave Obama the authority to give Iran what Iran wants, without a ratified treaty. They did not have to do that. They could have blocked that, but they didn’t. The result is Obama can reach the best deal available. They can jump up and down and yell about how bad it is playing into their base; and then they can vote against the treaty without killing the deal. Obama will lift the sanctions anyway, and the agreement will be in place even if not ratified. This is just too nutty.

Politicians lie. Its not about you, its about them.

Reply
Squishy123 July 16, 2015 at 6:29 pm

I love how we think we’re going to tell these countries what they can and cannot do.

Don’t expect me to be shocked if Israel decides to say fuck it and nuke Iran. What do they have to lose? We’re not going to sanction Israel.

Reply
Tom July 16, 2015 at 6:32 pm

A rare moment where we agree. What they have to lose of course is they will be attacked by their neighbors, some of whom may also have nukes. But we will defend them. So in the end, what they want to do is convince us to go to war with Iran.

Reply
Squishy123 July 16, 2015 at 7:02 pm

Those countries are also smart enough to know if you attack Israel for whatever reason, that retaliation is likely going to be 10x worse.

Reply

Leave a Comment