Follow by Email

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Obama Agrees to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif's Ploy to Avoid Congressional Approval of Nuclear Weapons Deal

You will recall how, in August 2013, Obama demanded Congressional approval of a military strike against Bashar al-Assad to effect his "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Obama didn't need that approval, and in fact, didn't want that approval.

Obama does, however, want to reach a deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations), and he's now hell-bent on avoiding Congressional approval of any such deal. As reported by Iran's PressTV:

"US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said that the United Nations Security Council would endorse any final nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group.

'We would anticipate that, if we're able to reach a joint comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran, an endorsement vote would be held by the UN Security Council,' Psaki told reporters on Friday."

Obama's determination to take the deal to the UN instead of Congress is in keeping with the demand of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. As reported in a Bloomberg article entitled "Iran Wants UN Security Council to Ban Future U.S. Sanctions" by Sangwon Yoon:

"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says he’s counting on the United Nations Security Council to prevent U.S. lawmakers from overturning any deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

An agreement reached by the U.S. and five other global powers with Iran would be approved in a UN Security Council resolution, making it 'an international agreement and binding for all states,' Zarif said in an interview in the Iranian weekly magazine Seda. 'The current and future governments of Iran and the U.S. will be bound by its provisions.'

Zarif’s assertion has added fresh fuel to the dispute between President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers over his authority to commit to a deal with Iran, while contributing to confusion over what role the UN might play."

This is the same Zarif who one week earlier called for the annihilation of the "Netanyahu regime."

Can it get any worse?

3 comments:

  1. Is that a rhetorical question?

    Five years after the fact, we're learning that "C.I.A. Cash Ended Up in Coffers of Al Qaeda":

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/world/asia/cia-funds-found-their-way-into-al-qaeda-coffers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0



    ReplyDelete
  2. is not Obama's goal to move towards Woodrow Wilson's dream of a supranationalist One World Government, using the UN to do so? The U.S. Senate has fought this since 1919.

    better hurry before the UN realizes Iran discriminates against every minority unfortunate enough to live in Iran:
    http://unpo.org/article/17997 "Ahwazi: Crackdown on Arab Minority Identity in Iran"

    k

    ReplyDelete
  3. BO: "I'm reading in WaPo this morning that the Pentagon lost track of $500 million in weapons, equipment given to Yemen. How'd that happen?"
    SecDef:"Well you told me that as part of your negotiations with Iran, to make sure Assad's boys get what they need without getting our hands dirty. It's the best we can do sir."
    BO: "OK, just make sure the paper trail doesn't lead back to me. Call your guy who took care of Hillary's emails and tell him we need a favor."
    SecDef: "Yes Mr. President. I'm already on it."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-loses-sight-of-500-million-in-counterterrorism-aid-given-to-yemen/2015/03/17/f4ca25ce-cbf9-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html?hpid=z3

    ReplyDelete