Follow by Email

Friday, July 17, 2015

Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh, "On Iran, Congress should just say no": Are There 43 Righteous Democrats in the House?




The embarrassing details of Obama's agreement with Iran continue to leak out. We have now learned that no Americans can participate in the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection teams. Why? Because they might actually try to find something. And then there was also Wendy Sherman's reference to Obama's decision to concede "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Oh, that was just a "rhetorical" demand made of the Iranians, we learned from social worker Wendy, who was also responsible for the disastrous nuclear agreement with North Korea.

About the 24 days given to Iran to accede to IAEA requests for inspection, Charles Krauthammer noted in his Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Worse than we could have imagined":

"Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical."

Obama's rejoinder to this contention during his news conference on Wednesday (my emphasis in yellow):

"This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. And by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we’re suspicious about, we’re going to be keeping eyes on it, so we’re going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that’s going to be something that will be evidence if we think some funny business is going on there, that we can then present to the international community."

But who is Obama's "we"? And if the president were to "present" evidence of "funny business" to the international community," what would the international community do with it? Laugh?

Needless to say, the president failed to reveal that there would be no Americans participating in the IAEA inspection teams. But let's suppose that Iran finally grants access to a suspected illicit site after 60 days, i.e. after the site has been scrubbed clean as a whistle: Does anyone really believe that Russia and China will facilitate the return of sanctions owing to the delay? Not a chance? Will Obama go to war over the infraction? Also, not a chance. The Iranians know Obama has no stomach for it.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "On Iran, Congress should just say no," Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh today make the case for rejecting Obama's deal with the Khamenei regime:

"A careful examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reveals that it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large; sunset clauses that are too short; a verification regime that is too leaky; and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect.

. . . .

The JCPOA stands as one of the most technologically permissive arms-control agreements in history. All is not lost, however, and with sensible amendments the accord can be strengthened. The United States should return to the table and insist that after the expiration of the sunset clause, the P5+1 and Iran should vote on whether to extend the agreement for an additional 10 years. A majority vote every 10 years should determine the longevity of the agreement, not an arbitrary time-clock. Further, the JCPOA has usefully stressed that all of Iran’s spent fuel from its heavy-water reactor will be shipped out permanently. A similar step should be taken with Iran’s enriched uranium. The revised agreement should also limit Iran to the first-generation centrifuges and rely on 'anytime, anywhere access.' These and other such measures could help forestall an Iranian bomb and stem the proliferation cascade in the Middle East that this agreement is likely to trigger."

Might Congress actually overrule Obama? As noted in a Wall Street Journal item entitled "Republicans Oppose the Iran Deal–but Can They Override a Veto?" by John Feehery:

"There are 247 Republicans in the House. They need 290 members to override a veto, which means they would need 43 Democrats to abandon Mr. Obama."

If the Senate can override the veto, are there 43 "righteous" Democrats in the House? I doubt it. What do they care if Obama has sown the seeds of a second Holocaust?

2 comments:

  1. Edelman/Takeyh excel at persuasive logic.

    Perhaps Khamenei holds the veto?
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/18/iran-nuclear-khamenei-idINKCN0PS05120150718

    As for the U. S. Senate? No one is certain about Schumer on a veto over-ride. No tell, yet.

    Could not find Feehery's WSJ article, which appears to focus on the House.

    Perhaps the Persian Empire descriptor will catch on (am sure Zuckerman meant Billions):
    http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/07/17/the-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-nightmare?google_editors_picks=true:

    "...Millions of dollars will go to sustaining revolutionary Iran's vision of restoring a Persian empire, establishing a "Shiite" arc from Tehran through Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to the Mediterranean. ..."

    k

    ReplyDelete