Iran - Never Has the World Been So Badly Served by an American President

As the Obama administration moves toward an unprecedented nuclear deal with Iran, former Democratic Senator and vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman has written an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal to warn President Obama about "the Constitution and history" argument that says Congress should be able to review any agreement with a foreign power that affects national security. In the piece, Lieberman supports the bipartisan legislation proposed by Republican Senator Bob Corker and Democratic Senator Bob Menendez that would allow Congress to approve or reject an accord with Iran. Lieberman says : "The legislation now before the Senate, which may be taken up as early as next week, would allow Congress to assume its rightful role in a responsible, measured way....The White House has threatened a veto, arguing that a deal with Iran would be a 'nonbinding' executive agreement and therefore congressional review would represent an inappropriate intrusion. Not so....The Constitution and history, not to mention common sense, argue that it is entirely proper for America’s elected representatives in Congress to review a far-reaching agreement with a foreign government of such national-security significance....Congress has clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process....a nuclear deal with Iran would represent an historic and highly controversial strategic commitment - precisely the kind of national decision in which congressional involvement is most warranted." Lieberman added that Congress should also scrutinize an Iran agreement "because the sanctions under negotiation are overwhelmingly the creation of Congress -- put in law through bills passed by large bipartisan majorities. Given that Congress built the sanctions against Iran, it is unreasonable to bar it from any review or oversight in how that architecture is disassembled." Lieberman warned President Obama that the country’s most successful leaders have recognized the need to ensure the support of the American people : "Congress has every right to review any agreement with Iran that the Obama administration reaches. The administration would benefit greatly if any deal it negotiates passes muster on Capitol Hill as well as in Teheran." ~~~~~ Why did the respected Senator Lieberman feel compelled to give his analysis the high profile of a WSJ article? Because he, like almost every American and ally, sees the folly in the few details leaking out about the highly secretive negotiation that many characterize as a sellout to a sworn enemy of America at the expense of her own citizens and friends around the world. ~~~~~ The Fiscal Times published an article yesterday that spells out the problem in trusting Iran, as Obama obviously does. From Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's urgent message to Congress to resist Iran, to the open letter by 47 Republican Senators to tell Iranian leaders that Congress will need to approve any deal Obama may make with Teheran over its nuclear program, to the Portman-Menendez bill that would force Obama to bring any Iran deal to Congress. As US politicians try to stop Obama from agreeing to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Iranian regime is buying power and influence in neighboring Iraq and across the Middle East. In the contest for regional dominance with the sunnis led by Saudi Arabia, Iran’s shiites have extended their reach across an “arc of power,” a Shia Crescent -- encompassing Iraq, where Iran now leads the fight to defeat ISIS; Syria where Teheran has kept President Bashar al-Assad in power throughout the country’s four-year civil war; Lebanon, where Iran-backed Hezbollah is the unquestioned power pushing to take political control; and, Yemen, where Iran-sponsored shiite Houthi rebels have taken control of the government. Iran’s influence has increased while America's has diminished. The main reason is what Obama calls “war fatigue.” But this is simply his catch-phrase justification for pushing ahead with granting Iran nuclear bomb capability -- opposed by 84% of Americans. How did we get here? ~~~~~ We are near the end of a long game that Obama started at his inauguration in 2009 : “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” The terrorist Iranian regime knew that Obama was offering an opening. Iran had been since the return of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, and under his successor Khamenei, a killing machine -- hundreds executed, thousands targeted for assassination in other countries, including the Buenos Aires bombing that killed 85 Jews and wounded 300, and the 2011 attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador, under Obama's nose in Washington. Khamenei interpreted Obama’s 2009 words as weakness. Six months later, he brutally suppressed the Green Revolution. When Obama did nothing, Khamenei knew he was right. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he now regrets the restraint; they were advised by the CIA and the State Department that too powerful an American voice might enable the regime to say the protesters were American puppets. Could be. But the inaction was also an expression of Obama's strategy of conciliation. Khamenei's reaction to Obama's restraint was to build an underground bunker at Fordo for the enrichment of uranium - a violation of agreements under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. That gave Obama an opportunity to follow the angry French lead and react forcefully. But, as Obama hesitated, Khamenei chose to be "reasonable," agreeing that the Iranians would ship their stockpiles of low-grade fissile material to Russia in exchange for fuel rods for energy. Obama took the bait. He resisted congressional hawks, but Congress voted 99 to 0 to enact the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act. Once again, Khamenei reneged on his promise, and recently the Iranians insisted that no transfers of enrichzd uranium occurred. Iran kept its uranium, although Iran's failure has not been the subject of headline news. Obama's reaction to the Iranian treachery seems to have been to change his mind about attacking Iran's protégé al-Assad over his use of chemical weapons. Instead Obama retreated from the red line he had drawn and decided not to equip Syrian rebels. Later, Obama opened a secret bilateral channel to Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s regime, according to Mosaic’s Michael Doran. Major concessions were offered on ending sanctions and permitting the Iranians to continue enriching uranium to 5% levels. Six UN Security Council resolutions had ordered Iran to cease all enrichment and reprocessing. Iran refused. But, Obama was prepared to end the economic sanctions on Iran entirely and allow the Iranians to enrich uranium in perpetuity, Doran wrote. ~~~~~ Obama is so singleminded in his pursuit of a deal with Iran that he has also not been forthright with the American people. In reporting on the November 2013 interim agreement, he boasted that it had “halted” Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, major American concessions were traded for Iranian gestures of temporary restraint. Instead of halting the Iranian program, the agreement allowed Iran to continue increasing the efficiency of their centrifuges and to master the use of modern, more effective centrifuges. No nuclear plant is being dismantled, another Obama lie to America and the world. The Iranian foreign minister even said in a TV interviewer that there was not a single word in the agreement that resembled dismantling. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani went further, saying Iran had refused to destroy centrifuges and would never destroy them, contrary to the implicit suggestion by President Obama that the agreement would force the Iranians to dismantle 15,000 centrifuges. Khamenei is betting that Obama will accommodate Iran even if it pursues a full-scale nuclear program. And, Obama has apparently retreated again -- agreeing Iran could have $700 million a month in revenues, reportedly allowing Iran to retain in one form or another its facilities in Natanz, Fordo and Arak, built in deliberate violation of the non-proliferation treaty, and running 6,000 centrifuges. ~~~~~ Dear readers, it's easy to see why Americans and the world feel Obama explains his Iran negotiations in evasive and untruthful terms. Obama withholds details from Congress. He has threatened Netanyahu not to divulge any details.This week, John Kerry talks to his Iranian counterpart while the other members of the P5+1 wait 'outside.' Obama is not believed now because he has spent six years playing fast and loose with the truth -- about Iran and many other topics. His foreign policy - if it ever existed - is in shreds. It has come down to giving Iran a sure path to nuclear weapons. Never has America or the world been so badly served by an American President. Let us pray, "Never again."