Obama's Lone-Wolf Iran Deal Creates a Nuclear Threat Worldwide

The dust has settled on the initial wide-ranging reactions to the weekend preliminary agreement between western powers and Iran. If you want to tally the reactions, it's a very quick calculation. FAVORABLE - Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran President Rouhani, Iran Foreign Minister Zarif, Russian President Putin, President Obama. OPPOSED - The rest of the world. That includes the US Congress, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, the US military and diplomatic services, most European nations whose diplomats were more or less tricked into entering a 'negotiation' that was already over. ~~~~~ Because, as we learned yesterday from AP, Obama and Iran have been in discussions since Obama's first term. The meetings began while Amhadinejad was still Iranian president - after his vicious crackdown on Iranian democratic demonstrators and while he was sending arms and soldiers to aid al-Assad's and Hezbollah's attack on Syrian freedom fighters. The secret meetings, which included Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, Vice President Joe Biden's top foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan, National Security Council aide Puneet Talwar and four other officials, later joined by chief US nuclear negotiator Wendy Sherman. They met in Oman with an unnamed Iranian delegation that apparently changed after Rouhani's election early in 2013. According to AP's sources, the Americans understood that the Iranians had some authority to negotiate from Ayatollah Khamenei. Obama's team and the Iranians discussed nuclear issues, Iranian involvement in Syria, Teheran's threats to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz and the status of Robert Levinson, a missing former FBI agent who the US believes was abducted in Iran, as well as two other Americans detained in the country. They did not discuss Iran's threats to annihilate Israel, apparently. Hoping to keep the channel open, Kerry made an official visit to Oman in May, ostensibly to push a military deal with the sultanate, but actually focused on maintaining the key mediation role of the Sultan of Oman. Rouhani's election on a moderate platform of easing the crippling sanctions and a willingness to engage with the West gave Obama new hope, the AP sources said. Two secret meetings occurred immediately after Rouhani took office in August, with the specific goal of advancing the stalled nuclear talks with world powers. Another pair of meetings took place in October. It is these meetings that led to the key terms of the current accord agreed between Obama and Iran, which was made before Obama told congressional leaders or Israel or France or the UK. It was after Obama phoned Rouhani in September that the American President phoned Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to explain the deal. It was then that Netanyahu went public with his "wolf in sheep's clothing" UN speech and his opposition to any Iran deal that eased sanctions before a total dismantling of Iran's nuclear facilities. And it was after being informed of the secret deal that France balked, refusing to agree immediately to the US - Iran private accord. Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional rival and America's ally, was also told late and reacted negatively, according to the AP sources. Perhaps Saudi's sudden refusal to take its seat at the UN Security Council may have been prompted by the US secret deal with Iran. ~~~~~ But, undoubtedly knowing that they could do little to oppose or influence the Obama - Iran deal, Saudi Arabia cautiously welcomed the deal on Monday. "This agreement could be a first step towards a comprehensive solution for Iran's nuclear programme, if there are good intentions," a statement said. However, a London-based Saudi official earlier told the BBC his country had been lied to. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague welcomed the Geneva accord, but said it was only a "first step." "We are right to test to the full Iran's readiness to act in good faith," he told the House of Commons. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French radio today that 'nothing is settled.' Mr Fabius said, "Iran is committed to giving up the prospect of nuclear weapons. It's perfectly clear." However, Fabius insisted the temporary deal could be reversed if its terms were not adhered to. Asked when sanctions could start to be lifted, he said it could begin "in December." EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton's spokesman Michael Mann said the timing would be co-ordinated with Iran. "It could be in December, it could be in January, depending on how long the legislative process takes," he told reporters. This is because the entire EU must agree before any European sanctions are lifted. ~~~~~ Dear readers, we will have time to look in more detail at the Iran deal. But, what is now important to understand is that it is Obama's deal. He may see it as a foreign policy triumph. He arrived at its conclusion in his characteristically isolated, lone-wolf way of operating. Perhaps the Iranians saw this weakness in Obama's personality and used it to wheedle a deal extremely favorable to Iran and very dangerous for Israel, the Saudi-led sunni American allies and the rest of the world. Note that only the West's enemies agree with Obama. So, Barack Obama must from now on defend Iran all alone -- its aid to al-Assad's murderous regime, its arms shipments to Hezbollah, its support of Gulf State shiite rebellions aimed at overthrowing the Saudi sunni hegemony, its support for the Afghanistan Taliban, its support of al-Qaida, its wildly hate-filled attacks on Israel. And if, as the world believes, Obama has simply given Iran time in which to finish its nuclear weapons and intercontinental missile program, then Obama will also be responsible for any Iranian sale to North Korea of nuclear bombs that land in California or Hezbollah nuclear bombs that land in Turkey or Paris or Tel Aviv. As Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett made the case in graphic terms. “If five years from now a nuclear suitcase explodes in Madrid and New York it will be because of the agreement signed this morning." ~~~~~ But perhaps Barack Obama made his goals clear years ago when he said : "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." ___Barack Obama, Cairo University, June 4, 2009.

Let Us not Jump into Iran's Outstretched Arms too Hastily

The Iran nuclear negotiations continue. Here are the important details in a 'large' nutshell. ~~~~~ Talks resumed in Geneva Wednesday aimed at finding a deal that will begin the rollback of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Wednesday began with senior envoys reviewing a draft, to make it acceptable to both Teheran and the six world powers negotiating with it. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said as this week's talks began that they expected the West to have a unified position, noting that differences among the six powers had set back the talks. The AP reported that Araghchi said : "What we are trying now is to rebuild confidence that we lost in the previous round of negotiations." He spoke of a "misunderstanding or...mismanagement in the previous round," and of the "difficult job" of trying to bridge differences. Later, some headway seemed to have been made, with Araghchi telling Iran's IRNA news agency that "we regained some of our lost trust." He also told IRNA that talks have included possible ways to reduce sanctions on Iranian oil sales and banking. The US and its partners have indicated that they would offer some sanction concessions, such as unfreezing Iranian bank accounts from previous oil sales. This would be during a six-month period in which the parties would pursue a comprehensive agreement to ensure that Teheran's nuclear enrichment program is solely for civilian purposes. The western partners point out that Iran would receive only limited sanction relief under such a first-step deal, with no easing of the harshest measures that make it nearly impossible for Iran to sell oil, its main revenue maker. An anonymous member of the US Congress and legislative aides have suggested to AP that the relief would amount to $6 - 10 billion, based on what they called Obama administration estimates. Sanction rollbacks must be limited to satisfy influential members of Congress, who argue that sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table and cannot be relaxed until Teheran offers significant concessions. And on the Iranian side, hardliner politicians and their millions of supporters do not trust Rouhani, elected in September, fearing that his team will give away Iran's right to enrich uranium but not get enough in terms of sanctions relief over the six-months of any first-stage agreement. France's concern that the negotiators were rushing into a flawed deal with Iran helped delay an agreement during a session two weeks ago. French President Francois Hollande re-iterated France's position last week before the Israeli Knesset, saying that France will "maintain the sanctions as long as we are not certain that Iran has definitively and irreversibly renounced its military program to obtain nuclear weapons....France will not let Iran arm itself with nuclear weapons." This week in Geneva, an Iranian delegation member said his country recognizes that core oil and banking sanctions could not be lifted immediately but suggested Iran expects some relief in those sectors over the six-month period of the preliminary agreement. He also said Iran was ready to discuss a limit on its uranium enrichment, which can create both reactor fuel and the core of nuclear warheads. But he said that Iran wants at least an indirect mention in the first-stage agreement of Teheran's right to uranium enrichment, which the United States and its allies have refused to do. Iranian leaders have refused to consider giving up Iran's ability to make nuclear fuel, which is the central sticking point of the talks because the same process used to make reactor stock can be used to make weapons-grade material. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, voiced support for the talks Wednesday but insisted there are limits to what Teheran will deal away at the negotiating table. He blasted Israel as "the rabid dog of the region" - comments rejected by French President Francois Hollande as "unacceptable." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in Moscow to meet with Russian President Putin when the Ayatollah made his anti-semitic remark, renewed his demand for a full stop to all Iranian nuclear programs that could be turned from peaceful uses to making weapons. Netanyahu urged the world to see the "real Iran." That, he said was not the YouTube message posted by Zarif saying Iran wants peace, but Khamenei calling Jews "rabid dogs." he told a gathering of Russian Jews. Talks have continued since Wednesday and by Saturday, despite the secrecy surrounding them, leaks suggest they have reached agreement about ways Iran could retain some level of enrichment, but at a level far below what's need for weapons. Other roadblocks not resolved include the level of sanctions relief and the future of a plutonium reactor under construction at Arak that the western partners want closed, because plutonium can also be used to make weapons. Late Saturday, no deal had been announced and it seems that negotiations will continue Sunday. However, US Secretary of State Kerry's spokeswoman said he still plans to travel to London on Sunday for meetings on other Middle East issues. Kerry is to meet with Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan in London to discuss the security situation and ongoing political reforms in that country. Kerry and his counterparts from Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany joined the Geneva talks this weekend after Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif and top European Union diplomat Catherine Ashton reported progress on enrichment and other issues. The foreign ministers themselves sought to discourage the idea that because they came to Geneva the talks have been successful. British Foreign Secretary William Hague spoke of "very difficult negotiations," over issues that blocked agreement earlier. Hague told reporters. "We're here because they're difficult, and they remain difficult." The key difficulties? -- Iran's insistence that it has no interest in nuclear weapons but needs enrichment to generate electricity and for scientific and medical purposes is viewed with skepticism by the West because of Teheran's earlier efforts to hide enrichment. Israel, not a party to the talks, opposes allowing any Iranian enrichment capability. Iran says it can freeze enrichment at its highest-known achieved level - 20%. But critics worry that Iran could ramp up to weapons grade enrichment quickly if the 20% threshold is allowed to remain. ~~~~~ Dear readers, it may seem like a diplomatic dance that ordinary people could quickly end with an agreement. But, it is important to remember that a nuclear-capable or nuclear-armed Iran would change the world balance of power forever. Not only would a nuclear Iran be ready to provide nuclear arms to Syria's al-Assad, Hezbollah and Hamas, it would also be able to attack and destroy much of Israel, one of its often-voiced goals. Thus, the Middle East would be forced into a nuclear arms race, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, the Gulf States and all sunnis feeling obliged to be prepared for an Iranian nuclear attack. Farther afield, Iran could provide nuclear arms to the Taliban, al-Qaida, and North Korea, with whom it is already consulting on nuclear technology. The entire world would be plunged back into the Cold War nuclear arms race. So, it is better to rely on sanctions to get a good deal for the world rather than to give in to sophisticated Iranian negotiating techniques. As Israel has said, it will never allow Iran to have nuclear arms, whether it has to act with allies or alone. Far better to hang tough, support Israel, and France, and bring Iran to its senses, if possible. If not, the military option is still available.

"We are the watchmen on the walls of freedom." JFK, Nov. 22,1963.

November 22, 1963. Anyone who was alive and old enough to understand, will never forget the unearthly chill that filled body and soul when the shot rang out, when Jackie climbed onto the trunk of the convertible to retrieve part of her husband's skull, when Walter Cronkite announced the incomprehensible news. I still weep when I allow myself to think about it. It. The day that the world began to try to come to terms with the snuffing out of America's youth. But notwithstanding the Camelot image, JFK was a cold war hawk, a social moderate and an old-style practical politician who knew how to win, one way or another. The proof : "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." But he had two brothers who cast a liberal net over his agenda to appeal to the youth of America and the world. He was likeable...charismatic...inspirational. At 46 and 1000 days into an ordinary presidency by most measures, John Firzgerald Kennedy was cut down. His accomplishments - the Cuban missile crisis, the Peace Corps, his echoing "Ich bin ein Berliner." There doesn't seem to be anything there that pointed to the kind of hatred that leads to assassination. But, there few Americans today who do not harbor the suspicion that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy. No one has proven it or even shown acceptable nuances of proof. And so we remember and mourn the loss of JFK and of the youthful energy of the innocent world he represented - and took with him to his grave. President Kennedy was in Dallas on that fateful day to give a speech. Although he never had the opportunity to give the speech, one of its messages would still resonate deeply in the hearts and consciences of Americans, even though the context has changed almost beyond recognition. In these times that require often superhuman determination to preserve liberty, we all can take courage from JFK's haunting words : "We are the watchmen on the walls of freedom...may we be worthy..."

Reid and Obama Destroy the Little Goodwill Left in Washinton

The US Senate Democrat majority today voted to end the 60-vote requirement for bringing to the floor for a vote the confirmation of presidential appointees to judicial and administrative positions. Supreme Court nominee confirmations were excluded from the new rule. President Obama agreed with the Senate vote spearheaded by Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid. Ironically, it was another Senate Democrat majority that enacted the 60-vote rule almost 40 years ago. The key vote was 52-48, with all but three Democrats - Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia - voting for the change and all 45 Republicans opposed. The move would limit the ability of the minority party to deploy the filibuster, a delaying and blocking tactic. In an institution that prides itself on giving power to the minority party and moving slowly on its business, the filibuster is the minority's main source of leverage. The rule change led by Senator Reid allows confirmation of nominees along party lines, by closing debate and allowing a Senate vote to proceed with just 51 votes. The Senate minority party, currently Republicans, until now had the power to require 60 votes, by invoking filibusters, in order for a confirmation vote to proceed. The change would apply to most executive branch and judicial nominations, except nominations to the Supreme Court, and would not apply to legislation. President Obama said he supported the Senate action, which he described as an appropriate response to an "unprecedented" level of obstruction by Senate Republicans to his nominees. He added that the GOP actions had contributed to Congress's low approval ratings, and that neither party was blameless in the matter of obstruction. The vote marks a major adjustment to the rules of the Senate, a proud, tradition- bound institution that hasn't made a change of this magnitude in more than a generation. The Wall Street Journal gave a taste of the importance of the unusual procedural debate, writing that almost all of the Senators were present and seated at their desks in the Senate chamber as the day's proceedings began, a rarity...the Senate's most senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) served as presiding officer, a role typically filled by junior members. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans had approved 99% of Obama's judicial nominees and that the change would diminish the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent'' role in assessing nominations. Senator McConnell ripped into Reid for triggering it. McConnell accused Democrats of picking a “fake fight over judges” to try and “distract the public” from the problems of Obamacare. “It only reinforces the narrative of a party willing to do or say just about anything to get its way,” said McConnell. “Once again, Democrats are threatening to break the rules of the Senate...in order to change the rules of the Senate,...And over what? Over a court that doesn’t have enough work to do.” After the vote, McConnell declined to comment on the prospect of Republican retaliation. “I don’t think this is the time to be talking about reprisals. I think it’s a time to be sad about what’s been done to the United States Senate,” he said. Democrats say the filibuster has been abused for obstruction rather than as a last-resort vehicle for principled opposition. Republicans have "turned 'advice and consent' into divide and obstruct,'' according to Senator Reid. Since late October, Reid said Republican senators have blocked Obama's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and three nominees to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Shortly after changing the rules, Senate Democrats used the new, 51-vote threshold to advance to a final vote. After the Thanksgiving recess, the nomination of Patricia Millett to be a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will be voted on, having cleared the procedural hurdle with support from 55 senators. Republicans previously had blocked her nomination under the 60-vote requirement. On Wednesday, Reid rejected a deal proposed by Senator John McCain to confirm one judge to the D.C. Circuit Court, according to an aide. The last substantial change to confirmation rules came in 1975, when Senators established the 60-vote threshold for ending filibusters. Previously, a 2/3 vote was required. The debate also marked a startling departure from a similar Senate debate in 2005, when Republicans held the majority and threatened to impose their own rules change. At the time, Democrats had blocked a set of judicial nominees chosen by President George W. Bush. Senator Chuck Schumer, who voted for today's change, said in 2005 that the rule change would end "the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.'' Senator McConnell, who opposed today's change, said in 2005 that changing the rules wasn't unusual : "Despite the incredulous protestations of our Senate colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate." BUT, the Republicans did not use their majority in 2005 to change the filibuster rule. After Thursday's vote, Senator Reid acknowledged that Democrats have taken a different position in the past. But he said political circumstances have changed and that Republicans have been using obstruction of nominees to undercut the legitimacy of the Obama presidency and policies they oppose. "Things have changed dramatically since 2005," Senator Reid said. "They have done everything they can to deny the fact that Obama was elected - then re-elected." ~~~~~ Today's Senate rule change may seem minor if you are not American. But for Americans, the Senate is considered the debating chamber that keeps the United States on an even keel, with no sudden jolts of policy. As an indication of the importance of the explosive action taken today by Senate Democrats under Harry Reid, the procedural motion Reid used is known as the "nuclear option" because critics warn it would obliterate bipartisan relations in the Senate. The specific procedural vote to change the Senate's rules was to sustain the ruling of the chair that nominees need 60 votes to advance to final passage. Democrats voted against sustaining the ruling of the chair and in favor of changing the Senate's rules. The final vote was 48-52. In his floor comments, Reid said the filibuster had rendered the Senate’s basic duty of confirming presidential nominees “completely unworkable....The need for change is so, so very obvious,” he said.“These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote, but Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote, any vote, and deny the president his team.” The two parties have effectively changed sides on the 'nuclear option' since Democrats gained control of the upper chamber in the 2006 election. Republicans accuse Democrats of hypocrisy for embracing a controversial tactic they criticized in 2005, when Republicans threatened to go nuclear to move then-President George W. Bush’s stalled nominees. “To change the rules in the Senate can't be done by a simple majority. It can only be done if there is extended debate by 67 votes,” Reid said in May of 2005. “They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right,” Reid said in 2005. ~~~~~ In any case, neither side, when it supports any status quo, can point to the US Constitution for support. Article I, Section 5.2 is clear :  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Filibuster rules fall under "Rules of Proceedings" and can be changed by the Senate. It is up to the Senate Rules Committee to decide what can and cannot be done, and legal recourse is not possible inless the Majority Leader had acted in a manner that could make him subject to impeachment. Not likely here. The other relevant part of the US Constitution is Article II, Section 2.2 : "He [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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:..." ~~~~~ So, dear readers, we can now expect to have even more of the Washington dysfunction that has marked the Obama presidency. The solution required in the present poisonous atmosphere that prevails today in Washington is to elect a House and Senate with a majority of the same party in 2014...preferrably Republican in order to restrain the dangerous actions of the Obama White House.