Image 01 Image 03

Iran Nuclear Deal: the World Reacts

Iran Nuclear Deal: the World Reacts

Obama “exceeded expectations,” and still managed to make a mess.

This morning, news broke confirming what conservatives have been dreading for weeks—Obama finally got his bad Iran deal, and is now threatening to veto any action by Congress that would derail it.

Iran is, of course, celebrating:

Israel, on the other hand, is predictably and justifiably furious about the west’s capitulation. PM Netanyahu’s tweets speak for themselves:


The deal still faces hurdles in Congress, but—as is the case with most breathtakingly reckless plans—the fact that it has already happened gives it an advantage over the efforts of the deal’s opponents. This nugget of news is crucial:

As NBC News senior political editor Mark Murray points out, the fact that Obama and Hillary have discussed the deal, and come out in full-throated support of it, means that it’s almost outside the scope of possibility that there will be enough congressional democrats ready to turn their coats and derail the thing.

Of note: Clinton’s initial reaction hedged against full-throated support…

…until it didn’t.

She also offered a statement:

“I think this is an important step which puts a lid on Iran’s nuclear programs. And it will enable us to then turn our attention as it must to doing what we can with our other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran’s other bad actions.”

“So all in all, we have to look at this seriously, evaluate it carefully but I believe based on what I know now that this is an important.”

Still, Republicans in Congress have been preparing for this moment, and are coming out in waves against the deal. House Speaker John Boehner revealed today that he believes the agreement will not only provide excessive sanctions relief, but pave the way for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Still, he and his staff are actually reading through the deal for confirmation that it is indeed as bad as everyone thinks it is, so look for specific attacks coming from the House caucus.

Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush has taken a similar tack, committing to reading the deal before launching specific attacks on the text. Is this a hedge? Maybe—but I also appreciate the optic. His primary opponents offered something a little more spicy:

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who launched his campaign Monday, said “President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be remembered as one of America’s worst diplomatic failures.” He was echoed by Florida senator Marco Rubio.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee issued a typically fiery statement, proclaiming “Shame on the Obama administration for agreeing to a deal that empowers an evil Iranian regime to carry out its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ and bring ‘death to America.’”

…the left-handed caucus, of course, can always be counted on to prop up a bad situation (credit to Schumer for at least pretending to be skeptical):

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders was even more positive about the deal on Tuesday, saying “[The deal] is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East.”

Senator Chuck Schumer, slated to become the next Senate Minority Leader, said he intends “to go through this agreement with a fine-tooth comb … Supporting or opposing this agreement is not a decision to be made lightly, and I plan to carefully study the agreement before making an informed decision.”

So, what’s the takeaway? First, this:

Obama “exceeded expectations,” and still managed to make a mess.

Sounds about right.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Not A Member of Any Organized Political | July 14, 2015 at 11:47 am

Oh My! Mulah President caught off mike:

“I sure made Obama do the pooch! Ha ha ha ha!”


snark snark

bobinreverse | July 14, 2015 at 12:03 pm

Dick and cover next?

HRC: “…to try to prevent and contain Iran’s *other* bad actions.”

Translation: some bad actions are OK, other bad actions are not.

I wonder how soon we’ll hear from HRC terms like “good bad actions” and “bad bad actions”, or she’ll break out her “bad-o-meter” and give us a numerical rating?

Note to self: if you give the enemy what they would otherwise seek to gain through war, you don’t have to fight a war! This is game-changing stuff! Seriously you guys!

Obama threatens Congress over Iran nuke deal.

Obama threatened SCOTUS over Obamacare, etc.

It’s not supposed to work this way in America.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
– George Santayana

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map on several occasions. Under international law Israel is justified in taking a preemptive strike against Iran. Even with nuclear weapons. Presumably, this bad deal will still delay Iran from developing a bomb for a couple of years. In the meantime Israel should quietly start a crash program to make as many ICBMs as possible to hit Iran with nuclear weapons. Output at Dimona should be maximized. There are hundreds of bomb designs which can deliver weapons with specific characteristics to accomplish a specific mission. If Israel has not yet created specific designs, it should start now. Especially creating enough EMPs large and small. If Dimona doesn’t have sufficient output, older bombs can be taken apart and reconfigured to newer designs. All this will be super expensive. Don’t expect a single dime from the Obama administration. But I would expect the Saudis to be greatly interested. After the Great Satan and the Little Satan, the Saudis are third in line for destruction by Iran. The Saudis hate the Jews for religious reasons, but I believe the Saudis feel they could trust them. Both countries are in the same dangerous predicament. The Saudis are looking for a nuclear deterrent. It’s either the Jews or the Pakis and the Paki designs are not anywhere as sophisticated as Israel’s. The Saudis may secretly finance Israel’s uparmament. That would be a good stiff thumb in Obama’s eye. He’s only got 18 months left. I would like to see the look on his face after he leaves office when his Iran deal goes up in a mushroom cloud.

Hopefully, Congress will derail it.

But not sure what they will do at this point. They might cave.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to heyjoojoo. | July 14, 2015 at 3:34 pm


    Normal procedure, to approve it you have to have a 2/3 majority to overcome a filibuster against the agreement, which means the Republican Majority could have stopped it with ease. The Corker bill passed and signed months ago reversed that. It now will take a 2/3 majority to over-ride a presidential veto of a bill stopping it, and that means it goes through.

    They knew this when they passed it.


    Sorry for yelling, but this was pointed out when the negotiations began, but nobody would listen.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | July 14, 2015 at 4:40 pm

      Congress actually had very little power before the Corker bill if Obama was not going to declare this a treaty. If I understand this correctly, the president had a power to lift or waive sanctions, which I think is the usual case with most U.S. sanctions (and of course to go along with a United Nations Security Council Resolution lifting UN sanctions, which are more important.)

      The Corker bill removed some of the power of the president to waive sanctions on Iran.

The two most dangerous things a nation can project in terms of foreign policy…

1. weakness

2. ambiguity

And we’ve been spinning both of these off for years.

I hope there is some way to avoid reaping the whirlwind that Barracula has been busily sewing. But that is a hope…

Henry Hawkins | July 14, 2015 at 1:43 pm

You no longer need to be French to be a cheese eating surrender monkey anymore.

Henry Hawkins | July 14, 2015 at 1:45 pm

Much concerning 2016 will depend on how the GOP Senate and House deal with this. They’ve caved on so many things already since last year. Caving here will damage them badly.

Obama “exceeded expectations,” and still managed to make a mess.

It depends on what expectations you had to begin with. I, for one, fully expected the Obama Administration – which held all the cards – would actively try to give Iran everything it demanded and more, and then spin it as being backed into a corner by hard-liners and getting the best deal we could. Which is precisely what it did.

Obama “exceeded expectations” in his ability to make an already-volatile mess even worse.

There. FTFY. 😉

The scrolling banner on my local TV news station proclaimed this as an “historic” agreement.

Of course they were using “historic” in its unbiased non-partisan sense.

Is there an app that will tell you, by zip code, if you are downwind?

Well, there’s always SMOD.

Sammy Finkelman | July 14, 2015 at 4:35 pm

Some further points about this deal and ancillary issues:

1) Congress can pass a Joint Resolution stating that is NOT a treaty and the U.S. government will not be legally bound by it, and that our interest does not end after 10 or 15 years, and if Iran looks like it might move toward a nuclear weapon, sanctions should be imposed even before this agreement expires. And neither does Iran have any immunity from sanctions for any other reason.

This is not something Obama can veto. It is not a law – it’s merely a declaration by one or both Houses of Congress.

It will be argued all this goes without saying, so that there is no need for such a resolution. But there is, to stiffen the spine of future U.S. government officeholders.

If that would cause Iran to reject the agreement, it is all to the good.

2) The deal, it was said this morning, was agreed to at 3 am Vienna time, which would be 9 pm Eastern time Monday, but it was announced at about 5 am Eastern time.

3) All the important details seem to be in the annexes.

4) By “snapback” Obama apparently means after 65 days, and the United States will not be able unilaterally to declare Iran in violation. It is very important who will have to agree. It might be no nation puts back any sanctions unless it agrees Iran is in violation, or maybe Russia has to declare Iran in violation, or something equally as bad.

5) Some unspecified nation will be supervising a lot of Iran’s program. That could make it very hard to do a surprise attack.

6) Obama, it is reported, re-classified some sanctions as nuclear related.

Walker Evans | July 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm

We need to change the way we refer to the major players here; herewith are my suggestions:

President Barack Obama will henceforth be referred to as Pre4sident Vikun Quisling Obama

Secretary John Kerry will henceforth be referred to as Secretary Aldrich Ames Kerry

These names seem to be much more fitting considering their performances in ensuring that Iran will now have nuclear weapons, thus becoming the most powerful terrorist regime in history.
From 2006, as true then as today, my brother kept this link since he first read back then and sent it to me today.
Stanley thought it’d be presidente hitlery who would do the big deal, about the only thing he missed.
Castro is the master and pioneer of ornery third-world defiance.

It’s remarkable that, absent any great-power protection, and even after becoming, without Soviet subsidies, a permanent economic basket-case, Castro’s regime has not collapsed.
Let that be a lesson to those who wait for the collapse of regimes in Iran, North Korea, or Palestine because of long-term economic failure and/or economic sanctions. Yes, popular uprisings happen (as in Iran against the Shah). Yet it’s also clear that a posture of anti-Western defiance, combined with nationalism, ideology, and dictatorial rule is perfectly capable of sustaining a miserable, poverty-stricken, failed system far, far beyond the point that Westerners would consider tolerable or believable.
The West is on a collision course with Iran. There will either be a preemptive war against Iran’s nuclear program, or an endless series of hot-and-cold war crises following Iran’s acquisition of a bomb. And an Iranian bomb means further nuclear proliferation to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as a balancing move by the big Sunni states. With all those Islamic bombs floating around, what are the chances the U.S. will avoid a nuclear terrorist strike over the long-term?
You don’t believe that dovishness and negotiations will fail? Just wait till President Hillary tries to buy off the Iranians with a “grand bargain.”

    Walker Evans in reply to 4fun. | July 16, 2015 at 1:12 am

    Many (most?) agreements of this sort have secret protocols. I wonder if this one contains a protocol stating that when Israel attacks the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, which is their only real option if their country is to survive, we will send in ships, air assets, and troops in support of … Iran?

    This is just the sort of thing the Transnational Progressives in charge of our country would set up, fundamentally transforming this country, as promised.