Obama can’t blame Netanyahu anymore for opposition to Iran nuke deal
Enemies uniting against Iran nuke deal
The Obama administration and its supporters try to paint opposition to the Iran nuke deal as a Bibi Netanyahu problem.
That’s a convenient excuse, because it allows Obama to play the Democrat loyalty card among members still upset about Bibi’s appearance in Congress. It also plays into “Israel Lobby” demonization, the bogeyman of the left.
The opposition to the Iran nuke deal, however, is bringing together usual political enemies. Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic interviews Isaac Herzog, Bibi’s primary domestic political opponent, Israeli Opposition Leader: Iran Deal Will Bring Chaos to the Middle East:
Last December, when I interviewed the leader of Israel’s left-leaning Labor Party, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Forum, he said, in reference to nuclear negotiations with Iran: “I trust the Obama administration to get a good deal.”
In a telephone call with me late last night, Herzog’s message was very different. The deal just finalized in Vienna, he said, “will unleash a lion from the cage, it will have a direct influence over the balance of power in our region, it’s going to affect our borders, and it will affect the safety of my children.”
Iran, he said, is an “empire of evil and hate that spreads terror across the region,” adding that, under the terms of the deal, Iran “will become a nuclear-threshold state in a decade or so.” Iran will take its post-sanctions windfall, he said, and use the funds to supply more rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon, more ammunition to Hamas in Gaza, and “generally increase the worst type of activities that they’ve been doing.”
A similar tone was taken by Saudi Arabia, normally Israel’s enemy (though the two seem to have some tacit understandings when it comes to Iran), Saudi Prince Bandar: The U.S. nuclear pact with North Korea failed. The Iran deal is worse:
Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States between 1981 and 2005, has written a damning column in which he compares the Iran nuclear deal to the failed nuclear deal with North Korea — and concludes it will have even worse consequences.
Writing for the London-based Arabic news Web site Elaph, Badar suggests that President Obama is knowingly making a bad deal, while President Bill Clinton had made a deal with North Korea with the best intentions and the best information he had. The new deal will “wreak havoc” in the Middle East, which is already destabilized due to Iranian actions, Bandar writes.
Writing about the failed deal with North Korea, which was agreed in 1994 and collapsed in 2003, Bandar says, “it turned out that the strategic foreign policy analysis was wrong and there was a major intelligence failure.” He added that if Clinton had known the full picture, “I am absolutely confident he would not have made that decision.”
Prince Bandar has this scathing critic of the Obama administration:
The Saudi prince says the new Iran deal and other developments in the region have led him to conclude that a phrase first used by Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more” – is correct.
With such disparate forces coming together against the nuke deal, it is hard for Obama to turn opposition into the Bibi Lobby, or even the Israel Lobby.
But I’m sure he’ll continue to try.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Obama is 100% at fault and defective, and totally to blame for any opposition to this give-a-way.
Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more”
Oops, meant to include that…..very telling….
Any. Body. With two working brain cells knows this is a catastrophically BAD “agreement”.
The world knows, and Barracula can’t lie around this.
Which is why it would be pathological behavior for the Republicans, in control of both houses of Congress, to touch the “agreement” with a ten foot pole. Leave it alone! It’s BHO’s baby, period. When the fallout hits the fan, he will get all the credit that he deserves. It will be his greatest legacy.
For the zillionth time:
“If Obama were out to destroy America (and Israel) what would he be doing?”
Wake up, America.
Much of America will never wake up. They’re either not capable or they are fellow travelers.
But the hacks running the Republican Party? What excuse do they have? And what excuse do WE have for tolerating their leading OUR party?
Wake up, ‘average’ people.
“But I’m sure he’ll continue to try.”
and the MFM will do everything they can to help him…
we are SO screwed.
“I trust the Obama administration
That was your first mistake.
I should have bought that gun store when I had the chance. Obama would have made me a millionaire. But – I did not.
SO… now I think I should by an Army Navy Prepper store. Because there is a big chance that nuclear war is coming to the Middle East in +- 5 years.
Anyone else have any suggestions of how to profit from the coming nuclear exchange? Or, at least survive?
Boehner and McConnell should make a public appearance together and say:
(1) we have concluded that this is a treaty, which the Constitution requires the President to submit to the Senate, or
(2) this is not a treaty, in which case the President may claim to be exercising his foreign policy prerogatives, in which case the Constitution leaves no role for the Congress
There is no third option, no option involving approval of both houses of Congress.
Right – because Obama always follows what Republicans believe is the Constitutional order, right? And the letter of the law?
The point is how do you FORCE him to submit it as a treaty, and the answer is it can’t be done without a veto-proof majority in both House and Senate. The Corker bill is the toughest measure for which such a coalition could be assembled.
Just saying Obama must do something has no effect on him at all.
First resort to sarcasm? Thanks.
The Congress cannot FORCE the President to do anything. The Congress can remove the President, but this Congress has made it crystal clear it will not do that, not just because neither Boehner nor McConnell have cojones, but because “the people” don’t want that.
My point, which you appear to have missed, is that the Congress can refuse to play the game, and leave BHO holding the bag. Once Congress accepts that it has some Constitutional jurisdiction over a “not treaty”, the Congress becomes complicit in what happens. The Congress should refuse to touch it in any sense other than a treaty, submitted to the Senate.
i object to calling this Obama’s thing a “deal” it’s a “giveaway” plain and simple with nothing given in return so it’s not a contract, it’s not a deal of exchanged value, it’s a nuke giveaway…period.
Well part of Obama’s animus in office has been topping the acomplisments of America’s first “black” president and he certainly succeeded in this case.