Trust us

[Lord Jim]

So you're saying that the "most likely possible" scenario is that the US and our allies will push to delay the inspection process as long as possible????? Why the hell would you believe that???

That's the wrong question...

The right question is, "how long will the US and/or its allies indulge Iranian intransigence and Russian and/or Chinese resistance, before stirring themselves to actually do something?"

The record indicates, (look at all the "deadline" extensions on the negotiations, and the enormously time consuming process in getting the sanctions in the first place) That the answer to that question is "quite a long time indeed"...

The whole history of how this was negociated is the history of the US and it's allies caving to the Iranians (and the Russians and the Chinese) on point after point after point...

You think we're suddenly gonna grow a pair?

In fact the reality is that it's highly unlikely that the US and it's allies will strictly enforce the maximum deadlines that exist in this deal, making the 24 days most likely a low end number.

As for "the sanctions snapping back into place" even though in theory if we and our allies (The UK, France and Germany) voted to do this it would happen even if the Russians and Chinese disagreed, it's highly unlikely that either of those countries would actually re-impose the sanctions, under any circumstances. (In the case of Russia in particular no agreement signed while Putin is in charge is worth the paper it's printed on. Just ask the Ukrainians.)

In fact, our ally Turkey thinks it's a good deal, our allies in the Arab Gulf States are on board with the deal,

Yeah right, the Turks and all the Gulf States are delighted with a deal that greatly enhances Iranian power and puts hundreds of billions of dollars into its pockets....

That assertion beggars the imagination; all the countries involved have previously demonstrated displeasure with this. If they're reluctantly (publicly anyway) accepting it now, it's only because they don't want to have an open rift with the US over something they can't do anything about.

This deal is not great--no deal is. But given the alternatives, I think we are better off with it than without it.

This is a version of the "a bad deal is better than no deal" argument, which at the end of the day because so much of what was agreed to is indefensible on the merits, is what the Administration is reduced to arguing.

[Long Run]

Exactly what was wrong with maintaining the status quo with continuing sanctions? Why is that not a reasonable option?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Exactly what was wrong with maintaining the status quo with continuing sanctions? Why is that not a reasonable option?

That has my vote.

[Lord Jim]

Exactly what was wrong with maintaining the status quo with continuing sanctions? Why is that not a reasonable option?

The Administration line on this is that they couldn't get the other countries involved to go along with that approach. Of course we have no idea whether they even tried, or if they did, how hard they tried. (If they did, they probably tried about as hard as they tried to get a residual force agreement with Iraq.)

I don't think the Administration ever saw this as a desirable option and I very much doubt they made any serious effort to pursue it. It became pretty obvious that Obama desperately wanted an agreement for his "legacy" and would pay just about any price to get it. (The proof of this is how lousy the final product turned out to be.)

No doubt the Iranians and every other party to the negociations knew this as well.

Hell, they even caved in to Iran's last minute demand to lift sanctions on ballistic missile technology, even though they had sworn up and down that this agreement would only cover sanctions imposed specifically related to the nuclear bomb development program, and that all other sanctions would remain in place.

[liberty]

Where do I go to register my prediction so that it will not be preserved and not forgotten: I predict that Iran will get nukes and Obama’s claims it will not happen will be forgotten and or blamed another president. So the question is: How do we deal with a nuclear Iran? I have two suggestions: Arm the Arabs with nukes as a counter measure to the Iranians; the Israelis will love that. And since nukes favor the crazy we have to be prepared to see each of their crazies and raise then two crazies. For example, they seize a small boat and authorize privateers to seize Iranian oil shipments.

Also since most liberals, not many like LBJ, know they are going to hell they are too afraid to die. Don’t elect them president, we need people like President Reagan to deal with Iran.....…….I know that the Iranian people love Americans, but they are irrelevant.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Where do I go to register my prediction so that it will not be preserved and not forgotten

That's a real conundrum.

[Guinevere]

Thank you Senator Mikulski, for signing on as Senator number 34 to support the move towards peace!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/03/world ... -news&_r=0

[MajGenl.Meade]

Mikulski? Commie!

(wesw said it. Not me!)

[Lord Jim]

It was never really in doubt that the votes would be found in the House and the Senate to barely sustain the Presidential veto of this appalling "deal"....

The good news is that the Administration that was unable to negociate a residual force agreement with Iraq, and unable to figure out who to support in three years in Syria, (two blunders that have been an enormous enabling factor for ISIS) and that has been completely thumb-sucker when dealing with Vladimir Putin, only has a little over a year to run...

There's only so much more damage this incompetent crew can do before they're finally sent packing...

The most incompetent foreign policy Presidency since the darkest days of the Carter Administration...

Hell, even Hillary Clinton would be an improvement...

[Sue U]

The most incompetent foreign policy Presidency since the darkest days of the Carter Administration...

I guess we're not counting the Bush-Cheney "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S./We'll Be Greeted As Liberators" Administration, for some reason?

Or the Ronald Reagan "Flee Lebanon, Attack Granada/Iran-Conrtra Arms-for-Hostages" Administration?

[Lord Jim]

the Ronald Reagan"Flee Lebanon, Attack Granada/Iran-Conrtra Arms-for-Hostages" won the Cold War, defeated the Soviet Union, and lifted the specter of global nuclear annihilation from the planet, Administration

ftfy...

[Long Run]

It is an odd concept that longstanding U.S. policy can be changed even though a sizeable majority of Congress opposes it, let alone the majority of Americans and all of our allies in the region. Obviously, that is the parliamentarian procedure on this, but whether it is this issue or some other issue (like when there is an R in power), it is just bad governance to forge ahead with the arrogant belief that POTUS knows better than everyone else. As bad as some of W's foreign policy was, he always had the support of a majority of Congress on major issues and initiatives; Obama really can't say the same.

[Big RR]

LR--if I'm not mistaken, Congress agreed to this a while back to permit the executive to negotiate. It could have tied the president's hands by insisiting that any agreement be introduced as a bill in congress and proceed through normal debate and votes, but it chose not to. Personally, I do think the president has way too much power in foreign policy, but when congress cannot get anything done it defers on important issues like this.

[Lord Jim]

To explain how this works...

Unlike a normal treaty ratification procedure, (which requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate; no vote in the House...that is the way SALT and START, and START II, and every other major treaty commitment has been put in place)

This is a hybrid...

At first Obama wanted no vote by Congress of any sort on this deal...

Then because of pressure within his own party, he signed of on an arrangement where Congress could theoretically block the deal...

But only by having legislation passed in both Houses of Congress, which then could be vetoed, and then would require a 2/3 majority in both Houses to override his veto...

As a practical matter, what's going to happen in the next couple of weeks, is that both the Senate and the House, ( by wide bipartisan majorities) will vote to reject this lousy deal, and send that rejection to The President...

At which point The President will say "fuck you" and reject their rejection....

Then it will fall to the Congress, (both Houses) to vote by two thirds majorities to override the President's "fuck you"...

If they should fail in that effort, (which is quite likely; despite the fact that this is an atrocious deal; a 2/3 majority in both Houses is a very high bar...)

The President will be able to implement the agreement, but because it will not have the binding force of law of a treaty, no future President will be legally bound by it...

[wesw]

....except that the effort now turns to getting 41 democrat votes to avoid cloture of debate, in which case there would not even be an up or down vote.

then I would hope that the GOP has the guts to suspend the rules (ie- the nuclear option) and allow cloture with a simple majority and thus force an up or down vote and force the democrats to make that difficult vote and force Obama to veto the measure and to dis regard the will of congress, the peoples representatives....

[Lord Jim]

except that the effort now turns to getting 41 democrat votes to avoid cloture of debate, in which case there would not even be an up or down vote.

Yeah, I've heard about Senator Slime (D-Nevada) trying to pull that off, but they don't have the votes...

They barely have the 34 needed to sustain a veto....

[Guinevere]

A veto is hardly a "fuck-you. Its authorized by Article 1, section 7, of the United States Constitution and part of the process of checks and balances. Deal with it.

[Guinevere]

except that the effort now turns to getting 41 democrat votes to avoid cloture of debate, in which case there would not even be an up or down vote.

Yeah, I've heard about Senator Slime (D-Nevada) trying to pull that off, but they don't have the votes...

They barely have the 34 needed to sustain a veto....

Oh please, the concept was invented by th chief of slime, Richard Nixon (R-CA) and endorsed and threatened regularly by the oh so ethical (campaign finance violations, insider trading) Bill Frist (R-TN).

[wesw]

so it an authorized constitutional fuck you.

probably on his fucket list.....

[liberty]

Where do I go to register my prediction so that it will not be preserved and not forgotten

That's a real conundrum.

Neade, is one of those that is so easily entertained.
,