A reckless act indeed. I hate to imagine how future foreign relations will suffer because of this bill. What country will want to hold discussions with the US knowing that our President does not have the power to make agreements? And why are we allowing the Sheldon Adelsons of the world and Netanyahoo influence our Congress to this degree. What of the interests of our country?
9
well I would agree that the Congress should not be involved in the negotiations. However Congress would need to vote to remove the sanctions which are in themselves moot once the other countries agree to remove their sanctions since most of bite in the sanctions are agreements to them by Russia and China. thus, you would be left with U.S. companies not being able to sell goods and services to Iran. thus in essence you have congress now on board to remove the sanctions by default. summary good chess move by the White house, Russia, UK, France and China. Congress gets political cover to support the deal they were going to more or less support anyway.
2
Once again the Democrats have caved in. In Bush's time when he was waging wars that has created this dangerous milieu in the mid-west region, no efforts were made to limit him. Now that Mr. Obama has tried to pursue peaceful means to make the world a safer place, we have these hawkish players are in his way. Time and again Mr. Obama has insisted that Iran will never develop a Nuclear threat under his watch. But of no avail. The problem here is two fold: no one wants to upset the big donors who support hawkish views and Israel and secondly the abhorrent behavior against Mr. Obama has reached shameful heights and all this does no good for the country.
9
April 15, 2015
America's Supreme Chamber of the States of the Nation are accountable to the mind and voice of the polity - and what seems reckless is but the tolerance to unify the considerations that is mandated in the writ and for the guiding light to its harmony with the Executive and etc., inclusive of the five estate for right governance transparent and for the record required in oath and in best path for the good of all the people and in this instance the world participation.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
America's Supreme Chamber of the States of the Nation are accountable to the mind and voice of the polity - and what seems reckless is but the tolerance to unify the considerations that is mandated in the writ and for the guiding light to its harmony with the Executive and etc., inclusive of the five estate for right governance transparent and for the record required in oath and in best path for the good of all the people and in this instance the world participation.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
2
One can always trust Democrats to betray their president.
10
April 15, 2015
America's Supreme Chamber of the States of the Nation are accountable to the mind and voice of the polity - and what seems reckless is but the tolerance to unify the considerations that is mandated in the writ and for the guiding light to its harmony with the Executive and etc., inclusive of the five estates for right governance transparent. And for the record requires in oath its best path for the good of all the people and in this instance of Iran nukes the world participation under United Nations aegis.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
America's Supreme Chamber of the States of the Nation are accountable to the mind and voice of the polity - and what seems reckless is but the tolerance to unify the considerations that is mandated in the writ and for the guiding light to its harmony with the Executive and etc., inclusive of the five estates for right governance transparent. And for the record requires in oath its best path for the good of all the people and in this instance of Iran nukes the world participation under United Nations aegis.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
2
Constitutional right is a phrase that must play well in GOP focus groups. It has become the go to phrase for any person or group that is incensed, internally or externally. As though it were some absolute. If it were, we would not need courts to interpret it.
One might be tempted to give Congress a nod on their "duties" if they had managed to get any of them right in recent years. Take away the news cameras, the money from donors, and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts in the states and maybe they would pay more attention to doing something right than doing it RIGHT.
One might be tempted to give Congress a nod on their "duties" if they had managed to get any of them right in recent years. Take away the news cameras, the money from donors, and the gerrymandering of Congressional districts in the states and maybe they would pay more attention to doing something right than doing it RIGHT.
8
Negotiation or obliteration?
6
I didn't realize that the Senate asserting 'advise and consent' would be considered reckless.
9
I think the politics behind this have a lot to do with 2016. Smear the President as being soft on defense of the country and the Republicans can smear Hillary Clinton as well. The Republicans don't need to beat Obama, they need to beat Clinton.
2
We now know that the entire P5+1 except for the United States is going to endorse the deal with Iran. Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia are all going to lift sanctions with Iran at the end of this process in June. This leaves the United States in the dust looking ridiculous. We are so ego-driven in our political life that we think that we are the only ones that matter. Never mind that unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States alone is going to be even more ridiculous than the U.S. embargo against Cuba--and guess what? These unilateral sanctions against Iran will be rendered ineffective when the entire rest of the world lifts theirs.
What are we thinking? Obviously scoring political points against Obama and kowtowing to Likudnik irrationality is more important than adhering to sane international diplomacy, and especially respecting our allies and their contributions to 18 months of hard diplomacy.
No wonder no one trusts the U.S. any more.
What are we thinking? Obviously scoring political points against Obama and kowtowing to Likudnik irrationality is more important than adhering to sane international diplomacy, and especially respecting our allies and their contributions to 18 months of hard diplomacy.
No wonder no one trusts the U.S. any more.
67
Congressional Republicans are owned by American oil companies. That is why they uniformly do not "believe" that global climate change is caused by humans.
It is not in the interest of these oil companies to allow Iranian oil onto the global market because they would not profit from its production. On the contrary, it would increase global oil supply, thereby reducing profits on the oil they do control.
What is in the interest of American oil companies, as domestic production increases, is perpetual instability in the Middle East. They would not only profit from exclusion of Iranian oil from the global supply, but also from interruptions in the flow of oil from the region caused by military conflict. Either would serve to significantly increase the price of domestically-produced oil.
And a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, why that would just be icing on the cake. One result would be a nuclear premium on the price of oil, which would further increase its price as the world grappled with the possibility of instantaneous loss of supply from that region.
So it is laughable when the oil lackeys in the U.S. Congress claim that they want nuclear-free stability in the Middle East. Because as is usually the case with this generation of Republicans, what they want is the exact opposite.
As for the Democratic senators who voted for this "reckless act." including my own senator Edward Markey, they are cowards willing to sell us all out for political expediency.
It is not in the interest of these oil companies to allow Iranian oil onto the global market because they would not profit from its production. On the contrary, it would increase global oil supply, thereby reducing profits on the oil they do control.
What is in the interest of American oil companies, as domestic production increases, is perpetual instability in the Middle East. They would not only profit from exclusion of Iranian oil from the global supply, but also from interruptions in the flow of oil from the region caused by military conflict. Either would serve to significantly increase the price of domestically-produced oil.
And a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, why that would just be icing on the cake. One result would be a nuclear premium on the price of oil, which would further increase its price as the world grappled with the possibility of instantaneous loss of supply from that region.
So it is laughable when the oil lackeys in the U.S. Congress claim that they want nuclear-free stability in the Middle East. Because as is usually the case with this generation of Republicans, what they want is the exact opposite.
As for the Democratic senators who voted for this "reckless act." including my own senator Edward Markey, they are cowards willing to sell us all out for political expediency.
10
The republicans don't really seem to care about anything else but their own campaigns for the next presidential election. Mundane matters like war and peace pale in comparison to that, so any greater opportunities like this treaty resolution debate affords them to get up in front of the public, beat their chests and rail against Obama and the Iranians, is the only political red meat that matters to them. The Cruz, Rubio, Bush and Paul, are all probably furiously at work getting their screeds written down early so they're ready to go when the floor fight begins.
This internal fight in the making is going to probably only having the effect of making the Iranians come out looking like the rational and moderate ones in the end, and we as the extremists, hellbent on blowing everything up.
This internal fight in the making is going to probably only having the effect of making the Iranians come out looking like the rational and moderate ones in the end, and we as the extremists, hellbent on blowing everything up.
7
I fully support the role of Congress and especially the 19-0 Senate commitee vote in asserting its role as a separate and equal branch of our government. Thankfully our citizenry has elected a GOP majority in both houses to counter balance the current administration. John Kerry is not Henry Kissinger and Obama can not be trusted in handling the foreign policy of the United States. The Supreme leader has mocked him and Putin is selling S300 missiles to Iran.
Obama is desperate for his legacy. JK is looking for a Nobel or maybe even a second run at the WH. Pathetic.
Obama is desperate for his legacy. JK is looking for a Nobel or maybe even a second run at the WH. Pathetic.
7
The Senate was right to pass this bill. The Senate must be there for the AMerican people to have a voice in these negotiations. Obama should not be allowed to negotiate an important deal like this on his own. It is important that he get the Advice and Consent of Congress. He tried to do an end-run around Congress and I am glad they stopped him and made him realize that Congress has a role to play and he is not an absolute monarch.
7
First the Senate is doing what our citizens demand so it is not "reckless", next since Iran and the US have much different versions of the "framework" there is really no deal. Keep the sanctions, tighten them, eventually the citizens of Iran will get tired and change leaders. Until then no deal is worth anything in fact it just allows them to get dozens of bombs at once, and inflame all their neighbors as well.
6
If some other country applied your policy to the US to force regime change, would you cave, or take to the woods with your arsenal?
11
Thank God the Founding Fathers had the foresight to ensure the constitution included a mechanism that would prevent a President who was either a scoundrel, an incompetent or both, who prioritized expediency and personal legacy over long term strategic interests from being free from any and all oversight.
This agreement is a reckless mortgaging of the country's (and world's) future in return for 15 years (if we're lucky) of Iran being on its best behavior. America needs this agreement like Poland and Czechoslovakia needed the Munich agreement. Like Munich, it is an attempt to appease a ruthless tyrannical regime, and like Munich it will lead to war. Better to start the war now, before Iran can exploit lifting of sanctions to develop its capabilities to the point where it can pose a real threat to America. I am no warmonger. I have participated in three wars, and the experiences have made me value peace. Unfortunately sometimes war cannot be avoided, because some things are worth fighting for. This is one of them. As bad as war is, a bad agreement, that ends up with our children and grandchildren having to fight a war we should have is worse.
This agreement is a reckless mortgaging of the country's (and world's) future in return for 15 years (if we're lucky) of Iran being on its best behavior. America needs this agreement like Poland and Czechoslovakia needed the Munich agreement. Like Munich, it is an attempt to appease a ruthless tyrannical regime, and like Munich it will lead to war. Better to start the war now, before Iran can exploit lifting of sanctions to develop its capabilities to the point where it can pose a real threat to America. I am no warmonger. I have participated in three wars, and the experiences have made me value peace. Unfortunately sometimes war cannot be avoided, because some things are worth fighting for. This is one of them. As bad as war is, a bad agreement, that ends up with our children and grandchildren having to fight a war we should have is worse.
8
Reasonable people just want to give Iran enough stake in the world not to want to blow it up.
11
Warning to spineless Democrats. Hillary voted for the Iraq war resolution and she lost the 2008 primary. You, too, will end up losing elections if this Iranian deal is scuttled and the U.S. once again ends up in a bloody and bankrupting in the Mideast.
15
The Senate Republicans cannot be trusted to evaluate the Iranian nuclear deal objectively and in good faith, and will want scuttle the deal for the following illegitimate reasons: 1) to deny President Obama a major foreign policy victory, furthering their stated goal of obstructionism; 2) to promote the interests of the military-industrial complex, who have seen their profits dwindle with sequestration budget cuts and would welcome a war with Iran and ensuing wartime spending; 3) to promote the interests of the oil and natural gas industry, who do not want the resumption of Iranian oil and natural gas exports further depressing global prices; and 4) to promote the beliefs of the Neocons and chicken-hawks, who scorn diplomacy and see war as a solution to every problem.
13
The large majority of Senate Republicans make no pretense of intending "to evaluate the Iranian nuclear deal objectively and in good faith." The letter from the 47 proves that beyond question. The question will ultimately be if there are at least 34 Senators of both parties who are -- if we ever get to a final deal, that is.
3
Peace or WAR? There are two paths to reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran. The Republican congress has just voted for the one that involves several million dead people and the near destruction of the world economy. The only way Iran is going to be forced to give up its nuclear program is regime change by military action, any lesser measures will simply entrench the worst elements of the current Iranian Government. Those hardliners will impoverish the Iranian people utterly to continue the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent.
Iran's system is not monolithic and there is solid majority that wants to join the modern world.We could take an honest swing at real engagement, with real inducements before we go the other route? Couldn't we? Please? Before we let the Four Horsemen run riot with no plan for an endgame.
Iran's system is not monolithic and there is solid majority that wants to join the modern world.We could take an honest swing at real engagement, with real inducements before we go the other route? Couldn't we? Please? Before we let the Four Horsemen run riot with no plan for an endgame.
12
One thing Israel and its bully enforcer, AIPAC, should never forget is that all democratic voters won't be bullied to buy into its ultra-orthodox frenzy like current democratic office holders. A time would come when AIPAC would have to pay for this disturbing overreach.
16
Israel's point man on Iran, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, said the committee vote was "a very important element in preventing a bad deal." He said the Israeli government was "certainly happy this morning, this is an achievement for Israeli policy." An achievement for Israeli policy! That they persuaded--it's not hard to imagine how--the mainly Republican to crush their own president on behalf of Israel's right wing government. Surely a new low.
25
And this, my friends, is why the cowardly members of the Democratic Party, the party that bombards me with phone calls, emails and snail mail begging for money to support them, will not receive one red cent from me. They should be voted out of office.
11
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do."
My comment is his foreign policy and relations with Congress have been dismal failures. He was totally unprepared by experience for the office.
My comment is his foreign policy and relations with Congress have been dismal failures. He was totally unprepared by experience for the office.
4
The President seems not to have the necessary trash-talking skills for the job, probably because his temperment is too serene.
4
It is astounding that such an effort has gone into negotiating a deal that everyone acknowledges will not be binding on either Iran or the US. It is no more than a personal agreement between the Supreme Leader of Iran and Obama and both of them are free to abide by it or ignore it. And we know for a fact that Iran will ignore it as soon as it gets what it wants from the deal: a dismantling of the sanctions. And so the only question is how Obama or some subsequent President will react if and when Iran violates the agreement and goes for the bomb, or how he or she will react if Iran simply waits until the agreement expires and is permitted by the agreement to go fro the bomb.
Obama says that if Iran violates the deal while he is office, he will snap the sanctions back on. But that is clearly a joke. He won't get the international support he needs to reimpose them. And even if he did, they wouldn't deter Iran from going for the bomb. If they won't work now, they won't work once Iran is on the verge of getting the bomb. So the only conceivable remedy will then be war. But Obama won't resort to war so the deal means that Iran will get the bomb if it wants the bomb. It might well wait until the sanctions are all dismantled and Obama is out of town, so that their buddy Obama can claim he kept his promise on Iran, but this agreement guarantees that the next President will have to live with a nuclear Iran or will have to ask Congress for a declaration of war.
Obama says that if Iran violates the deal while he is office, he will snap the sanctions back on. But that is clearly a joke. He won't get the international support he needs to reimpose them. And even if he did, they wouldn't deter Iran from going for the bomb. If they won't work now, they won't work once Iran is on the verge of getting the bomb. So the only conceivable remedy will then be war. But Obama won't resort to war so the deal means that Iran will get the bomb if it wants the bomb. It might well wait until the sanctions are all dismantled and Obama is out of town, so that their buddy Obama can claim he kept his promise on Iran, but this agreement guarantees that the next President will have to live with a nuclear Iran or will have to ask Congress for a declaration of war.
6
To all the people Republican and Democrat we have Reagan's anti missile system to protect us ,don't we? Or was that just another waste of hundreds of billions of tax payer money?
8
It's truly frightening to see Bibi Netanyahu and John McCain acting as the dynamic duo, interfering in America's attempt to use diplomacy as a solution to the simmering situation in Iran. There is no good reason to give Israel special status as BFF of the US.
It's especially shameful that some Democrats in the Senate have crept into the GOP camp to stand against the President on this important issue.
It's especially shameful that some Democrats in the Senate have crept into the GOP camp to stand against the President on this important issue.
9
The NYT is simply wrong. All presidents since the time of Truman have submitted nuclear arms pacts as treaties, even Obama. As shown by the unanimous vote in the Senate, it is also the will of the American People that the Senate sign off on any type if accord of this magnitude. But realistically, an agreement probably will not be reached anyway since the only reason the Iranians want to deal is get the sanctions immediately lifted, which is something they will never get. In truth, they probably wouldn't use nukes out if fear of reprisals, but they will certainly use the $200 billion they will get when the sanctions are lifted to buy advanced weapons from Russia and China. Do we really want to bankroll the start of WWIII ?
8
The ignorance and hubris of most of the senators is amazing. Do they really think they can appreciate the finer details of delicate negotiations that have been months if not years in the making and involve other world powers? They are framing this in a simplistic "Obama bad, us good" way that is embarrassing. There is a reason that Congress is not the Executive Branch, since its job is legislature, not diplomacy and not foreign relations. George Washington was very clear about this among other founding fathers, and the Constitution.
If an individual senator wants to run for president, then he or she should run. This is trying to nullify the two elections of President Obama and is also engaging in some kind of mass ego trip to usurp presidential power.
The result may be war, and more nuclear weapons in the world, but that would be fine with some of the chicken hawks in the Senate.
Why doesn't the Senate do its own job? Repair the failing infrastructure of the country before there are terrible disasters, increase support for education and research, and pass the minimum wage and the fair pay acts. For a start.
If an individual senator wants to run for president, then he or she should run. This is trying to nullify the two elections of President Obama and is also engaging in some kind of mass ego trip to usurp presidential power.
The result may be war, and more nuclear weapons in the world, but that would be fine with some of the chicken hawks in the Senate.
Why doesn't the Senate do its own job? Repair the failing infrastructure of the country before there are terrible disasters, increase support for education and research, and pass the minimum wage and the fair pay acts. For a start.
9
Once again, Obama's weakness shows. Here's the rub. By lifting sanctions while Iran continues to support terrorism, we are making it easier for Iran to fund our enemies.
9
Someone needs to explain this
* The controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans was jettisoned.
How is this controversial? Why would the US agree to deal with a country that it believes is supporting acts against its interest?
* The controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans was jettisoned.
How is this controversial? Why would the US agree to deal with a country that it believes is supporting acts against its interest?
6
A more complete sentence in your editorial would read: "The United States and Iran have been bitter enemies since the 1979 Islamic Revolution", which overthrew a hated dictator who had been placed and maintained in power to protect British and American oil interests. While agreeing with your position, it is seldom pointed out our hands have never been clean with regard to Iran. There is no upside for this country in continued belligerence and possible war with Iran. We don't have to like the current regime, but as in an earlier day we need to work toward 'peaceful coexistence'. The delusional ideation we can remake that region went down in flames with Bush-Cheney.
4
Observe that nobody in the US now takes responsibility for putting Saddam's Iraq up to invading Iran, a country with three times Iraq's population, based on promises that the US would provide decisive support, or even acknowledges that the US did it.
5
The USA should just pull out of the coalition and let the other nations decide how to handle this. The US Congress is putting on a circus sideshow to one the the most important negotiations of this decade, and quite literally, the US is not needed at the table. Withdraw our negotiators and agree to do whatever the other nations of the coalition decide. That would completely neutralize the Congress' folly, and, apparently, most US citizens do not even know that there is more involved here than just Obama negotiating with Iran.
6
You're kidding me, right?? It can very easily be argued that Iran and it's proxies represent one of the greatest, if not the greatest, threat to peace since Nazi Germany. When one considers true evil springs eternal in everything Iran's leaders represent for the past 40 years, I am all for a bipartisan effort in Congress to have our representatives monitor the specifics of any deal that is designed to manage that evil. You're naïve at best to think this president should act alone on such an enormous security matter as this...particularly, as the Middles East has exploded under his leadership, Russia is expanding it's reach and is now sending missiles to Iran, Israel has been marginalized at best, and now Cuba is taken off the terrorist list.
And you call the Senate reckless???
And you call the Senate reckless???
8
President Obama did not act alone - he worked with Secretary of State John Kerry, plus the leaders and senior staff of several other nations.
Congress has no business butting into the affairs of President Obama. We elected him to represent the people of the United States, and part of that representation includes negotiating for the American people on sensitive issues with other countries. Congress does not have the authority.
Congress has no business butting into the affairs of President Obama. We elected him to represent the people of the United States, and part of that representation includes negotiating for the American people on sensitive issues with other countries. Congress does not have the authority.
Congress finally takes action on a fully bipartisan basis after years of contentious deadlock on a host of important issues, and the NYT is critical? Our form of democracy is supposed to be messy and Congress's insertion into the Iran nuclear debate surely adds a layer of "messiness"; but it should be welcomed not condemned.
Over the last 20 years--after Iran's secret and illegal nuclear program was uncovered-- we've gone from a position adamantly refusing anything less than the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure in toto, to a position where all sanctions are lifted, Iran can keep everything, with the only requirement that it remain a few months away from producing a nuclear weapon and, after 10 years, Iran is free to develop nuclear weapons and do so legally.
It's fully within the legislative branch's prerogative to assess whether this deal warrants the lifting of sanctions.
Over the last 20 years--after Iran's secret and illegal nuclear program was uncovered-- we've gone from a position adamantly refusing anything less than the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure in toto, to a position where all sanctions are lifted, Iran can keep everything, with the only requirement that it remain a few months away from producing a nuclear weapon and, after 10 years, Iran is free to develop nuclear weapons and do so legally.
It's fully within the legislative branch's prerogative to assess whether this deal warrants the lifting of sanctions.
5
Hold your powder until we have a final agreement is what our first president would have advised.
3
I am trying to understand this better: Iran wants sanctions removed because it is hurting them economically. Iran has been labeled a terrorist state, responsible for bombings in Buenos Aires, and the death of many of our soldiers. Supporting Hamas and Hezbollah too, and other terrorists groups. And because they have threatened to go nuclear we will remove sanctions which puts more money in their pocket to support more terrorism. If what our government said in the past is true (everything I mentioned above has been said about Iran), should it not be better to continue sanctions? And let them know that if they want to continue the nuclear path they can do that at their own risk? Tell me why we should not pursue that route.
19
Continuing sanctions would be a great idea only if Iran truly cared about avoiding a war. With the sanctions, Iran will continue to make the bomb even if it means war with the US. Under no circumstance will they show the world that they stopped their program because they are afraid of the US. So either Iran will end up with the weapon or we will end up with a war.
Maybe you think the negotiation is between the USA and Iran. Sorry, it is between Iran and the P5 +1. They have as much stake in the decision to "tighten sanctions" as the USA. Unless you think the US dictates and they follow.
1
Obama will not only weaken himself, but will weaken future POTUS because they will not have the ability to deal with other countries free of congressional interference. A governmental system such as ours which derives authority from precedents will now have the situation where congress will demand to approve any and all international agreements.
This act of not fighting against this bill might well be the most lasting impact of the Obama presidency.
This act of not fighting against this bill might well be the most lasting impact of the Obama presidency.
It is clear that the Senate is transgressing on the constitutional functions of the executive. Foreign policy is not conducted by Congress or the Senate. .
The Senate does does not negotiate with foreign powers for good reason. The U.S. speaks with voice, We have a chance of avoiding war with Iran stop Iran from building an atomic bomb.
If Congress wants to decide on war or the inevitable nuclear Iran and torpedo the last best chance that we have to avoid the same it should first re instate the draft and increase taxes to pay for that war; because the people are not in the mood to pay for war by losing their social insurance programs and safety nets, while the rich get tax cuts or by more borrowing to impoverish generations to come.
If we are to have war, Congress should tell us how they intend to pay for it. Shall we nuke Iran? Will it be a free pass for the rich and corporations and a soaking for the majority of ordinary people who are still struggling with climbing out if the recession as the stock market booms and CEO and Wall Street bonuses go through the roof.
Who are these people who write to Iran to say do not trust our government and warn that the obligations of the U.S. only last election to election? How can they be patriots?
The Senate does does not negotiate with foreign powers for good reason. The U.S. speaks with voice, We have a chance of avoiding war with Iran stop Iran from building an atomic bomb.
If Congress wants to decide on war or the inevitable nuclear Iran and torpedo the last best chance that we have to avoid the same it should first re instate the draft and increase taxes to pay for that war; because the people are not in the mood to pay for war by losing their social insurance programs and safety nets, while the rich get tax cuts or by more borrowing to impoverish generations to come.
If we are to have war, Congress should tell us how they intend to pay for it. Shall we nuke Iran? Will it be a free pass for the rich and corporations and a soaking for the majority of ordinary people who are still struggling with climbing out if the recession as the stock market booms and CEO and Wall Street bonuses go through the roof.
Who are these people who write to Iran to say do not trust our government and warn that the obligations of the U.S. only last election to election? How can they be patriots?
3
"Any final agreement would be a political agreement, which Obama administration officials say does not require congressional action, and it would not be a legally binding document." Does that mean we drop our sanctions and the Iranians can do whatever they want? So.....what does that buy us?
3
A reckless act by Congress but a fact on the ground to be dealt with. The American congress has created a western without a sheriff to order the ensuing chaos created.
The Iranian nuclear deal has changed US foreign policy forever. Ex post the nuclear deal - whether it succeeds or not - foreign leaders will always bear in mind the US Congress power to change or veto any sensitive agreement negotiated by the executive.
The ongoing (controversial) trade-integration negotiations with the EU and Asia-Pacific countries could be the first casualties. The NAFTA era 'fast track authority' in which the executive submitted final trade accords for a Yes or No vote in Congress is over.
The Iranian nuclear deal has changed US foreign policy forever. Ex post the nuclear deal - whether it succeeds or not - foreign leaders will always bear in mind the US Congress power to change or veto any sensitive agreement negotiated by the executive.
The ongoing (controversial) trade-integration negotiations with the EU and Asia-Pacific countries could be the first casualties. The NAFTA era 'fast track authority' in which the executive submitted final trade accords for a Yes or No vote in Congress is over.
I'm sending my taxes to Tel Aviv. That appears to be where our government really is located. Does anybody thinks that the other 5 nations involved in the negotiations with Iran are going to let Netanyahu and Congress prevent them from closing an agreement with Iran and waiting for our approval while Congress dithers?
10
My Congressman or lady could not negotiate a breakfast bill at a local diner, so why are we putting a person at the head of the table that has no head at all? Mr. Obama is just jumping on them. Making fools of them, as they will sooner or later prove themselves to be. Mr. Obama is shrewd. The Congress is not. So, now we have peace deal that Congress can turn away, and the Democrats can say I told you so, after the bombs drop. Pathetic. Where is the decision making competency in the government? It seems to be no where, other than in someone's back pocket, who doesn't seem to be too bright either.
4
Australia's national newspaper's defence columnist recently raised the spectre of the Obama deal with Iran as imperilling some of America's traditional allies. Does the US president think-tank the global implications of such a deal or is it merely to keep his own country safe to the detriment of fellow nations. Maybe Congress is acting not just in the interests of the USA but also for its buddies beyond...a legislative stop-check for a CIC who has overlooked his responsibilities to those he still calls on when some disputes can only be resolved with boots on the ground. His 'US-first' negotiations with Iran seemed to come out of left field and as a citizen of a far-flung democracy with emotional roots in the Vietnam War, I laud Congress's move to have a say in this matter.
2
sarcasm mode on/
Perhaps the Republicans are right. Why negotiate? Let's just bomb the Middle East into oblivion. Not just Iran. Not just Iraq. Not just Syria. The whole thing. Except for Israel of course.
The region has been a thorn in our side for a long time and it just seems to get worse. Things are getting really complicated over there. The situation has gotten so bad we might soon be forced to exercise our powers of critical thinking (such as they are) and what a revolting development that would turn out to be! Once the entire region has been reduced to a smoldering, desolate, radioactive waste land Israel will have lots of room to build more settlements! It's going to be a win win!
/sarcasm mode off
Perhaps the Republicans are right. Why negotiate? Let's just bomb the Middle East into oblivion. Not just Iran. Not just Iraq. Not just Syria. The whole thing. Except for Israel of course.
The region has been a thorn in our side for a long time and it just seems to get worse. Things are getting really complicated over there. The situation has gotten so bad we might soon be forced to exercise our powers of critical thinking (such as they are) and what a revolting development that would turn out to be! Once the entire region has been reduced to a smoldering, desolate, radioactive waste land Israel will have lots of room to build more settlements! It's going to be a win win!
/sarcasm mode off
6
The P5+1 & Iran remain miles apart on an actual Deal based on their perceptions of the current framework agreement as evidenced in their respective Fact Sheets. Only Partisanship can explain so many coming down so strongly on one side of this issue or the other.
2
The president has finally lived up to his promise to bring bipartisanship to DC.
What is the downside of the Senate reviewing the agreement?
The only downside I see is to the president. If the agreement is closer to the Iranians interpretation than his own he will lose face. He will also be in a position where because the Democrats aren't behind him can't just insist that his detractors are unreasonable and to be dismissed.
What is the downside of the Senate reviewing the agreement?
The only downside I see is to the president. If the agreement is closer to the Iranians interpretation than his own he will lose face. He will also be in a position where because the Democrats aren't behind him can't just insist that his detractors are unreasonable and to be dismissed.
8
I believe that ultimately, the deal will be approved. Why? There are really no other options and the deal also works in the US strategic interest. We have competing interests in the ME that must be balanced as they can cost us a great deal. Our real market interests, however, lie in Asia and South America and in dealing with China's growing influence. That isn't what Obama thinks, it is what our strategic position dictates. The knuckleheads in Congress will put up a symbolic and noisy show, but in the end it will be a show. We have no choice given our strategic position.
2
Republicans, and now apparently some Democrats, have no vision beyond their narrow view of the present. With luck, we will be having many more additional presidents in the future. Any move to restrict the negotiating power of the current president, impacts the negotiating power of future presidents, be they Democrat or Republican. Republicans have complained so much about the abuse of presidential powers by Obama, that they have taught many Americans to distrust the presidency, much less the intentions of the people populating the offices of the national government. They have portrayed the national government that they piously pledge allegiance to as a frightful demon come to take control over their very existence.
It is ok to disagree with your political adversaries. It is dangerous to characterize them as, well, dangerous. Case in point--take note of the now arriving anti-Hilary Clinton adds.
It is ok to disagree with your political adversaries. It is dangerous to characterize them as, well, dangerous. Case in point--take note of the now arriving anti-Hilary Clinton adds.
3
Apparently the American War Machine is on the move. They have to remember the very recent disaster America created in Iraq. The alternative to a negotiated agreement, war with Iran, would have far worse consequences.
8
I find all of this a bit premature. This a framework which to me indicates it is a fluid document. And since is not the finished product why are people pointing fingers and projecting the end of the world?
My concern is the unwillingness of Obama and Kerry to not only inform Congress but go to the American people. A prime time address to Congress. Speak not to political parties but to gain the trust and support of the people, A tall order given people don't believe him.
By wanting to run roughshod over Congress Obama will reinforce the belief that Obama doesn't feel the need to consult Congress. Given his pronouncement upon being elected that he was going to end partisan bickering in Washington it now rings hollow
ObamaCare was the signature issue and this treaty is the signature issue of his second. For some reason Obama is letting his angst show and Iran clearly sees his desperation and this is working against him. He needs to do what's our best interest and not about his legacy. Keep things in perspective
My concern is the unwillingness of Obama and Kerry to not only inform Congress but go to the American people. A prime time address to Congress. Speak not to political parties but to gain the trust and support of the people, A tall order given people don't believe him.
By wanting to run roughshod over Congress Obama will reinforce the belief that Obama doesn't feel the need to consult Congress. Given his pronouncement upon being elected that he was going to end partisan bickering in Washington it now rings hollow
ObamaCare was the signature issue and this treaty is the signature issue of his second. For some reason Obama is letting his angst show and Iran clearly sees his desperation and this is working against him. He needs to do what's our best interest and not about his legacy. Keep things in perspective
4
What is so reckless about the peoples house having a say in this "agreement" that will affect the power balance in the Middle East for decades to come? I for one am glad that there is finally some kind of oversight awaiting the final deal. The Middle East is in flames and the US wants to award nuclear proliferation to the largest sponsor of terrotism in the world? Rouhani already is declaring victory as he knows that Obama wants this deal as his "legacy" no matter how harmful it is to the ME and long term US interests. This is what our government and Congress is for, there is absolutely NOTHING reckless about reining in a feckless leader who cannot distinguish between our friends and our enemies.
4
Hmmm. How come the US Chamber of Commerce isn't flexing its considerable muscle vis a vis congressional Repubs? There official policy was against unilateral sanctions on Iran during all the Bush years...even Cheney spoke out against them on a couple of occasions.
1
Big money bought the Senate, nothing new here, The war machine got it done, the MIC is looking to a big multi trillion dollar payday. They do not even send their children to war anymore, only the one who cannot afford to find other peaceful work now goes to fight for these war hogs.
Israeli lobbyist, AIPAC and other Israeli firsters won this round with money and lots of it.
Where are the ones who called for winning without wars, the progressives, there is still time, do not despair, we can still make peace happen.
War is never THE answer, PEACE is.
Israeli lobbyist, AIPAC and other Israeli firsters won this round with money and lots of it.
Where are the ones who called for winning without wars, the progressives, there is still time, do not despair, we can still make peace happen.
War is never THE answer, PEACE is.
10
Yes, those unanimous votes in Congress are know to be really reckless.
"Mr. Obama initially threatened to veto the legislation..." - unanimous votes have a way of putting those thoughts aside.
Nice to know we still have three branches of government (despite the efforts from our ex-constitutional scholar President).
"Mr. Obama initially threatened to veto the legislation..." - unanimous votes have a way of putting those thoughts aside.
Nice to know we still have three branches of government (despite the efforts from our ex-constitutional scholar President).
5
I guess we can dismantle the State Department now that Congress is in charge of foreign policy.
7
The blame here goes to the spineless Democrats who have decided that they will also jump on the Israel bandwagon. They will regret this just like Al Gore did when he decided that he does not need Clinton's support.
11
Not many presidents have negotiated a deal which recognizes a terrorist's state's continued retention of nuclear bomb components-a regime which regularly and eerily holds "death to America" chants while working on ICBMs.
5
Thank you for calling it like it is. Congress, led by the Republicans is doing real damage to the ability of the U.S. to be taken seriously in the world. There is no alternative to the negotiated agreement, despite what Netanyahu and his ilk say.
9
But what if it is just a bad deal and in the long run will not serve our best interest. Is it that you just want President Obama to have a deal to call his own, whether good or bad or should there be a greater emphasis on making sure its right for us. As everyone said in 2008 about the election of the current president, "elections have consequences" and the people elected this congress both House of Representatives and Senate.
4
"...which are the only effective means to block Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."
Really?
In spite of many Security Council sanctions against Iran developing nuclear weapons it has ignored them and continued to not only develop these weapons but also the ballistic missiles to deliver them.
This potential agreement only postpones when Iran will have these nuclear weapons operational. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in this agreement that prevents Iran from eventually gaining nuclear weapons.
That is why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Abu Dhabi have made it clear that they will respond to Iran's eventual gaining of nuclear weapons by obtaining their own.
Consequently, if we are to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME and the real potential for war in that region, the only alternative is to destroy Iran's nuclear capability as Israel has in Iraq and Syria.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
Really?
In spite of many Security Council sanctions against Iran developing nuclear weapons it has ignored them and continued to not only develop these weapons but also the ballistic missiles to deliver them.
This potential agreement only postpones when Iran will have these nuclear weapons operational. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in this agreement that prevents Iran from eventually gaining nuclear weapons.
That is why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Abu Dhabi have made it clear that they will respond to Iran's eventual gaining of nuclear weapons by obtaining their own.
Consequently, if we are to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME and the real potential for war in that region, the only alternative is to destroy Iran's nuclear capability as Israel has in Iraq and Syria.
Anything else is wishful thinking.
15
The presidency is the only elected office in the US that represents all of its people.
The rest of federal elected offices represent the squabbling states, not the US people as a whole.
The rest of federal elected offices represent the squabbling states, not the US people as a whole.
9
I'm sorry, you perilously wrong. The Senate, while elected by the states, and the house, while elected by their districts, and while both represent the interests of their constituencies, their charter is to be one of the three branches of government and to be part of the checks and balances and as a body to form part of the government of the United States.
The president is not a dictator, nor does him being the only official elected by the country trump the authority or role of congress.
You wouldn't dare take this position if this were a republican president being reigned in by a democratic congress.
The president is not a dictator, nor does him being the only official elected by the country trump the authority or role of congress.
You wouldn't dare take this position if this were a republican president being reigned in by a democratic congress.
1
SHAME on those Democrats most of all phony-progressive Chuck Schumer who supported this fatally flawed legislation whose obvious purpose is to try and make sure there is no deal with Iran just more belligerency and chaos in Middle East and the possibility of war. Just the kind of Status Quo madness favored by Saudi Arabia and Israel.
7
Let's go through your opposition to the Senate's vote.
1) Paragraph 1 -- "an agreement that offers the best chance of restraining..." who says this is the best way to "restrain" Iran's nuclear ambitions. And restrain? The word we want is STOP.
2) Para 2 -- "Unanimous Vote" Gee, all the foreign relations committee. Most with more experience than Kerry or Obama.
3) Para 3 -- "those who have bitterly criticized Mr. Obama for negotiating with Iran" -- that's why we have 3 government branches, checks and balances.
4) Para 6 -- China and Russia -- they aren't democracies and we don't want our President acting like a dictator.
5) Para 7 -- yes, we have been bitter enemies with Iran since 1979. We shouldn't worry about Iran suspicions, we should be suspicious of Iran and whether they will abide by an agreement.
6) Para 8 -- again, who says these negotiations are the only effective means to block Iran (better word than restrain, though). Instead of using carrots, maybe we should use bigger sticks.
7) Para 8 -- yes it would be a political agreement. And not legally binding. So why bother? And if you are right (which you are) then the 47 senators were correct in saying the next president would not be bound by the agreement.
8) Final para -- I believe congress supporting the agreement would make it stronger. And if they don't approve, let's assume they are working for the best interests of the country. not against Obama.
1) Paragraph 1 -- "an agreement that offers the best chance of restraining..." who says this is the best way to "restrain" Iran's nuclear ambitions. And restrain? The word we want is STOP.
2) Para 2 -- "Unanimous Vote" Gee, all the foreign relations committee. Most with more experience than Kerry or Obama.
3) Para 3 -- "those who have bitterly criticized Mr. Obama for negotiating with Iran" -- that's why we have 3 government branches, checks and balances.
4) Para 6 -- China and Russia -- they aren't democracies and we don't want our President acting like a dictator.
5) Para 7 -- yes, we have been bitter enemies with Iran since 1979. We shouldn't worry about Iran suspicions, we should be suspicious of Iran and whether they will abide by an agreement.
6) Para 8 -- again, who says these negotiations are the only effective means to block Iran (better word than restrain, though). Instead of using carrots, maybe we should use bigger sticks.
7) Para 8 -- yes it would be a political agreement. And not legally binding. So why bother? And if you are right (which you are) then the 47 senators were correct in saying the next president would not be bound by the agreement.
8) Final para -- I believe congress supporting the agreement would make it stronger. And if they don't approve, let's assume they are working for the best interests of the country. not against Obama.
4
I don't buy the argument that this is "our best chance to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon." Let's stop mindlessly chanting this, please.
We have not begun to exhaust the diplomatic, economic, or military tools at our disposal. I think it is foolish to give so much to an aggressive rogue power that has conceded so little, and whose belligerent appetite is so obvious.
We have not begun to exhaust the diplomatic, economic, or military tools at our disposal. I think it is foolish to give so much to an aggressive rogue power that has conceded so little, and whose belligerent appetite is so obvious.
5
There should be no doubt as to who is behind this.
"In Israel, officials welcomed the compromise reached in Washington, with Yuval Steinitz, the minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, describing the congressional move as “an achievement for Israeli policy.”"
"Rouhani Dismisses White House Compromise With Congress on Iran Nuclear Deal", NYT, 4/15/15.
"In Israel, officials welcomed the compromise reached in Washington, with Yuval Steinitz, the minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, describing the congressional move as “an achievement for Israeli policy.”"
"Rouhani Dismisses White House Compromise With Congress on Iran Nuclear Deal", NYT, 4/15/15.
5
The Times would prefer that Obama be crowned king so that he does not have to put up with the messy democracy that is the Untied States. It is shameful that any agreement as important as the potential nuclear deal with Iran would not be subject to full Congressional debate and public comment. You can bet your bottom dollar that if a Republican was in the White House he or she would be excoriated by The Times and the Democrat party if they tried to pull the stuff Obama has.
4
If President Obama doesn't think he needs Congressional authorization to negotiate a deal with Iran, he can just say so and not sign the bill. This is essentially the way GW Bush dealt with the ever-expanding war in Iraq. He said he didn't need Congress to authorize what he was doing, but that Congress always had the right to block appropriations for that war. Right now, we are fighting an ever-expanding war in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State with no Congressional authorization. Congress could stop our participation in that war by blocking appropriations. Of course, just as in the case of Iraq War I, Congress will not do so.
1
Actually, the war is authorized by previous acts of congress which were broad enough to include future hostilities.
To say that most Americans are ignorant about foreign policy, the world outside their little bubble, and the very basics of the constitution's division of powers is not a very daring statement. As a Canadian I find I know much more about the politics of the United States than most Americans I know - sad really. Thankfully the EU sanctions that will be removed represent a much greater economic barrier than the US sanctions. This agreement seems poised to work.
4
Do you know what unanimous means! If our President Barak Obama had a foreign policy that was supported by the national interest then the United States Senate in all its gravitas would not have said, "Mr. President, respectfully
we need to be part of this discussion!"
we need to be part of this discussion!"
2
This is a terrible precedent. First, it makes this agreement more difficult to conclude/ratify than a treaty. Second, it subjects the agreement to a fractous and dysfunctional Congress. What’s next, de facto changing the Constitution to require House approval of treaties? I wonder if this new bill could be unconstitutional. Further, as noted, it places the United States in the awkward position of being unique in our inability to reach a diplomatic agreement without legislative approval.
Regardless, even if it is futile, the President should veto the bill to show his objection to diminishing the power of future presidents by this precedent. I cannot understand how Democratic Senators could vote this bill out of committee. As the Times and others here state, what is the viable alternative to an agreement? Do these Senators really think that bombing Iran is a clean solution to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Do they want a war in the Persian Gulf and increased terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel? I wish we could be assured that the Congress has reached the nadir of its foolishness, but I fear not.
Regardless, even if it is futile, the President should veto the bill to show his objection to diminishing the power of future presidents by this precedent. I cannot understand how Democratic Senators could vote this bill out of committee. As the Times and others here state, what is the viable alternative to an agreement? Do these Senators really think that bombing Iran is a clean solution to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Do they want a war in the Persian Gulf and increased terrorist attacks against the United States and Israel? I wish we could be assured that the Congress has reached the nadir of its foolishness, but I fear not.
5
What if this was Bush and Iran? Would you want him to have that power now and in perpetuity? if you say no, then under no circumstances should you think congressional review is a bad thing. If you wouldn't trust your worst enemy with the power, you shouldn't give it to your best friend.
1
When I saw the editorial in the print edition, titled "A Reckless Act on Iran" (leaving out "the Senate"), I assumed it was a criticism of Russia's announcement that it will send surface-to-air missiles to Iran even before an agreement has been signed, double-crossing its partners in the "P5+1" and negating any commitment and ability by the U.S. and other Western powers to to remove Iranian nuclear weapons in the event it reneges on or obstructs an agreement.
Or I thought it possibly could have been a criticism of last week's statements by the Iranian Supreme leader and the Iranian president that President Obama's characterization of the preliminary framework was not what they agreed on.
Imagine my surprise, then, to find no criticism of these actions, which bring the basis for any agreement into question even before one has been signed, and read instead a scathing criticism of the unanimous vote by all Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure that such a sketchy, undefined understanding is subject to the oversight of Congress. I am sure that, if such a momentous change in our longstanding foreign policy had been proposed by a Republican president, there would be a clamor for such oversight.
Or I thought it possibly could have been a criticism of last week's statements by the Iranian Supreme leader and the Iranian president that President Obama's characterization of the preliminary framework was not what they agreed on.
Imagine my surprise, then, to find no criticism of these actions, which bring the basis for any agreement into question even before one has been signed, and read instead a scathing criticism of the unanimous vote by all Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure that such a sketchy, undefined understanding is subject to the oversight of Congress. I am sure that, if such a momentous change in our longstanding foreign policy had been proposed by a Republican president, there would be a clamor for such oversight.
1
In Israel, officials welcomed the compromise reached in Washington, with Yuval Steinitz, the minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, describing the congressional move as “an achievement for Israeli policy.” This quotation is all that is needed for anyone doubting the thoroughness of Israel's influence in Congress. President Obama has been undermined by the Israeli government. Only the very naïve would deny that House Speaker John Boehner planned for this very result. U.S. foreign policy has been taken over by a foreign government, ally or not. Can anyone expect Israel to stop here. Give a mouse a crumb and it will want a cookie. Give a mouse a cookie and it will want a glass of milk.
1
Congress has clearly overstepped its Constitutional bounds as it "muscled its way into" foreign policy before a "deal" (not a treaty) with Iran has even been written. President Obama may be setting an unfortunate precedent if he really accedes to Senate bill 621 which appears to violate the "separation of powers." I would rather he have this matter settled by the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, as Rachel Maddow caustically observed, this Congress refuses to perform their Constitutional duty and even consider Mr. Obama's request for a new "authorization for the use of military force" against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The mixed message is that Congress opposes peace with Iran, but doesn't want to share the responsibility for military action either. Or, as has been the case, it's the usual "If President Obama is for it, we're against it" scorched-earth Republican opposition enabled by misguided Democratic support. The grave harm this poisonous, petty political myopia risks is a much wider, major war in the Middle East involving both Saudi Arabia and Iran, and with its threat to the entire oil-rich Arabian Peninsula the global economy. The nation and the world can ill-afford this potentially tragic "profile in cravenness" by Republican, and especially Democrat, Senators.
1
It would be helpful to get an assessment of how significant US sanctions would be if all the others were lifted.
Suppose, as seems possible, there is a deal, and all sanctions regarding the nuclear program,except those controlled by the US, are lifted as the agreement is implemented. Suppose, also, that the US President lifts or suspends sanctions as much as he is able, but Congress refuses to lift any sanctions they control.
What would be the effect of this scenario on the Iranian economy? Would Iran be able to largely bypass the remaining sanctions?
If it could, then isn't this the most likely outcome? Congress gets to look tough, Iran gets to rejoin the world economy, and Iran is prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
Suppose, as seems possible, there is a deal, and all sanctions regarding the nuclear program,except those controlled by the US, are lifted as the agreement is implemented. Suppose, also, that the US President lifts or suspends sanctions as much as he is able, but Congress refuses to lift any sanctions they control.
What would be the effect of this scenario on the Iranian economy? Would Iran be able to largely bypass the remaining sanctions?
If it could, then isn't this the most likely outcome? Congress gets to look tough, Iran gets to rejoin the world economy, and Iran is prevented from developing a nuclear weapon.
1
I would agree with an earlier comment that our vantage point should be Paris, not Munich and not only Paris today but Paris 1919 when the United States ultimately failed to join and endorse the League of Nations. How much horror might have been avoided if the United States had decided to be an international partner in peace ? There might not have been a Munich and the "peace in our time" phrase for people to throw around out of context today.
Speaking of "peace in our time" I'm sure that Senator Cotton's belief that bombing would solve the problem (and Senator it would be much more involved than you present - this is not a Ranger in-an-out mission with a very limited target) would result much more in a "peace in our time" scenario, but only in the sense that the peace in our time would be only for those whose life expectancy is about the next 20 years. For those alive after that time the horrors of World War II are much more likely to be what they will experience.
Critics ask how we can trust the Iranian government. Try "trust but verify". At some point we need postive trust not negative fear.
Speaking of "peace in our time" I'm sure that Senator Cotton's belief that bombing would solve the problem (and Senator it would be much more involved than you present - this is not a Ranger in-an-out mission with a very limited target) would result much more in a "peace in our time" scenario, but only in the sense that the peace in our time would be only for those whose life expectancy is about the next 20 years. For those alive after that time the horrors of World War II are much more likely to be what they will experience.
Critics ask how we can trust the Iranian government. Try "trust but verify". At some point we need postive trust not negative fear.
3
Excuse me! I think President Obama won this one.
* The controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans was jettisoned.
* The Cruz threat to tie this to Iranian recognition of Israel has been dropped.
* Congress always had the exclusive power to remove the sanctions they voted. This puts a time box around it ... and a shorter one. And President Obama can still veto any congressional act in the future. As Senator Kane said, Congress now can't act, "until there’s a deal. Why would Iran even make concessions to us if they had no idea when or if Congress would weigh in?”
The congressional threat bill would have given Congress power over all sanctions, not just those imposed through legislation, and said no deal could go into effect without an affirmative vote by Congress. This bill is limited to congressional sanctions, and it gives lawmakers the option to approve or disapprove an agreement, or to do nothing.
* The President now only has to "report" to Congress every 90 (not 60) days, not "certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans."
As Senator Ben Cardin noted, the president continues to have the exclusive power to enter into foreign agreements, a power constitutionally reserved for the president. Cardin said, “That’s an important clarification."
* The controversial language requiring the president to regularly certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans was jettisoned.
* The Cruz threat to tie this to Iranian recognition of Israel has been dropped.
* Congress always had the exclusive power to remove the sanctions they voted. This puts a time box around it ... and a shorter one. And President Obama can still veto any congressional act in the future. As Senator Kane said, Congress now can't act, "until there’s a deal. Why would Iran even make concessions to us if they had no idea when or if Congress would weigh in?”
The congressional threat bill would have given Congress power over all sanctions, not just those imposed through legislation, and said no deal could go into effect without an affirmative vote by Congress. This bill is limited to congressional sanctions, and it gives lawmakers the option to approve or disapprove an agreement, or to do nothing.
* The President now only has to "report" to Congress every 90 (not 60) days, not "certify that Iran had not undertaken or supported terrorist acts against Americans."
As Senator Ben Cardin noted, the president continues to have the exclusive power to enter into foreign agreements, a power constitutionally reserved for the president. Cardin said, “That’s an important clarification."
23
In the end it really does not matter much to Iran if the US does not drop the sanctions. All other countries will if an accord is signed, so the US sanctions will lose much traction while shooting itself on the foot. Unilateral sanctions have never managed to change anything, witness Cuba. What does matter is that Iran hard liners may decide to go ahead with developing nuclear weapons using the US position as an excuse and the rest of the world will do nothing about it , blaming the US for generating a crisis.
3
Sanctions had no impact on the Soviet Union? Snactions brought down the Soviets. The people got sick and tired of being impoverished. It takes a long time. The reason the Iranians are at the table is that the sanctions are actually working.
China and Russia have no interest in sanctions because they are run by oligarchs who care about maintaining their power, not about the long term welfare of their people.
China and Russia have no interest in sanctions because they are run by oligarchs who care about maintaining their power, not about the long term welfare of their people.
Congress is very much concerned with congressional prerogative, as they see it. If , by and large, they were competent I would be less concerned but we all know as a whole they are less than the sum of their parts.
3
The extent to which this Congress and now Senate has obstructed and hamstrung this duly elected president is unconscionable. The precedents now set will be applied to every president going forward. I feel that this is the beginning of the end of a true democracy. There will probably be no deal with Iran as this is probably what Congress and Senate want. The out and out hatred of this president and fear of any success by him is hurting this nation to no end.
6
Sorry, this started with the treatment of Bush by the left. I know the left doesn't like to admit that, but they set the bar for disrespect for the office of the president.
This is a victory for those who will never agree to any deal, and want nothing so much as a shooting war with Iran.
2
I think it is responsible for the President to sign this bill. He still gets to veto any expression of Congressional disapproval of the treaty and that veto may be sustained, unlike one used here.
In a nation of The People, by The People, and for The People, what is it that the NY Times Editorial Board has against The People having a say in the affairs of The Nation.
Please be specific.
Please be specific.
3
The President is the only elected official we all elect. All the others seem to think local interests predominate over national ones.
1
Just what does Congress propose as a better solution to Iran's nuclear capability, since they seem poised to scuttle delicate negotiations that have miraculously come this far? How about another Middle East war? That seems to be the only alternative.
5
This Congress has reneged on its duty to authorize the war on ISIS, but chooses to interfere with our President's negotiations. This was a calculated ploy by the GOP war mongers to never give their approval. I blame the cowardly democratic wimps who caved. They disgust me. Not sticking by this President caused their losses in 2014, and what have they learned? I'm ashamed to be registered as a D.
3
More than 70 percent of Americans said that Congress should have a role in deciding whether the U.S. is a signatory to any Iran nuclear deal, according to a poll this week by USA Today and Suffolk University.
Merely highlights the massive gulf between the American citizenry and the Obama water-carriers on the NYT Ed Board.
Merely highlights the massive gulf between the American citizenry and the Obama water-carriers on the NYT Ed Board.
6
"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do."
Someplace, I suspect between the lines on this, is the influence of the Prime Minister of Israel.
It is ironic that the Congress which has not become more involved with the multiple crisis in the Middle East is now 'muscling in with this foreign policy framework.
Yes, Netanyahu is smiling with this!
Someplace, I suspect between the lines on this, is the influence of the Prime Minister of Israel.
It is ironic that the Congress which has not become more involved with the multiple crisis in the Middle East is now 'muscling in with this foreign policy framework.
Yes, Netanyahu is smiling with this!
4
Senate: How to snatch defeat out of the arms of a possible step towards peace and escalate the arms insanity in the process (viz. Russian arms sale to Iran)...
9
This agreement was the best chance at finding a way of actually inspecting and halting Iran's nuclear program - without it Iran will go forward with the development of nuclear capability. Or perhaps the other nations supporting a treaty with Iran will simply move ahead without us, and we will be left red faced before the world, as Congress severely limits our negotiators ability to maneuver. Perhaps that is the Republican's plan. To embarrass the President no matter the cost to us or the world. Only this time they have been aided by the President's own party. The Democrats who supported this bill should be deeply ashamed. The dogs of war are frothing at the mouth once again, egged on by Israel standing on the sidelines.
I am asking myself this morning if it really matters whom we vote for anymore. I am in deep despair. The betrayal of the President by his own party was a betrayal of all of us who supported the President, and all of us who contributed to the Democratic Party, as well as a betrayal of the rest of the nation.
I am asking myself this morning if it really matters whom we vote for anymore. I am in deep despair. The betrayal of the President by his own party was a betrayal of all of us who supported the President, and all of us who contributed to the Democratic Party, as well as a betrayal of the rest of the nation.
5
No, Diana, this is a complete sell out to Iran, a fool of a president who is more interested in his "legacy" that the future nuclear proliferation in the ME. How can anyone be so blind and myopic to believe this "deal" will solve anything but allow Iran's radical Islamic influence over the Mideast to spread it's tentacles. And why in heck are we negotiating (Some would say capitulation) to the most untrustworthy terrorist country in the Middle East?
I agree this is a tactical move by the Prez. When the final deal is known hopefully enough Dems should come back to his side to prevent an override of his veto. If congress refuses to lift sanctions and ultimately kills the deal, the dysfunction and incompetence of our political system will reach another level and the USA will no longer be considered a reliable negotiating partner.
3
Thousands of U.S. troops are participating in war in the Middle East and Congress hasn't officially noticed much less demanded a say in the matter. But it wants to have a say in a matter of diplomacy? Looks as if Congress has vetoed its Constitutional responsibilities. Wait, Congress can't veto, can it?
5
Stopping nuclear proliferation should not be confused with "cold" war tactics. One cannot undermine the executive powers of a sitting president who is navigating thru extremely complex and sensitive matters at an international agreement to freeze the development of a nuclear device deep underground in a very large well armed country.In three month it is well known that that they can attain an A bomb. Pres. Putin has calculated that Pres. Obama has lost significant executive power and he will provide Iran an advance antiballistic weaponry capable of of protecting an attack by the Israel air force. I can understand Pres. Obama's grief and anger.
3
Remind me to never have the New York Times editorial board negotiate anything on my behalf. You might take note that the Ayatollah Khameini is taking a similar posture (as the Senate) on the Iranian side with regard to this agreement. Your desire for negotiations to go smoothly without ruffled feathers and our Congress to be avoided, instead of engaged is beyond nieve.
7
when did progressives become such big fans of the "Imperial Presidency"? I am guessing if a Republican is elected in 2016 this editorial will be lost to the sands of time...
5
The editorial touches upon a little-noticed element of these negotiations. The other parties are free to accept a settlement with Iran and lift their sanctions regardless of US rejections. Russia has already is undermining the united front's negotiation by selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran
5
good lord. the nyt has lost the little credibility it had left. you mean to tell me that if the president were republican, the nyt would bemoan congress trying to assert its authority on one of the most significant foreign policy agreements in recent memory?? yea, right.
6
Thanks for using the key word: "agreement." Which isn't a treaty. See also "the Constitution."
By the way, when exactly was it that 47 Democrats sent a letter attacking the President to the head of state for Iran?
By the way, when exactly was it that 47 Democrats sent a letter attacking the President to the head of state for Iran?
1
Is ANY opposition to a Democratic president EVER correctly and appropriately validated the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy whether it has bi-partisan support or not?
2
By now it is not even funny how Obama's presidency accumulated a consistent record of correcting previous failures by the new ones. Finally, both sides of the isle not just "got it" but also admitted it, by voting. Of course, the New York Times is in a league of its own: incurrable.
2
Even though it's vitally important to hear divergent views regarding Iran or any other important matter, it's unnerving that the views coming from the other side continue to be contaminated by an ongoing narrow interest in undermining President Obama. Therefore, any and all of their contrary input simply can't be trusted to lead us at home or globally in an optimal direction.
10
are you including the democrats on the committee?
1
"the United States, France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. In no other country has a legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement."
The Russians have already announced the lifting of sanctions to sell Iran advanced missile defense systems before a final deal has been negotiated and signed.
The Russians have undermined the final deal already. I suspect the Chinese, French and US military contractors are already negotiating the sale of advanced weapons to Iran before a deal has been finalized.
The President couldn't even hold the 5 plus 1 together until the deal is done.
The Russians have already announced the lifting of sanctions to sell Iran advanced missile defense systems before a final deal has been negotiated and signed.
The Russians have undermined the final deal already. I suspect the Chinese, French and US military contractors are already negotiating the sale of advanced weapons to Iran before a deal has been finalized.
The President couldn't even hold the 5 plus 1 together until the deal is done.
13
No other country has our pesky constitution to get in the way. Let's just discard it, right?
A minor tech detail occurs: that this President is the guy who got the 5+1 together to begin with (something Bush singularly failed to do), and that the fact it's hard to keep the coalition together is hardly an argument for Republicans screaming about throwing the agreement out completely and imposing more sanctions.
3
It seemed like the President was doing just fine until 47 fools, I mean Senators, wrote a letter to Iran telling them that any agreement with our country wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Do you think that may have contributed to the fracturing of the coalition?
Do you think that may have contributed to the fracturing of the coalition?
1
Gary T says: "Why in the world would the Iranians go into extensive negotiations and end up making an agreement that could simply be set aside by our legislative branch."
The logic is impeccable. So instead, they make an agreement that can be undone in about 2 seconds by the next US president, a single individual.
The logic is impeccable. So instead, they make an agreement that can be undone in about 2 seconds by the next US president, a single individual.
2
Unfortunately the editors at the NYT haven't done their homework on this one. There is plenty of precedent as to why the president backed down on his veto and all you need to do is look at the history of Article II Section II Paragraph II. Previous presidents have recognized that, among other things, treaties that might bind future presidents must have the advice and consent of the full house and senate. More importantly, giving a president, any president, the unilateral ability to enter into a treaty the size and scope of the one with Iran, the sum and substance of which is an arm control treaty, would move the United States from a constitutional form of government to a monarchy.
2
Which veto was that, please?
1
Between this debacle and the Iraq war, the Republicans have no credibility when it comes to foreign policy. Our closest allies, countries with similar merits and values, supported this framework. To walk alway now would cause a further erosion of American confidence on the world stage. If this deal falls through, and Iran gets a bomb, the GOP owns it.
9
1) dems voted for this as well
2) you mean our best buds China and Russia, and then there's Germany and France who haven't done much in the way of supporting us in the middle east, have they?
2) you mean our best buds China and Russia, and then there's Germany and France who haven't done much in the way of supporting us in the middle east, have they?
It's frivolous to speak of any "deal" under the extenuating circumstances. Had there actually been something substantial implemented regarding 24/7 inspections and unlimited policing of Iran expected nuclear facilities there would be no Iranian politician arguing about sanctions. Iran should NOT be allowed the luxury of dictating terms regarding sanctions nor any other "detail." While this nonsense continues they continue their weapon production unimpeded. Once they have the developed nukes and a ballistic missile delivery system all bets are off. Israel believes that time is just around the corner -- so do we.
Of course the critics have failed to offer a credible alternative. All they know how to do is beat the drums of war. Their criticisms of an agreement with Iran go straight to bombing Iran, often in the same sentence . The actions of this Congress and especially the 47's letter to Iran have diminished the U.S. on the world stage. Now our president has to sit at the negotiating table with other world leaders, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council with diminished authority. The disrespect shown to President Obama and his office, the highest in the land was bad enough within the confines of our own country. Now that they've blasted their outrageousness onto the world stage, I think we should start talking seriously about using the Logan Act and filing charges of treason.
10
As a state sponsor of terrorism, how hard is it to fathom that vehement secular ideology in Iran, which prevents peaceful relations in "their own backyard", could possibly be attained in good faith with the same country they are chanting for its demise?
1
Nothing new here. Self centered, self serving, self righteous fools with money have been destroying nations for eons.
Up until now, we've been lucky enough to suffer their 'selfness' without serious consequences. We can only hope that that our luck holds out and that we will continue to find the 20 in the 80/20 mix of those who are capable of leading the country forward without a complete capitulation to hubris, complacency, tribe, and class.
Up until now, we've been lucky enough to suffer their 'selfness' without serious consequences. We can only hope that that our luck holds out and that we will continue to find the 20 in the 80/20 mix of those who are capable of leading the country forward without a complete capitulation to hubris, complacency, tribe, and class.
Republicans have been lamenting that the world no longer respects us, that "our enemies no longer fear us", well they certainly have shown that the respect they desire comes at a price - not only for Americans but the rest of the world as well.
They should have checked their egos at the door; they do not represent a party, they represent(ed) America, her interests and her policies abroad.
Instead of acting like statesmen, examples in leadership and diplomacy they played to the crowd (their own) and puffed up with their own power and ego they have again revealed themselves by undercutting, perhaps denying any progress made by their own government's efforts to regain respect for America's diplomatic mission in the international community, to bury the 'Ugly American'
Didn't we used to call such behaviour and actions as traitorous and warmongering?
How else can one describe the purposeful acts, the dismantling of one's own government's foreign policies and the public disrespect and the undermining of the Office of the President of the United States?
How can America be "respected" if like bullies we only swing a big stick, make rumbling sounds of war?
Teddy Roosevelt believed American values, nationalism could influence countries to be better citizens, but this GOP is not the party of Teddy Roosevelt or even Reagan anymore, it is not "my country tis of thee" they intone but rather "tis of me".
They should have checked their egos at the door; they do not represent a party, they represent(ed) America, her interests and her policies abroad.
Instead of acting like statesmen, examples in leadership and diplomacy they played to the crowd (their own) and puffed up with their own power and ego they have again revealed themselves by undercutting, perhaps denying any progress made by their own government's efforts to regain respect for America's diplomatic mission in the international community, to bury the 'Ugly American'
Didn't we used to call such behaviour and actions as traitorous and warmongering?
How else can one describe the purposeful acts, the dismantling of one's own government's foreign policies and the public disrespect and the undermining of the Office of the President of the United States?
How can America be "respected" if like bullies we only swing a big stick, make rumbling sounds of war?
Teddy Roosevelt believed American values, nationalism could influence countries to be better citizens, but this GOP is not the party of Teddy Roosevelt or even Reagan anymore, it is not "my country tis of thee" they intone but rather "tis of me".
4
once again, both dems and repubs suport this -- the problem is a reckless, feckless president and a secretary of state out of his depth.
2
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans. Shame on any Democrat -- are you listening Senator Cardin (sp?) -- who joined this travesty. They want to interject themselves into foreign policy negotiations, but not one of them is willing to have their fingerprints on a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to cover operations against ISIS/ISIL and Syria. The politics of re-election trumps everything for these hypocritical "public servants."
7
When the Russians and Chinese tell us what we can do with the sanctions against Iran, what then? Will Corker and Graham lead the fight in Iran?
3
You are asking the Congress to silently accept that a President may repeal a law duly passed by congress and signed by a President without the advice or consent of the Congress.
This bill does not insinuate the Congress in the negotiations it gives Congress an up down vote on the final form. Every Nuclear treaty in our history has been subject to such votes.
You toss out the Red Herring that France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. France Britain and Germany have not behaved similarly. Of course they are parliamentary governments where the actors are members of the legislature and not powerful independent heads of state. China and Russia, oh for a US President to have such powers, give me a break.
You then leap to the robust logic of a 15 year old caught with a pack of cigarettes and tell us everyone else is doing it. The EU and UN may lift the sanctions so our President should have the unbridled authority to do so.
Once again our President has failed at retail politics, the need to define a policy and sell it to Congress and the American people. That is only unfortunate, because a good deal can still get sold by the President and approved by the Senate. What is troubling; is the NYT baiting partisan divides to prop up a President who has so failed.
This bill does not insinuate the Congress in the negotiations it gives Congress an up down vote on the final form. Every Nuclear treaty in our history has been subject to such votes.
You toss out the Red Herring that France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. France Britain and Germany have not behaved similarly. Of course they are parliamentary governments where the actors are members of the legislature and not powerful independent heads of state. China and Russia, oh for a US President to have such powers, give me a break.
You then leap to the robust logic of a 15 year old caught with a pack of cigarettes and tell us everyone else is doing it. The EU and UN may lift the sanctions so our President should have the unbridled authority to do so.
Once again our President has failed at retail politics, the need to define a policy and sell it to Congress and the American people. That is only unfortunate, because a good deal can still get sold by the President and approved by the Senate. What is troubling; is the NYT baiting partisan divides to prop up a President who has so failed.
So, if we fail at getting Iran to agree to stop its nuclear weapons programs peacefully, who is willing to send soldiers into Iran, street by street, cave by cave, bunker by bunker, in a country with 71 million people in an area the size of texas ? I know who is not going!
5
Why did the Senate Democrats vote for this move? Why would they allow Congress to undermine the authority of their President?
Is this a legacy of the Netanyahu effect?
Is this a legacy of the Netanyahu effect?
4
You may not agree with Congress' opinion here, but it's folly to call it reckless. Congress is doing their job. Congress enacted the economic sanctions on Iraq and they cannot be removed without Congressional action. If the President wants those removed he is going to need to get a deal signed that Congress thinks is productive.
This is democracy at work even if you don't like the result. The President is trying to negotiate a treaty that the elected representatives of this government do not support. It's on him to convince Congress, even his own party, and he's not done that to this point, as evidenced by the vote yesterday.
Why did the Democratic Senators join in? The Democratic lawmakers have weighed the pros and cons of what Obama has put on the table and they don't like it. Monitoring of Iran via the UN has little teeth, and even if the Iranians are caught sanctions could only be re-imposed with Security Counsel consent (Russian and Chinese) - good luck with that.
This is democracy at work even if you don't like the result. The President is trying to negotiate a treaty that the elected representatives of this government do not support. It's on him to convince Congress, even his own party, and he's not done that to this point, as evidenced by the vote yesterday.
Why did the Democratic Senators join in? The Democratic lawmakers have weighed the pros and cons of what Obama has put on the table and they don't like it. Monitoring of Iran via the UN has little teeth, and even if the Iranians are caught sanctions could only be re-imposed with Security Counsel consent (Russian and Chinese) - good luck with that.
Members of Congress are kidding themselves if they think they can kill this deal and continue the status quo. International sanctions will evaporate if the deal falls through and it's perceived to be the US' fault. Moreover, Iranian leadership is and will continue to expend considerable resources placating the IRGC et. al. and will have little choice but to continue the program to regain their legitimacy if the deal fails.
Republican lawmakers are either ill-informed or disingenuous if they think they'll be able to control the nuclear program with sanctions.
Republican lawmakers are either ill-informed or disingenuous if they think they'll be able to control the nuclear program with sanctions.
4
The new Republican mantra against the President, among many, has become the "my way or the highway" critique, a serious juxtaposition of a tired cliche.
This President has done everything in his power to work for bi-partisanship, which has become a seemingly impossible task given the rampant ignorance and avarice of the the newly elected and sitting Repubicans-in-name-only, who now control the Congress.
And, learning nothing from their unfortunate Congressional losses, the Democrats in Congress have proven themselves to be weak and complicit, and now threaten the only real chance at a potentially peaceful solution with Iran.
Republicans, under the ironic "tutelage" of the Tea Party and their apparent ring leader in warfare over diplomacy, Mr. Nettanyahu, are grossly uninformed, scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant. That they have become the "voice" of the new Republican Party is a testament to the lack of integrity to be found in a historical Party that once believed in informed governance.
The Tea Party has turned the GOP and it would appear the Democrats as well, into a veritable "Confederacy of Dunces."
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
This President has done everything in his power to work for bi-partisanship, which has become a seemingly impossible task given the rampant ignorance and avarice of the the newly elected and sitting Repubicans-in-name-only, who now control the Congress.
And, learning nothing from their unfortunate Congressional losses, the Democrats in Congress have proven themselves to be weak and complicit, and now threaten the only real chance at a potentially peaceful solution with Iran.
Republicans, under the ironic "tutelage" of the Tea Party and their apparent ring leader in warfare over diplomacy, Mr. Nettanyahu, are grossly uninformed, scientifically illiterate and willfully ignorant. That they have become the "voice" of the new Republican Party is a testament to the lack of integrity to be found in a historical Party that once believed in informed governance.
The Tea Party has turned the GOP and it would appear the Democrats as well, into a veritable "Confederacy of Dunces."
mlouisemarkle
State College, PA
6
i believe this compromise gives power to Iran in the negotiations and if attempts to reach an agreement fail, the fault will be squarely placed on the U.S. This most certainly strengthens the hardliners in Iran, including the Ayatollah. Should an agreement be reached, the thirty days (up to 52 days) of congressional comment will be days of unrelenting Israeli propaganda, distortion and scare tactics. Democrats have joined in and can share the blame for potential conflict with Iran, good job Dems! To those who suggest that a short bombing campaign (Cotton, R. Ark.) will be all it takes if talks fail, they are either lying or naive. Personally, I fall on the side of lying. Any attack on Iran will ignite an all out Shia-Sunni War in the region that will make the Bush Cheney Iraq quagmire seem tame.
The only hope is that Mr. Rouani (sp?) has enough power to see this though. Iran needs sanction relief and their young population does not want war, IMO. The people of Iran actually support a peaceful solution and see the U.S. favorably at this time, which could turn on a dime, if we bomb.
One more point, this Democrat does not support Sen. Chuck Shummer for Minority Leader, for what that is worth, I believe his loyalties are divided. When Americans awaken from their slumber to find us embroiled in World War III, there will be hell to pay for both parties.
The only hope is that Mr. Rouani (sp?) has enough power to see this though. Iran needs sanction relief and their young population does not want war, IMO. The people of Iran actually support a peaceful solution and see the U.S. favorably at this time, which could turn on a dime, if we bomb.
One more point, this Democrat does not support Sen. Chuck Shummer for Minority Leader, for what that is worth, I believe his loyalties are divided. When Americans awaken from their slumber to find us embroiled in World War III, there will be hell to pay for both parties.
5
No more reckless than should be expected with a Congress outraged at being cut out of foreign affairs that many regard as having immense implications. Another is Cuba. When the implications are this big, agreements should take the form of treaties and should be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification. This suggests that Congress should be materially involved from the outset.
The president and his administration treat with the world on MANY issues, as his job description specifies, and almost all of them are not fit subject for debate, or at least not for official resistance. But some are. Iran and Cuba are included among these, and the Iranian part originally was intended to be implemented as a diktat -- Cuba still is, except where some actual law makes it inconvenient.
That some are outraged by the recent congressional action is unreasonable. They were seriously ticked, they have reason to be, and this was the only way to get the president's attention. What's more, breaking announcements make it clear that it worked.
The Iranian framework likely will crash and burn now, as what will emerge from serious congressional involvement at this late stage is a set of conditions for lifting of sanctions that Iran will feel politically obligated to reject. But we didn't go to them -- they came to us. The reasons for lifting sanctions completely are still centrally important to Iran ... and they'll be back, eventually. A better deal could emerge.
The president and his administration treat with the world on MANY issues, as his job description specifies, and almost all of them are not fit subject for debate, or at least not for official resistance. But some are. Iran and Cuba are included among these, and the Iranian part originally was intended to be implemented as a diktat -- Cuba still is, except where some actual law makes it inconvenient.
That some are outraged by the recent congressional action is unreasonable. They were seriously ticked, they have reason to be, and this was the only way to get the president's attention. What's more, breaking announcements make it clear that it worked.
The Iranian framework likely will crash and burn now, as what will emerge from serious congressional involvement at this late stage is a set of conditions for lifting of sanctions that Iran will feel politically obligated to reject. But we didn't go to them -- they came to us. The reasons for lifting sanctions completely are still centrally important to Iran ... and they'll be back, eventually. A better deal could emerge.
2
...as in, "emerge after Russia and China blow off any sanctions, we lose any chance of inspections, the Iranians go full steam ahead and develop a nuke," I suppose. Or are you going for the "emerge after we bomb, their program goes completely underground, they retaliate so we bomb some more, and then they develop a nuke?"
One incident of "diminishment" of executive authority which does not rule out the president's veto power and/or ability to suspend sanctions, is not a permanent change. And the Times never questions whether the Executive should have unencumbered power to negotiate with Foreign states. The Constitution is imperfect, so to use it to bolster its argument, is insufficient for The Times. Russian control of Eastern Europe after WW 2 is a great example of when this unchecked power yielded disastrous results and history shows it is not the only example.
Au contraire, our country overthrew a monarchal form of abusive gov't. to form The United States based on a constitution. Let us let Congress, the countrys elected representatives, fulfill their Constitutional obligations. We will all be better off regardless of how ugly it may look. Besides, the King system is DEAD. Not long lived but dead. Our revolutionary forefathers had it right, bless their souls.
Our House and Senate should be re-branded "dumb" and "dumber". I have completely lost faith in the government that supposedly represents me. I am embarrassed to be an American.
It has become painfully obvious that the Democrats lack both the courage and moral fortitude to lead this country. The way in which they have allowed the right to scuttle our President's good faith efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran prove once and for all that they stand for nothing but their own personal enrichment and nobody but the special interests who fund their campaigns. Of course any that oppose this political chicanery are now accused of being antisemitic.
Our two party system is in shambles and has utterly failed the American people. I get that the GOP are actively pushing the United States over a cliff but can't the Democrats pretend to object a little? Perhaps we should select Netanyahu as our presidential candidate instead of Hillary since we are now executing foreign policy that benefits Israel instead of the United States?
I have reached a level of disgust with my own party where I simply don't know if I can hold my nose and vote for them anymore. Any party that includes Chuck Shumer probably doesn't have a "big enough tent" for me.
If we don't like the deal currently being negotiated with Iran what is our solution? Bomb Iran? Do we seriously think that is an intelligent solution? Do we seriously think about anything at all?
It has become painfully obvious that the Democrats lack both the courage and moral fortitude to lead this country. The way in which they have allowed the right to scuttle our President's good faith efforts to negotiate a deal with Iran prove once and for all that they stand for nothing but their own personal enrichment and nobody but the special interests who fund their campaigns. Of course any that oppose this political chicanery are now accused of being antisemitic.
Our two party system is in shambles and has utterly failed the American people. I get that the GOP are actively pushing the United States over a cliff but can't the Democrats pretend to object a little? Perhaps we should select Netanyahu as our presidential candidate instead of Hillary since we are now executing foreign policy that benefits Israel instead of the United States?
I have reached a level of disgust with my own party where I simply don't know if I can hold my nose and vote for them anymore. Any party that includes Chuck Shumer probably doesn't have a "big enough tent" for me.
If we don't like the deal currently being negotiated with Iran what is our solution? Bomb Iran? Do we seriously think that is an intelligent solution? Do we seriously think about anything at all?
12
The framers of our Constitution had little use for politicians envisioning a Congress composed of civic-minded citizens that convened periodically to do the business of the country rather than as an institution in of itself (and all that implies). They were also fundamentally opposed to the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual thus in separating powers they made the executive branch weak. For the past 200+ years presidents, regardless of party, have sought to increase the power of the executive branch and they have been largely successful. President Obama is certainly not an exception in this regard and especially recently. With unanimous passage this Act appears to be a message to the President from the legislative branch as an institution in this ongoing tussle over the extent and limits of respective powers. The conduct of foreign policy is the prerogative of the executive branch however pursuant to the Constitution the execution of a treaty clearly requires the advice and consent of Congress. The argument that Congress is making with this Act is that while this agreement may not be a treaty per se, it falls into a gray area between foreign policy action and an effective treaty given our adversarial relationship with Iran and, that this agreement will fundamentally change that therefore, if not ‘advice and consent’ then review and opinion. Personally, I do not have a problem with that.
12
The phenomenon the editors describe, and apparently are scared of, is called democracy. The Senators are representatives of America's people. If they can hobble the Prez, and they unanimously vote to do so, it's a safe bet that they are exercising their power and duty as people's electees. Tough on those who believe that the Prez should act in disregard of a majority of contrary opinion.
1
The Senate is so grossly malapportioned that it makes utter mockery of the concept of equal protection of law. It seems not to know that it has no objective credibility.
3
Very simple math here. If this fails due to congress pulling the rug out from a deal that was approved by the other nations, the Europeans will walk away from sanctions and/or make a weaker deal with Iran. Game over.
9
I keep reading about the constitutional authority of the senate (and house) to intervene in President Obama's role in these talks. Everyone needs to read the story one more time. This whole Iranian Nuclear Weapons set of talks, based on International, UN sponsored "Sanctions" is not a "TREATY". Let's repeat that: this is NOT A TREATY with Iran or Anybody else! Right now everything hinges on the "Sanctions" that the International community has Voluntarily Imposed on Iran in order to get them to Bargain to Stop Enriching Uranium to Develop a Nuclear Weapon.
The US Congress did not pass an International Law that forces any nation to do any thing to, for, or against Iran. President Obama has NO Obligation to ask permission from congress to enter into this Sanction Lifting Agreement other than to play some bipartisanship with the republicans. It also more importantly gives the Democrats some cover from the Netanyahu block of US Jewish voters. This entire FAUX Drama is only worthy of Hollywood Satire turned slapstick a la Charlie Chaplin or the Three Stooges.
The US Congress did not pass an International Law that forces any nation to do any thing to, for, or against Iran. President Obama has NO Obligation to ask permission from congress to enter into this Sanction Lifting Agreement other than to play some bipartisanship with the republicans. It also more importantly gives the Democrats some cover from the Netanyahu block of US Jewish voters. This entire FAUX Drama is only worthy of Hollywood Satire turned slapstick a la Charlie Chaplin or the Three Stooges.
3
I am not sure what the purpose of this editorial is. The deal has been done and Obama conceded. Does it occur to the authors that this editorial is largely irrelevant? Why bother? Also, Russia in the list of negotiators does not look too good. It is a recognized aggressor that violated the borders of the neighboring state and is already lifting some sanctions on arms supplies to Iran. The deal does not look good if Russia supports it.
Obviously this entire attempt of republicans to insert themselves into an"Agreement" is a sham to pervert not only the constitution but to humilate President Obama. The Iranians smartly dismissed the senate grandstanding by issuing a statement that they are "dealing with world powers and not the US senate". Hopefully this all will end up embarrassing both the republican leadership and the cowardly democrats, the latter whom are playing up to the American Jewish voters. It's slightly understandable since this block is traditionally a guaranteed vote for the liberal and progressive candidates. The whole play is as yet unfinished with amendments pending that have nothing of value to the specific purpose of Iran voluntarily self limiting nuclear weapons development: under sanctions of course.
No, the whole vote is self defeating of the US because the "International Powers" and the UN are going to drop the sanctions whether we do or not. The more worrisome problem is the widespread disinformation campaign that much of the US public has been fed that congress has a constitutional role in the "Agreement" process. This is wrong. It's only "Treaties" that give the senate ratification power.
No, the whole vote is self defeating of the US because the "International Powers" and the UN are going to drop the sanctions whether we do or not. The more worrisome problem is the widespread disinformation campaign that much of the US public has been fed that congress has a constitutional role in the "Agreement" process. This is wrong. It's only "Treaties" that give the senate ratification power.
3
"Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a Member of Congress. But I repeat myself!"
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
4
actually this bill doesn't really do anything. The still have to have the 67 votes to have a veto proof majority which is exactly what they would have to do now if they hadn't make the changes. At that point the deal is signed and the congress or I should say Israel can't do anything about it. There is no way any deal Obama signs gets a veto proof majority to get torpedoed.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's (unanimous) approach to dealing with Iran is likely as good or better than that of a President whose record of judgments on the Middle East has been, frankly, poor.
4
It is ok for Republicans to criticize the framework agreement. It is not ok for them to do this without presenting any alternative solution. This is how they have worked for the past 6 years-criticize everything Obama does without offering any solutions.
In the Iran case, doing nothing would allow them to develop a bomb in three years. Bombing Iran into the Stone Age would drive the program under ground, harden their resolve, and result in them getting a bomb (and using it) in three years.
Why are Republicans incapable of offering an alternative solution to the things they complain about?
In the Iran case, doing nothing would allow them to develop a bomb in three years. Bombing Iran into the Stone Age would drive the program under ground, harden their resolve, and result in them getting a bomb (and using it) in three years.
Why are Republicans incapable of offering an alternative solution to the things they complain about?
"But the Senate committee’s action puts him in an weakened position as the only leader involved in the negotiations who may not be permitted to fully honor commitments that were made."
When did America become so divided that we are the weakest nation in creating stability in the world?
When did America become so divided that we are the weakest nation in creating stability in the world?
2
MY reading on the move in Congress is that it is not directed at P5+1 Negotiations with Iran as it is rather designed to combat Mr. Obama's potential willingness to "Deny Israel The US Veto In The UN" when France introduces a Peace Plan for the Israel-Palestine Two-State Solution.
IN effect Likud, AIPAC, the Evangelists and the Neocons are telling Mr. Obama: "You can have your Iran Deal if we keep Status-Quo in the West Bank allowing the Occupation to continue indefinitely without any costs to Israel".
WE Should All Stay Tuned For The Other Shoe To Drop!
IN effect Likud, AIPAC, the Evangelists and the Neocons are telling Mr. Obama: "You can have your Iran Deal if we keep Status-Quo in the West Bank allowing the Occupation to continue indefinitely without any costs to Israel".
WE Should All Stay Tuned For The Other Shoe To Drop!
1
Bad precedent. Brought to you by Bibi N., who crassly won another term by scaring racists, and who has been a Casandra on this for 20 years, and consistently wrong. And brought to you by the extreme wing of the Republicans, who mainly are interested in sticking it to Obama. Let's hope centrists and those with the nations interests in preventing the bombmaking capacity as well as preventing a drive to war will excert some adult supervision.
4
The Republican Congress is misreading the mood of the American people. Blocking a diplomatic agreement on the Iran nuclear issue opens the door to military confrontation. Our allies will not be with us since they support diplomatic resolution. The sanctions are meaningless without a united front with our allies. The American people are exhausted from our previous military miscalculations in the Middle East. Are these congressional meddlers prepared to take responsibility for military confrontation with Iran? I think not. They will run for the hills. Fools rush in...
4
The Senate committee vote was 19-0. This represents our Congressional leaders recognizing their role to advise and consent. If Obama and Kerry are getting a truly good agreement, good for the USA, the Senate will approve it. The appeasers are really saying "don't let the Senate get involved, they might screw up our ability to appease Iran". And for those who invoke the League of Nations rejection, I'd suggest you improve your simplistic idea of the world in 1919 and read Dr. Tooze's book "The Deluge".
2
"If Obama and Kerry are getting a truly good agreement, good for the USA, the Senate will approve it."
The Republican majority in the Senate, like the one in the House, are not interested in what is best for the country. They are interested in making the President look bad by denying him any success they can, and making sure that they are able to preserve their ability to drag our country into another Middle East War if they should elect one of their own to the Presidency in 2016.
The Republican majority in the Senate, like the one in the House, are not interested in what is best for the country. They are interested in making the President look bad by denying him any success they can, and making sure that they are able to preserve their ability to drag our country into another Middle East War if they should elect one of their own to the Presidency in 2016.
3
Would someone please remind me what gives the "West" the right to tell a nation that it can't have a particular weapons technology? I understand why it is a good idea not to let nuclear weapons spread, in general, and, more so, in this case. But what it the legal basis for this?
2
There is no legal basis. Nor is there any physical means by which we can stop Iran, unless some screwball wants a real-life enactment of the movie Dr. Strangelove and launches a major pre-emptive strike. And if we think we have Mid-East troubles now, they won't hold a candle to what will come our way if some bozo carries out that plan. And there seem to be no lack of them wanting to do exactly that in the Op-Ed section of the WSJ. God spare me from the consequences of fanatics in charge.
Let there be no doubt. If we end up in a war with Iran, it is Congressional Republicans and the Democrats who supported them who must answer for this. On top of that, their meddling will earn us no support in the international community for a coalition to prosecute that war. Congress is the one that has killed any deal and they must take the blame.
5
Senators claim that only their insistence ensured sanctions that now keep Iran straight.
Meanwhile, today's dysfunction in both Congress's houses makes the outlook for an Iran thaw far less likely.
But how reckless is the Senate to want to ensure safeguards it put in place, are not given away?
The US has a long history of tossing away its strong hand, just so as to show others we are friends, in hopes of an agreement with some hostile regime.
We were in a rush to have free trade with China. The hope was that trade makes hostile nations like China less hostile. We pumped FDI into Chinese factories and infrastructure. We gave away IP. We gave China free access to our huge consumer and industrial markets. China's low-cost unskilled assembly labor got our high-cost, unskilled assembly line labor's jobs. Was China satisfied?
Did China send us a thank-you for its new strength? No. It got tougher. It bared its teeth and makes ludicrous claims to the whole South China Sea. Those who do not roll over to such claims ask trouble from China.
Our problem is believing being liked alone is worthwhile. Kerry seems to live in that dream. If Iran wants sanctions removed, he is most likely to go along.
Whatever one might say of Kissinger, he never thought being Lord Bountiful was a hard result.
So Congress may torpedo giving Iran all it wants. Is that necessarily bad?
Meanwhile, today's dysfunction in both Congress's houses makes the outlook for an Iran thaw far less likely.
But how reckless is the Senate to want to ensure safeguards it put in place, are not given away?
The US has a long history of tossing away its strong hand, just so as to show others we are friends, in hopes of an agreement with some hostile regime.
We were in a rush to have free trade with China. The hope was that trade makes hostile nations like China less hostile. We pumped FDI into Chinese factories and infrastructure. We gave away IP. We gave China free access to our huge consumer and industrial markets. China's low-cost unskilled assembly labor got our high-cost, unskilled assembly line labor's jobs. Was China satisfied?
Did China send us a thank-you for its new strength? No. It got tougher. It bared its teeth and makes ludicrous claims to the whole South China Sea. Those who do not roll over to such claims ask trouble from China.
Our problem is believing being liked alone is worthwhile. Kerry seems to live in that dream. If Iran wants sanctions removed, he is most likely to go along.
Whatever one might say of Kissinger, he never thought being Lord Bountiful was a hard result.
So Congress may torpedo giving Iran all it wants. Is that necessarily bad?
Most of the comments supporting this editorial accuse those Senators who support Congressional review and approval of any deal with Iran as evil people motivated by something other than believing it is in the best interest of the United States.
Our democracy cannot last much longer if people see those who oppose their points of view as evil and illegitimate.
Our democracy cannot last much longer if people see those who oppose their points of view as evil and illegitimate.
I am fed up with being left out of the federal process. I vote, pay my taxes and yet the current Administration has decided that my elected representatives are not part of the process. And now the press is siding with the Administration. What has happened to American democracy?
3
Well, I am fed up with the disrespect shown to the one "federal" elected representative--President Obama (overwhelming elected twice by the votes of the entire country).
What happened to American democracy? The GOP efforts to gerrymander districts and the Supreme Courts' Citizens United decision to make money from billionaires more valuable than the votes of actual citizens who now more than ever are actually left out of the "federal process".
What happened to American democracy? The GOP efforts to gerrymander districts and the Supreme Courts' Citizens United decision to make money from billionaires more valuable than the votes of actual citizens who now more than ever are actually left out of the "federal process".
1
When you have a strong and wise President like Pres Obama it becomes apparent that the Congress is not necessary.
2
It seems troubling that Iran is increasingly emboldened to exert influence in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, during its nuclear negotiations with the P5+1. It seems that it is a very fragile process as Saudi Arabia contends with unrest on its border with Yemen & Iraq continues to require American support to fight ISIS encroachment from Syria.
I understand why Congress would demand to have a contributory role in the negotiations by requesting to have leverage to lift economic sanctions or to strengthen them depending on the final "deal." During the final stages of a treaty, Iran decides to purchase five S-300 long range missile systems as well as joining China's AIIB last week. It appears that Iran is playing all sides including courting favors with Russia, China, Europe & the US, while milking their negotiating power to allow them to expand their territory into Iraq & further by supporting Yemeni rebels.
Although Congress's decision to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress & saber rattle, was disruptive to the negotiations, it did allow a different view point about the process to arise. I believe Congress has a right to read the fine print of the "deal" including the containment of Iran's nuclear program if their intent is to work with Obama on asserting the US's assurance that Iran's nuclear capability will indeed be contained in the process. After all, Congress represents the American people, who, ultimately, should also be allowed a voice in the process.
I understand why Congress would demand to have a contributory role in the negotiations by requesting to have leverage to lift economic sanctions or to strengthen them depending on the final "deal." During the final stages of a treaty, Iran decides to purchase five S-300 long range missile systems as well as joining China's AIIB last week. It appears that Iran is playing all sides including courting favors with Russia, China, Europe & the US, while milking their negotiating power to allow them to expand their territory into Iraq & further by supporting Yemeni rebels.
Although Congress's decision to invite Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress & saber rattle, was disruptive to the negotiations, it did allow a different view point about the process to arise. I believe Congress has a right to read the fine print of the "deal" including the containment of Iran's nuclear program if their intent is to work with Obama on asserting the US's assurance that Iran's nuclear capability will indeed be contained in the process. After all, Congress represents the American people, who, ultimately, should also be allowed a voice in the process.
2
I'll be interested to see Mr. Obama's long game on this one. And I'm sure he has a long game. When he does something like this Congress generally ends up looking like worse idiots than we all already imagine them to be.
Congress never wins these things when Mr. Obama doesn't want to concede. The irony is they aren't even clever enough to be afraid.
Congress never wins these things when Mr. Obama doesn't want to concede. The irony is they aren't even clever enough to be afraid.
1
Obama was elected as President of the United States. He was not elected as Dictator of the United States. If his office is Dictator of the United States, then yes this editorial would be correct that the Senate has overstepped his bounds. It seems that your message is that if you don't like the decisions Obama is making, including decisions that are contrary to positions he took while on the campaign trail such as limiting Iran to "hundreds of centrifuges," then wait till the next election. In other words, if you like his decisions, Congress' responsibility is to rubber stamp them.
I'm sorry. I remember voting for only one person to be president. Apparently you're convinced there should be hundreds of them - all with equal power. Is that right?
1
The proposed agreement with Iran as described in a "State Department Press Release" is being put forward as an Executive Agreement" that does not require Congressional approval. That is the problem. The agreement when finalized in a document for signing should have been put forward as a "Treaty" requiring the Senate's powers to Advise and Consent'.
The argument often raised is that this demand for approval by the Senate is just one more example of whatever President Obama proposes Republicans oppose. Flip the argument around and it becomes whatever the Republicans want the President opposes.
This agreement is too important to rise or fall on domestic politics. There are major issues going forward with respect to our position in the Middle East as the a World leader and Super Power with interests and allies we need to or should be protecting.
Russia has now renewed it contract to sell ground to air defense missiles to Iran and both Russia and China are aggressively seeking to align with and influence Iran through other economic contracts as soon as sanctions are lifted.
We are facing enemies that require us to maintain constant vigilance and may require strong economic and defense moves to counteract countries that oppose us and seek to weaken our influence.
Look at Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, the Middle East. It's clear our influence is being challenged and we are withdrawing. This is why we need a Treaty requiring the Senate's approval.
The argument often raised is that this demand for approval by the Senate is just one more example of whatever President Obama proposes Republicans oppose. Flip the argument around and it becomes whatever the Republicans want the President opposes.
This agreement is too important to rise or fall on domestic politics. There are major issues going forward with respect to our position in the Middle East as the a World leader and Super Power with interests and allies we need to or should be protecting.
Russia has now renewed it contract to sell ground to air defense missiles to Iran and both Russia and China are aggressively seeking to align with and influence Iran through other economic contracts as soon as sanctions are lifted.
We are facing enemies that require us to maintain constant vigilance and may require strong economic and defense moves to counteract countries that oppose us and seek to weaken our influence.
Look at Eastern Europe, the South China Sea, the Middle East. It's clear our influence is being challenged and we are withdrawing. This is why we need a Treaty requiring the Senate's approval.
This sounds like the way the US Government is supposed to work. Checks and balances.
3
There is no reason that I have heard indicating that Obama is trustworthy or particularly intelligent on foreign affairs. There are currently 9 wars raging and ISIS is knocking at our door. His understanding of how the world works is almost nil; all he knows is to stay out of war. Sorry, but he doesn't know what he's doing and I for one think he's fortunate indeed to get this oversight. Many in congress know significantly more and have more experience in these matters than he does. And I couldn't care less about his legacy status.
2
The Europeans will likely proceed and remove sanctions regardless of how our congress struts around. This will further isolate the U.S. and erode the notion that it's the "leader" of anything. Bad move.
6
I think this is so warped-everyone on the committee voted for it! Democrats and Republicans. It is hard to believe that you can be so biased as to interpret as a GOP grab!
"Bill" asks why this "bipartisan" legislation has so many critics. I am Jewish and support Israel, but face facts: the Senate is bought and paid for by AIPAC, just as it is by the NRA. Like so many others, I consider this congress a disgrace.
5
This does trample across a bold demarkation of function and power. More evidence of the progressive dysfunction of our acutely partisan federal governance.
Frustration abounds and intensifies nationally. The Democrats are in some considerable disarray. Hillary’s bid is certainly not the certain thing it has been made out to be. The American People are getting desperate to see the political log jam broken.
None of this bodes well for complex rational choices.
I dread to consider the possibility of a Republican win of the White House in 2016 concurrent with sustained or even expanded GOP majorities in the Congress.
Frustration abounds and intensifies nationally. The Democrats are in some considerable disarray. Hillary’s bid is certainly not the certain thing it has been made out to be. The American People are getting desperate to see the political log jam broken.
None of this bodes well for complex rational choices.
I dread to consider the possibility of a Republican win of the White House in 2016 concurrent with sustained or even expanded GOP majorities in the Congress.
Thanks to the free press in this nation we already know that the Iranian position on the "framework" is substantially different from the one President Obama presented to the nation.
Needless to say, in nations where the Supreme Leader is the final word on all matters, the very idea of a free press is, more or less, a joke.
The US Congress, including a number of experienced Democrats, is right to be confused about what is going on. The Iranians say this, the President says that. This is no ordinary trade deal, but a matter of the most sensitive national security for all Americans.
It should not be blindly trusted to a lame duck President with no majority support in Congress. And a President whose policies were generally rebuffed at the polls only five months ago.
The Times has unfortunately taken a purely partisan position on this vastly important matter.
Needless to say, in nations where the Supreme Leader is the final word on all matters, the very idea of a free press is, more or less, a joke.
The US Congress, including a number of experienced Democrats, is right to be confused about what is going on. The Iranians say this, the President says that. This is no ordinary trade deal, but a matter of the most sensitive national security for all Americans.
It should not be blindly trusted to a lame duck President with no majority support in Congress. And a President whose policies were generally rebuffed at the polls only five months ago.
The Times has unfortunately taken a purely partisan position on this vastly important matter.
Anyone truly wanting to restrain Iran wants severe sanctions to remain in place. Anyone who knows anything about negotiating knows that lifting the sanctions is not the way to get a verifiable nuclear restrained Iran. Unfortunately, the President is not one of those. Apparently, neither is the Editorial Board.
Once again the editorial board supports Obama, regardless.
So let me ask you this -- if you were president of the US and you were negotiating a very significant nuclear agreement with a country that is not an ally, wouldn't you want the support of Congress? Remember, Obama will be out of office in two years, the agreement with Iran (if we in fact end up with one) will last long after Obama and Kerry are gone and out on book tours.
I don't are about Obama's legacy, and if that is what he and his supporters care about, they are wrong. What we should all care about is whether it is a good idea to negotiate with Iran and if we do, whether the deal benefits the US and its allies.
So far, what we have seen since Obama announced that we have a framework for an agreement are: (1) Iran denying we have a framework (2) Iran's leaders and citizens shouting death to America and (3) -- most alarmingly, Russia selling missiles to Iran that would make them less vulnerable to attack should the need arise.
So, explain to me why Congress doesn't have a legitimate role here and why it wouldn't be to the administration's advantage to have congressional support? From a political standpoint garnering support for the deal makes sense. And if congress refuses to agree to the deal then who loses? Obama's legacy? Again, I don't give a fig for his legacy if he puts us in a precarious position. And if congress agrees to the deal. Obama wins.
So let me ask you this -- if you were president of the US and you were negotiating a very significant nuclear agreement with a country that is not an ally, wouldn't you want the support of Congress? Remember, Obama will be out of office in two years, the agreement with Iran (if we in fact end up with one) will last long after Obama and Kerry are gone and out on book tours.
I don't are about Obama's legacy, and if that is what he and his supporters care about, they are wrong. What we should all care about is whether it is a good idea to negotiate with Iran and if we do, whether the deal benefits the US and its allies.
So far, what we have seen since Obama announced that we have a framework for an agreement are: (1) Iran denying we have a framework (2) Iran's leaders and citizens shouting death to America and (3) -- most alarmingly, Russia selling missiles to Iran that would make them less vulnerable to attack should the need arise.
So, explain to me why Congress doesn't have a legitimate role here and why it wouldn't be to the administration's advantage to have congressional support? From a political standpoint garnering support for the deal makes sense. And if congress refuses to agree to the deal then who loses? Obama's legacy? Again, I don't give a fig for his legacy if he puts us in a precarious position. And if congress agrees to the deal. Obama wins.
France, Britain, and Germany have parliaments so the party negotiating treaties is also the won the latest national electins and controls the government. China is a dictatorship and Russia is, well, Russia. The US is very different, especially when one political party controls Congress and the other the Presidency. Comparing the US version of democracy to the others is unhelpful, in the case of Europe, and LOL ludicrous in the case of China and Russia.
Shouldn't there be a requirement that the Knesset needs to approve any foreign negotiation conducted by this, and any future, liberal or moderate president?
1
The President- through his track record- has lost the benefit of the doubt of a bi-partisan Senate. Further, the familiarity of most Senators with Secretary Kerry likely gives them great concern about the negotiations with Iran. It's too bad Democrats didn't have a spine and intervene prior to the Iraq war. Many lives might have been saved but for political expediency and cowardice.
"..up to 52 days, after signing an agreement so Congress has time to weigh in". If only congress was so prudent when it comes time to wage war. It seems our elected representatives only want time to consider issues when peace is at stake?
1
There is a viable alternative: a return to sanctions. If Iran is negotiating in bad faith, and the President does not see it, or does not care, then it is the Congress's duty to do whatever it can to counterbalance the President's misjudgment.
2
Not the first reckless act by congress and, unfortunately, not the last. I just finished a book on the Treaty of Versailles and at the end of a six month long process in Paris by most countries involved in the War the Treaty was rejected by the US Congress much to the dismay of President Wilson and other world leaders. It did provide a shaky division of territory and reparations among the group of agressors but it still reverberates today in the history of the Middle East. The Republicans and Israel need to understand all the ramifications of denial because history will remember.
1
The fact that so many Democrats are signed onto the bill and it passed the committee unanimously shows that the Senate Democrats don't trust President Obama.
3
From 1937 to Pearl Harbor, FDR had to deal with isolationist knaves and fools in the U.S. Senate from both parties like Gerald Nye, Burton Wheeler and Hiram Smith, and their allies like the near traitor and Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh, as FDR maneuvered to prepare us for the fact that our entry into what became the Second World War was both inevitable and essential to destroy Nazi Germany and its Axis allies, especially Japan, and end their murderous rampages across Europe and Asia.
Today we have a president who for different but equally historically eloquent and essential and right purposes is attempting, particularly in this developing agreement with Iran, a broad new expression of the use of American power to reshape how we manage a fractured and fractious world on which we cannot impose order except step by step and piece by piece with prudent, limited use of our great military power in combination with astute diplomacy.
And like FDR in his time, the president is opposed by a cadre of knaves, fools and partisan extremists in the U.S. Senate.
So what do we learn from history, what does the Senate learn from its own history? Nothing, apparently nothing, nothing and nothing.
Today we have a president who for different but equally historically eloquent and essential and right purposes is attempting, particularly in this developing agreement with Iran, a broad new expression of the use of American power to reshape how we manage a fractured and fractious world on which we cannot impose order except step by step and piece by piece with prudent, limited use of our great military power in combination with astute diplomacy.
And like FDR in his time, the president is opposed by a cadre of knaves, fools and partisan extremists in the U.S. Senate.
So what do we learn from history, what does the Senate learn from its own history? Nothing, apparently nothing, nothing and nothing.
11
VERY well stated, Notafan. These Republican fools are hastening the demise of America with their limited intellects and zero experience in foreign affairs. But none of that stops their constant bumbling attempts at trying to be the center attraction on the world stage.
1
Congressional Dems are so cowered at the thought that support of our very forward thinking president will cost them politically. The result of that was handing the 2014 elections to the least qualified group of old-way thinkers that one would have to search into fiction sources to conjure.
Our president spent the first part of his presidency trying to work with a congress in which externally manipulated Republican's only goal was that he have a failed presidency, and as a result they failed. These, mostly men of the old-ways, whose only ideas are - no taxing wealthy people, no laws that attempt to reign in the financial institutions that lead us all into the abyss, the privatization of our military and in many cases the defunding of any and all public services and projects and shutting down government to make a strange point. But instead of the present congressional Dems taking advantage of the Republican' idiocy, they acquiesce. I don't know whose worse; spineless-faithless Democrats or the obviously wrong majority of the present Republican money-thugs in our congress.
If we get lead into military action against Iran I will blame the Republicans, those Democrats I just mentioned and Israel. But I will not be blaming this President who is working like a true leader to alter that catastrophic course.
Our president spent the first part of his presidency trying to work with a congress in which externally manipulated Republican's only goal was that he have a failed presidency, and as a result they failed. These, mostly men of the old-ways, whose only ideas are - no taxing wealthy people, no laws that attempt to reign in the financial institutions that lead us all into the abyss, the privatization of our military and in many cases the defunding of any and all public services and projects and shutting down government to make a strange point. But instead of the present congressional Dems taking advantage of the Republican' idiocy, they acquiesce. I don't know whose worse; spineless-faithless Democrats or the obviously wrong majority of the present Republican money-thugs in our congress.
If we get lead into military action against Iran I will blame the Republicans, those Democrats I just mentioned and Israel. But I will not be blaming this President who is working like a true leader to alter that catastrophic course.
9
so the infamous 'do nothing congress' is bored and wants to have an official pathway to interfere with another executive initiative.
no such a bad idea, except in this case, where they can, by doing nothing, hold up a peace treaty, for no reason at all.
no such a bad idea, except in this case, where they can, by doing nothing, hold up a peace treaty, for no reason at all.
6
This is the same Congress that won't touch the president's request for debate and re-authorization of funds for military action in Iraq. I guess THAT one just isn't sexy, or black and white, or easy enough for them. Or is it just too fraught with political peril? The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. They are spineless and disgust me.
Gosh--I wonder what the Senators will say as they consider this hoped-for agreement. Let me see; something like: Mr. Graham: "This is the worst agreement in the history of the world and we're all going to die." Mr. Cruz: "The President has sold us out to the evil Ayatollah because we knew all along he wasn't really an American." Mr. McCain: "We should never deal with pure evil and only a feckless and wrong-headed idiot would negotiate with terrorists. We need to Bomb Iran."
Why don't we save time and just replay all of their interviews on the Sunday talk shows and we'll have it in a nutshell. Nothing new or original has come out of these chicken-hearted chicken hawks in years. No wonder young people have no interest in politics.
Why don't we save time and just replay all of their interviews on the Sunday talk shows and we'll have it in a nutshell. Nothing new or original has come out of these chicken-hearted chicken hawks in years. No wonder young people have no interest in politics.
3
This is why Democrats are on their way to rump, regional status. They stab in the back their own party leader who is doing the best he can to go boldly where none have gone before. They enable the Republican agenda by hiding meekly under the table or in the closet while angry McCains and Cruzs tear up the kitchen and dining room.
Democrats are enabling the Republican's flawed theories on American constitutional law and playing into the hands of GOP presidential contenders who want to preen about how weak this president is on foreign policy.
But, don't worry, Democrats will say; "We've won the popular vote in 5 of the past 6 presidential elections."
Democrats are enabling the Republican's flawed theories on American constitutional law and playing into the hands of GOP presidential contenders who want to preen about how weak this president is on foreign policy.
But, don't worry, Democrats will say; "We've won the popular vote in 5 of the past 6 presidential elections."
3
This seems to be a demonstration of legislative juju -- to raise the pulse of an inert Senate -- but they won't reject the final deal. We can small the politics way out here in California.
I do hope that acquiescence to this Senate Foreign Relations work product is only a tactical diversion. As the Editorial Board rightly concluded, it is a hyper-partisan attempt to ‘poison’ (and block) a complicated, multilateral international negotiation, and avoid a worse outcome (prophylactic war) further down the road. Alone, that makes the case for expenditure of ‘political capital’ and a Presidential veto.
Do I believe that Senators Corker and McConnell can muster 67 votes for the final Senate product? Absolutely. Do I believe that Representative McCarthy (and Speaker Boehner) can be as effective as former-Speaker Pelosi and muster 292+ votes for a veto-proof House majority? Not really. Even in the minority, Rep. Pelosi does a much better job leading her caucus than Cantor, McCarthy or Boehner ever did.
Do I believe that Senators Corker and McConnell can muster 67 votes for the final Senate product? Absolutely. Do I believe that Representative McCarthy (and Speaker Boehner) can be as effective as former-Speaker Pelosi and muster 292+ votes for a veto-proof House majority? Not really. Even in the minority, Rep. Pelosi does a much better job leading her caucus than Cantor, McCarthy or Boehner ever did.
1
The really big money (defense, oil) wants war, and so long as money rules Congress that's what we'll get.
Thank you, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, for working so diligently to makes steps towards cooperation. That goes for Cuba, too!
Thank you, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, for working so diligently to makes steps towards cooperation. That goes for Cuba, too!
5
Its so much easier for the US to make war, rather than peace. The industrial defense complex makes huge profits off of war, and those in the GOP who want war don't have to sacrifice anything. Its a win win for them, donations from defense contractors and none of their blood is shed. In this light its easy to see why any treaty with Iran will be held up by those whose main political capital is fear. Hopeful for a treaty, many of the young in Iran welcome western things and they will one day be in control. Why start making inroads towards a better relationship with Iran now.
2
There is a mistake in this article. The Senate does not ratify a treaty. The Senate gives advice and consent, which allows the President to ratify the treaty in question.
2
Wrong. The constitution states: "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." Treaty ratification requires a two-thirds vote of approval. .
Seems like the GOP has its own version of the constitution and bill of rights, both vastly different from the sham copies now on display in Washington, DC. Maybe some day they'll distribute copies of their 'real' version so we all know what they're trying to do. Because hardly anything the Republicans are doing now is in accordance with either document that I'm familiar with.
1
The U.S. Constitution gives the "advise and consent" role to the Senate, but the House has no role in matters like this. Iran's role in the region is a complicated issue. It seems like the original "Greek vs. Persian" struggle has morphed into "Secular West vs. Islamic Iran" but the basic contest, control of the region, hasn't changed. Despite all the criticisms, our President is an intelligent man and there a many very smart people in the Senate. I believe that together they will arrive at the wisest course.
2
Is this opinion really advocating against a system of checks and balances? It sounds like the U.S. should go along with the other leaders following their forms of government just because it is easier.
This is probably the most important foreign relations in the past decade because of the consequences and likelihood of a nuclear Iran. The process should be as democratic as possible in approving it. Just because there is no alternative does not mean we should take whatever is on the table.
This is probably the most important foreign relations in the past decade because of the consequences and likelihood of a nuclear Iran. The process should be as democratic as possible in approving it. Just because there is no alternative does not mean we should take whatever is on the table.
As required by the most important funding and patrons of both parties, we have now officially become the only nation in the world which promotes all war all the time. This legislation signals that we have now shifted into high gear in promoting only the wishes of the neocons, military contractors, and war profiteers---- the sole beneficiaries of current US foreign policy. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran represents no actual threat to our national security whatsoever, but the fear mongers can distort the truth to serve their needs, making Iran the newest in a long line of phony justifications for war. Follow the money, and all of this nonsense makes sad and disturbing sense.
4
This move may also weaken the position of pro agreement forces in Iran and may diminish the chances of a final agreement.
This is another in the ridicules intrusions into President Obama's foreign policy by Democrats. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta have already come forward with wrong headed second guessing that would have embroiled the country in a armed intervention in Syria and probably hurt Democrats at the polls in 2014. Clinton's characterization of Vladimir Putin as Hitler was off the charts on the stupid meter. Obama has come forward with a negotiated framework to take the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon off the table for years to come. But expedient Democrats have put aside this because they fear clownish Benjamin Netanyahu and a supposed Jewish backlash in fundraising and at the polls.
2
Obviously, this is no longer a congress "of the people, by the people, and for the people". It's a congress that is owned and operated by big money. Under the new political arrangement instituted by the conservative majority of our U.S. Supreme Court, specifically it's Citizens United decision, our democracy is now on life support.
Unless "we, the people" reassert ourselves politically, we'll just be facing "more of the same" for decades to come. People need to be educated on the issues and vote not just every four years, but every two years. And they must see through the lies and deceptions that the corporate media often repeats and magnifies during political campaigns so that they can make intelligent choices that will benefit the many and not just the few.
We are moving perilously close to a type of fascism where power is consolidated at the very top, no longer distributed across the political spectrum as it should be. Money, in this case, is proving to be "the root of all evil".
Unless "we, the people" reassert ourselves politically, we'll just be facing "more of the same" for decades to come. People need to be educated on the issues and vote not just every four years, but every two years. And they must see through the lies and deceptions that the corporate media often repeats and magnifies during political campaigns so that they can make intelligent choices that will benefit the many and not just the few.
We are moving perilously close to a type of fascism where power is consolidated at the very top, no longer distributed across the political spectrum as it should be. Money, in this case, is proving to be "the root of all evil".
3
If Congress does not take the power to negotiate this agreement from the President and his State Department, how is it to execute Bibi's veto?
Next, Congress should take tighter control of US votes and vetoes in the UN, at least on matters involving Israel.
Next, Congress should take tighter control of US votes and vetoes in the UN, at least on matters involving Israel.
1
So the editorial board fears when a co-equal branch of government wants to get involved with a major treaty with international consequences.
And the vote wasn't even close, so this is not a case of "obstructionist republicans" but rather "bipartisan support."
I guess "Imperial Presidency" is okay for a democrat...
And the vote wasn't even close, so this is not a case of "obstructionist republicans" but rather "bipartisan support."
I guess "Imperial Presidency" is okay for a democrat...
1
Come on. This is a bipartisan effort to reassert the senatorial role in what is, substantively speaking, a treaty. The use of the word "reckless" is itself reckless in this context.
1
There is no question that history will unfavorably mark the President's acquiescence to this Senate thuggery. The loss of future presidents' diplomatic autonomy will persist through Democratic and Republican (heaven help us) administrations alike and no one will wonder how it came about.
Yes, the Senate has inappropriately inserted itself into a delicate negotiation and diminished the president's traditional leverage and powers, as you say. And they undermine the great spirit of the Iran negotiations, in which a white board was used for the evolving deal points so issues in progress would not have to be sent back to Tehran.
However, given the reality of a hopelessly immature and fact-resistant Republican-led Congress, this deal makes law a process that would guarantee that the president could veto Congressional attempts to block it, thereby strengthening the president's hand by helping assure our negotiating partners that a bizarrely short-sighted Congress won't torpedo a final deal.
This Congressional tunnel vision is unfortunate, but it doesn’t diminish the hopeful fact that, as with Cuba, these moves start bringing higher values to the world. The president was inspiring when he said that whatever our country’s interests in the Mideast were in the past (oil, territory, etc.), our greatest interest in the present is peace and a region that works.
However, given the reality of a hopelessly immature and fact-resistant Republican-led Congress, this deal makes law a process that would guarantee that the president could veto Congressional attempts to block it, thereby strengthening the president's hand by helping assure our negotiating partners that a bizarrely short-sighted Congress won't torpedo a final deal.
This Congressional tunnel vision is unfortunate, but it doesn’t diminish the hopeful fact that, as with Cuba, these moves start bringing higher values to the world. The president was inspiring when he said that whatever our country’s interests in the Mideast were in the past (oil, territory, etc.), our greatest interest in the present is peace and a region that works.
2
@ j. von hettlingen
"We believe it's a sensible thing to do, for the sake of regional and global security!"
That is admirable, but, here in the U.S., politicians don't believe in doing sensible things. They do what lobbyists tell them to do.
That's why we don't have sensible gun laws as Europe does. That's why we are entrenched in an unwinnable war in Iraq. That's why we will probably undermine this agreement with Iran, possibly facilitating Iran becoming a nuclear power or starting another war with them or both.
"We believe it's a sensible thing to do, for the sake of regional and global security!"
That is admirable, but, here in the U.S., politicians don't believe in doing sensible things. They do what lobbyists tell them to do.
That's why we don't have sensible gun laws as Europe does. That's why we are entrenched in an unwinnable war in Iraq. That's why we will probably undermine this agreement with Iran, possibly facilitating Iran becoming a nuclear power or starting another war with them or both.
2
I think it is unfair to say that the Republicans do not offer an alternative. They may not be explicit, albeit that I will make an exception for John Bolton, but implicitly if you unequivocally state that:
1. Iran can never have any nuclear capability what so ever, and;
2. the only acceptable outcome of the current negotiations to the Republicans is one which we all know Iran will never accept.
Then you are left with only one solution which is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capabilities through other means which is war. Rather than the NYT stating that the Republicans offer no alternative, I suggest they actively challenge the GOP on this and get some clear statements as to their true intent. At that point the American people can make up their minds as to who they want to support.
1. Iran can never have any nuclear capability what so ever, and;
2. the only acceptable outcome of the current negotiations to the Republicans is one which we all know Iran will never accept.
Then you are left with only one solution which is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capabilities through other means which is war. Rather than the NYT stating that the Republicans offer no alternative, I suggest they actively challenge the GOP on this and get some clear statements as to their true intent. At that point the American people can make up their minds as to who they want to support.
2
The "Republicans persecute Obama" meme really has gotten a bit thin don't ya think fellas. Congress shouldn't need to pass any bill because it is their constitutional prerogative to vote a treaty up or down. This bit is not true:
"they offer no credible alternative to the preliminary deal on the table"
What we had been doing was much better than doing nothing which is what this "deal" is shaping up as.
Nor this:
"he would be the only leader not able to fully honor the deal"
He wouldn't be able to "honor" what the Times insists on describing as a deal at all because it would be void or mute if he signed it knowing it would not pass through Congress. Deals are made by card salesman treaties are made by diplomats and statesman.
France has dissented on the this throughout and England is getting tired of expending energy on it. Russia is selling Iran missles and China has been breaking sanctions throughout so why wouldn't they want it.
If this is such a great deal why were the people at the centre of it's formation politely not invited to the Minsk II discussions and why for that matter are they destabelizing that agreement by putting boots on the ground up and down Russia's border. The U.S. is becoming a mercurial old but still substantial bull in the China shop because nobody knows what it will do. Libya good then Libya bad, Red line no Red line, Egypt good then bad, Bring back our girls but withhold funds until Nigeria passes marriage equality. It's just gotten bizare
"they offer no credible alternative to the preliminary deal on the table"
What we had been doing was much better than doing nothing which is what this "deal" is shaping up as.
Nor this:
"he would be the only leader not able to fully honor the deal"
He wouldn't be able to "honor" what the Times insists on describing as a deal at all because it would be void or mute if he signed it knowing it would not pass through Congress. Deals are made by card salesman treaties are made by diplomats and statesman.
France has dissented on the this throughout and England is getting tired of expending energy on it. Russia is selling Iran missles and China has been breaking sanctions throughout so why wouldn't they want it.
If this is such a great deal why were the people at the centre of it's formation politely not invited to the Minsk II discussions and why for that matter are they destabelizing that agreement by putting boots on the ground up and down Russia's border. The U.S. is becoming a mercurial old but still substantial bull in the China shop because nobody knows what it will do. Libya good then Libya bad, Red line no Red line, Egypt good then bad, Bring back our girls but withhold funds until Nigeria passes marriage equality. It's just gotten bizare
2
President should have put pressure on democrats to
oppose this piece of nefarious legislation to make it
seem purely republican effort to block the agreement.
This legislation has lessened the chance of successful
conclusion of the agreement. After writing letter to
Iranian supreme leader, republicans had made their
intention clear. Iran's sketicism about lifting the sanctions
may stiffen their demand or they may tactically go along
and hope international concensus on sanctions will
breakdown. The biggest puzzle is why the voters keep
giving the republicans majority while perceiving them
as obstructionist or the majority of voters also want
this president to fail.
oppose this piece of nefarious legislation to make it
seem purely republican effort to block the agreement.
This legislation has lessened the chance of successful
conclusion of the agreement. After writing letter to
Iranian supreme leader, republicans had made their
intention clear. Iran's sketicism about lifting the sanctions
may stiffen their demand or they may tactically go along
and hope international concensus on sanctions will
breakdown. The biggest puzzle is why the voters keep
giving the republicans majority while perceiving them
as obstructionist or the majority of voters also want
this president to fail.
A shocking rebuke of this president that is long overdue. Finally even that democrats are beginning to understand that our president is recklessly naive and almost childlike in his beliefs. Iran will never stop short of its ultimate goal, nuclear weapons, and Obama either doesn't care or is too inane to understand. Kudos to the Senate committee and especially those democrats who are finally standing up for America.
1
Not only do they want Obama to fail (at everything), they want to poison the political well for Democrats for 2016 and beyond.
A coup, American style.
A coup, American style.
4
Although Mr. Obama has the power to "temporarily" lift sanctions as part of "an agreement," Congress ultimately has the authority to make them permanent or not. They will have an opportunity to approve the multi-national agreement in the long run.
This Congressional "agreement" wasn't necessary, other than to appease Israel, bolster senatorial egos and keep money flowing from anti-agreement monied interests, but, most significantly, to further weaken the influence of the U.S. and its president in global affairs.
This Congressional "agreement" wasn't necessary, other than to appease Israel, bolster senatorial egos and keep money flowing from anti-agreement monied interests, but, most significantly, to further weaken the influence of the U.S. and its president in global affairs.
4
These negotiations produced the least costly (in every possible way) of all alternatives in dealing with Iran. Congress, having spectacularly failed at every turn to do what it must to tend to our domestic problems, has now decided in a rare moment of bipartisanship layered with self-congratulatory hubris placed its paw into the middle of the delicate diplomatic negotiations. Republicans want yet one more opportunity to diminish our nation's President. What could possibly motivate the Democrats to undermine the Presidency, as well? Do they think it important to strengthen the power of an effective Congress?
1
"The Senate committee’s vote will heighten Iranian suspicions..."
So what? If this really is a "long-term" deal, both sides should be wearing their big-boy pants going in. In fact, it has been the Administration's reluctance to let anyone else in on the negotiations that has STOKED opponent's concerns about the agreement. If Iran is going to have to act in certain ways for YEARS into the future, what's wrong with asking for them to be patient a few more MONTHS?
So what? If this really is a "long-term" deal, both sides should be wearing their big-boy pants going in. In fact, it has been the Administration's reluctance to let anyone else in on the negotiations that has STOKED opponent's concerns about the agreement. If Iran is going to have to act in certain ways for YEARS into the future, what's wrong with asking for them to be patient a few more MONTHS?
What a shame. This is tantamount to a spoiled child throwing a fit because they want to play with the older kids. Not because they want to add anything, just because they want to feel important. Likewise, now the main parties in the negotiations will have to slow the process and water down the agreements so they're easily understood for a less sophisticated crowd. And for what? The senate and house will never agree (based on precedent actions) on this proposal. This is another case of congress getting in the way of progress.
1
This bill is a very good thing.
It is highly unlikely to scuttle a deal, since that would require a veto-proof 67 votes in July. 67 votes were difficult enough to get for this bill - there's no way Obama gets shut down on a final deal. UNLESS - it's a horrible, unconscionable agreement.
The fantastic news is that this bill kills Obama's ability to bury details about the final bill and spin it the way he wants to. The text must now be disclosed and debated. He must now deal honestly with Congress and the American people, and not just rely on slick words, a blindly loyal following and choreographed speeches.
He will need to be held fully accountable for his actions.
It's about time.
It is highly unlikely to scuttle a deal, since that would require a veto-proof 67 votes in July. 67 votes were difficult enough to get for this bill - there's no way Obama gets shut down on a final deal. UNLESS - it's a horrible, unconscionable agreement.
The fantastic news is that this bill kills Obama's ability to bury details about the final bill and spin it the way he wants to. The text must now be disclosed and debated. He must now deal honestly with Congress and the American people, and not just rely on slick words, a blindly loyal following and choreographed speeches.
He will need to be held fully accountable for his actions.
It's about time.
41
Sounds good, unless Iran backs out of the negotiation because they perceive that the American President no longer has the authority to negotiate in good faith with foriegn powers.
1
You MUST be kidding.
What part of Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to inject itself into a non-treaty situation don't you understand?
Frankly, the POTUS, this one or any other one, can work a deal whichever way s/he sees fit. Foreign relations are the domain of the President, not Congress.
You want to talk about accountability? Let's talk. We can start with . . .
What is the alternative plan offered by Congressional Republicans? NONE.
That was a pretty short discussion.
What part of Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to inject itself into a non-treaty situation don't you understand?
Frankly, the POTUS, this one or any other one, can work a deal whichever way s/he sees fit. Foreign relations are the domain of the President, not Congress.
You want to talk about accountability? Let's talk. We can start with . . .
What is the alternative plan offered by Congressional Republicans? NONE.
That was a pretty short discussion.
1
But since 9/11/01 only .75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform and put themselves in harm's way risking life, limb and blood.
What have they wrought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Libya?
What have they wrought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan and Libya?
Well thank goodness for that. The NYT calls this an "agreement that offers the best chance of restraining that country’s nuclear program." But of course there is no agreement. There isn't even the framework for an agreement. Iran stalls. Obama prevaricates and the centrifuges spin. The latest non-agreement allowed each country to release its own version of the non-agreement.
6
The political posturing and empty melodrana inherent in the Foreign Relations Committee vote is only surpassed by the real horror of warfare inherent in a military campaign against Iran. It is an intrusive and reckless attempt to restrain Executive power in its conduct of our foreign policy. This not only about president Obama. It is about who do the-best-Congress-money-can-buy works for.
9
It is shocking that the NY Times opposes the will of the American people, especially on such an historic issue, as expressed by a very strong BIPARTISAN majority of the US Senate.
8
I am not surprised at all. This is the leftist position.
"The will of the American people" was also expressed at the last two Presidential elections, forcefully and in great numbers.
1
Wake up, this is not the will of people, it just a bunch of knuckle heads in the senate.
2
Two things worry me deeply. For so many from both sides of the aisle to come out against this agreement gives me pause. These are folks with far more experience in foreign policy than Mr. Obama and in spite of the bitterness between them, they fervently agree that this deal with Iran is a bad one. It can no longer be assumed this is just a conservative publicity ploy. As the article states clearly it passed overwhelmingly due to Democratic support.
Having said that, because this agreement is being negotiated amongst our allies, it would throw the ability of any future president to so negotiate into question. And further, even all the countries involved agree, and the Congress nixes the agreement, where does that leave the rest of the world?? Do the other P-arties go along with our congress or do they attempt implementation and fragment sanctions anyway? Do we continue to punish other countries banking and commerce systems for doing business with Iran? We would end up punishing the allies who mutually agreed to the deal in the first place. Look, Im sincerely worried about the terms of the agreement, but at the end of the day we need a President. Whats the point of having a leader if we hobble him when he tries to lead?
Having said that, because this agreement is being negotiated amongst our allies, it would throw the ability of any future president to so negotiate into question. And further, even all the countries involved agree, and the Congress nixes the agreement, where does that leave the rest of the world?? Do the other P-arties go along with our congress or do they attempt implementation and fragment sanctions anyway? Do we continue to punish other countries banking and commerce systems for doing business with Iran? We would end up punishing the allies who mutually agreed to the deal in the first place. Look, Im sincerely worried about the terms of the agreement, but at the end of the day we need a President. Whats the point of having a leader if we hobble him when he tries to lead?
3
Perhaps it is time for President Obama to recognize that being "the only adult in the room" is a thankless task. This is one instance where he is being forced to let the "inmates run the asylum."
We will only know after a few months whether any agreement that comes out of the negotiations makes sense. If the "inmates" make a total hash of these negotiations by defeating such an agreement, there will be time enough to hang the blame around the necks of the Republicans, in particular before the 2016 elections. What Obama and Kerry have to do now is finish the negotiations. The worst thing would be to accept defeat at this juncture.
We will only know after a few months whether any agreement that comes out of the negotiations makes sense. If the "inmates" make a total hash of these negotiations by defeating such an agreement, there will be time enough to hang the blame around the necks of the Republicans, in particular before the 2016 elections. What Obama and Kerry have to do now is finish the negotiations. The worst thing would be to accept defeat at this juncture.
14
it is so well said
1
If anything, "the only adult in the room" is wanting to hand the "keys to the asylum" to the "inmates" who've demonstrated over the last 35-years leading up to, and during, the negotiations to develop a mutually beneficial agreement.
The bill is unconstitutional on its face. Only the Senate has a power to "advise and consent" to treaties. This clause is the _only_ (lukewarm) justification for the legislation.
But I forget ... Republicans are the part that has deified the original construction of the Constitution, and from a distance of 240 years can read the true intent of the Framers.
But I forget ... Republicans are the part that has deified the original construction of the Constitution, and from a distance of 240 years can read the true intent of the Framers.
7
I do not believe that the President's negotiations are considered to be a "treaty".
1
Putin may be an equal-opportunity insulter, but his recent announcement that he'll sell rockets to Iran should make even the GOP pause. If the nuclear deal falls through, Putin will align fully with the extremists of Iran... Oops... then the GOP and Bibi can have a really big war. Everyone wins?
6
Yes, the Democrats in the Senate caved, caved for money not out of spite or disrespect, just money....a foreign country has a better lobby than the President of our own country, incredible
You must ask yourself this, who do these people (elected Senate members) really represent, Israel or the USA?
It is a question that must be answered
I also agree with the premise that Republicans oppose anything President Obama proposes, or wants or thinks about, simply out of spite....
You must ask yourself this, who do these people (elected Senate members) really represent, Israel or the USA?
It is a question that must be answered
I also agree with the premise that Republicans oppose anything President Obama proposes, or wants or thinks about, simply out of spite....
7
I thought the answer was obvious regarding representing "Israel or the USA".
1
"A Reckless Act in the Senate on Iran" is the headline in the NYTimes lead editorial. Seriously, for a moment I thought it was April fools or that the writers of satirical 'Onion' website hijacked the editorial page of the NYTimes.
At what time did the Senator lose its power and authority to ratify executive branch treaties with foreign powers? 47 US senators (which would have been more if President Obama continued his total refusal to involve the Senate) voice a strong opinion to be wary of an agreement with a sworn enemy of America. How can that large number of US Senators be viewed as 'reckless' infuence or even exceptional as the NYTimes characterized it last week?
How about President Obama for a change seek compromise and middle ground on this issue. Perhaps the President can explain his Iran policy to the American people, which he has not apart from a smug press director deflecting questions about the legitimacy of the Obama-Iranian friendship intuitive and by-passing Congress to do it.
Maybe Barack Obama could kindly ask the highest authorities in the Theocracy of Iran to stop the public shouting of "Death to America" if he wants America to make a deal.
At what time did the Senator lose its power and authority to ratify executive branch treaties with foreign powers? 47 US senators (which would have been more if President Obama continued his total refusal to involve the Senate) voice a strong opinion to be wary of an agreement with a sworn enemy of America. How can that large number of US Senators be viewed as 'reckless' infuence or even exceptional as the NYTimes characterized it last week?
How about President Obama for a change seek compromise and middle ground on this issue. Perhaps the President can explain his Iran policy to the American people, which he has not apart from a smug press director deflecting questions about the legitimacy of the Obama-Iranian friendship intuitive and by-passing Congress to do it.
Maybe Barack Obama could kindly ask the highest authorities in the Theocracy of Iran to stop the public shouting of "Death to America" if he wants America to make a deal.
6
Where did you get the idea that these negotiations constitute a "treaty"?
1
I've been chastising my senator Christopher Murphy for his vote. They are all afraid of AIPAC. No one mentions AIPAC in their writings but they are the 800 pound gorilla in the room controlling our congress.
11
"Elephant" would be more descriptive than "gorilla". As in the symbol of the Republican Party, cow-towing to Natanyahu for purely political reasons.
1
Mr. Obama is under the mistaken impression that if you're nice to Iran they'll be nice to us.
Meanwhile they still curse us in public.
Meanwhile they still curse us in public.
8
if congress kills this agreement all of the other countries will drop their sanctions and begin trading with iran. there is already quite a bit of leakage in the sanctions. the only problem left for iran is access to the international banking system, which is controlled by the US, however china has enough dollar reserves to set up a parallel system for iran. congress must come to realization that the US no longer runs the world.
5
It may be easier to give them what they want now and then, when everyone can see what's been negotiated or being fought over, go along or veto what the committee is asking for. I think that the senators are worried, and rightly so, about what Iran might do and they want to protect the United States.
What was wrong was 47 GOP senators sending a letter to Iran telling Iran that they could undo whatever the president negotiated. They are not authorized to speak for this country when it comes to foreign negotiations. They acted against our interests by undermining the president's authority. The GOP senators who signed this letter should be subject to recall elections and stripped of their authority and positions. What they did was inexcusable because they did it, not out deep concern for America but out of a desire to make a fool of President Obama.
What was wrong was 47 GOP senators sending a letter to Iran telling Iran that they could undo whatever the president negotiated. They are not authorized to speak for this country when it comes to foreign negotiations. They acted against our interests by undermining the president's authority. The GOP senators who signed this letter should be subject to recall elections and stripped of their authority and positions. What they did was inexcusable because they did it, not out deep concern for America but out of a desire to make a fool of President Obama.
4
The Republican climb down from sending a signed letter to the Iranian president not to go ahead with the nuclear deal to agreeing for the Congressional participation in the deal review seems rather a more sensible way to allow President Obama negotiate the deal which might carry some measure of legitimacy too, and if scuttled subsequently by the Congress, the onus would also lie with it.
2
The Republican climb down from sending a signed letter to the Iranian president to dissuade the latter
4
Once again the "party of no" does zero.
They don't like the deal, but offer no alternative.
Health care, immigration, job creation, energy policy, etc. they say no and offer zero alternative. Truly, the party of no.
They don't like the deal, but offer no alternative.
Health care, immigration, job creation, energy policy, etc. they say no and offer zero alternative. Truly, the party of no.
27
There is an alternative. A good deal, not a bad one. Get a clue.
the cowardice of the democrats is unbelievable, handing over control of our foreign policy to the republicans and netanyahu, lest they forfeit an aipac contribution. shumer was especially despicble here - is stabbing a democratic president in the back what we cn expect from his leadership?
23
"shumer was especially despicble here - is stabbing a democratic president in the back what we cn expect from his leadership?"
In a word? Yes.
In a word? Yes.
So the Congress of our self-defined peace loving humane democracy known as America:
- can make trade agreements with the Chinese who steal our technology, jail without cause any opposition and spy on our defense department
- can buy and sell stuff from and to vietnam where 50,000 Americns died - - can arm the Saudis who decapitate people, find lashes a just punishment for voicing dissent, and are the prime bankers of muslim jihadist wordwide
- can give aide to Pakistan which allows public stoning of the victums of rape, and maintains a nuclear weaponry
- can hire mercenaries to do anything anywhere in the world in the name of war
- can fully support a nation of 8 million religious led by a warmongering zealot
But won't make peace with a nation of 80,000,000 led by a zealot of a different religion.
What a bunch of idiots. They make Netflix "House of Cards" characters look like angels.
- can make trade agreements with the Chinese who steal our technology, jail without cause any opposition and spy on our defense department
- can buy and sell stuff from and to vietnam where 50,000 Americns died - - can arm the Saudis who decapitate people, find lashes a just punishment for voicing dissent, and are the prime bankers of muslim jihadist wordwide
- can give aide to Pakistan which allows public stoning of the victums of rape, and maintains a nuclear weaponry
- can hire mercenaries to do anything anywhere in the world in the name of war
- can fully support a nation of 8 million religious led by a warmongering zealot
But won't make peace with a nation of 80,000,000 led by a zealot of a different religion.
What a bunch of idiots. They make Netflix "House of Cards" characters look like angels.
27
They refuse to do their duty in declaring war and interfere in negotiatoing peace where they have no authority.
2
Then why did the President back down? Looks like principle has once again given in to political expediency.
Why did the president back down?
Because the president is a coward.
Any other questions?
Because the president is a coward.
Any other questions?
It is a committee vote the game has not played out.
"The nuclear deal is the product of a multinational negotiation with Iran conducted by the United States, France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. In no other country has a legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement."
So no Russian or Chinese legislative bodies have acted to block the agreement? The editorial board is kidding right? And as for France, maybe there's been no legislative opposition because the French have been much tougher in the negotiations than the US.
So no Russian or Chinese legislative bodies have acted to block the agreement? The editorial board is kidding right? And as for France, maybe there's been no legislative opposition because the French have been much tougher in the negotiations than the US.
2
The "reckless act" was committed by the president by trying to "negotiate" with Iran, who has consistently snubbed its nose at the international community, and by the president for alienating our Israeli allies. Now the Russians, who have absolutely no regard for our nation's weak leadership, are freely re-supplying the Iranians with weapons again. This is probably the least serious consequence of our president's reckless act. The world will be a FAR more dangerous place once he finally vacates that office.
7
Look at the science Iran can already develop nuclear weapons in 2-3 months and they cannot be bombed back from that time line. The treaty will put it back 10 years or more. Bush allow North Korea nuclear weapons by turning his back on negotiations. Not to negotiate is reckless!
1
You mean the American President didn't obey Bibi Netanyahu? I am better about that myself. Bibi might make another trip and fire Barack Obama we expect.
1
Doesn't the CONSTITUTION prevent the President from unilaterally making treaties by requiring the Senate's approval throught the advise and consent clause. How is this most recent bill much different from that?
6
A common misunderstanding. By long-standing tradition and adjudicated law, not all international agreements are "treaties" in the Constitution's usage in Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2. What President Obama had intended make with Iran was a "sole-executive agreement," requiring only actions on our side that he was already empowered to take. See the Wikipedia article on "Treaty Clause."
1
These negotiations, participated in by several other countries, do not constitute "a treaty".
1
No. There are 3 kinds of international agreements valid under U.S. law. (1)Official "treaties" which are ratified by 2/3 of the Senate; (2) "Congressional-Executive actions", ratified by a majority of both houses of Congress and (3) "Sole executive agreements" which are made by the President alone. This is an example of #3.
This is a perfect example of why mature democracies around the world use parliamentary systems. Such systems result in one government that is responsible for governing.
Our system of checks and balances was devised by our founders, who risked their fortunes and lives in common cause and never forgot it. At the end of the day, the founders settled on a path and followed it. Over 200 years later, we have bitterly feuding Hatfields and McCoys that would rather sow the earth with salt than grant the other side a smidgen of respect.
This country is no longer governable under our system, which is a very dangerous situation not just for us, but for the world at large.
Our system of checks and balances was devised by our founders, who risked their fortunes and lives in common cause and never forgot it. At the end of the day, the founders settled on a path and followed it. Over 200 years later, we have bitterly feuding Hatfields and McCoys that would rather sow the earth with salt than grant the other side a smidgen of respect.
This country is no longer governable under our system, which is a very dangerous situation not just for us, but for the world at large.
181
Paralysis is inevitable when the executive is at odds with the legislature.
Well we are not to be a "mature" country ever, and if we had such a system Obama would be out and Romney in. You want to bet that a better deal would be had? Our founding fathers were wise in restricting the power of the federal government, progressives have been eroding that wisdom for many years, time to restore it.
With unanimous decision, albeit some to allow Congressional review of the Iran nuclear deal if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wants legislative participation in the Obama administration initiated deal
As we see again, Congress will do anything to present an obstacle for President Obama.
17
Like Democrats blocking every judicial appointment of Bush from 2006-2008? By the way your Senator Menendez was against it. You'd better call his office and complain
The newest official monument in Washington, DC is dedicated to American Veterans Disabled for Life. That means lost limbs, permanent brain injuries, and other egregious wounds received in battles. The monument sits immediately below the west-facing windows of the Rayburn Congressional office building. A hawkish Congressman can stroll down to the monument and back to his office in the space of a lunch hour, or simply look out a Rayburn building window to see it. The need to build such a monument was in part driven by the great numbers of serious wounds that came home from a needless war in Iraq. How many more American soldiers does our Republican-controlled House of Representatives wish to be represented by our newest and saddest monument to pain and lasting family suffering? Those Congressmen who think that the permanent individual and family hurt is not already great enough may continue their bellicose declamations towards a treaty with Iran.
7
The constitution permits the president to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign powers only with the advice and consent of the Senate. (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."} Calling treaties "deals" makes no difference.
5
It is ironic that Congress see voting on this measure as fulfilling "its constitutional duties" while it turns a blind eye to so many other of its repsponsibilities, including US actions around the globe that constitute acts of war against other nations.
15
Your opinion sir, makes little sense. There is a long and storied history of Senate approval requirements for all foreign treaty. Your argument seems to be "this is different". How so? The Iran deal is a classic treaty with a foreign government and the Senate how the legal and constitutional authority to approve or not. Your editorial seems a stretch.
3
Sole executive agreements don't require any Congressional approval. This goes back to the days of Thomas Jefferson.
1
Phew! For a minute there I thought those evil Republicans (and those gutless, back stabbing democrats who joined with the Republicans to represent a veto proof majority) were actually going to DEMAND that Iran renounce terrorism for the sanctions to go away. What a relief that is! The next thing you know those Republicans will want to try to get away with forcing Iran to renounce its promise to destroy Israel. The President will make them back off this position too, thankfully. The vote last fall was a sham, not enough voters on the democratic side bothered to come out and vote to make the elections legitimate.
7
This maneuver while satisfying the war mongering factions in Congress creates a precedence by subtly changing the US Constitution - without amendment. I predict the US Supreme Court will eventually set this decision back in realignment with the Constitution; when one part of our government is diminished - another part is weakened. On the other hand, foreign businesses will eagerly do business with Iran while Congress scrutinizes the agreement - we know who butters the bread in congress. American businesses will be the deciding factor not republican factions.
9
How, pray tell, is this going to get before the Supreme Court?
Just who is going to have standing to bring suit? And on what legal basis?
Please be specific.
Just who is going to have standing to bring suit? And on what legal basis?
Please be specific.
Usually the Senate has to AFFIRM what the President has done.
Now all they have to do is say "no."
They just gave away HUGE power and you're complaining?
You've GOT to be kidding!
Now all they have to do is say "no."
They just gave away HUGE power and you're complaining?
You've GOT to be kidding!
3
A rush to vote on the Iran deal because Republicans smell blood, but meanwhile still no vote or discussion in Congress on the War against ISIS. Shameful.
16
“they offer no credible alternative to the preliminary deal on the table.”
It appears that they have between 30 and 52 days to come up with such an alternative.
Continue the sanctions? They have already been broken by Commerzbank in Germany, BNP Paribas in France and now by Vladimir Putin through his sale of $800 million worth of Russian weapons to Iran.
Which begs the question – and we know that one can achieve anything through leasing – if the sanctions have been so effective, how does Iran have the capability of making such a purchase?
We all want the best for Israel. With key US allies such as Germany and Britain supporting the deal, I just hope that Congress’ actions don’t leave Israel more isolated on the world stage.
It appears that they have between 30 and 52 days to come up with such an alternative.
Continue the sanctions? They have already been broken by Commerzbank in Germany, BNP Paribas in France and now by Vladimir Putin through his sale of $800 million worth of Russian weapons to Iran.
Which begs the question – and we know that one can achieve anything through leasing – if the sanctions have been so effective, how does Iran have the capability of making such a purchase?
We all want the best for Israel. With key US allies such as Germany and Britain supporting the deal, I just hope that Congress’ actions don’t leave Israel more isolated on the world stage.
3
Congress is acting within it's authority. President Obama has demonstrated he is a master at making wrong headed decisions and either acting outside his authority or skirting the edges of his authority on a regular basis because he doesn't know how to cooperate with people who oppose his very irregular viewpoint. That being said, Congress is doing the correct thing.
4
If the Senate was knowledgable about Iran and The Mid-East, I'd say let them have a say, but their blatant miscalculations in Iraq, Viet Nam and elsewhere gives me concern. How can politicians dedicated to partisan ideology be trusted with facts?
11
Obama is doing what he has done so many times in the past -- making the best of a bad situation and trying to find some way forward. I hope he succeeds.
I don't understand the Senate Democrats at all. I can only assume they're afraid.
I don't understand the Senate Democrats at all. I can only assume they're afraid.
17
The Iranian theocracy still encourages its citizens to shout Death to America. But the theocracy is beginning to question the wisdom of doing that given the potential deal. And then come the Republicans who at one time during the Cantor era were willing to toss the American economy onto the garbage heap of history -- And now they are willing to toss the planet the same way. What times, What salad!
The only good thing to come out of this is the it reinforces for Democrats who voted for Obama but may be interested in change, to definitely not vote for a Republican President in 2016. Again and again, time after time, the Republicans in Congress prove that they are too parochial, too bigotted, to govern a nation as great as the United states. Hillary or whoever gets blessed by the Democratic Party it is.
The only good thing to come out of this is the it reinforces for Democrats who voted for Obama but may be interested in change, to definitely not vote for a Republican President in 2016. Again and again, time after time, the Republicans in Congress prove that they are too parochial, too bigotted, to govern a nation as great as the United states. Hillary or whoever gets blessed by the Democratic Party it is.
15
A sea change is needed in Congress. All Republicans out along with all of the spineless Democrats, which sadly is almost all. As a country we are in deep kimchi.
1
The Republican party has a terrible track record when it comes to "foreign relations". Outside of Nixon's "détente" in '72, there's very little that the Republicans have accomplished since. They always seem to lean on military force as a way of resolving conflict and it has proven exceptionally costly to the United States and its citizens.
The glaring example here is, of course, Iraq, in which Dick Cheney, who apparently functioned as George W Bush's co-president, fabricated numerous lies in order to re-involve the United States in a costly quagmire that cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and trillions of US taxpayer dollars.
Cheney's principal distinction as far as military service is concerned is that he earned five draft deferments during the Vietnam era. Apparently, with his Iraqi adventure, he was attempting to prove his courage vicariously by sending others into combat based on a fictitious scenario of his own making. Remarkably, to this day, he continues to lie and deceive when asked about the justification for going to war with Iraq. The man has no shame...no conscience.
I only use this example as a way to characterize the GOP as a party whose first impulse seems to be to attack rather than negotiate. And war is not the only area in which the Republican Party has been reckless. Their push for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and deregulation in general, led us into the worst economic quagmire since the Great Depression. They don't deserve political power. Period.
The glaring example here is, of course, Iraq, in which Dick Cheney, who apparently functioned as George W Bush's co-president, fabricated numerous lies in order to re-involve the United States in a costly quagmire that cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and trillions of US taxpayer dollars.
Cheney's principal distinction as far as military service is concerned is that he earned five draft deferments during the Vietnam era. Apparently, with his Iraqi adventure, he was attempting to prove his courage vicariously by sending others into combat based on a fictitious scenario of his own making. Remarkably, to this day, he continues to lie and deceive when asked about the justification for going to war with Iraq. The man has no shame...no conscience.
I only use this example as a way to characterize the GOP as a party whose first impulse seems to be to attack rather than negotiate. And war is not the only area in which the Republican Party has been reckless. Their push for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and deregulation in general, led us into the worst economic quagmire since the Great Depression. They don't deserve political power. Period.
24
They don't deserve citizenship, since virtually everything they do harms our country, and its people.
"The Republican party has a terrible track record when it comes to "foreign relations"."
A horrific number of people have been slaughtered in Syria despite President Obama’s “red line”. In view of Mr. Obama's foreign "policy" Russia knew it could get away with its annexation of Crimea, and did. A deserter was traded for five Gitmo prisoners, who will be free to join the fight against us in a very short time frame. Under Mr. Obama none of the Middle Eastern countries friendly to America trust us any longer, feeling that it’s safer to be an enemy than a friend of the United States. Knowing that Mr. Obama desperately wants a legacy deal, Iran was able to negotiate from a position of strength – something that ought to have been our position. As a result, it looks like inspections will need to be announced at least days in advance, allowing for the possibility of covering up or relocating evidence of work forbidden by the nuclear deal.
And it’s the Republican Party which has a terrible track record when it comes to foreign relations?
A horrific number of people have been slaughtered in Syria despite President Obama’s “red line”. In view of Mr. Obama's foreign "policy" Russia knew it could get away with its annexation of Crimea, and did. A deserter was traded for five Gitmo prisoners, who will be free to join the fight against us in a very short time frame. Under Mr. Obama none of the Middle Eastern countries friendly to America trust us any longer, feeling that it’s safer to be an enemy than a friend of the United States. Knowing that Mr. Obama desperately wants a legacy deal, Iran was able to negotiate from a position of strength – something that ought to have been our position. As a result, it looks like inspections will need to be announced at least days in advance, allowing for the possibility of covering up or relocating evidence of work forbidden by the nuclear deal.
And it’s the Republican Party which has a terrible track record when it comes to foreign relations?
The US Senate has inserted itself into a nuclear weapons negotiation involving not only the US but our major European allies. There is a possibility that this legislation although not perfect will fail. The precedent of this action may establish a precedent that would have long term negative effects. Now the Russians have resumed their supply of surface to air missiles to Iran, this situation deteriorates and could become dangerous. If the Senate Foreign Relations committee wants a war, they succeeded. This addition of SAMs is highly detrimental to the Israel and have the potential to deter an IDF attack on nuclear facilities in Iran.
9
Paris, not Munich, should be our vantage point in all this. The failure of the Senate to ratify Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations project precipitated much of the horor, wars, and killings of the remainder of the 20th century. Hard-heartedness to defeated foes; failure to live up to the rhetoric and hopes of the Paris accord; and the resulting bitterness of colonized peoples in Africa, Southeast Asia, and beyond to the betrayal of the promises of the Paris accord led to the disasters that were generated by our Senate's failure to ratify the treaty and support the President, with all his flaws. Today the Republican party as a whole, and the centrist-right wing of the Democratic party are once again precipitating another cycle of long-term disaster.
133
Nonsense. Vetoing U.S. participation in the League of Nations had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany. The onerous Treaty of Versailles and the failure of the Europeans to stop Germany from rearming coupled with the vicious policies of the Nazis were the primary causes of WW II. Munich was merely the final proof to Hitler that the Europeans would not fight just as Obama's policies and failure to enforce its own red lines have convinced the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians that the Americans will not oppose their revanchist policies and their ambitions for hegemony. Europe and NATO are a lost cause, and Russia will pretty much do what it wants. It will be left to the Japanese, Indians and Vietnamese to oppose China's expansion and the Sunni Arab States and the Israelis to oppose the Iranians.
Thank you. Very well said.
1
There are individuals that blame the failure of the League of Nations on the absence of the United States. That is a canard. There are others. The Treaty of Versailles and the changes in borders throughout Europe and the Middle East lay the groundwork for the conflicts collectively known as World War II. The United States gave false hope to the colonial world without the means or will to achieve it. The 'hard-heartedness' came from nations that lost much more than the United States and whose economies had suffered while the US prospered.
I wondered what public reaction was to the agreement with Iran and the role of Congress, so checked recent March-April 2015 (reputable) public opinion polls at pollingreport.com and found:
A majority of Americans support the agreement made between Obama and Iran (no mention was made in polling questions of other parties to the agreement):
49-63% supported agreement; 31-40% disapproved
HOWEVER:
A much larger percentage of Americans thought Congress should have a role in the Iran nuclear agreement (72%), compared to those who said Congress should not have a role (19%).
And when asked who should have the final authority over the agreement, most favored Congress (62%) rather than Obama (29%).
Note: I am not sure whether most Americans are aware of the constitutional power of the executive in foreign relations and/or the difference between "agreement" and "treaty" re the role of the legislative branch in foreign relations.
BUT
There is a very sharp difference by party over whether Iran's nuclear program is seen as posing a threat to the US that requires military action now (CBS poll):
Military action is required now
All 29%
Republican 45%
Democrat 20%
Independent 28%
With Republican control in both the House and Senate, I find this result disturbing and scary, although it does indicate there would be very little support for such action among Independent voters, whom the Republicans need in order to win elections.
A majority of Americans support the agreement made between Obama and Iran (no mention was made in polling questions of other parties to the agreement):
49-63% supported agreement; 31-40% disapproved
HOWEVER:
A much larger percentage of Americans thought Congress should have a role in the Iran nuclear agreement (72%), compared to those who said Congress should not have a role (19%).
And when asked who should have the final authority over the agreement, most favored Congress (62%) rather than Obama (29%).
Note: I am not sure whether most Americans are aware of the constitutional power of the executive in foreign relations and/or the difference between "agreement" and "treaty" re the role of the legislative branch in foreign relations.
BUT
There is a very sharp difference by party over whether Iran's nuclear program is seen as posing a threat to the US that requires military action now (CBS poll):
Military action is required now
All 29%
Republican 45%
Democrat 20%
Independent 28%
With Republican control in both the House and Senate, I find this result disturbing and scary, although it does indicate there would be very little support for such action among Independent voters, whom the Republicans need in order to win elections.
43
If the US and/or Israel take military action, wouldn't Iran be even more likely to build a nuclear bomb?
Why don't we call every future treaty an "agreement" and thus eliminate any need whatever for congressional approval, deftly subverting the Constitution with respect to one of Congress' most important roles.
1
We can't run the country by polling every decision and blithely following the clueless.
1
I can't decide if this is good or bad.
Allowing Congress to insinuate itself in a non-treaty negotiation process of a president sets a horrible precedent and represents the extent to which our representatives (their constituents) don't understand the checks and balances system established by the Framers of the constitution.
On the other hand, by including congressional Republicans in the decision-making process, President Obama will be even more able to demand their alternative to the deal, which is military strikes, and potential war, with Iran - a country with a stable government, backed by Russia (and maybe China), with oil to sell, a network of paid terrorists, and a quick path to nuclear weapons.
Not only will President Obama point out that this country is not interested in another war like Iraq, he will be able to point out that war with Iran would be nothing like the war in Iraq.
While I hate the precedent, it might be necessary to allow President Obama to really explain what is at stake here.
Allowing Congress to insinuate itself in a non-treaty negotiation process of a president sets a horrible precedent and represents the extent to which our representatives (their constituents) don't understand the checks and balances system established by the Framers of the constitution.
On the other hand, by including congressional Republicans in the decision-making process, President Obama will be even more able to demand their alternative to the deal, which is military strikes, and potential war, with Iran - a country with a stable government, backed by Russia (and maybe China), with oil to sell, a network of paid terrorists, and a quick path to nuclear weapons.
Not only will President Obama point out that this country is not interested in another war like Iraq, he will be able to point out that war with Iran would be nothing like the war in Iraq.
While I hate the precedent, it might be necessary to allow President Obama to really explain what is at stake here.
57
The underlying point is the sure ability of the GOP to defeat even an excellent agreement. It is over, based on their continued obstructionism toward this precedent. The GOP is driven by self interest and hatred, not the good of the majority of our citizens. This is further demonstrated by the past and current tax positions..
How can Republicans authorize military strikes? I thought only Obama could do that
Maybe you can explain Biden's 2010 comment that "Iraq is the crowning achievement of the Onama administration". And Obama's Nov 2011. " Iraq is a democratically elected government, stable and. it's people aelfsufficient." That would seem to contradict what you said doesn't it?
You also do not understand the role of Congress. Try reading the Constitution
Maybe you can explain Biden's 2010 comment that "Iraq is the crowning achievement of the Onama administration". And Obama's Nov 2011. " Iraq is a democratically elected government, stable and. it's people aelfsufficient." That would seem to contradict what you said doesn't it?
You also do not understand the role of Congress. Try reading the Constitution
The US people don't grasp how other countries view diplomatic protocol and the international negotiation process.
The president's power to conduct the nations foreign policy may be diminished, but he only has himself to blame. With regard to foreign policy he has proven to be weak and ineffective and that is why the Senate was able to achieve a veto proof majority.
Did it ever occur to the Editorial Board that perhaps it is President's Obama's foreign policy that is reckless?
Did it ever occur to the Editorial Board that perhaps it is President's Obama's foreign policy that is reckless?
2
"With regard to foreign policy he has proven to be weak and ineffective"....When you make statements like this it is important to provide examples to support your claim. If you have facts, use them. Without providing examples or details the statement appears to be just another in a series of unsubstantiated right wing attacks.
No, the lying Iraqi War debaucle continues to be the unapologetic course for the GOP, "bomb" Iran. They are so invested in the military industrial complex, peace is never the goal.
The Republicans in Congress wanted this to be a failed presidency all along...now we know why. THEY want to be the presidency. So much for three branches of government.
9
As Rachel Maddow so forcefully pointed out last night, this Congress that "muscled its way into," getting the power to veto a potential major step for peace in the Middle East, is simultaneously refusing to vote on a new "authorization for use of military force" as President Obama requested for the fight against ISIS in Iraq in Syria. One must ask: Why is Congress threatening to breach the "separation of powers in the Constitution in seeking a veto over the nuclear "deal" (not a treaty) with Iran while shirking its Constitutional duty to "declare war"? For most Republicans it is the usual anti-Obama, "Party of No," position. For Democrats like Senator Charles Schumer it is to protect the interests of Israel. In both cases, petty poisonous politics is obscuring the dangers in this craven lack of statesmanship that may not only hobble future Presidents, but also with the toxic, anti-Iran subtext lead to a major escalation of the regional wars in now raging in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen into a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran that would destabilize the world's major oil suppliers and inevitably involve major world powers.
23
Once again the Congessional Democrats have played into the Republicans' hands. By supporting this intrusion, they've given the hardliners just the tool they need to scuttle the agreement. Worse yet, should worse come to worst, and we bomb or even go to war with them, by supporting this bill, they're given the Republicans the ability to avoid taking responsibility for the actions.
9
The Committee vote was 19-0 and it was clear that a veto-proof majority was behind it. Those are the facts.
6
It was only a senate committe, the house has had no say in it yet. The house has been one of the most disfunctional body over last 29 months, in the history of US. Those are facts too.
I predict this will all lead to the most acrimonious and self-destructive presidential election in U.S. history. Both parties hate each other with a venom guaranteed to do their nation irreparable damage. The GOP, egged on by Israel, is doing the U.S. far more damage than Osama Bin Laden could have imagined in his wildest dreams. Who needs bombs when the nation is imploding of its own accord?
31
To say that Congress is simply "demanding to exercise its duty of advise and consent over the actions of the executive" is a sham. This is the same Congress that has refused to fulfill its real constitutional responsibility to either support or reject the President's use of force in the Middle East. And yet it is demanding the right to scuttle a peace agreement -- an agreement that is our best chance to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. What a pathetic message this sends to our allies and adversaries around the world. Do we need any better proof that the Republicans' highest priority continues to be the failure of this President, and that Republicans and Democrats alike are cowed by money that the "Israel first" lobby pours into political campaigns? It is time for all Americans to rise up and demand that our senators and representatives act in the best interests of this country, not another country.
251
Is that like the use of force Obama used in Libya to topple Ghadafi? Can you tell me when they authorized the use of force?
If you're worried about Congress can you show me in the Seperation of Powers where Obama had the legislative authority to delay the employee mandate or force insurance companies to reissue cancelled policies. Wasn't he changing the tenor of the law and doesn't the Seperation of Powers say Congress shall write all laws?
Hasn't the Supreme Court slapped Obama with 12. 9-0 decisions including recess appointments?
If you're worried about Congress can you show me in the Seperation of Powers where Obama had the legislative authority to delay the employee mandate or force insurance companies to reissue cancelled policies. Wasn't he changing the tenor of the law and doesn't the Seperation of Powers say Congress shall write all laws?
Hasn't the Supreme Court slapped Obama with 12. 9-0 decisions including recess appointments?
"Republicans who control Congress have largely been the driving force behind the legislation ..."
That's all you need to know. That particular group has made its intentions with respect to the deal very clear.
First, they invited a foreign leader to Capitol Hill to criticize the President's policy in a public address.
Second, they wrote to Iran directly and told them that, if and when they regain power, they would abandon any deal Iran reaches with this President.
Third, they insert themselves into the negotiations and gain a say over its final wording.
Can we now guess what step four might be? I'll give you a hint. It includes the words "scuttle" and "deal."
It seems at first bizarre that the President and Democrats in Congress would agree to let the clowns drive their car into these crucial negotiations. But, on further contemplation, it isn't at all bizarre -- it's standard operating procedure for Democrats: give up when Republicans bluster (that is, give up every single time).
What a bind we are in as a country. We only get a choice between the repulsive and the spineless.
That's all you need to know. That particular group has made its intentions with respect to the deal very clear.
First, they invited a foreign leader to Capitol Hill to criticize the President's policy in a public address.
Second, they wrote to Iran directly and told them that, if and when they regain power, they would abandon any deal Iran reaches with this President.
Third, they insert themselves into the negotiations and gain a say over its final wording.
Can we now guess what step four might be? I'll give you a hint. It includes the words "scuttle" and "deal."
It seems at first bizarre that the President and Democrats in Congress would agree to let the clowns drive their car into these crucial negotiations. But, on further contemplation, it isn't at all bizarre -- it's standard operating procedure for Democrats: give up when Republicans bluster (that is, give up every single time).
What a bind we are in as a country. We only get a choice between the repulsive and the spineless.
225
I would vote for spineless over repulsive.......
1
Obama's actions are pragmatic rather than ideological. He was going to lose in spite of being correct. By negotiating he found a way to get a better bad deal. The impact on the world could be seminal, but Congress just bought this problem. They now have to vote it up or down and they will not be able to hide like they have on nearly every other issue by spouting hot air to distract people from actual issues. While I think Congress's actions are reprehensible, I hope that it will expose their lack of adult understanding of the issues and of the peoples opinion.
1
Response to GFagan: I think the mistake many make (myself included, for many years) is thinking that "it's standard operating procedure for Democrats: give up when Republicans bluster (that is, give up every single time)."
The Democrats are NOT giving up! The Democrats you are thinking of left the playing field a while ago; the yahoos in office now are actually Republicans parading as Democrats... until, that is, it's time to decide anything.
We're ALL being bamboozled, by folks whose morals go no further than their pockets.
The Democrats are NOT giving up! The Democrats you are thinking of left the playing field a while ago; the yahoos in office now are actually Republicans parading as Democrats... until, that is, it's time to decide anything.
We're ALL being bamboozled, by folks whose morals go no further than their pockets.
1
Republicans continue to anything like precision, not only in science but also in language. An agreement is a treaty? A fetus is a person? An immigrant is a criminal?
I hope what the Democrats are doing is playing along until the time when votes are needed to override a POTUS veto. But that is dangerous. We've already told the world that our legislative branch is a bunch of adolescents at best, or of toddlers willing to hold their breath until everyone gives in... Pity they can't define what it is they really want, other than 19th C nirvana and chaos.
I hope what the Democrats are doing is playing along until the time when votes are needed to override a POTUS veto. But that is dangerous. We've already told the world that our legislative branch is a bunch of adolescents at best, or of toddlers willing to hold their breath until everyone gives in... Pity they can't define what it is they really want, other than 19th C nirvana and chaos.
8
The Senate Republicans may not have a credible alternative to the deal forged by President Obama, but they do have an incredible one: war.
Remember this day when you choose (or choose not to) go to the polls in 2016.
Remember this day when you choose (or choose not to) go to the polls in 2016.
12
They may "not offer a credible alternative" but they know very well the one they prefer: "Bomb! Bomb! Bomb Iran". The Republicans refuse to acknowledge that the President is widely admired overseas for his thoughtful approach to foreign relations; Republicans don't want admiration, they want fear ("no one fears us any more'). War is their preferred alternative.
8
Money talks. Senate Democrats are doing the will of powerful donors who see the defeat of the Iran negotiations as a key element of Israeli foreign policy. Does anyone think that's a coincidence?
Senator Cardin ought to be ashamed.
Senator Cardin ought to be ashamed.
12
This kind of irresponsible action by the Republicans is what we get when politicians are not held to account for their disastrous decisions concerning war and peace. I'm referring to the failure to prosecute George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for lying us into the War with Iraq, a fact that is well documented. If these two were now in federal prison, I don't believe the Republicans would be so aggressively pursuing another Middle East war.
16
Absolutely. There should have been a consequence for the blatant lying us into the Iraq War, incompetence in controlling the situation after invading, and raiding the American coffers with off budget requests for more money. At the same time, the GOP philosophy destroyed an inherited surplus and tanked the economy. Cheney, to this day, is still defending his immoral actions.
1
"Now Congress will have a say?" Shouldn't this be stated more truthfully? "Now Israel will decide!"
16
Two observations. The decision was unanimous, including all democrats on the committee. Second, if the deal is a good one, what is there to fear? With a good deal there will not be enough democrats to vote in favor of it?
2
Congress has subjugated it's power to the President in a act of pure cowardice since the Bush administration. When you guys have your boy in the White House you want him to be king. When the opposition does the same he's a ruthless dictator. The Senate has a Constitutional obligation to advise and consent to foreign treaties and agreements. Obama knows he's on the losing end of this latest effort to weaken America abroad. He has no choice here. He, and his fellow travelers, will otherwise take it on the chin in the next election cycle with cries of "traitor" abounding.
1
The imperial presidency seems to have become so ingrained that the NYTimes editors seem to think it is the Constitutionally ordained order. But the Constitutional requirement that treaties be ratified by the Senate makes it very clear that the Senate was supposed to take part in making foreign policy and it was never supposed to be the exclusive domain of an imperial President. I don't much like the politics of the Republican majority in the Senate, but in this case they have fundamental democratic principles and the Constitution on their side.
4
It's not a treaty. Nuff said.
10
It is NOT a treaty!
1
American treaties all require ratification by the Senate and that hasn't weakened the USA in almost 250 years. What has weakened Mr Obama is the fact that Russia has broken the sanctions and is also providing Iran with anti aircraft missile batteries that make an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities impossible (or almost impossible).
Without the sanctions and without a military option an agreement with Iran is a charade. Small wonder Ali Khamenei is now insisting on impossible new conditions. Having totally outmaneuvered Mr Obama he now seeks to humiliate him.
Without the sanctions and without a military option an agreement with Iran is a charade. Small wonder Ali Khamenei is now insisting on impossible new conditions. Having totally outmaneuvered Mr Obama he now seeks to humiliate him.
3
"American treaties all require ratification by the Senate"....Please state why you think it is a treaty when it does not obligate the U.S. to do anything.
"Without the sanctions and without a military option an agreement with Iran is a charade".......The only reason sanctions are effective is that they have the support of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. The U.S. Senate does not get to vote on whether they maintain sanctions, and unilateral sanctions by the U.S. would be woefully ineffective. Technically a military option is always on the table even though it would be dreadfully stupid.
"Without the sanctions and without a military option an agreement with Iran is a charade".......The only reason sanctions are effective is that they have the support of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. The U.S. Senate does not get to vote on whether they maintain sanctions, and unilateral sanctions by the U.S. would be woefully ineffective. Technically a military option is always on the table even though it would be dreadfully stupid.
1
First I wasn't saying it was a treaty just that a requirement for Congressional approval of treaties hasn't weakened the USA - it's an analogy. Second the Senate doesn't get to vote on whether they maintain sanctions but now they get to vote on whether the agreement with Iran, without sanctions, is in the bet interest of the United States.
Regarding your comment that "American treaties all require ratification by the Senate ...". You might re-read the last sentence of the next-to-the last paragraph , i.e., " It would not be a formal treaty, which requires Senate ratification." The agreement would NOT be a treaty, and therefore not an American treaty. For almost 250 years these sorts of international agreements have been negotiated by the president and (State Department).
And as for Ali Khamenei seeking to humiliate Mr. Obama, the Ayatollah needn't bother; Congress already has dished out more than enough humiliation.
(Of course, having had so much practice, Congress now is quite accomplished at the art of humiliation.)
And as for Ali Khamenei seeking to humiliate Mr. Obama, the Ayatollah needn't bother; Congress already has dished out more than enough humiliation.
(Of course, having had so much practice, Congress now is quite accomplished at the art of humiliation.)
1
This is still the same Republican Party that shot down the League of Nations.
154
The League of Nations was even more useless than the UN has become.
3
Did you see that it was a unanimous vote by all members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?
Yeah, and for good reason.
Sorry, this President has weakened his authority in many ways already. He drew a line in the sand in Syria and only his enemy, V. Putin, saved him from too much embarrassment. He withdrew support from the Egyptian military when they ousted the popularly elected president and then gave it back to them. He never visited Israel for some reason. The senate has restored faith in American credibility from a man who has given it away.
2
You say, "He never visited Israel for some reason."
??!
I remembered his visit there but I had forgotten the date, but Google refreshed my memory.
Transcript of Obama's Speech in Israel - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/.../transcript-of-obamas-speech-in-...
The New York Times
Mar 21, 2013 - Following is a complete transcript of President Obama's remarks in Jerusalem on March 21, 2013.
The rest of your comment is opinion, but I find it just as accurate.
??!
I remembered his visit there but I had forgotten the date, but Google refreshed my memory.
Transcript of Obama's Speech in Israel - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/.../transcript-of-obamas-speech-in-...
The New York Times
Mar 21, 2013 - Following is a complete transcript of President Obama's remarks in Jerusalem on March 21, 2013.
The rest of your comment is opinion, but I find it just as accurate.
1
Or have the Senators simply acted like the spoiled children they so often show themselves to be? Will they really kill the agreement with nothing else in place(I'll assume that they do not consider Cotton' s bombing proposal an option)? If not, then they end up in a situation where their bluff is called and they simply sign on Obama's dotted line
7
It is clear that the Senate is transgressing on the constitutional functions of the executive. Foreign policy is not conducted by Congress or the Senate. Congress decides on war and funds the military but cannot end a war once started.
The Senate does does not negotiate with foreign powers for good reason. The U.S. speaks with voice, We have a chance of avoiding war with Iran stop Iran from building an atomic bomb. The Senate hard liners should make a choice between negotiation and war.
If Congress wants to decide on war or the inevitable nuclear Iran and torpedo the last best chance that we have to avoid the same it should first re instate the draft and increase taxes to pay for that war; because the people are not in the mood to pay for war by losing their social insurance programs and safety nets, while the rich get tax cuts or by more borrowing to impoverish generations to come.
If we are to have war, Congress should tell us how they intend to pay for it. Will it be a free pass for the rich and corporations and shafting ordinary people who are still struggling with climbing out if the recession as thee stock market booms and CEO and Wall Street bonuses go through the roof.
Who are these people who write to Iran to say do not trust our government and warn that our promises are good onsly so long as Barak Obama is in office? Do these people think that they are the only legitimate government and the obligations of the U.S. only last election to election?
The Senate does does not negotiate with foreign powers for good reason. The U.S. speaks with voice, We have a chance of avoiding war with Iran stop Iran from building an atomic bomb. The Senate hard liners should make a choice between negotiation and war.
If Congress wants to decide on war or the inevitable nuclear Iran and torpedo the last best chance that we have to avoid the same it should first re instate the draft and increase taxes to pay for that war; because the people are not in the mood to pay for war by losing their social insurance programs and safety nets, while the rich get tax cuts or by more borrowing to impoverish generations to come.
If we are to have war, Congress should tell us how they intend to pay for it. Will it be a free pass for the rich and corporations and shafting ordinary people who are still struggling with climbing out if the recession as thee stock market booms and CEO and Wall Street bonuses go through the roof.
Who are these people who write to Iran to say do not trust our government and warn that our promises are good onsly so long as Barak Obama is in office? Do these people think that they are the only legitimate government and the obligations of the U.S. only last election to election?
14
Even at the expense of what is best for the country these people would do anything to derail the President.
5
Does anything congress do now to this president - whom they clearly hate - come as a surprise. His authority has been undermined his reputation disgraced and his executive powers unconstitutionally challenged. This is not a good global image.
6
HELLO??? Earth to 95% of other posters; It was a UNANIMOUS vote of the Committee. BTW, folks, that means ALL the Democrats on the Committee also voted in favor of this measure! So next time check your Webster's Dictionary for the meaning of the word, "unanimous" before you post your usual, ludicrous Republican-bashing comments.
OK, now that we've gotten that out of the way, this is NOT a Republican-lead Senate overreaching its authority. This is merely the Legislative Branch attempting to RE-establish some authority. Our Constitution clearly gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" on foreign treaties. When was the last foreign treaty the Senate approved?
The radical polarization of our political landscape here in the US has caused presidents (BOTH Democrat & Republican) to entering into "agreements" or "cordials" or "understandings" with foreign governments rather than full-blown signed treaties in order to avoid the "food fights" that we've sadly become accustomed to over the past 15 years when dealing with Congress.
In this particular circumstance re: Iran there is simply too much at stake here. Congress must have some input into this process; they imposed the sanctions by passing legislation and a president signed it to make this legislation a law. That's why our Constitution has a system of checks and balances.
Maybe BOTH the Legislative and Executive Branches ought to attend a refresher course on the Constitution.
OK, now that we've gotten that out of the way, this is NOT a Republican-lead Senate overreaching its authority. This is merely the Legislative Branch attempting to RE-establish some authority. Our Constitution clearly gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" on foreign treaties. When was the last foreign treaty the Senate approved?
The radical polarization of our political landscape here in the US has caused presidents (BOTH Democrat & Republican) to entering into "agreements" or "cordials" or "understandings" with foreign governments rather than full-blown signed treaties in order to avoid the "food fights" that we've sadly become accustomed to over the past 15 years when dealing with Congress.
In this particular circumstance re: Iran there is simply too much at stake here. Congress must have some input into this process; they imposed the sanctions by passing legislation and a president signed it to make this legislation a law. That's why our Constitution has a system of checks and balances.
Maybe BOTH the Legislative and Executive Branches ought to attend a refresher course on the Constitution.
8
Yes, we do know that there is only one plutocratic party in the US performing a good cop bad cop act, and both cops now understand that they are in deep discredit.
1
You're correct in your quote but not in your assessment. Yes, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to "advise and consent" on foreign treaties. But claiming that "This is merely the Legislative Branch attempting to RE-establish some authority" is to ignore the manic-depressive behavior of the Republican party over Obama's entire term of office. They're either sitting on their hands doing NOTHING helpful or useful, or they're meddling in foreign affairs that 1) the Republicans know nothing about; and 2) the Constitution clearly reserves for the Executive branch. Why is it that commenters like you obsess over everything Obama does - or doesn't do - in your eagerness to find fault and blame in his supposed unconstitutional actions, yet you're equally eager to look the other way when it's members of your own party engaging in similar behavior and have shown time and time again that the adults long ago left the room?
1
If this were a treaty then your advise and consent argument would be valid. Since it is not a treaty this action by a bunch of Israeli controlled war mongers is an effort to torpedo any and all deals in order to go to war with Iran using someone else's kids as cannon fodder.
1
Iran no longer needs to chant "death to America". The GOP is handling that one. I hate the 24/7 news cycle as much as anyone with an IQ higher than their waist size but it seems that the GOP is constantly astonished about the exact current events they've been hired to pay attention to.
There was no big secret about negotiations. All the other countries were somehow able to act like grown ups. The sanctions are going to be lifted with us or without us and we can participate as a grown up leader or try not to be embarrassed by our 500 plus children throwing fits in the corner because they didn't get their way. No deal will make everyone happy which is why it's called a negotiation.
The Middle East, as usual, is exploding. But no president of the USA could have stopped this. The entire world is also watching this pan out and the hard truth that a bunch of old folks in Washington can't except is that it's largely due to a bunch of computer guys wearing hoodies in Palo Alto and not their mahogany room, cigar smoking big steak dinners where "real deals" are made.
Iran has 70% of their country under 35. They have 60% women in their universities. Can we say the same about Saudi Arabia? They will emerge with or without us.The double standard is being shown clearly through Utube, Facebook, twitter and we need to move forward and Israel and Saudi Arabia can get on board or not. These are toxic one sided relationship.
There was no big secret about negotiations. All the other countries were somehow able to act like grown ups. The sanctions are going to be lifted with us or without us and we can participate as a grown up leader or try not to be embarrassed by our 500 plus children throwing fits in the corner because they didn't get their way. No deal will make everyone happy which is why it's called a negotiation.
The Middle East, as usual, is exploding. But no president of the USA could have stopped this. The entire world is also watching this pan out and the hard truth that a bunch of old folks in Washington can't except is that it's largely due to a bunch of computer guys wearing hoodies in Palo Alto and not their mahogany room, cigar smoking big steak dinners where "real deals" are made.
Iran has 70% of their country under 35. They have 60% women in their universities. Can we say the same about Saudi Arabia? They will emerge with or without us.The double standard is being shown clearly through Utube, Facebook, twitter and we need to move forward and Israel and Saudi Arabia can get on board or not. These are toxic one sided relationship.
14
There he goes again: Obama bending in front of the bullies. He had the DUTY to veto what he believest is against American interest. He had the duty, the spine he had not.
3
"There he goes again: Obama bending in front of the bullies."
Most thoughtful people assumed this line was a reference to his "negotiations" with Iran.
Most thoughtful people assumed this line was a reference to his "negotiations" with Iran.
I do not trust Obama on Israel or Iran. We see two different versions of what is in the agreement so I do not know who is lying. Neither side has credibility based on their past. It is great that this agreement will be scrutinized before it become a done deal. 19 to 0..and you still blame Republican obstruction? That makes no sense to me.
3
The "Act in the Senate" was the opposite of "Reckless".
It was a bipartisan vote of no confidence in President Obama's foreign policy and his trustworthiness.
It was a bipartisan vote of no confidence in President Obama's foreign policy and his trustworthiness.
9
There really is a constituency in Washington to create a pretense to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. The US always wants to shoot what it fears, often its own shadow.
10
If this is unprecedented, why are so many Democrats in favor of it?
6
I am totally mystified by this editorial, and the majority of comments. This is bi - partisan legislation, passed unanimously, and there is dissent? Please. It is acknowledged that there has been gridlock, and the President has used that gridlock as a excuse to let loose a torrent of executive actions, many of which likely will be ruled unconstitutional.
Finally, the Senate has taken up its proper role, and displayed the political process as it should work.
Finally, the Senate has taken up its proper role, and displayed the political process as it should work.
9
Agree completely. Very odd editorial and ahistorical to boot.
"[T]here has been gridlock, and the President has used that gridlock as a excuse to let loose a torrent of executive actions, many of which likely will be ruled unconstitutional."
Gridlock AMONG Republicans is why Obama has been forced into releasing a "torrent of executive actions". A "torrent"? Really?? Out of our last 5 presidents, Reagan is first with 381 and Obama comes in fourth with 205. A real torrent, indeed. And whether Obama's executive actions are constitutional or not is more a matter of opinion in the republican-held Senate and House than any real issue to be settled by the judicial branch. In other words, Obama's executive actions are seen as unconstitutional only by GOP politicians who WANT them to be viewed as unconstitutional, not because they ARE.
Gridlock AMONG Republicans is why Obama has been forced into releasing a "torrent of executive actions". A "torrent"? Really?? Out of our last 5 presidents, Reagan is first with 381 and Obama comes in fourth with 205. A real torrent, indeed. And whether Obama's executive actions are constitutional or not is more a matter of opinion in the republican-held Senate and House than any real issue to be settled by the judicial branch. In other words, Obama's executive actions are seen as unconstitutional only by GOP politicians who WANT them to be viewed as unconstitutional, not because they ARE.
1
Maybe it would behoove Obama to learn to play well with others.
His "my way or the highway" meme is unraveling at the seams.
His "my way or the highway" meme is unraveling at the seams.
3
Obama is merely following the Constitution and the law; Congress is insisting on intruding into matters where they have no business intruding. (Did you read the article?)
1
Apparently the Times Editorial Board is under the impression that the "Emperor" has a new suit of clothes.
Maybe it would behoove Congress to act in the interests of the American people instead of playing for the approval of Fox News viewers.
1
This is just stupid and violation of constitution. Our constitution insures balance of power and authority between the legislative branch and executive branch . The executive branch has the power to make deal with foreign countries. 535 congress members are not supposed to run foreign affairs. It s a mess.
17
Actually you are incorrect, quite simply wrong. This is a treaty and as such the executive branch does not have the authority to make the treaty w/o the legislative branch. Look this is a lame duck president with whom the majority of people in the US are dissatisfied. Why should he get to take this kind of risk alone without oversight? Why should he be trusted?
The Constitution also expressly gives the US Senate the power of advise and consent, or rejection, if you will, on all foreign treaties. And if the Iranian "deal" does not pass muster on the level of a treaty, then it is a worthless piece of paper.
No to mention the matter of the Sanctions which the Congress passed into law, and which the Congress can rescind.
No to mention the matter of the Sanctions which the Congress passed into law, and which the Congress can rescind.
The contest for dominance or even relevance in foreign policy is an old trope in American governance. What marks this epoch as odd are peculiar, even dangerous, tactics employed by the GOP. Not only do their actions inhibit the executive's capacity to negotiate, but more so the GOP give succor to foreign governments. It makes one wonder for whom does the GOP work, the American electorate, or some foreign power?
12
It is a matter of perspective. The same exact thing might be said of a President cozying up to avowed enemies of the United States.
Are they still campaigning and searching for any claims that can smear or cripple this President? And Democrats? Is this about fear that any of them might be held responsible for supporting the President or making any proactive decisions?
Some of them - in public statements - seem to propose that the US must have absolute control over Iran, which is either pure bluster or a sign of having learned nothing at all about the MidEast. They had no problem going to war -- and causing instability which has rocked the region - but they have major problems accepting an uneasy peace.
Some of them - in public statements - seem to propose that the US must have absolute control over Iran, which is either pure bluster or a sign of having learned nothing at all about the MidEast. They had no problem going to war -- and causing instability which has rocked the region - but they have major problems accepting an uneasy peace.
31
Republicans have brilliantly exploited bugs in the Constitution to make them the features that shape our modern politics. We are, accordingly, falling behind as the world around us changes.
Small states, like Corker's Tennessee, are over-represented in the Congress while large states are under-represented. In some large states (Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida come to mind) voter suppression laws of one kind or another have been shown by the Government Accountability Office to reduce voting by minority, younger, older and lower income voters.
Thus, Republican members of Congress hold disproportionate power.
In foreign policy this has made us more war-like than most Americans want and in economic policy this has favored pushing more of society's gains to the top while shaming those at the bottom. Sadly, it is hard to see how this can be changed.
Small states, like Corker's Tennessee, are over-represented in the Congress while large states are under-represented. In some large states (Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida come to mind) voter suppression laws of one kind or another have been shown by the Government Accountability Office to reduce voting by minority, younger, older and lower income voters.
Thus, Republican members of Congress hold disproportionate power.
In foreign policy this has made us more war-like than most Americans want and in economic policy this has favored pushing more of society's gains to the top while shaming those at the bottom. Sadly, it is hard to see how this can be changed.
45
To ClearEye
Sixty percent of the Senate represents 40% of the people. Unfortunately, apportionment is not subject to the amendment process, so we are stuck with it.
Sixty percent of the Senate represents 40% of the people. Unfortunately, apportionment is not subject to the amendment process, so we are stuck with it.
1
I think there are breaks in sanity in the US Congress, I think they are so determined to undermine whatever Obama attempts to achieve that they will go out of their way to undo even policies they may basically agree with. This action has weakened our position in the negotiations, has weakened the executive branch, and has put us in a position where the world cannot depend on our country to deliver anything but contradictions and inconsistancies. So end result may be that Russia will likely take the lead with Iran and probably help them to a nuclear future while the US stands idle with no say in whatever happens next.
30
OMG, this agreement is being negotiated with Russia and China involved and their legislatures don't insist on being consulted, why must we do so? Seriously?
Sanctions have been placed on Iran by act of Congress, signed by the President. Presidents have waived various things from time to time, but not so often when what they are doing is directly contrary to the expressed will of the legislative branch. Seems to me, while some wiggle room for disagreement is advisable, when something this important and controversial comes up, it only makes sense to act with the concerted will of the entire government and people and not just the executive branch.
If this is such a great deal, let Mr Obama make his case. For those who believe evil Republicans are merely playing politics, let Mr Obama make his case directly to the American people and see if they will back him. And maybe, just maybe, if neither the people or Congress think what he is proposing is wise, maybe it isn't and he shouldn't be doing it.
And in the meantime, when the NY Times rates that which is advisable for democratic process by what Russia or China do (or even what our European allies do), perhaps it should re-examine its priorities. Is it so much in the pocket of the current executive that the Constitution or even political common sense doesn't matter?
Sanctions have been placed on Iran by act of Congress, signed by the President. Presidents have waived various things from time to time, but not so often when what they are doing is directly contrary to the expressed will of the legislative branch. Seems to me, while some wiggle room for disagreement is advisable, when something this important and controversial comes up, it only makes sense to act with the concerted will of the entire government and people and not just the executive branch.
If this is such a great deal, let Mr Obama make his case. For those who believe evil Republicans are merely playing politics, let Mr Obama make his case directly to the American people and see if they will back him. And maybe, just maybe, if neither the people or Congress think what he is proposing is wise, maybe it isn't and he shouldn't be doing it.
And in the meantime, when the NY Times rates that which is advisable for democratic process by what Russia or China do (or even what our European allies do), perhaps it should re-examine its priorities. Is it so much in the pocket of the current executive that the Constitution or even political common sense doesn't matter?
14
The claims of respect for the Constitution by those who clamor for faith based legistation are totally hollow to me.
1
To Kurt:
The president can't make his case until a final deal is made. The president can negotiate with foreign nations (as Reagan did with the USSR) without Congressional approval. He can even make binding agreements that will last the length of his term unless approved by Congress.
To weaken our position versus Russia and China is not the same thing as agreeing with or emulating them
The president can't make his case until a final deal is made. The president can negotiate with foreign nations (as Reagan did with the USSR) without Congressional approval. He can even make binding agreements that will last the length of his term unless approved by Congress.
To weaken our position versus Russia and China is not the same thing as agreeing with or emulating them
1
When my father was alive, he railed that Israel was tantamount to the 51st state. Effectively, Israel could do no wrong in the eyes of the US government. This was back in the 1970s. Fast forward nearly 40 years, the US is now 50 additional states to Israel. The GOP, and Congress, have more or less ceded rule of this country to Israel, and its political benefactors here in the US. Anyone who have seen full page ads, recently in The New York Times, can see how influential these groups are and the money they have.
Yes, this is a very dangerous precedent' crossing the separation of powers. But, it seems, starting with Bush V. Gore, we knew that line was blurred forever. First the US Supreme Court, now Congress, weakening the presidency, to make it less significant.
In the future, if Iran does decide to use nuclear weapons, or even use conventional weapons, to further destabilize the middle east, we can look back at this moment as the catalyst to these events. It may be ironic, in such a war, Israel would be blown off the face of the earth with the rest of the middle east.
Yes, this is a very dangerous precedent' crossing the separation of powers. But, it seems, starting with Bush V. Gore, we knew that line was blurred forever. First the US Supreme Court, now Congress, weakening the presidency, to make it less significant.
In the future, if Iran does decide to use nuclear weapons, or even use conventional weapons, to further destabilize the middle east, we can look back at this moment as the catalyst to these events. It may be ironic, in such a war, Israel would be blown off the face of the earth with the rest of the middle east.
47
"In the future, if Iran does decide to use nuclear weapons, ..."
-
How could Iran "decide to use" nuclear weapons, if the agreement doesn't permit it have them?
-
What you are saying, is that you don't expect the agreement to work.
-
How could Iran "decide to use" nuclear weapons, if the agreement doesn't permit it have them?
-
What you are saying, is that you don't expect the agreement to work.
What I am saying, the US Congress, with heavy pressure from Israel, will not allow an agreement with Iran. No agreement, Iran can make nuclear weapons. Maybe you should reread the article and my comment.
1
Oh no!
It's not just the GOP, now Democrats are against Obama, err, reckless!
It's not just the GOP, now Democrats are against Obama, err, reckless!
24
Hard not to notice that anyone coming out ahead in negotiations with Obama automatically becomes his nemesis according to liberals. Their concerns, on the other hand, for the interests of adversaries like the Iranians, Russians, Cubans, etc., are simply bizarre.
5
The fallout from April`s nuclear framework agreement between world powers and Iran has seen proponents and critics of the deal loudly sounding off on its supposed merits or flaws. 30 top nuclear nonproliferation experts took sides in the debate by issuing a joint statement that strongly endorsed the agreement. Many were US experts.
Nuclear Experts Endorse Iran Nuclear Agreement In Open Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/06/iran-nuclear-experts-us_n_70132...
No more US wars for AIPAC-Israel.
Nuclear Experts Endorse Iran Nuclear Agreement In Open Letter
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/06/iran-nuclear-experts-us_n_70132...
No more US wars for AIPAC-Israel.
2
I'm going to guess that even many Democrats figure that as leader of the free world the U.S. doesn't have to coordinate with other countries and international institutions, that somehow we are exceptional enough to go it alone. Marry that to the thread in Republican politics of trying to undermine everything President Obama does and we're off and running. Ask members of Congress if they want more power, they are likely to say yes. Those are the contributing factors I see to this legislation. I have no idea how Iran will respond. Perhaps they will understand the dynamic between our Congress and our President if they have a similar dynamic through which the negotiations can be carried out by one part of government and then undermined by another.
17
Do you realize that the US's role up until now has been to push this deal hard on the other parties? What makes you think all countries are willing to continue to go along with it just because they agreed to a preliminary "framework"? The difficult issue of sanctions still remains to be negotiated.
4
Many American lawmakers live in a state of "self-denial" and still believe the US could still rule the world! I hope the GOP-led Congress would come to their senses and wouldn't spoil, what we Europeans have been working on - bringing Iran in from the cold and giving it a chance to prove itself.
We believe it's a sensible thing to do, for the sake of regional and global security!
We believe it's a sensible thing to do, for the sake of regional and global security!
128
Yeah, bring them to Switzerland. Surely everyone can live like the Swiss. Teach them to make watches, ski and recycle their garbage.
As we have seen since Obama took office, Congress will go out of its way to deny this President any sort of meaningful achievement, whether in health care, immigration reform, infrastructure investment and, now, foreign policy.
What is most galling, however, is the complete absence of alternatives to these initiatives by the legislative branch. Members have proposed exactly nothing, even as they work to undermine the work of the executive branch.
The news media, and voters, must understand that this obstruction is not accidental, but part of a long term strategy to diminish the power of the Presidency. If we think that this is happening, at least in part, because of the President's skin color, just wait until HRC wins the White House (if she does). Given how little the GOP majority cares about gender equity in the workplace and physician's exam room, can you imagine what it will do to insure that a woman President will utterly fail?
What is most galling, however, is the complete absence of alternatives to these initiatives by the legislative branch. Members have proposed exactly nothing, even as they work to undermine the work of the executive branch.
The news media, and voters, must understand that this obstruction is not accidental, but part of a long term strategy to diminish the power of the Presidency. If we think that this is happening, at least in part, because of the President's skin color, just wait until HRC wins the White House (if she does). Given how little the GOP majority cares about gender equity in the workplace and physician's exam room, can you imagine what it will do to insure that a woman President will utterly fail?
182
Keep in mind that even his fellow Democrats sided with the GOP. So don't try to make this a partisan issue when his own party betrays him.
4
After reading 50 or so comments I find a common threads of anti semetism and the use of the race card as well as blaming the republicans when in reality this was a unanimous bi partisan bill...just maybe our elected officials, both republican and democrat, are trying to put pressure on Iran and the president to live up to the wording of the agreement... Already iran has clearly stated that they will not agree to 2 major points... They want the embargo lifted on day 1 and won't allow inspection of military bases...what I find most troubling about the negotiated agreement is that inspections are to be done by the United nations and we all know what a poor job they have done in the past.. I think the American people would feel more comfortable having American inspectors...
6
On day one of Mr. Obama's first day in office, in 2008,t he REPUBLICAN. (now) Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell made it crystal-clearthat his aim was to assure than Mr. Obama would be a 'one-term-president', and dispite his failure to achieve that goal, he has, like a petulent teenager in need of a good spanking' continued his campaign. And in the process, McConnell's rot has permeated the entire Senate (indeed, the entire United States). The Republicans) are setting-up America for another revolution!
This bill is unconstitutional, and would have no more force than a mere resolution if passed into law.
It is hard to believe that anyone in Congress would be bold enough to defy the perverse fusion of defense contractors and the PR campaign that identifies any dealings with Iran as a threat to Israel.
This is what a broken Congress looks like.
It is hard to believe that anyone in Congress would be bold enough to defy the perverse fusion of defense contractors and the PR campaign that identifies any dealings with Iran as a threat to Israel.
This is what a broken Congress looks like.
125
Senator Cardin needs to explain himself.
25
This may be equivalent to Democrats voting for the Iraq war who lived to regret it.
I agree!
1
i listened to an npr profile on him, and it seems he's more concerned about the opinion of his rabbi than the american public.
1
I completely agree with the Editorial Board. The deal with Iran is now in jeopardy. Anything that puts it in the hands of the Republicans - the same Republicans that lauded the Israeli president as if he were their pope - is now subject to defeat, and with the potential defeat, comes the defeat of peace in the region. I hope the opposition comes to its senses.
136
As do we all. But don't bet on it. The GOP will never allow a person of color success. Israel wants the US to fight a war with Iran for their benefit and that is exactly what the Republicans are trying to start with this bone headed bill.
1
The war profiteers who bribe our elected people have done their jobs well. We are run by the banking, war and oil machines.. If we are so hell bent on alienating Iran, a very large country with a well-educated and YOUNG population, in order to ensure a condition of perpetual war and profits, then we can at least bring back the draft.. with NO exemptions. ..no National Guard, no educational exemptions, no exemptions at all...and no use of private for-profit contractors!. Then we'll see how much the American people want never-ending war.
212
Yes, it is easy for politicians and the public to distance themselves from the perpetual state of war. Nixon abolished the draft because of the backlash against Vietnam. Clinton, GW Bush, and VP's Cheney and Biden managed to avoid the draft and Vietnam while Mitch McConnell was medically discharged from the reserves. And, of course, taxes are not raised to finance these wars because that would be unpopular. Politicians like to play "let's go to war" because there are no consequences and they please defense contractors who support their campaigns. If every citizen had some skin in the game of war via mandatory service and war taxes maybe there would be less of them.
1
In addition to bringing back the draft, I would also hope for a war tax.
1
It would be interesting to see how many people want war if only those who wanted it had to go.
They are pretty much unavailable when it comes to the actual fighting or paying for the wars.
To all those who were so gung-ho for the Iraq War, the bills still need to be paid ! !
Step on up !!
No, I didn't think so.
They are pretty much unavailable when it comes to the actual fighting or paying for the wars.
To all those who were so gung-ho for the Iraq War, the bills still need to be paid ! !
Step on up !!
No, I didn't think so.
1
Yet another example of the Israel Lobby working against the interests of Americans.
320
We'll see if you still think that this is against the interests of Americans when Iran has nuclear armed ICBMs aimed at the US in a decade or two. Even President Obama says that the proposed deal would leave Iran with a minimal breakout period after a dozen years and there is nothing in it to slow the Iranian project to develop ICBMs.
24
A "decade or two" buys us all a lot of time, without the threat of more nukes.
In a dozen years, Israel will have a new Prime Minister, perhaps more reasonable and less craven than this one. In a dozen years, younger and modern Iranians will have come to power, hopefully having rejected the antiquated fundamentalism of their elders. In a dozen years, we can only hope that all entrenched fundamentalisms, including our own, may be history.
Or, in a dozen years, American democracy will have ceased to be because we neglected the responsibility to be informed, to vote and to participate in a remarkable system of governance that we will prove ourselves incapable of sustaining.
In a dozen years, Israel will have a new Prime Minister, perhaps more reasonable and less craven than this one. In a dozen years, younger and modern Iranians will have come to power, hopefully having rejected the antiquated fundamentalism of their elders. In a dozen years, we can only hope that all entrenched fundamentalisms, including our own, may be history.
Or, in a dozen years, American democracy will have ceased to be because we neglected the responsibility to be informed, to vote and to participate in a remarkable system of governance that we will prove ourselves incapable of sustaining.
6
Iran will also have ICBM's aimed at it.
There are several ways to deal with international issues and promote US interests in the world. One is the use of diplomacy. This is the oft difficult, perhaps adult approach to dealing with countries the US disagrees with. Other ways to influence events include economic sanctions or military clout. Sadly the US has become a country that too quickly and too often seeks the military arm of national power to do the work that diplomacy might accomplish. Now, when the chief diplomat and the Sec State are working to find a diplomatic solution, congress, specifically the Foreign Relations Committee led by Little Bobby Corker, threaten to take their ball and go home. They seem like spoiled children unable to comprehend an adult situation in an adult world. Will diplomacy work, maybe. Will continuing to ostracize Iran work better?
60
The American people elected Obama president, twice. That makes him the legitimate President and Commander-in-Chief, with exactly the same powers and responsibilities as any other elected president, Republican or Democrat. The sore loser Republicans who refuse to recognize this are thumbing their noses at the majority of Americans who elected the president. They seem to have an utter disregard for the American system of government. Apparently, they are only in it for the money.
157
Obama s President, not Emperor and being commander in chief doesn't give him the powers you claim for him.
1
The American people also elected a Republican House and Senate. Or doesn't that count in your world view?
This outcome comes out of the Republican play book: discredit and distrust President Obama on everything regardless of merit, then brand Hillary as an Obama clone. It's all about 2016. It's shocking that the Senate Democrats on Foreign Relations got sucked into the Republican strategy. It's a testament to Senator Crocker [sic: Corker].
52
The Senate, in its 'mighty wisdom', has decided that a black president must be reigned in, so executive orders precisely by his presidency, must be curtailed. A dangerous move, as political expediency and spite are no good counselors in delicate and nuanced treaties such as control of Iran's nuclear capabilities in a climate of distrust and sanctions. I suppose that, if we play with fire, somebody may get burned; and if this diplomatic effort is thwarted by the Senate, lots of crying may ensue. And then, no remedy to ease the pain...and stupidity.
33
There are two ways this makes sense. Democrats want the option to block a possible future Republican President and Republicans assume there will never be another Republican President. May the Republican assumption prove correct!
21
The Congress demanding to exercise its duty of advise and consent over the actions of the executive is not a "Reckless Act". Rather, it is an act of a democratic government and real democracy is a messy affair.
17
The question would then be, "Why now?"
This is not a treaty! This is meant to make sure that there will be no agreement
.since this Congress hates this uppity President.
.since this Congress hates this uppity President.
This is NOT a treaty so advice and consent are NOT required.
The Senate continually fails to do the job voters want them to do like immigration reform now insert themselves in a process where they are unnecessary and unwanted.
42
Thank you for this sane and balanced editorial. There was a time when the whole world looked to America for global leadership. Today the world looks to US Congress to see what the most rightwing Likud Israeli prime minister demands. The aim of the pro-Israeli senators who pushed for this bill is partly to oppose anything that President Obama does, but their main aim is to dance to Bibi’s tune and kill a negotiated deal that has required hundreds of hours of careful and expert discussion by representatives of Iran and six world powers. If as the result of this bill the negotiations fail and the world is dragged towards a devastating war, everybody will know whom to blame for it. The Americans should demand that their government will not fight more wars on behalf of Israeli rightwing zealots.
122
A reckless act would be to trust this President to negotiate a deal with Iran and lift sanctions without Congressional overview. A bipartisan group of 19 Senators agree. Meanwhile the Times seems to believe that Congress should be barred from any exercise of Constitutional power now that the Republicans are in control. And the Times readers have fantasies about Israel and war mongering neocons pulling the strings. Yet the truth is that Obama had to compromise and accept Congress's role because a large number of Democrats were on board and are concerned about the deal. The Iranians have already disputed what Obama claims are the central points of the framework, that sanctions would not be lifted until there is confirmation that Iran is complying. The French are saying that the U.S. gave in to Iranian demands and were too anxious to cut a deal. Mr. Obama's policies in the Middle East to date have resulted in a string of failures, from Egypt to Syria to Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. It is hard to understand how anyone would believe he's now hit the sweet spot with Iran.
28
This Republican Congress has trouble agreeing to the no controversial appointment of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, 47 of them decided that they are against the Iran agreement without even reading it, and expect us to imagine they will do a serious and thoughtful review of the terms. Ha! Erik Prince and other tax-revenue draining war profiteers are licking their chops.
26
Please list all the Republican successes in the Middle east that have you so enamored.
1
I don't think they were allowed to read it! That's the crux of the problem.
I think this is a brilliant tactical move by the President and will get the doubters and nay Sayers to be quiet while negotiations continue. While I believe Congress and in particular the Senate has outrageously overstepped its authority and impeded on Presidential powers ( letter signed by 47 Republicans, Invitation to Bibi to speak before joint session of Congress) this is the only way the President can say to the public I gave them an opportunity and they clearly do not want any reasonable deal, while they will not propose any reasonable alternative except those as dictated by Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC. This then exposes the true intentions of the GOP which is to embarrass , humiliate and stop anything this President does.
53
i hope you are right, and i hope the democrats bucking the president ends right here.
It's really quite remarkable that the editorial board thinks that it's a good thing that Congress dropped its demand that Iran renounce terrorism.
Have we completely lost site of what's important here?
Bravo to Congress for finally coming together and doing its job!
Have we completely lost site of what's important here?
Bravo to Congress for finally coming together and doing its job!
19
This Congress is the most dysfunctional Congress since Eugene McCarthy, Republican idol, was the sicko who caused all the sickness.
And it's still in their "charter" to DESTROY ISRAEL. And maybe also destroy the Great Satan; The United States of America.
Actually what is reckless is the Presidents policy on iran. Already Russia is planning to sell them advanced missiles and both they and China are going to build more nuclear facilities there making the job much harder. The President is betting everything on the thin reed of change in the Iranian government. This is a government that has murdered its own people in the street during political protests and exports terrorism around the globe. They also have a national holiday called "Death to America" day. We need as much oversight as possible to make sure that the President does not give away the store.
20
So you believe in treason by US elected congressional misfits?
1
I hope US Congress can stop China and Russia from selling to Iran and other countries from lifting sanctions on Iran. There seems to be the mistaken notion that US lawmakers have absolute control over how other countries deal with each other.
1
The constitutional clause refers to advice and consent, not direct participation. I find it stunning that so many on the right who claim that Obama is trampling the constitution have just done exactly that.
52
No, they are demanding the right to advise--to say what they think is essential before an agreement is reached--and to consent, or deny their consent and block an agreement. That's what the Constitution provides for, not an imperial Presidency with a rubber stamp Congress.
The president was wise to do this.
Khamenei has already put the kibosh on two of the most important aspects of the deal - phased sanctions relief and unfettered inspections.
Congress is clearly wary, France is looking to back out, and Iran's neighbors certainly don't want it. On top of all that, Iran's actions in Yemen are forcing the president to choose between our allies and a regime who still refers to us as The Great Satan. Seems like an easy choice.
Perhaps the president is hoping he can get out of this gracefully, AND leave Congress holding the bag for what happens after the deal falls apart...which won't be pretty.
Anyway, it was a bad deal from the start. I can totally understand detente with Cuba, but Iran shows no interest whatsoever in mending fences. This deal was about Tehran getting rid of sanctions, and the president trying to retroactively earn that premature Nobel Peace Prize he received. It didn't serve U.S. interests at all.
The people who seemed to relish this deal the most were those in favor of distancing America from Israel.
Khamenei has already put the kibosh on two of the most important aspects of the deal - phased sanctions relief and unfettered inspections.
Congress is clearly wary, France is looking to back out, and Iran's neighbors certainly don't want it. On top of all that, Iran's actions in Yemen are forcing the president to choose between our allies and a regime who still refers to us as The Great Satan. Seems like an easy choice.
Perhaps the president is hoping he can get out of this gracefully, AND leave Congress holding the bag for what happens after the deal falls apart...which won't be pretty.
Anyway, it was a bad deal from the start. I can totally understand detente with Cuba, but Iran shows no interest whatsoever in mending fences. This deal was about Tehran getting rid of sanctions, and the president trying to retroactively earn that premature Nobel Peace Prize he received. It didn't serve U.S. interests at all.
The people who seemed to relish this deal the most were those in favor of distancing America from Israel.
16
Again someone who can not propose a deal of their own
We had a somewhat analogous situation in Vermont a few years ago when the legislature inserted itself in the licensing process for our nuclear power plant which made a regulatory process highly political. The act and outcome, a negative vote in the Senate, were driven by our most ambitious politician for his own goals. It was not good governance or good decision making but was great theater and politics, as it this Foreign Relations Committee show. The tragedy here is that nothing will hold the Congress responsible for their vote on this so they get the benefit of voting 'no' but no consequences of a rogue Iran. Just as the Vermont Senate has not had to bear any responsibility for the loss of jobs and revenue from their act. Political theater.
8
What Obama has repeatedly said is true: The opponents to this agreement have offered no reasonable alternative.
What many other observers have said is also true: This agreement will put controls on Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon.
Since our major allies support this agreement, and so do Russia and China (neither of which wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran), why does the GOP oppose it? Especially given that the lack of an agreement significantly increases the possibility of a military clash and ultimately war with Iran.
The main driving force here seems to be that the Republicans are against anything Obama does, period.
What many other observers have said is also true: This agreement will put controls on Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon.
Since our major allies support this agreement, and so do Russia and China (neither of which wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran), why does the GOP oppose it? Especially given that the lack of an agreement significantly increases the possibility of a military clash and ultimately war with Iran.
The main driving force here seems to be that the Republicans are against anything Obama does, period.
55
Look to the Democrats in the Senate who sided with the Republicans and against Pres. Obama and the American people. Without the vote of the Democrats this bill would not have been veto proof.
1
According to the article, the pending agreement with Iran would not be a formal treaty that would require Senate approval. It further states the opinion that the Congressional meddling is an encroachment on the President's executive authority. Given that Congressional members have challenged as overreach some of the President's Executive Orders either in court, Twitter or Facebook, the President could do the same thing regarding Congress' encroachment on his constitutional prerogatives.
8
Executive agreements do not extend beyond the term of the current president. If President Obama wants this agreement to exist for 10 or 15 years (the parties already call each other liars over which period was tentatively agreed to) then the agreement MUST be ratified in the senate by 2/3rds vote as required by Article2, section 2 of the Constitution.
It is not the Senate or even the Congress that is seeking to limit Presidential power in this act, but a handful of powerful Senators and Congressmen tied to the coat strings of Israel. Our foreign policy is being interrupted for the sake of a foreign power. I object.
I think that our interaction with foreign governments is the business of the President and his office. He is doing our bidding; Congress is not. They are working for Israel.
I think that our interaction with foreign governments is the business of the President and his office. He is doing our bidding; Congress is not. They are working for Israel.
35
This is an unmitigated victory for Netanyahu. We might as well make Israel the 51st. state. Come to think of it, we would have more control over them if we did.
8
It was Congress that imposed the sanctions, not Obama. Its a treaty, not a "deal".
7
... And another constitutional scholar is heard from... . They're everywhere!
1
what a bloodthirsty, greedy, reckless country we are, determined to be the jail-keepers of as much of the world as we can control. Examine our current prison system, with many of its inmates later proven innocent, to see the intolerance, vengeful, punishment attitude that represents our country at present. Abu Ghraib was not an abnormality, but rather representative of how we regard our ability to treat the world to satisfy our needs. The deals made behind closed doors, in the end, will not work to our advantage regardless of what we believe. The stick method of enforcement only works until the stick breaks. Do we really want to do McCain's bidding and "bomb Iran" while the children of the wealthy stay safe and our children fight their war for political power and monetary profit.
9
OBAMA'S FINESSING What most people miss about Obama is that he is, despite the howling of his critics, a brilliant tactician. He has an opportunity to cool things off and get a modicum of cooperation from the Senate, which has formed a very rare bipartisan effort in these days of unending rivalry, polarization and even Balkanization. So why not take it? Frankly, I think that the problem with the extremists in Congress is that, despite all the noise, they are highly risk averse. Yet every action they take in any legislation whatsoever carries with it some level of risk. Logic would dictate that the higher the stakes, the more calm and reserved should be the approach. But the response from the right wing extremists in Congress resembled nothing as much as the howling of a roomful of infants. The president refers to himself as "no drama Obama," which he proves here again. Given the choice, he takes the path that calms things down and affords the opportunity for cooler heads to prevail, a process desperately needed in the sclerotic, balkanized houses of Congress more than anywhere I can think of. Aside from some balkanized state legislatures and governors, that is. Obama is giving the country exactly what it needs: some time for rational, logical, mature dialog, both domestically and in foreign affairs. He will get no credit for his rational leadership because the 24/7 noise machine will drown out his voice. Once again, he has shown himself to be a superb tactician.
13
The bottom line here is that if President Obama can reach an agreement with Iran that encompasses valid inspections and ensures the world that yet another nuclear power has come to be, then that agreement should be signed. Do we trust President Obama to intelligently make such an agreement, given that other major nations are also on board? Or do we need 500 more options on the matter? I for one vote for Obama, just as I did a couple of times before. This agreement is a no-brainier, as long as the inspections are effective and that is easy to ascertain.
10
At least Obama is still Commander and Chief of the armed forces, maybe that will keep us out of another war in the Middle East for two years. Aa plague on both their houses!
8
it's curious that congress rolls over and plays dead when a president wants to start a war, an area where congress has a legitimate role to play. but for a president to negotiate a peaceful agreement with a foreign power, as has properly been done without congressional meddling thousands of times before? forget it!
1
To the Editors,
It seems this "best deal" is already being decried by the Ayatollah Khamenei , the Supreme Leader of Iraq. You mention everything but his objections. He sounds almost like an Iranian version of Senator Cotton who, by the way, does voice an alternative solution involving bombs, I believe.
What if Iran refuses to sign?
Then what would the "Editorial Board" propose?
Certainly, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's attempts at torpedoing the deal are only given voice because, well, it's President's Obama's "deal" and he must be discredited no matter what he proposes; it's the Republican way.
Coupled with Mr. Netanyahu's objections and two Republican controlled Houses having just have enough votes, Mr. Obama had to "give in" to, at least, salvage something out of this mess.
Meanwhile, I think I can still hear Iranian centrifuges spinning away while all the "negotiating" continues.
It seems to me that little has changed, both sides really don't trust each other and if the Europeans lift the sanctions, Israeli warplanes might just make the whole "deal" unworkable after the smoke clears away.
It seems this "best deal" is already being decried by the Ayatollah Khamenei , the Supreme Leader of Iraq. You mention everything but his objections. He sounds almost like an Iranian version of Senator Cotton who, by the way, does voice an alternative solution involving bombs, I believe.
What if Iran refuses to sign?
Then what would the "Editorial Board" propose?
Certainly, the GOP/TP/KOCH AFFILIATE's attempts at torpedoing the deal are only given voice because, well, it's President's Obama's "deal" and he must be discredited no matter what he proposes; it's the Republican way.
Coupled with Mr. Netanyahu's objections and two Republican controlled Houses having just have enough votes, Mr. Obama had to "give in" to, at least, salvage something out of this mess.
Meanwhile, I think I can still hear Iranian centrifuges spinning away while all the "negotiating" continues.
It seems to me that little has changed, both sides really don't trust each other and if the Europeans lift the sanctions, Israeli warplanes might just make the whole "deal" unworkable after the smoke clears away.
2
No matter how we spin this, the republicans have opposed mostly everything the President has done and the egregious behavior toward this sitting president is unparalleled in my lifetime. Our elections have become auctions and the lies and innuendoes are shared so glibly that truth has become irrelevant.
Weak democratic leaders have tried to reason with their ridiculous demands, but there is no end to their treachery. There are several issues that I don't agree with the democrats philosophy, but the pious, pompous attitude of the republicans who parade around challenging the constituents to make sacrifices when they are not willing to make any and give themselves continual raises and balk at doing the same for others is hypocritical and shameless...
Iran is the tip of the iceberg in the ongoing drama in politics, but greed is the primary motivation and to many of our legislators are complicit in this mockery of justice that exists in America, we have graduated from overt racism to covert racism, but it's still racism...
Weak democratic leaders have tried to reason with their ridiculous demands, but there is no end to their treachery. There are several issues that I don't agree with the democrats philosophy, but the pious, pompous attitude of the republicans who parade around challenging the constituents to make sacrifices when they are not willing to make any and give themselves continual raises and balk at doing the same for others is hypocritical and shameless...
Iran is the tip of the iceberg in the ongoing drama in politics, but greed is the primary motivation and to many of our legislators are complicit in this mockery of justice that exists in America, we have graduated from overt racism to covert racism, but it's still racism...
14
Stupidity or cowardice or corruption has taken control of the US Congress. If anyone has attended to the Iranian agenda, they would recognize that this move by Congress is a deal killer. The Russians recognize it. They are selling Iran a missile defense system. Business leaders recognize it. Watch what happens to the price of oil. The Saudis recognize it. Look at their troop movements on the border with Yemen.
Does anyone think that sanctions will hold if the USA trashes negotiations? Tougher sanctions? by which nations? Does anyone think that Israel can defeat Iran by itself? Does anyone think that Americans are interested in participating in a war between Israel and Iran should Israel attack Iran?
Does anyone think that sanctions will hold if the USA trashes negotiations? Tougher sanctions? by which nations? Does anyone think that Israel can defeat Iran by itself? Does anyone think that Americans are interested in participating in a war between Israel and Iran should Israel attack Iran?
5
It's a disgrace. The GOP is just itching for war with Iran, egged on by Bibi.
You can bet your life (if any of us still have ours) that should the Republicans win the White House, they will rule with an iron fist, shutting democrats out of any Democratic process.
You've not seen "nuttin" yet now that this dangerous precedent has been set. Lord help us if the GOP drags us into yet another war we might not survive. This angry party is hell bent on destroying every element of diplomatic common sense as they drag the country back to a time of muscle and absolutes reminiscent of the early 50s.
I truly dread the future with this perverted brand they continue to call republican. Shame on every Democrat who opted to join a group of ideologues to fight a proxy war for Israel with this takeover of American foreign policy from a sitting president.
You can bet your life (if any of us still have ours) that should the Republicans win the White House, they will rule with an iron fist, shutting democrats out of any Democratic process.
You've not seen "nuttin" yet now that this dangerous precedent has been set. Lord help us if the GOP drags us into yet another war we might not survive. This angry party is hell bent on destroying every element of diplomatic common sense as they drag the country back to a time of muscle and absolutes reminiscent of the early 50s.
I truly dread the future with this perverted brand they continue to call republican. Shame on every Democrat who opted to join a group of ideologues to fight a proxy war for Israel with this takeover of American foreign policy from a sitting president.
45
"shutting democrats out of any Democratic process"-- are you kidding me? How bout Emperor Obama and his unilateral moves on any number of issues, the throwing open of our borders with Mexico chief among them? What is unpalateable to some is that Obama gets some congressional pushback against his autocratic ways. Well, you can always hope that Iran gets the bomb it has been wanting, it would get rid of, once and for all, the "Bibi problem".
Very eloquently put Christine! I am extremely conflicted about voting for Democrats at this point myself. It feels a bit like voting for those Styrofoam packing peanuts. They just take up space and have virtually no weight to them.
Fortunately I just had lunch with my son who helped me put things in perspective when he said; "You have to vote Dad! Sure if you vote for a Democrat you will probably be voting for a warmonger who will kill thousands of innocent brown people. But if a Republican wins they will kill even more innocent brown people and also eliminate food stamps!"
Fortunately I just had lunch with my son who helped me put things in perspective when he said; "You have to vote Dad! Sure if you vote for a Democrat you will probably be voting for a warmonger who will kill thousands of innocent brown people. But if a Republican wins they will kill even more innocent brown people and also eliminate food stamps!"
Sad to see how Americans have lost their land to some corrupt politicians who place the interests of a foreign country (take a wild guess) above interests of the country they swore an oath to.
No only is it sad, it has reached the point of being utterly embarrassing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
No only is it sad, it has reached the point of being utterly embarrassing in the eyes of the rest of the world.
27
Is there a single reader that believes Congress would not take advantage of every opportunity to cause this deal to fail? If Congress approves this deal I'll eat my hat.
4
Footsteps of war trod again on the middleast as the American congress stumble through irrelevance and ineptitude. Israel is determined to thump their chest because Iran hates them. The region will be inflamed for another generation or two and Israel will be a walled state unable to be normal.
8
As long as there are people in this country who believe that Iran won't find a way to cheat on a nuclear weapons treaty, I am always going to be able to make a good living here.
9
The United Nations with its six nation permanent security council is negotiating with Iran to abandon or delay building its nuclear program in exchange for lifting United Nations' sanctions. If the rest of the security council nations agree with the terms of the agreement and approve it along with John Kerry signing off on the deal it will be difficult for the US Congress to alter or kill the deal.
The United Nations can certainly lift the sanctions against Iran without the approval of the US Congress. Also, the United Nations agreement with Iran will also prevent the US or Israel from launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without condemnation from the United Nations and the other permanent security council members. Also if the US Congress alter or kill the deal with Iran it will alienate the US from its allies of Britain, France, and Germany. It will also caused a propaganda war with China and Russia.
The US would be condemned by the international community for attempting to keep sanctions against Iran when the United Nations is lifting them. The United States government has to be careful that they do not back themselves in a corner by giving the US Congress the power to alter or kill the deal, especially with so many war hawks like Tom Cotton and John McCain who would rather bomb Iran than negotiate.
The US Congress is going to find itself in a very difficult position against the world if they alter or kill the deal.
The United Nations can certainly lift the sanctions against Iran without the approval of the US Congress. Also, the United Nations agreement with Iran will also prevent the US or Israel from launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities without condemnation from the United Nations and the other permanent security council members. Also if the US Congress alter or kill the deal with Iran it will alienate the US from its allies of Britain, France, and Germany. It will also caused a propaganda war with China and Russia.
The US would be condemned by the international community for attempting to keep sanctions against Iran when the United Nations is lifting them. The United States government has to be careful that they do not back themselves in a corner by giving the US Congress the power to alter or kill the deal, especially with so many war hawks like Tom Cotton and John McCain who would rather bomb Iran than negotiate.
The US Congress is going to find itself in a very difficult position against the world if they alter or kill the deal.
12
Unfortunately the congress doesn't care. They care about their campaign funds and hating this president. They completely stopped caring about the country's best interests and the people who elected them with citizen's united.
5
You are assuming that they care.
2
Editorial, Nov. 3, 2013: "It is crucial that Congress work constructively with President Obama as he tries to lead the way in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran."
Editorial, April 14, 2015: "Every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do."
Editorial, April 14, 2015: "Every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do."
9
Obama's retreat is probably tactical. A delay on implementing the agreement with Iran is not an abrogation of the agreement. But it certainly weakens the US position and, more importantly, this once again underlines the extraordinary and destructive influence that Israel and its lobby in the US have on American foreign policy. The tail wags the dog again, at least to a degree, and as part of a much larger effort to scuttle the negotiations with Iran altogether. However, as the editorial points out, the sanctions regime is over. The sanctions work if the world is onboard. If a deal is worked out, the rest of the world is not going to wait for the US. Already, as we have seen, Russia has agreed to sell Iran the S-300 air defense system. Other states are looking forward to doing business with Iran. They are not going to let the appearance that the US government is a virtual hostage to the Israel Lobby stop them from pursuing their own interests.
9
My disgust is for Democrats who vote with he 47 Republican traitors against the president of the United States. Congress has not done to any other president, and this is just a another part of the Republican plan to prevent this president from doing anything. The total and complete disgust for Democrats like Cardin and Schumer and any other Democrat who votes for this deal is real.
25
Another sign, another reason why Iran shouldn't trust the U.S.
3
You would think Democrats in Congress would have learned their lesson when it comes to voting with the rightwing on matters of war and peace out of fear of looking like they are on the wrong side of playing tough.
The last time Democrats went along with the rightwing on such matters it gave us the catastrophic Iraq war which is still turning the middle east upside down with its consequences. Voting with Republicans on this - for fear of not seeming tough enough on one of our advisories - is the same kind of thinking that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place and ironically in which the main beneficiary of the war was Iran.
You can bet that whatever happens in the future, the ability to get Russia, China, or even our allies to work with us in a common effort - sanctions or war - just took a major blow for whoever sits in the Whitehouse.
The last time Democrats went along with the rightwing on such matters it gave us the catastrophic Iraq war which is still turning the middle east upside down with its consequences. Voting with Republicans on this - for fear of not seeming tough enough on one of our advisories - is the same kind of thinking that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place and ironically in which the main beneficiary of the war was Iran.
You can bet that whatever happens in the future, the ability to get Russia, China, or even our allies to work with us in a common effort - sanctions or war - just took a major blow for whoever sits in the Whitehouse.
16
Let's go back even further....Didn't Congress veto joining the League of Nations -which resulted in a weak organization thus contributing (or not stopping) the forces that led directly to WW2?
2
The editorial board got it wrong. Congressional oversight of foreign policy matters of import such as ones which may have military consequences in the long-term is both in keeping with the spirit of the constitution and meets the standards of sensible oversight and good government.
The editorial board's objection is really to the anti-Iran and anti-deal views held by most congress people. That is something else, and you have the single issue lobbying efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to thank for that as well as our political system which allows such outrageous but legal campaign contribution acquisitions of our politicians. The reason we have had a sensless embargo on Cuba for 50 years, no gun control laws or even limits on automatic weapons, the worst carbon emission standards in the developed world, and barely a national health health care system is not because of congressional interference in executive action. It is because of a campaign contribution dominated political system in which organised and financed single issue interest groups can subvert the will of the majority.
The editorial board's objection is really to the anti-Iran and anti-deal views held by most congress people. That is something else, and you have the single issue lobbying efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to thank for that as well as our political system which allows such outrageous but legal campaign contribution acquisitions of our politicians. The reason we have had a sensless embargo on Cuba for 50 years, no gun control laws or even limits on automatic weapons, the worst carbon emission standards in the developed world, and barely a national health health care system is not because of congressional interference in executive action. It is because of a campaign contribution dominated political system in which organised and financed single issue interest groups can subvert the will of the majority.
13
Obama and Democrats have once again surrendered to Republican ignorance and obstinance without even a fight. At least this time the New York Times is not excusing the Democrats' cravenness. Progress is measured in small steps.
8
"Even if Congress barred Mr. Obama from waiving American sanctions, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council could lift the sanctions they imposed, thus undercutting the American decision."
Another example of America's "exceptionalism". Everyone else will do the right thing EXCEPT the congress of the United States of America.
Another example of America's "exceptionalism". Everyone else will do the right thing EXCEPT the congress of the United States of America.
8
Evidently the Times has not read the US Constitution thoroughly especially the part about checks and balances. Our founding fathers wanted our government to have gridlock with all three branches of government keeping an eye on each other. Our founders had good reason to be nervous because they saw what could happen when a king or president was allowed to run amok with power. Compromise is the name of the game. Obama had to give way in the end and let the Senate do its Constitutional job by reviewing any potential agreement with Iran. Obama can't do what he wants without Congress being on board with a final deal to curb Iran's nukes. And no, you can't dredge up the usual "its all Israel's fault" shtick either.
7
Congress is distorting the constitution, aiming to reduce what they call the imperial power of the president, and increase congressional power to its own imperial, undemocratic level.
What do the Dems get out of this? They only reason has to be campaign money. All the more reason to start the move to overturn Citizens United, start public financing like other democracies, and strictly limit any private money to lawmakers.
Why have 2 parties if both are so similarly tethered to special interest lobbyists? Our entire foreign and domestic politics is being poisoned by the most expensive and legally corrupt election system in the world. It's tentacles are everywhere.
What do the Dems get out of this? They only reason has to be campaign money. All the more reason to start the move to overturn Citizens United, start public financing like other democracies, and strictly limit any private money to lawmakers.
Why have 2 parties if both are so similarly tethered to special interest lobbyists? Our entire foreign and domestic politics is being poisoned by the most expensive and legally corrupt election system in the world. It's tentacles are everywhere.
10
When the Senate is controlled by Republicans, everything they do is "reckless", but far from wreck-less. You and I know that they have an as-yet-undiclosed goal in mind, most likely to add another effort to destroy the Obama legacy as they have promised all along. A LEGACY, by the way, which will be remembered in our history books long after these so-called "law makers" are completely forgotten.........
5
The Senate may have diminished the President's power but they have denigrated themselves and are dragging the rest of us along. If we wake up to the alarm reality is sounding we may realize the arms we so willingly buy are pointed at us.
Our armed forces can only exercise their might against smaller and smaller nations until it is decided by those who rule that the armaments they control should be used against the citizenry.
This year to date over 300 of our fellow countrymen have been killed by police.
As citizens we are playing the fool to our kings and their cohorts while the rest of the world is either laughing at or crying for us.
Our armed forces can only exercise their might against smaller and smaller nations until it is decided by those who rule that the armaments they control should be used against the citizenry.
This year to date over 300 of our fellow countrymen have been killed by police.
As citizens we are playing the fool to our kings and their cohorts while the rest of the world is either laughing at or crying for us.
5
Republicans in Congress are still intent on doing their best to make sure the President does not succeed in anything. They have not been successful in making sure he wasn't reelected, but they have tried their best, and they continue to so so. A negotiated agreement with Iran would not only be a success for the President, it would also make it difficult for Republican neo-cons to start another war in the Middle East if they ever are able to put one of their own in the White House. It would also greatly upset Sheldon Adelson, at whose feet they flock for money. And their main policy adviser on foreign affairs other than the neo-cons, Bibi Netanyahu, would also be mad at them.
5
There is no end to GOP meddling, from this reckless nuclear act to trying to control women's bodies. One wonders if the GOP truly cares about our country.
9
I thank the editorial board for taking a stand on this important issue…
6
Some fools, that being O, need to be saved from them self's. Providing 'sunshine' on O's mess is best for the country. The idea that O could sneak this sell out of American interests tells you that there may be 19 sane people in Washington.
4
Thanks to the Constitution Obama is still the Commander and Chief of the armed forces. I'm hoping that, that will at least keep us from war with Iran for two more years. A plague on both their houses.
3
While I understand that an approval may be needed from the Congress in a democratic system, I wonder if any country watching this soap opera will seek to go into negociations with the US after that.
Also What incentive is there for the Iranians to conclude any accord if the removal of sanctions depends on the short sighted, provincial members of Congress?
For sure this is a great opportunity for Europeans, Russians and Chinese
Also What incentive is there for the Iranians to conclude any accord if the removal of sanctions depends on the short sighted, provincial members of Congress?
For sure this is a great opportunity for Europeans, Russians and Chinese
6
If Congressional Republicans & Democrats, the few who jumped on board, unwisely decide to nix the deal by refusing to lift sanctions on Iran, it would not be in our best interest.
The US can still impose sanctions on Iran, but it would be ineffective or to no real avail since the sanctions would be restricted to US businesses & US banks only. The rest of the world can do business with Iran. So that negates any leverage the US may have had.
And given, too, that Republicans are determined to de-legitimize the Obama presidency to destroy his legacy not just in the US, but worldwide, they will never agree to any negotiated deal with Iran.
Lest we forget that Republicans have, for decades, been eager to engage in a military offensive against Iran. Their current bellicose rhetoric - absurdly claiming Iran is our most dangerous enemy; Iran will destroy America if it is allowed to build a nuclear weapon; so on & so on - is almost identical to the absurd claims the Bush administration used in the run-up to war against Iraq.
So most of what incentivizes the Republicans to sabotage this deal are fairly obvious not to mention blindly self-serving.
That being said, President Obama, having managed to always stay 3 steps ahead taking the saboteurs by surprise, will outmaneuver them once again.
The US can still impose sanctions on Iran, but it would be ineffective or to no real avail since the sanctions would be restricted to US businesses & US banks only. The rest of the world can do business with Iran. So that negates any leverage the US may have had.
And given, too, that Republicans are determined to de-legitimize the Obama presidency to destroy his legacy not just in the US, but worldwide, they will never agree to any negotiated deal with Iran.
Lest we forget that Republicans have, for decades, been eager to engage in a military offensive against Iran. Their current bellicose rhetoric - absurdly claiming Iran is our most dangerous enemy; Iran will destroy America if it is allowed to build a nuclear weapon; so on & so on - is almost identical to the absurd claims the Bush administration used in the run-up to war against Iraq.
So most of what incentivizes the Republicans to sabotage this deal are fairly obvious not to mention blindly self-serving.
That being said, President Obama, having managed to always stay 3 steps ahead taking the saboteurs by surprise, will outmaneuver them once again.
3
It is not merely likely that the other parties to the deal will end sanctions on Iran, it is practically certain. Russia has already agreed to sell more S300 missiles to Iran. The European countries and China are also parties to this deal and will not appreciate having it collapsed by a caucus of short-termist fools in the US Congress.
All the US Senate has demonstrated is how far it is willing to undermine the good faith of the U.S. Government for short term political advantage. Does nobody there realise that the U.S. cannot act unilaterally on this? If the deal collapses Iran will get away scot free.
All the US Senate has demonstrated is how far it is willing to undermine the good faith of the U.S. Government for short term political advantage. Does nobody there realise that the U.S. cannot act unilaterally on this? If the deal collapses Iran will get away scot free.
2
If Congress is serious about its treaty obligations I hope the GOP will block the TPP Fast Track bill. But then that something the corporations really really want. They won't have to worry about Congress, or state houses or the WH ever again. They'll just arbitrate and destroy any law they don't want. To be crass if they get TPP what on earth will they need to pay Congress for?
So our esteemed Senators actually now want the US to hold back and re-negotiate with the 450 members of the Russian Duma, the 650 members of the House of Commons, the 2,987 members of the National People's Congress, the 69 members of the Bundesrat, the 631 members of the Bundestag, the 348 French Senators, the 577 members of the French National Assembly... plus of course the legislators of the Iranian Republic, and --why not-- the Knesset?
This vote is a disguise to have this treaty fall --which might have worked some thirty years ago. But then again, all of the other nations of the world will have to do what they will have to do as they protect their interests --which is to roll their eyes at this broken American government, and go ahead and negotiate and ratify the treaty on their own.
This vote is a disguise to have this treaty fall --which might have worked some thirty years ago. But then again, all of the other nations of the world will have to do what they will have to do as they protect their interests --which is to roll their eyes at this broken American government, and go ahead and negotiate and ratify the treaty on their own.
8
Nice to know the Editorial Board of the NY Times supports our constitutional system of Government.
5
Shame shame shame on the USA for kow-towing to this unconscionable pressure from the Israeli lobby and the war hungry machine. We will live to rue the day, if we live so long.
13
When war looms before them, plenty of senators do not wish to take a public vote or even a public stand. How many quietly acquiesced to the Bush administration's demand that the 2002 AUMF sail through without much of real debate? Yet when peace looms before them, plenty of senators, some of whom were also there in 2002, suddenly become very interested in taking on the issue. Not in a very constructive manner, of course, but in a way that seems to suggest an inclination to torpedo the talks, either in deference to Israel or antipathy toward the president or both. Where was such diligence and skepticism thirteen years ago?
5
the key issue here is if this is a formal treaty. i trust the NY Times. I know whites get tired of being called racist. So then why not let this black man do his job without all this unprecedented interference?
As long as we keep letting Israel dictate American policy, which they have done since the Truman era. we will never be viewed by the Arab states, and Iran as a trusted partner.
In 1948, Truman, against the advice of his own state department, recognized Israel as a sovereign nation, rather than the proposed UN resolution of UN policed Palestine and Israel territories.
Of course, his Secretary of State, some guy named Marshall, did not know what he was talking about since he predicted Truman's recognition of Israel would lead to years of bloodshed and violence.
The biggest difference between then and now is that in the 40's only 26 or 27 Senators wrote letters on behalf of Israel; it's now climbed to 47. I guess Netanyahu is much more likeable than Ben-Gurion.
In 1948, Truman, against the advice of his own state department, recognized Israel as a sovereign nation, rather than the proposed UN resolution of UN policed Palestine and Israel territories.
Of course, his Secretary of State, some guy named Marshall, did not know what he was talking about since he predicted Truman's recognition of Israel would lead to years of bloodshed and violence.
The biggest difference between then and now is that in the 40's only 26 or 27 Senators wrote letters on behalf of Israel; it's now climbed to 47. I guess Netanyahu is much more likeable than Ben-Gurion.
2
Commenting on the 47 senators' letter to Iran as another example of "racism" against this President, the Times recently challenged readers to "imagine Democratic senators sending a similar letter to the Soviets" during the Reagan Reykjavik missile reduction talks in the 80s.
The Times has a point, which it subtly makes again in the instant editorial.
Now imagine a Republican candidate in the current presidential campaign asserting that he sat for 20 years in a church listening to racist dogma from a racist preacher but really never hearing a thing.
How long would that Republican's campaign last?
Double standards are terrible, and so is the refusal to acknowledge their pervasiveness on all sides.
The Times has a point, which it subtly makes again in the instant editorial.
Now imagine a Republican candidate in the current presidential campaign asserting that he sat for 20 years in a church listening to racist dogma from a racist preacher but really never hearing a thing.
How long would that Republican's campaign last?
Double standards are terrible, and so is the refusal to acknowledge their pervasiveness on all sides.
3
Actually, it is just possible that this way, Mr. Obama gets some cover now that the Supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has announced that there will be no deal unless sanctions are lifted immediately and no snap inspections. Those two items likely will be a deal breaker if Iran persists with these demands.
Every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority. ............And how exactly is Mr. Obama different from every other President..............oh I think I get it.
5
A President who is moving his country towards a peaceful outcome has again been hijacked by the warmongers in Congress.
None of the parliamentarians in the other countries involved in these negotiations has attempted such a manoeuvre which just epitomises that Congress wants war; ignores the sentiments of the American public and is contemptuous of its negotiating partners. This begs the question, which country is a greater threat to peace, America or Iran.
None of the parliamentarians in the other countries involved in these negotiations has attempted such a manoeuvre which just epitomises that Congress wants war; ignores the sentiments of the American public and is contemptuous of its negotiating partners. This begs the question, which country is a greater threat to peace, America or Iran.
9
As important as the skillfully negotiated nuclear treaty with Iran is for America, the Middle East and the world, the foolish demand by the Senate for a Congressional right of approval should not have been accepted by President Obama.
This power grab by the legislative branch of government will hamstring the executive branch for generations to come. Future presidents and secretaries of state will find themselves unable to secure agreements on anything of importance from their counterparts around the world. Our leaders in foreign policy will not be trusted or respected by other nations.
The Republicans, as well as those Democrats who felt compelled to agree with them, have harmed America greatly. Next, we will probably see the activist Republican majority of the Supreme Court demanding a right of treaty approval.
This power grab by the legislative branch of government will hamstring the executive branch for generations to come. Future presidents and secretaries of state will find themselves unable to secure agreements on anything of importance from their counterparts around the world. Our leaders in foreign policy will not be trusted or respected by other nations.
The Republicans, as well as those Democrats who felt compelled to agree with them, have harmed America greatly. Next, we will probably see the activist Republican majority of the Supreme Court demanding a right of treaty approval.
4
The GOP does not want anything which even looks like a success for Mr. Obama. Who knows with the Dems involved - sometimes the folks on Capitol Hill get their noses out of joint about their 'rights' and their 'authority.' They are all playing out the obnoxious letter sent by Sen. Cotton et al insisting that Iran cannot trust any deal made with an American President (especially the current one).
My hopes are not high. You are right, there is no credible alternative on the table. Other, of course, than the bombast of the hawks.
My hopes are not high. You are right, there is no credible alternative on the table. Other, of course, than the bombast of the hawks.
2
Instead of proposing sensible legislation, Republicans just continue to automatically say "No" to everything Obama tries, obstructing change at every opportunity. Congress is bordering irrelevance.
4
Many Americans like to point to the 1979 Revolution against the Shah as the reason why Iran is our "enemy". They took over our embassy. They mistreated our embassy personnel. Why did they do that? Most Americans don't care why.
The why is fairly simple. A few of the earlier comments referred to "the why" indirectly. It's time we started saying explicitly why, and doing so every time issues with Iran come up.
In 1953, the U.S. and the Brits overthrew the elected government of Iran by the use of force. Why did we do that? The elected Iranian government had nationalized the American-Iranian Oil Company. Why did it do that? The AIOC refused to account to the elected government of Iran for its activities in Iran. What right did we have to interfere in the internal affairs of another country that was not threatening us? Even under the international law of the day, we had no such right. But many Americans seem not to care about that.
What did the overthrow lead to? 26 years of brutal repression by the Shah of elements of Iranian society that wanted to modernize and democratize Iran. Many Americans seem not to care about that.
But many Iranians care about it. They remember. And so they are tough negotiators from one of the oldest nations in the world who want the U.S. and Britain to take their nation seriously.
It's time for Americans to look farther back than the last time "they" "attacked" "us" and face honestly what we did to them.
The why is fairly simple. A few of the earlier comments referred to "the why" indirectly. It's time we started saying explicitly why, and doing so every time issues with Iran come up.
In 1953, the U.S. and the Brits overthrew the elected government of Iran by the use of force. Why did we do that? The elected Iranian government had nationalized the American-Iranian Oil Company. Why did it do that? The AIOC refused to account to the elected government of Iran for its activities in Iran. What right did we have to interfere in the internal affairs of another country that was not threatening us? Even under the international law of the day, we had no such right. But many Americans seem not to care about that.
What did the overthrow lead to? 26 years of brutal repression by the Shah of elements of Iranian society that wanted to modernize and democratize Iran. Many Americans seem not to care about that.
But many Iranians care about it. They remember. And so they are tough negotiators from one of the oldest nations in the world who want the U.S. and Britain to take their nation seriously.
It's time for Americans to look farther back than the last time "they" "attacked" "us" and face honestly what we did to them.
16
When iran's government factions debate this issue, its soft-sold by this dreadful "publication" as "an example of their free-wheeling, democratic balanced power structure in action", but when the US congress performs its constitutional duty and weighs in on a matter of national security, this "publication" portrays it as "meddling" or "disrespectful" to the president.
4
Every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do.~~
I believe that was the whole idea. The whole of the Congress should be ashamed of themselves.~~~Sydney
I believe that was the whole idea. The whole of the Congress should be ashamed of themselves.~~~Sydney
4
Congressional Republicans despised Bill Clinton but let him conduct foreign policy. What makes their loathing so much deeper for Obama? Bet you can guess.
4
The reason is simple: Obama has proven to be incapable in foreign policy and disingenuous regarding domestic policy. The bill is veto-proof because a sufficient number of Democrats do not trust Obama on this issue.
If the Republicans were in power we'd have our troops fighting on the ground from Ukraine to Iraq. Remember Iraq?
"The Senate committee’s vote will heighten Iranian suspicions and complicate the final stretch of arduous negotiations that are scheduled to resume next week."
The Senate vote will, of course, do neither.
The Iranian Mullahs are some of the most cynical and manipulative leaders. They arm the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah with rockets and guns, while hoping to reap the benefits of temporary lulls in their quest for the Bomb.
The Ayatollahs who have cheated their way past the last round of international atomic inspections are not really now more "suspicious" of US intentions because of the Senate vote. Indeed, it is a refreshing reminder that the American system, despite the Executive branch, has no "supreme leader" but is instead answerable to the People.
Nor will the Senate vote "complicate" the negotiations. The Iranians now knew this was coming, and they will not be leaving the table because any sanction relief enables them further to their goals of regional domination.
The Times asserts there is still no "credible" alternative to the current deal. Nonsense. The Times may not like it, but the credible alternative is toughened sanctions, and relief therefrom based on Iranian compliance rather than a wholesale sanction removal ahead of that compliance.
Perhaps the Times can answer the question this President was not asked by columnist Thomas Friedman:
Why will this deal with Iran not turn into the deal we once made with North Korea?
The Senate vote will, of course, do neither.
The Iranian Mullahs are some of the most cynical and manipulative leaders. They arm the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah with rockets and guns, while hoping to reap the benefits of temporary lulls in their quest for the Bomb.
The Ayatollahs who have cheated their way past the last round of international atomic inspections are not really now more "suspicious" of US intentions because of the Senate vote. Indeed, it is a refreshing reminder that the American system, despite the Executive branch, has no "supreme leader" but is instead answerable to the People.
Nor will the Senate vote "complicate" the negotiations. The Iranians now knew this was coming, and they will not be leaving the table because any sanction relief enables them further to their goals of regional domination.
The Times asserts there is still no "credible" alternative to the current deal. Nonsense. The Times may not like it, but the credible alternative is toughened sanctions, and relief therefrom based on Iranian compliance rather than a wholesale sanction removal ahead of that compliance.
Perhaps the Times can answer the question this President was not asked by columnist Thomas Friedman:
Why will this deal with Iran not turn into the deal we once made with North Korea?
6
One other possibility not mentioned in this article about Obama's motive is his need for adding to his "legacy". The agreement he makes to not veto
a bill which undermines the principled needs re. Iran he put forth shows once again that he is weak on following principles. True here as it was with regulation of banks too big to fail, regulating health insurance companies in his health bill, etc. Under the guise of "compromise" he undermines the "change" he promised us. H.R.C. will do the same. We need a Bernie Sanders or someone like him to run against her in the primary just to get real conversations on real issues as opposed to slick video ads.
a bill which undermines the principled needs re. Iran he put forth shows once again that he is weak on following principles. True here as it was with regulation of banks too big to fail, regulating health insurance companies in his health bill, etc. Under the guise of "compromise" he undermines the "change" he promised us. H.R.C. will do the same. We need a Bernie Sanders or someone like him to run against her in the primary just to get real conversations on real issues as opposed to slick video ads.
4
Why can't the Democrats do what the counrty so DESPERATELY wants them to do?
Stand up for Peace... a peace the world wants and the US and world negotiated.
Stand up for the President!
Stand up for our National interests, not Israel's!
Stand up for the US Constitution. This whole interference thing goes against long established Presidential Powers. If if passed, it would still be unconstitutional.
Mr. President: do not sign this. Do not capitulate and set a historically low period for the Presidency, where power is "signed away," and a deal you helped negotiate is largely weakened in the eyes of the world a few weeks later. Your urge to "be reasonable and middle of the road" will not serve the nation here. This will be the lowest point on your Presidency. Better to veto and be overturned: your position for Reason and Peace will be recorded for history.
So ironic that we went from the reckless overbearing powers of the Bush/Cheney "Imperial Presidency," where a President pretty much rammed through policy on two wars for years, to the same Party complaining about a historically reasonable President as being "too imperial." Amazing what opposition to Democrats and a man's darker skin color will suddenly make real out of ranting fantasy and false outrage...
As for Democrats who capitulated for Israel: we will remember. Your actions will destroy this peace deal. How will you explain when US troops and expensive hardware are lost in another country's war?
Stand up for Peace... a peace the world wants and the US and world negotiated.
Stand up for the President!
Stand up for our National interests, not Israel's!
Stand up for the US Constitution. This whole interference thing goes against long established Presidential Powers. If if passed, it would still be unconstitutional.
Mr. President: do not sign this. Do not capitulate and set a historically low period for the Presidency, where power is "signed away," and a deal you helped negotiate is largely weakened in the eyes of the world a few weeks later. Your urge to "be reasonable and middle of the road" will not serve the nation here. This will be the lowest point on your Presidency. Better to veto and be overturned: your position for Reason and Peace will be recorded for history.
So ironic that we went from the reckless overbearing powers of the Bush/Cheney "Imperial Presidency," where a President pretty much rammed through policy on two wars for years, to the same Party complaining about a historically reasonable President as being "too imperial." Amazing what opposition to Democrats and a man's darker skin color will suddenly make real out of ranting fantasy and false outrage...
As for Democrats who capitulated for Israel: we will remember. Your actions will destroy this peace deal. How will you explain when US troops and expensive hardware are lost in another country's war?
9
Lets not count the chickens before they are hatched.
This is a "classical bill" and must be passed by both houses before going to President Obama. It is the more volatile "House" where the bill may get stuck. Remember the support of Israel leading to anti-support of Iran is based purely on fear of failed re-election. This "fear" is valid for Senators who have the State as their constituency. House members however have a very small constituency and local support may trump the "fear".
Also please note that House and Senate Republicans have not worked together. I have hope, however fragile, that this will fail in the House.
This is a "classical bill" and must be passed by both houses before going to President Obama. It is the more volatile "House" where the bill may get stuck. Remember the support of Israel leading to anti-support of Iran is based purely on fear of failed re-election. This "fear" is valid for Senators who have the State as their constituency. House members however have a very small constituency and local support may trump the "fear".
Also please note that House and Senate Republicans have not worked together. I have hope, however fragile, that this will fail in the House.
2
Congress elects to act on issues they have no business to act upon and do not act upon the business they are elected to do so.
4
"Congress has formally muscled its way into President Obama’s negotiations with Iran..."
Um, I think it's 'checks and balances'. Look it up. Balance of power and all that rot.
Um, I think it's 'checks and balances'. Look it up. Balance of power and all that rot.
4
Yes, next the Editorial Board needs to look up the definition of "reckless", which it now defines as bipartisan passage of legislation.
1
On one side we have a framework agreed to by nuclear scientists who understand how a bomb is made and who know how to be sure a bomb does not get made. On the other side we have politicians who sell fear. Normally in American politics my money would be on the fearmongers. This time, however, might be different. If our international partners relax their sanctions, American sanctions no matter how strict will have limited impact. The Chinese and Russians, if not the Europeans, are unlikely to give veto power to Netanyahu and the congressional republicans. Thus the only choice left will be an agreement or a bombing campaign. Though some republicans talk a big game about bombing, the American people will so solidly oppose bombing that it will not be a meaningful option. Leaving a sensible agreement as the last option standing.
1
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s 19-0 vote indicates that not only the US cannot be trusted, but also the US lawmakers believe in cowboy diplomacy. The committee members shamefully insulted the President, the Office of the Presidency of the United States, the US Secretary of State, and the American people in front of the whole world. Not only that, it showed the world that the US lawmakers do not understand the Constitution of the US. It was unpatriotic and despicable act.
Regarding support for terrorism, it is the US, Israel, and Persian Gulf Arabs that have created and supported terrorists like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc. Also, it is Israel that has been murdering the Palestinians and robbing their lands since it was illegally created in 1948.
Hamas and Hezbollah were democratically elected. They are defending themselves against the brutal Israeli occupation. They have every right to defend their homelands, families, and properties. Just because the US, the UK. And Israel did not like the outcome of the internationally monitored elections, does not mean that the oppressed people of Palestine and Lebanon are terrorists and Iran which supports their independence is supporting the terrorists.
Finally, the senators should think twice and read the history before they open their mouths.
Regarding support for terrorism, it is the US, Israel, and Persian Gulf Arabs that have created and supported terrorists like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc. Also, it is Israel that has been murdering the Palestinians and robbing their lands since it was illegally created in 1948.
Hamas and Hezbollah were democratically elected. They are defending themselves against the brutal Israeli occupation. They have every right to defend their homelands, families, and properties. Just because the US, the UK. And Israel did not like the outcome of the internationally monitored elections, does not mean that the oppressed people of Palestine and Lebanon are terrorists and Iran which supports their independence is supporting the terrorists.
Finally, the senators should think twice and read the history before they open their mouths.
4
Blame it on corrupted politicians who are in pockets of Israely lobby.
5
Putin has already made it clear that he doesn't care about any US bill. This was a very strategic move and it demonstrates all too clearly that if the Senate ends up thwarting President Obama w regard to Iran, the P5 or P2 or whatever might not comply with the Senate"s wishes.
If the Senate"s recklessness scuttles the deal, you think Iran is gonna come back for a "better" (worse for them) deal? And even if just Russia and China lift sanctions on Iran, Iran is much better off than they are now. In the crazy scenario that Bush 3 is elected, if he tries the WMD fib for a pre-emotive strike again, we won't have an excuse bc the Senate will have turned down the right to inspect and lastly, we are going to strike against Iran, Russia, and China?
I don't think warning the GOP against recklessness does any good. My warning is for the Democrats in the House: they best be careful because they are more dependent on the money from the little peeps than the Repubs are. Not out of revenge but just practicality, why give money when your interests are not being represented?
If the Senate"s recklessness scuttles the deal, you think Iran is gonna come back for a "better" (worse for them) deal? And even if just Russia and China lift sanctions on Iran, Iran is much better off than they are now. In the crazy scenario that Bush 3 is elected, if he tries the WMD fib for a pre-emotive strike again, we won't have an excuse bc the Senate will have turned down the right to inspect and lastly, we are going to strike against Iran, Russia, and China?
I don't think warning the GOP against recklessness does any good. My warning is for the Democrats in the House: they best be careful because they are more dependent on the money from the little peeps than the Repubs are. Not out of revenge but just practicality, why give money when your interests are not being represented?
4
This is even worse that it looks on its face, for the simple fact that Mitch McConnell has made it his publicly stated mission since Day One to sink Obama's presidency and deny him any legacy of success. I suspect that such vitriol is more than just based on "political differences." It must have galled McConnell to no end that Obama made it back into the ring for Round Two.
Given the outrageous Republican derail attempt sent to Iran just weeks ago, and now this, it's clear that Republicans would rather eat sharp glass then see Obama succeed at a workable Iran nuclear accord, much less do something constructive themselves where Iran is concerned. And that's quite aside from other logjams. Easier to just be the Party of No.
With such dysfunction and narcissism and pure spite in Congress, no wonder we are not trusted by the world.
Given the outrageous Republican derail attempt sent to Iran just weeks ago, and now this, it's clear that Republicans would rather eat sharp glass then see Obama succeed at a workable Iran nuclear accord, much less do something constructive themselves where Iran is concerned. And that's quite aside from other logjams. Easier to just be the Party of No.
With such dysfunction and narcissism and pure spite in Congress, no wonder we are not trusted by the world.
7
The way the Republicans were openly opposing the nuclear deal with Iran, the new development where the bill would require the Congress to review, and then vote on has come on expected lines. Earlier, the Republicans had embarrassed the US government, not Obama, by writing a letter to Iran's spiritual leader that, in the event of their coming to power, they will renege on the agreement. Obama, today, finds himself in a bind today. If he is not able to get the bill approved in the senate, his credibility and the image of the United States will come into question.
The Republicans have done a grave injustice to both Obama and the United States of America. The people of the United States will now ensure that the next President will be from the Democratic party.
The Republicans have done a grave injustice to both Obama and the United States of America. The people of the United States will now ensure that the next President will be from the Democratic party.
5
Republican led congress will not pass a war powers act to constrain POTUS because POTUS has asked for one. Republican led congress will pass an Iranian war powers act that POTUS did not request. Anything POTUS wants congress is against. Where is Senator Dirksen, Jim Baker, et al ?
5
The Senate has managed to" wrongly and inappropriately diminished the president’s power to conduct the nation’s foreign policy as he was elected to do' sends clear signal to rest of the world the decline of American nation.
SPIEGEL wrote an article few years ago " The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion. The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying."
Low depth to settle a political score with a President of sole super power is indeed breath taking. Moral high ground of Americans is lost by this irresponsible zero sum act.
This political act of cutting the nose to spite the face reminds us of the historical event of Aebbe the Younger, the Mother Superior of the monastery of Coldingham. In 867 AD, Viking pirates from Zealand and Uppsala landed in Scotland. She gathered her nuns together and urged them to disfigure themselves, so that they might be unappealing to the Vikings. In this way, they hoped to protect their chastity. She demonstrated this by cutting off her nose and upper lip, and the nuns proceeded to do the same. The Viking raiders were so disgusted that they burned the entire building to the ground with the nuns inside!
None wants similar tragedy befalling America.
SPIEGEL wrote an article few years ago " The political system is in the hands of big business and its lobbyists. The checks and balances have failed. And a perverse mix of irresponsibility, greed and religious zealotry dominate public opinion. The downfall of the American empire has begun. It could be that the country's citizens wouldn't be able to stop it no matter how hard they tried. But they aren't even trying."
Low depth to settle a political score with a President of sole super power is indeed breath taking. Moral high ground of Americans is lost by this irresponsible zero sum act.
This political act of cutting the nose to spite the face reminds us of the historical event of Aebbe the Younger, the Mother Superior of the monastery of Coldingham. In 867 AD, Viking pirates from Zealand and Uppsala landed in Scotland. She gathered her nuns together and urged them to disfigure themselves, so that they might be unappealing to the Vikings. In this way, they hoped to protect their chastity. She demonstrated this by cutting off her nose and upper lip, and the nuns proceeded to do the same. The Viking raiders were so disgusted that they burned the entire building to the ground with the nuns inside!
None wants similar tragedy befalling America.
4
Let me see if I understand. One, economic sanctions have driven Iran to the negotiating table, but continuation of economic sanctions would be ineffective, but resumption of the sanctions is the threat that will keep Iran in compliance with the agreement. Two, Iran is lying about the terms of the framework, but we can trust them to faithfully adhere to the final agreement. Three, Iran has never honestly complied with inspections in the past, but this time will be different. Four, the successful completion of the agreement outlined in the framework is of profound importance to the security of the world, but it will not be legally binding. Five, opponents of pursuing this agreement offer nothing but a military option (because economic sanctions are ineffective), which is unthinkable, except that all options, including the use of military force, are on the table. Six, the nation most directly threatened by a potential Iranian nuclear bomb, Israel, opposes the agreement, but the Israelis do not understand what is in their own best interests. Well that clears it up. What could possibly go wrong?
9
Actually a smart move by Obama. The likehod that AIPC will not prod their minions to add amendement after amendment is the same as my becoming Pope of Rome.
Then perhaps, just perhaps the Senate Dems will stand on their hind legs and support the veto.
In the long haul this may be a watershed in Israeli USA relations. Israel's pernicious invovement in our domestic politics no longer shelters their supporters from the accusation of dual loyalty.
Then perhaps, just perhaps the Senate Dems will stand on their hind legs and support the veto.
In the long haul this may be a watershed in Israeli USA relations. Israel's pernicious invovement in our domestic politics no longer shelters their supporters from the accusation of dual loyalty.
4
It is a shame that Republicans have such a contempt against the twice elected Head of The State that they would do anything to block this President's any action at the cost of public good. This is utterly disrespectful of all American citizens regardless of who they voted for.
Secondly, by inserting itself into this negotiation, congress is not favoring Israel but could do a potential and irreversible harm. By ratifying such an agreement, Congress is favoring Iran by whatever it approve off. If agreement fails for whatever reason, congress will have no excuse but take full responsibility or it will loose credibility and be a laughing stock.
Creation of this type of precedent is going to bite Republicans and they will regret it for times to com.
I think hunger for oil, push by defense industry and blind hatred for President has generated a dangerous cocktail.
Secondly, by inserting itself into this negotiation, congress is not favoring Israel but could do a potential and irreversible harm. By ratifying such an agreement, Congress is favoring Iran by whatever it approve off. If agreement fails for whatever reason, congress will have no excuse but take full responsibility or it will loose credibility and be a laughing stock.
Creation of this type of precedent is going to bite Republicans and they will regret it for times to com.
I think hunger for oil, push by defense industry and blind hatred for President has generated a dangerous cocktail.
4
"the committee’s action gives momentum to those who have bitterly criticized Mr. Obama for negotiating with Iran, though they offer no credible alternative to the preliminary deal on the table"
President Obama's critics have NEVER had a credible alternative to anything they've opposed, most notoriously their vacuum of alternatives to the ACA. So ironically, we here see "momentum" for those who actually are paralyzed by do-nothing inertia. To George Orwell's dystopian slogan from his novel Nineteen Eighty-four -- "War Is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength." -- are we at last compelled to add "Obstruction is Progress"?
President Obama's critics have NEVER had a credible alternative to anything they've opposed, most notoriously their vacuum of alternatives to the ACA. So ironically, we here see "momentum" for those who actually are paralyzed by do-nothing inertia. To George Orwell's dystopian slogan from his novel Nineteen Eighty-four -- "War Is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength." -- are we at last compelled to add "Obstruction is Progress"?
2
This President has made it abundantly clear that he cannot be trusted to work without on a project of this magnitude. Even the most liberal of Democrats agree.
4
This comment is utter nonsense. Your trust in the Republican leadership of the Senate, following the instructions of Benjamin Netanyahu, is misplaced. The same Republican politicians who propelled us into an unnecessary war in Iraq, are now trying to satisfy their thirst for war by sabotaging a masterfully negotiated treaty with Iran. How many American lives have to be lost by this reckless act before you will be quiet about your prejudice against President Obama?
After years of complaining about the gridlock in Congress, things finally seem to be moving through the system. Bipartisanship was the magic word that we heard for the last six year: suddenly that's anathema? Bravo to our legislators, for working together!
3
Does this country now have 536 presidents?
4
Perhaps if President Obama had actually taken the time these past 6 years to personally lobby every Congressman and at least make the effort to "connect" and establish personal trust the Legislative branch like most past Presidents, he wouldn't be in the quandary he now faces. Furthermore, a nuclear deal of this magnitude (the largest in a generation) should never solely be determined and agreed to by the Executive branch. Whether or not this technically is a treaty (if it looks, smells and tastes like a treaty - it is), Congress regardless should still have a say under Advise and Consent rule.
By referencing the P5+1, the Editorial suggests that the US Congress would be upsetting the applecart if they voted "no". That is precisely the Constitutional duty of Congress - to represent the American people on a matter of this import, regardless of other countries' interests.
By referencing the P5+1, the Editorial suggests that the US Congress would be upsetting the applecart if they voted "no". That is precisely the Constitutional duty of Congress - to represent the American people on a matter of this import, regardless of other countries' interests.
2
Obama was snubbed, rejected, insulted and blocked from day-1. Your insistence that the facts are otherwise is tiresome and actually dangerous, because it reflects the success of lying propaganda.
In Back to the Future, the year is 1955, and the Doc tests the limits of the future by asking, "Then tell me, future boy, who's President of the United States in 1985?"
And Marty replies, "Ronald Reagan."
Doc says, "Ronald Reagan? The actor?
Then who's vice president? Jerry Lewis?"
Our future deal looks quite different too from what Obama promised it would be too. And I won't throw in the "If you want to keep your doctor joke.
In November 2011, the WH said the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program was "very alarming".
We will continue to pursue that going forward in the wake of this very alarming report," White House spokesman Jay Carney said."
Yet, There will be no limits on Iran’s ballistic-missile force, the presumed delivery means for its nuclear weapons. The U.S. position of seeking limits on the missile force was abandoned when the Supreme Leader objected.
Score 1 for Iran, US 0
Obama insisted that IAE needed full access to their nuclear facilities for inspections. Now, there will be no inspections of the Lavizan-3 site as stated by the National Council of Resistance of Iran
Score 2 for Iran, US 0
The Arak heavy-water reactor per Obama was to be dismantled, now it will be modified so Iran can still use it to to produce plutonium for weapons.
Score 3 for Iran, US 0
US position was that restrictions would be permanent.
Iran said no, the restrictions are phased out after ten years.
Score - WIN FOR IRAN, GAME OVER FOR THE US.
And Marty replies, "Ronald Reagan."
Doc says, "Ronald Reagan? The actor?
Then who's vice president? Jerry Lewis?"
Our future deal looks quite different too from what Obama promised it would be too. And I won't throw in the "If you want to keep your doctor joke.
In November 2011, the WH said the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program was "very alarming".
We will continue to pursue that going forward in the wake of this very alarming report," White House spokesman Jay Carney said."
Yet, There will be no limits on Iran’s ballistic-missile force, the presumed delivery means for its nuclear weapons. The U.S. position of seeking limits on the missile force was abandoned when the Supreme Leader objected.
Score 1 for Iran, US 0
Obama insisted that IAE needed full access to their nuclear facilities for inspections. Now, there will be no inspections of the Lavizan-3 site as stated by the National Council of Resistance of Iran
Score 2 for Iran, US 0
The Arak heavy-water reactor per Obama was to be dismantled, now it will be modified so Iran can still use it to to produce plutonium for weapons.
Score 3 for Iran, US 0
US position was that restrictions would be permanent.
Iran said no, the restrictions are phased out after ten years.
Score - WIN FOR IRAN, GAME OVER FOR THE US.
2
Good going Congress, Once again you insult our President.Let's hope you will just as willingly send you and yours to the mideast frontlines.
6
The image to the world of how racist, bigoted, small minded and insular America really is is revealing, that Congress basically would encourage Iran to embrace Russia' Putin, thus providing him with a potentially super proxy to lean upon and destabilize the west is astounding, all for petty, I can't even say partisan motivations considering the Democratic contribution, and if and when the agreement fails they will claim Netanyahu was right. What they also fail to understand is that Europe cannot become the victim of Congressional irresponsibility with Russia already pulling out of the P5+1 with the sale of defensive weapons that will further cripple any military alternative.
Perhaps it is the defense industrial base that is funding their "courage to stand the ground" they don't own while France multiplies its Rafale exports to Egypte, India and perhaps more tomorrow - the choice is de facto strategic and long term.
Perhaps it is the defense industrial base that is funding their "courage to stand the ground" they don't own while France multiplies its Rafale exports to Egypte, India and perhaps more tomorrow - the choice is de facto strategic and long term.
10
It seems clear that Congress wants the US to go to war against Iran, partly because no one in Congress or (with perhaps a few exceptions) in the families of those in Congress will have to serve. Congress has observed the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and its failures in Yemen and elsewhere and has learned nothing. The US is now hostage to a pack of fools.
9
1 disagree; the President and Democrats caved as expected when it comes to standing up on principle and opposed the demands of the Republicans to involve Congress in the agreements. Somewhere down the line these actions against this President will come to haunt the country in its foreign relations with other countries, and the President and Democrats will have only themselves to blame.
3
If Iran were willing to forsake Terrorism in favor of Shock & Awe, I think we could finally see eye-to-eye!
The Zionist lobby wins again forcing America to do things against its interests in order to bolster Israel's right to wage perpetual war. Pathetic. When will we rescue our sense of will and autonomy from the Zionists who have spread so much discord and suffering in the middle east and here in the US.
9
God bless this country, that its senates are obliged to a paranoid PM of Israel ahead of our interest. It is totally sickening
11
Is there not a single Republican senator willing to recognize that at some point you need to stop the stupidity of partisan politics when serious foreign policy decisions need to be made? 10- plus years ago that might have been John McCain but the John McCain that I used to respect left the stage long ago and has been replaced by just another partisan hack.
6
The unanimous approval by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee shows there is a veto-proof majority in Congress wanting a role in reviewing and approving any agreement reached with Iran over its nuclear program. The simple question facing everyone is can you trust Iran? The mullahs have answered that by violating three international agreements already and directing proxy wars in four nations. Iran's mullahs have no interest in changing, only expanding their hold and spreading their violent form of extremist beliefs. At the end of the day, Congress felt emboldened to act because both Republicans and Democrats both know that any mistake here could lead to repercussions the world could never recover from.
3
Read your history of the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles by the Senate in 1919. A recalcitrant Republican Senator, Henry Cabot Lodge, led the charge in killing U.S. membership in the League of Nations and, who knows - in effect helping to set the stage for World War II. Allegedly because Republican Lodge felt snubbed by the Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Bitter_Rejection.htm
6
Of course this is strategy on the Administration's part. When will people realize that its PURE OBAMA. BRAVO. Caught them all off guard.
NYT editorial is exactly right -- this is dangerouis. In the gray zone of checks and balances, sometimes you've got to trust the other branch. Otherwise, you risk making a really big mess. If Congress did absolutely nothing in this matter, and Obama were to sail smoothly to the June 30 deadline, Congress would not lose its ability to act. It can afford to wait for the outcome. If there's a problem, it can act immediately to address it.
Regardless of whether any of us believe what position is right or wrong, the constitution gives the Senate the final say over a treaties. It is called "checks and balances". Did everyone forget that Congress would not approve the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I? Our constitution was written by enlighten patriots and I stand by it regardless of what anyone thinks that is right. It has worked for us.
4
Except there is no treaty to be approved.
Two potential outcomes from this legislation, both of them bad:
- The international coalition will probably unravel, meaning that sanctions would lose at least some of their power and Iran would likely be able to acquire nuclear weapons much sooner than within the framework negotiated by Obama;
- Other countries, take notice that negotiating with the US President may be subject to the whims of Senators/Congressmen each with their own agenda.
- The international coalition will probably unravel, meaning that sanctions would lose at least some of their power and Iran would likely be able to acquire nuclear weapons much sooner than within the framework negotiated by Obama;
- Other countries, take notice that negotiating with the US President may be subject to the whims of Senators/Congressmen each with their own agenda.
4
Next question: How will these other countries seek to influence Congressional whims? We've seen how Bibi does it, bold, brash, and in public. But what about the influence that we can't see, the money that flows invisibly (thank you Supreme Court) in an ever stronger flood that carries our democracy away like so much flotsam?
"The Senate committee's vote will heighten Iran's suspicions"? Are the Editors forgetting with whom we are dealing? Perhaps a greater degree of suspicion on the part of the administration would not be amiss. Iran is "negotiating" (what, exactly?) under serious economic pressure. The sanctions are working. Isn't that why they are saying that they must be lifted, in their entirety, before the ink is dry on any agreement? Shouldn't that make the U.S. suspicious? This agreement will leave a dangerous situation while lulling us into thinking that something will have been achieved. It's true that congressional Republicans have stymied, or tried to, everything Obama has wanted to achieve, and perhaps that is their motive now. But for once, whatever their motive and whatever the Editors of the New York Times think, the result is helpful. Putting some brakes on this agreement is the right thing to do.
2
It's really Obama vs. the defense contractors because they're the ones behind the whole thing. They're the ones who speak the only language republicans know, money. And they won't rest until they get their war. It is telling how worthless the democratic party has become in the whole thing. I don't see how their can possible be an agreement when our beloved congress is going to drag this thing out until Iran gets sick of waiting and the hardliners there finally get their way and scuttle the whole thing. There is no room in this country anymore for a President trying to stop war and stop the sacrifice of American blood when the most worthless congress in our history simply won't have it. Peace? Not when there's money to be made.
2
Is the editorial board familiar with the US Constitution? It requires the president to have treaties approved by the senate. Calling this an executive agreement is a joke - its a treaty. This bill by the senate doesn't go far enough. The senate should not only determine the fate of the sanctions they should have an up or down vote on the treaty itself. Acting like this is unusual is pretty strange.
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
How dare the Senate act like it was elected by the people of the United States. The Times only likes democracy when it goes to the left.
6
Why doesn't the Senate 'dare' to sign off on fighting Isis?
Will those Senators who voted for the bill be the first to greet young Americans when they return from the Iran War - some dead and many maimed or shell shocked?
Is that picture more attractive than a shot at an Agreement? We mostly don't need written agreements with allies. Who, in 1945 would have imagined Germany becoming a member in very good standing in the Family of Nations? Iran might evolve or might not. We owe it to ourselves and our young people to try diplomacy.
Is that picture more attractive than a shot at an Agreement? We mostly don't need written agreements with allies. Who, in 1945 would have imagined Germany becoming a member in very good standing in the Family of Nations? Iran might evolve or might not. We owe it to ourselves and our young people to try diplomacy.
10
The Senate has once again voted to just "give war a chance," it seems. Disgusting.
I completely agree with the President's view that we should talk with Iran about its nuclear program and really anything else. Unless we are willing to talk to or destroy their regime, we can have no influence over them. We are certainly not willing to do the latter, so we must do the former.
That said, Congress also should weigh in on this agreement. We have had no relationship with Iran in over 35 years and have Congressionally mandated sanctions against them.
The Editorial Board would not support President Jeb Bush if he unilaterally decided to negate a climate change agreement with Canada, but supports President Obama because it agrees with the end. The means actually matter too. The Presidency is far too powerful.
When Congress actively wants to do something and actually compromises with the President, we all should cheer.
That said, Congress also should weigh in on this agreement. We have had no relationship with Iran in over 35 years and have Congressionally mandated sanctions against them.
The Editorial Board would not support President Jeb Bush if he unilaterally decided to negate a climate change agreement with Canada, but supports President Obama because it agrees with the end. The means actually matter too. The Presidency is far too powerful.
When Congress actively wants to do something and actually compromises with the President, we all should cheer.
3
i would like see other countries open trade relations with iran -
china and russia will completely ignore americans -- -frankly americans are not the final arbitrators on dealing with iran -whats the point have having other members then
..... good faith negotiations have to be
respected --in this case i don't see it with the rightwing american congress
china and russia will completely ignore americans -- -frankly americans are not the final arbitrators on dealing with iran -whats the point have having other members then
..... good faith negotiations have to be
respected --in this case i don't see it with the rightwing american congress
2
Allowing Congressional approval of an eventual Iran deal also offers the president an "off ramp" in cutting off the talks if the Iranians begin to unravel the tenets of the framework. At least in this scenario, Mr. Obama will not be solely excoriated for making, or losing, a bad deal.
2
I believe our President to be more shrewd than this. Let's wait and see. The bulk of our senate and house may take its marching orders from Israel. Our President? Not so fast.
4
This Congressional act from the Last Tango in Jerusalem, starring Sheldon Adelson, Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC as malevolent kidnappers of the American government fits nicely with the many earlier acts of open right-wing sedition orchestrated against this President.
It's quite a country, this United States of Israel.
Three cheers for stifling diplomacy and obstructing the Presidency.
Can we at least rename Washington as Jerusalem and Congress as the Knesset for honesty's sake ?
And would all of the Senators from Israel please acknowledge their dual-citizenship, please ?
It's quite a country, this United States of Israel.
Three cheers for stifling diplomacy and obstructing the Presidency.
Can we at least rename Washington as Jerusalem and Congress as the Knesset for honesty's sake ?
And would all of the Senators from Israel please acknowledge their dual-citizenship, please ?
204
Apart from Iranian intransigence on certain points, it looks as though Mr. Obama's effort will be stillborn untill other, non-nuclear but related issues can be dealt with. First off, powerful pro Israel interests are determined to undermine any policy that may result in an easing of tensions between the US and Israel's arch rival, who continues to deny the right of Israel to exist. Second, Iran's staunch support for the Palistinians and the continued failure to negotiate a conclusion to that crisis all but guarantees a continuation of Israeli-Iranian hostility. And last, our alliance with Saudia Arabia, which is waging a proxy war against Iran on several fronts, adds further weight to the opposition. As difficult as it may be, we can hope for a Israeli-Palestinian settlement one day; certainly this would go a long way towards easing Israeli-Iranian tensions. But a Saudi-Iranian understanding? I'm very pessimistic, because there will be no peace without it, and peace seems to be low on their list of priorities.
1
"The United States and Iran have been bitter adversaries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution."
Actually is goes back earlier, to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in the U.S. as Operation Ajax, pushed by the British and organized by the CIA. We organized a coup that replaced a democratically elected government with the Shah or Iran, a monarch in exile. It was all about oil.
This event, likely remembered more by Iranians than Americans, adds yet more complexity and another reason for distrust between our countries. The Obama administration's negotiations are the best we could hope for until some kind of trust can be established in the future.
Republicans do not care about this kind of nuance. They are focussed on winning back the White House and working to prevent President Obama from succeeding with his patience and prudence.
Actually is goes back earlier, to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in the U.S. as Operation Ajax, pushed by the British and organized by the CIA. We organized a coup that replaced a democratically elected government with the Shah or Iran, a monarch in exile. It was all about oil.
This event, likely remembered more by Iranians than Americans, adds yet more complexity and another reason for distrust between our countries. The Obama administration's negotiations are the best we could hope for until some kind of trust can be established in the future.
Republicans do not care about this kind of nuance. They are focussed on winning back the White House and working to prevent President Obama from succeeding with his patience and prudence.
37
Thanks, Gerald, for inserting a bit more reality into this matter. The editorial board of this paper should know that the Iranian people don't use the 1979 Islamic Revolution as the starting point for bad feelings between their country and the United States.
1
Which advantages do the Senate Democrats expect who insisted on running the agreement through congress? Do they think the next Republican president will submit his or her agreements to congress, too? Or is it the Israel fraction that does not want to appear non-supportive for Israel? If those Senators help Republicans to disapprove a negotiated deal over a presidential veto, I wish them all to lose in the next primaries, and I will contribute my hand full dollars to it. Then they could try a Lieberman, but I rather have them as Independents in the Senate than as Democrats.
5
Ok, let's get something straight. Congress is not inserting itself into the negotiations with this bill. It is simply acting as a notary. If two people are party to a contract and bilaterally negotiate all of the contract's terms, but the contract cannot become final until a third party authorizes it, the third party cannot be said to have made the contract. Congress is the third party here.
I do not understand why President Obama would sign anything that was not a formal treaty. If it is just an executive agreement, then the next administration can back away from it. It also would not look as bad if Iran broke it. Why would we not want this to be a formal treaty? Why won't liberal media sources answer that question? And why would we not want a bipartisan Congress to review a deal that has a monumental impact on both our country and the world? We finally have bipartisanship here, and the New York Times wants to kill it.
I do not understand why President Obama would sign anything that was not a formal treaty. If it is just an executive agreement, then the next administration can back away from it. It also would not look as bad if Iran broke it. Why would we not want this to be a formal treaty? Why won't liberal media sources answer that question? And why would we not want a bipartisan Congress to review a deal that has a monumental impact on both our country and the world? We finally have bipartisanship here, and the New York Times wants to kill it.
5
Zac: By referring to "liberal media sources" are you implying that conservative media sources are answering these questions?
Yes, I have seen more conservative media sources say that we would not want an executive agreement with Iran because it would not have teeth. As bad an idea as I think the Tom Cotton letter was, that was one of the points he made, and he was right about it.
The Senate is completely ignoring the careful 18 month talks in Lausanne and Vienna. And in so doing they expose the United States to ridicule. They are trying to modify the delicately conceived negotiation framework by throwing monkey wrenches into the negotiation works.
The Senate seems to be suffering from an excess of ego and chutzpah. They seem to think that they can attach anything they wish to these negotiations and the world will have to go along with them. Never mind the fact that a lot of them, maybe all of them, are taking their marching orders from Bibi Netanyahu and his surrogates like AIPAC. who had no seat at the negotiating table (for good reason--Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which formed the framework for the talks).
I am surprised and shocked that President Obama would have yielded on this point to the Senate. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. Why have diplomats if Congress can be an interloper at the last minute and load the entire set of negotiation conditions with tons of junk, just like they do "must pass" spending bills. This is no way to conduct diplomacy.
Europeans are both bemused and shocked at this turn of affairs. In the end they will abandon the US and leave us mumbling on the sidelines like Captain Queeg in the Cain Mutiny Court Marshall. The Senate is mortgaging our credibility. We should hang our collective heads in shame at the antics of these clowns. Their machinations get us nothing.
The Senate seems to be suffering from an excess of ego and chutzpah. They seem to think that they can attach anything they wish to these negotiations and the world will have to go along with them. Never mind the fact that a lot of them, maybe all of them, are taking their marching orders from Bibi Netanyahu and his surrogates like AIPAC. who had no seat at the negotiating table (for good reason--Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which formed the framework for the talks).
I am surprised and shocked that President Obama would have yielded on this point to the Senate. It sets a terrible precedent for the future. Why have diplomats if Congress can be an interloper at the last minute and load the entire set of negotiation conditions with tons of junk, just like they do "must pass" spending bills. This is no way to conduct diplomacy.
Europeans are both bemused and shocked at this turn of affairs. In the end they will abandon the US and leave us mumbling on the sidelines like Captain Queeg in the Cain Mutiny Court Marshall. The Senate is mortgaging our credibility. We should hang our collective heads in shame at the antics of these clowns. Their machinations get us nothing.
24
"The nuclear deal is the product a multinational negotiation with Iran conducted by the United States, France, Britain, China, Germany and Russia. In no other country has the legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement."
Legislative bodies of Putin's Russia and communist China? You are surely joking.
Legislative bodies of Putin's Russia and communist China? You are surely joking.
4
Once again, the president proves to be the only adult in the room. However, I doubt he didn't see this coming. He realizes he has to drag the GOP kicking and screaming into the 21st century on every major issue. Tough work, but he's proven to be the man for the job. God bless him!
23
How about the Democrats who supported this bill? Some Democrats who support Israel don't trust Obama.
I am dismayed at President Obama's capitulation. This 114th Congress has proven itself to be America's most dangerous enemy, not Iran. The Israeli Prime Minister has achieved an unprecedented victory in the history of American diplomatic history. He had employed his wealthy American donors and deployed his country's activists here at home to wreck the president's (and our allies') painstaking efforts to bring about a more stable nuclear situation in the Middle East. "The president was steamrolled," is the gleeful quote here, indicating that peace was never the bedrock issue but the usurpation of executive power. If Iran cancels the agreed-upon draft, Israel will have defeated Ameticsn resolution. Our country's greatest enemy is this Trojan horse of a Congress that has emptied itssekf of any and all honor for all time. And I am equally disappointed that President Obams lacked the courage of his convictions. In his interview with Thomas Friedman just two weeks ago, he seemed unshakable in his belief that he (and our negotiating partners) had arrived at a point of reason and agreement. He was eloquent and superbly statesmanlike. I was never prouder of him. I doubt if I can ever feel the same hopeful way again.
8
Maybe it is time the country without a functioning government was left out of international multiparty negotiations. Until the United States finishes its 19th century civil war it has nothing to offer the world in the 21st century.
24
BRAVO, thanks for the great comment Montreal Moe.
1
Brilliant and true! Sadly, few Americans really understand this legacy.
1
The Editorial Board seems to think the President is the sole authority of the U.S. government when dealing with foreign nations. Under the Constitution of the United States this is wrong. The essence of the Constitution is that the President is not a monarch and does not alone have such power. Congress has the power to declare war. The Senate has the power to consent to treaties. And Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Congress passed the sanctions and Congress can remove them. The fact that over the years Presidents of both parties have pushed the limits of executive power does not restrict Congress from pushing back. In fact it is necessary to keep the democracy, whether we agree or disagree with the particulars.
5
And why are these very same members of congress avoiding a vote on bombing ISIS--something that IS definitely within their purview? Because the GOP couldn't care less about "keeping the democracy" sir! Wake up!
If this deal tanks, Chuck Schumer is completely responsible and his next task should be to re-instate the draft for the inevitable war with Iran that his buddy Bibi wants. This time around Schumer's NEOCON friends get to go to the front of the frontline!
If this deal tanks, Chuck Schumer is completely responsible and his next task should be to re-instate the draft for the inevitable war with Iran that his buddy Bibi wants. This time around Schumer's NEOCON friends get to go to the front of the frontline!
The Republicans will never approve this treaty. Israel wants us to fight a war for them. The Republicans will surely oblige.
5
Exactly. Bibi basically made the same speech before a GOP congress back in fall of 2002 that he made last month. He pushed the US into invading Iraq to protect his country from Hussein's non-existent nuclear arsenal and guaranteed a positive outcome! Seriously. He really did. Just how stupid are we?
Mr. Obama plainly wants an agreement, any agreement. The Iranians are not dumb. They recognize this and have been playing hardball. I'm happy that a skeptical Congress will examine the agreement. I'm also glad that the Solons of the Times editorial board do not have a vote.
5
Likud: The ruling party of Congress.
16
The Democratic party needs to re-label itself 'Republican-Lite'.
Are there any Democrats left with any spine?
Are there any Democrats left with any spine?
17
You say, "In no other country has the legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement."
There is a good reason for it. Their legislative bodies did not allow the Israeli Prime Minister to speak to them about *his* objections to the agreement that *their* country was negotiating and they clearly are not beholden to Netanyahu and Israel as the U.S. legislators seem to be.
If Congressional action makes Iran walk away from the agreement and it continues to develop its nuclear capacity, it is unlikely that the other countries will continue to honor the sanctions. Since the President is being undercut, he would then be well justified in abandoning all negotiations with Iran.
Perhaps Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the warmongers in Congress can then go to war with Iran on their own. No doubt, they will "be greeted as liberators” in Iran, as Dick Cheney predicted would be the case in Iraq.
There is a good reason for it. Their legislative bodies did not allow the Israeli Prime Minister to speak to them about *his* objections to the agreement that *their* country was negotiating and they clearly are not beholden to Netanyahu and Israel as the U.S. legislators seem to be.
If Congressional action makes Iran walk away from the agreement and it continues to develop its nuclear capacity, it is unlikely that the other countries will continue to honor the sanctions. Since the President is being undercut, he would then be well justified in abandoning all negotiations with Iran.
Perhaps Dick Cheney, John Bolton and the warmongers in Congress can then go to war with Iran on their own. No doubt, they will "be greeted as liberators” in Iran, as Dick Cheney predicted would be the case in Iraq.
4
If 19 United States Senators vote to have a say on sanctions voted by Congress and zero Senators opposed this perhaps the Editorial Board is out of step rather than the Senators who were of both parties and virtually half Democrats. If the President got Putin wrong and down the drain went Crimea, if he got Syria wrong and Assad is still there despite the President's prediction that he was toast, if he called ISIS the JV and they ended up establishing a state and Yemen proved not to be the success he claimed but a failed state then maybe, just maybe, he's got this Iran treaty/agreement all wrong too. Checks and balances. We need Congress too.
5
I prefer to see it as the Senate has put itself on notice: if they manage to torpedo any final deal that looks what this framework is pointing to which, according to much outside expert opinion, is an honest and substantive attempt to achieve by negotiation what cannot realistically be achieved by bullying rhetoric or war, it will demonstrably show Americans that Congress no longer represents the will of this nation's citizens as much as it represents Money-even when that money represents the interest of a foreign government.
We have been at war since 2003. We do not seek further foreign military engagements begun by blithely shunning honest attempts to test a potential adversary (already under our thumb) to avoid war, with the excuse that we cannot because they refuse to simply capitulate to all our demands.
We're negotiating a capacity to develop, not posession of an actual nuclear weapon.
Testing Iran's intentions today does NOT make us weaker tomorrow, should they fail. In fact it strengthens us by proving we're not acting on some militaristic bloodlust for conflict. If nothing else, the Iraq War should've taught us the price of hubris. We are tired of having our treasure and domestic concerns consistently sidelined by perceived threats from abroad as being somehow more legitimate than bridges falling down, trains blowing up, or a government that no longer serves the majority of voters. We are disconcerted at historical parallels with other lost republics.
We have been at war since 2003. We do not seek further foreign military engagements begun by blithely shunning honest attempts to test a potential adversary (already under our thumb) to avoid war, with the excuse that we cannot because they refuse to simply capitulate to all our demands.
We're negotiating a capacity to develop, not posession of an actual nuclear weapon.
Testing Iran's intentions today does NOT make us weaker tomorrow, should they fail. In fact it strengthens us by proving we're not acting on some militaristic bloodlust for conflict. If nothing else, the Iraq War should've taught us the price of hubris. We are tired of having our treasure and domestic concerns consistently sidelined by perceived threats from abroad as being somehow more legitimate than bridges falling down, trains blowing up, or a government that no longer serves the majority of voters. We are disconcerted at historical parallels with other lost republics.
4
"Reckless" better describes Obama's actions in the region. He created a needless catastrophe in Libya and left it in chaos, and this after Khaddafi gave up his WMD, gave up the Lockerbie hijackers, and helped the CIA in a region where our assets are scarce or non-existent.
For political expediency he left a vacuum in Iraq to be filled our sworn enemy. He fomented revolutionary chaos by substituting lofty rhetoric and false promises for thoughtful action. He abandoned allies and drew weak 'redlines in Syria,' thus emboldening our enemies. Would Putin have invade Ukraine and annex the Crimea had Obama acted forcefully on his redlines in Syria? Hard to know, but Putin could not possibly have been deterred by Obama's manifest weakness.
For political expediency he left a vacuum in Iraq to be filled our sworn enemy. He fomented revolutionary chaos by substituting lofty rhetoric and false promises for thoughtful action. He abandoned allies and drew weak 'redlines in Syria,' thus emboldening our enemies. Would Putin have invade Ukraine and annex the Crimea had Obama acted forcefully on his redlines in Syria? Hard to know, but Putin could not possibly have been deterred by Obama's manifest weakness.
5
Libya was an international mess, Iraq was never going to be tamed. The US had over a decade to train the Iraqi military and government and the first sight of an enemy, they bolted and handed their hardware to ISIS.
If Obama, (who was basically following GW's schedule to withdraw from Iraq by 2011...some people seem to forget that tidbit), had kept troops there another decade, the result would have been the same. The Shia majority oppressed for 3 decades by Saddam, were going to take over and ally with Iran.
Ukraine had nothing to do with Obama. It is in Europe. The EU was doing the negotiating which sparked the whole thing...not the US. It was the EU which should have stood up to Putin...but they needed Russia's gas and oil so that's why Putin took Crimea.
Syria was a goat rodeo from day one. Nobody should have been funding rebel groups that were basically al Qaeda by any other name...but all the west and the Sunni world jumped on that bandwagon.
As for the Iran deal...Obama is only one voice out of 6. He or congress don't have to sign on but you can bet that Russia, China and the EU will be more than happy to do business with Iran...and the US would have lost an opportunity to gain some real influence in Iran.
You can't sanction everybody.
If Obama, (who was basically following GW's schedule to withdraw from Iraq by 2011...some people seem to forget that tidbit), had kept troops there another decade, the result would have been the same. The Shia majority oppressed for 3 decades by Saddam, were going to take over and ally with Iran.
Ukraine had nothing to do with Obama. It is in Europe. The EU was doing the negotiating which sparked the whole thing...not the US. It was the EU which should have stood up to Putin...but they needed Russia's gas and oil so that's why Putin took Crimea.
Syria was a goat rodeo from day one. Nobody should have been funding rebel groups that were basically al Qaeda by any other name...but all the west and the Sunni world jumped on that bandwagon.
As for the Iran deal...Obama is only one voice out of 6. He or congress don't have to sign on but you can bet that Russia, China and the EU will be more than happy to do business with Iran...and the US would have lost an opportunity to gain some real influence in Iran.
You can't sanction everybody.
Personally, on something as important as this, I don't see why there is so much antagonism to Congress having a say. Democracy is messy, but I would hate to see an agreement with Iran if it is truly disliked by the majority of Americans. From my perspective it will be good for Senators to actually have to put their names behind a vote, and bear responsibility for the consequences. If the Senate turns down the deal, and the alternative turns out to be yet another war in the Mid-East, then we will know exactly who voted to put us there. I will be particularly interested to see how the three Republican senators who have announced their Presidential goals will vote.
3
The leader of every other western country controls international relations, not their lawmaking bodies. It's been that way for the last century in the US. Nixon didn't get congressional approval to negotiate with China. Carter didn't get approval to do the Camp David Accords, Ford didn't need congress to negotiate SALT. Reagan signed the INF treaty without congressional approval. GW signed the SORT treaty with Russia without congressional approval.
But somehow, Obama is destroying the constitution by negotiating a treaty with 5 other countries, to limit Iran's nuclear program.
Google is your friend.
But somehow, Obama is destroying the constitution by negotiating a treaty with 5 other countries, to limit Iran's nuclear program.
Google is your friend.
Again, if polls of the American people are accurate, and I believe they are, a substantial majority favors this agreement. We should re-watch Friedman's recent interview with Obama in which the president splendidly explained the agreement, carefully noting his sound logic. The GOP has offered, as far as I am aware, nothing in the way of a preferable alternative, unless of course one's preference is a bomb. So, while the president might well stand on sound precedent by acting solely to secure the deal, he has now taken the high ground from Congress. And Congress likely doesn't even realize it. I'd like to think the Democrats who went along with this did so to solidify the president's position, but I am not that naïve. Now, I just hope the American people are paying close attention. The state of our democracy is about to be thoroughly tested. One man - one vote, or is that one dollar?
19
I have been of the opinion since sometime in 2003 that executive power ought to be better checked by the legislature, as the courts are too pliable when it comes to obscure legal maneuvering to sufficiently do so.
I'm quite aware that previous presidents have entered into these kinds of agreements before, and I think Mr. Obama is on the right track. Nevertheless, if the Congress can muster up a two thirds majority in both houses, they are absolutely within their rights to assert their power to check the executive's actions in this case. I don't think they have the power to pass a law that would prohibit the executive from entering into not-treaties entirely.
Our Constitution was written for an 18th century agrarian republic. Then, you couldn't hit anything with a weapon that was farther away than you could see. A little wiggle room for Congress to have a say on the back-end of negotiations dealing with weapons that can travel across a continent and kill millions will not collapse our political order.
Emotionally, I'm right there with the editorial board: Mr. Obama has suffered so many slights and injuries in pursuit of a reasonable and admirable goal that this feels vicious. In this case though, stepping back and considering that Congress, if it wants, can be the most powerful branch of government tempers my outrage.
I'm quite aware that previous presidents have entered into these kinds of agreements before, and I think Mr. Obama is on the right track. Nevertheless, if the Congress can muster up a two thirds majority in both houses, they are absolutely within their rights to assert their power to check the executive's actions in this case. I don't think they have the power to pass a law that would prohibit the executive from entering into not-treaties entirely.
Our Constitution was written for an 18th century agrarian republic. Then, you couldn't hit anything with a weapon that was farther away than you could see. A little wiggle room for Congress to have a say on the back-end of negotiations dealing with weapons that can travel across a continent and kill millions will not collapse our political order.
Emotionally, I'm right there with the editorial board: Mr. Obama has suffered so many slights and injuries in pursuit of a reasonable and admirable goal that this feels vicious. In this case though, stepping back and considering that Congress, if it wants, can be the most powerful branch of government tempers my outrage.
3
The ostensible position of the Times is that a president should be able to negotiate an agreement with foreign countries without any input or review from the Congress, as long as the president is willing to characterize it as a "political agreement." I do not think any serious political thinker in the county, not even the Editorial Board of the NY Times, genuinely believes this is a workable principle of governance. The defense of this position seems to be that Congress has no role to play because the agreement would not be legally binding. In other words, the Times believes that reaching this agreement is of epic importance, but is perfectly comfortable with it being non-binding. The rhetorical acrobatics of this editorial are breathtaking.
5
This is why I just cancelled my subscription, again. Leave it to NYT and drones to argue that this isn't a treaty and the Senate (19 to 0 in committee) is interfering. Did the GOP somehow trick their Democratic colleagues into going along? NYT is becoming another MSNBC.
7
I guess under this administration it is reckless and dangerous to abide by the Constitution. Why let something like that get in the way of your agenda. The Constitutions states specifically that: "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..." The fact that the Senate is voting on having a deal to vote on the final Iran deal is rediculous. If those in Congress had any understanding of their responsibilites to this country, the various overt transgressions of this President would have already had him impeached
5
I agree congress is ridiculous. I disagree about the "overt transgressions" of this POTUS. If you want the definition of overt transgressions, look at the many actions of his predecessor, Mr. Bush. Ever heard of the term "signing statement"? A term that means that the POTUS will sign the bill to make it law, but only on the understanding that the POTUS himself is not bound to follow that law after signing. It was used all the time in the administration of GWB; not once by President Obama.
Nobody is going to war. Complaining of that becomes a bore. Stronger sanctions are what many Senators say. Hashing it out with the Pres. may pave the way. A poor deal, or none at all, won't stop the Russians playing hardball. Sending S-300s to Iran when banned may prompt a deal recall. Netanyahu isn't calling the shots on Capitol Hill. Senators are worried we will swallow a bitter pill. The President by the PM was never disrespected. Obama's acceptance of this bill may be unexpected. But with new problems surfacing every day. The President may want other opinions for a final OK. OK, Larry?
2
I agree that Iran's own reckless action may also sink the deal. Good to know that the U.S. may not be the only country acting recklessly.
I wonder why the Democrats voted for it- do they know something that we don't know?
4
No, they are just spineless.
Sheldon Adelson and AIPAC now drive our country's foreign policy. This is done primarily through the promise of (or threat of withholding) campaign contributions. Money. And we ultimately have the SCOTUS to thank when they started it all off with their decision in Citizens United.
Comparing the American legislative backdrop to that of the other other P-5 negotiating countries is somewhat misleading. Britain, France and Germany are parliamentary democracies. Russia and China are fascist dictatorships.
Russia has already torpedoed its own negotiated commitment to an Iran accord by lifting its ban on the sale of surface-to-air anti-aircraft missles, thus altering the military facts on the ground before any deal is concluded. This plays right into Netanyahu's hands as fully intended.
The point of this editorial is well taken, but would be more persuasive if it tightened-up on its use of analogy.
Russia has already torpedoed its own negotiated commitment to an Iran accord by lifting its ban on the sale of surface-to-air anti-aircraft missles, thus altering the military facts on the ground before any deal is concluded. This plays right into Netanyahu's hands as fully intended.
The point of this editorial is well taken, but would be more persuasive if it tightened-up on its use of analogy.
6
The analogy is accurate. Parliaments serve the same function as congress; they are the lawmakers. The leader of the majority party in Parliament, is the Prime Minister, the leader of the country...serving the same role as the President of the US. The high courts don't make laws...they interpret laws to judge if they are in accordance with the constitution.
The primary difference between parliamentary democracies and the US system, is that the president is elected separately, but PM's not only have to be elected in their riding, they have to be picked by the party to lead it, and that party has to win a majority, (or form a coalition), in elections.
In form, the systems may seem different, but in function, they are very similar.
The primary difference between parliamentary democracies and the US system, is that the president is elected separately, but PM's not only have to be elected in their riding, they have to be picked by the party to lead it, and that party has to win a majority, (or form a coalition), in elections.
In form, the systems may seem different, but in function, they are very similar.
Looks like it's time for more unnecessary war in the Middle East. The chickenhawks are getting bored. You can only go see that "American Sniper" movie so many times. After a while you want the real thing again.
9
It's official - we've lost the plot completely.
2
Hmm? Wonder what the NY Times' tune would have been if Congress demanded more of a say in Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy or George Bush's Iraq policy. Something tells me the tune would have been a bit different.
6
The sad thing is that congress DID have a say when Bush went to war in March 2003. The republicans wanted it (after all, they have scads of campaign contributions coming in from defense contractors); the dems - in true fashion - either were hoodwinked, or finally caved (in the case of the holdouts). We have yet to reckon with the decision to go into that war. And I can think of at least two people from the previous administration who should be sitting in a court in The Hague right now for misleading us into that war, a war which has devastated that region.
The sanctions on Iran come from a combination of laws passed by Congress, executive orders from POTUS and the UN. While the President could have removed the executive orders, he could waive the Congressional sanctions temporarily (they can only be removed by Congress). The bill locks in a timeline for Congress to review and approve (or disapprove) the final agreement. The bill helps the President present a clear process and timeline to the P5+1 and the Iranians and avoids a potentially nasty fight over Congressional authority that might have ended up in the courts.
With a divided government and 50/50 electorate, the unanimous bipartisan support for this agreement on the committee (and the agreement with the Executive branch) is a rare moment when things worked as intended.
I don't comprehend the NYT Editorial Board's objections.
With a divided government and 50/50 electorate, the unanimous bipartisan support for this agreement on the committee (and the agreement with the Executive branch) is a rare moment when things worked as intended.
I don't comprehend the NYT Editorial Board's objections.
64
I think the NYTimes subtle objection is that the President's detractors have been attempting at all avenues to de-legitimitze President Obama's tenure. He is not quite President, he is the Invisible Man/President. Power and interest before country.
You don't?
What if the Senate disapproves and then overrides a veto - what then? The other countries will lift their sanctions, because it will be clear that the US is to blame for the failure.
And Iran will be free to do what it wants.
What then - war?
What if the Senate disapproves and then overrides a veto - what then? The other countries will lift their sanctions, because it will be clear that the US is to blame for the failure.
And Iran will be free to do what it wants.
What then - war?
Having the Senate approve all major foreign policy agreements is clearly within the spirit of the Constitution even if not the letter of Constitution.
It looks like the Times now believes that following the Constitution is a "Reckless Act".
It looks like the Times now believes that following the Constitution is a "Reckless Act".
4
I don't understand this: "Even if Congress barred Mr. Obama from waiving American sanctions, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council could lift the sanctions they imposed, thus undercutting the American decision." If foreign sanctions were lifted, then one of two things could occur. First, Iran could balk at the deal, claiming that US participation was necessary. Second, it could go ahead with the deal anyway, in which case there would be limits on its nuclear program even as US sanctions remained in place, which I don't think anyone in Congress would object to. Either way, the US decision to maintain its sanctions rather than participate in the deal would not be "undercut."
1
I wonder if Zarif will have anything to smile about?
He's always managed to look cheerful, not matter
what congress did.And Kerry and all the people working
on this, for years and years, what about them?
This a real blow to diplomacy.I don't think congress is
as dumb as they act.I think this is an instance of a deliberate influence of a foreign power.
Was the word I am looking for?
He's always managed to look cheerful, not matter
what congress did.And Kerry and all the people working
on this, for years and years, what about them?
This a real blow to diplomacy.I don't think congress is
as dumb as they act.I think this is an instance of a deliberate influence of a foreign power.
Was the word I am looking for?
2
When Congress essentially votes for war with Iran each member must designate one blood relative for cannon fodder and pledge their Social Security, Medicare and Congressional Pension to pay for perpetual war they seek.
All these voting for war miraculously passed on their chance in Viet Nam: Menendez, Schumer, Corker, Cornyn, Isakson, Perdue.
As did these propagandists for war, any war: John Bolton, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Rush Limbaugh.
All tough guys...with the lives of other people's children.
All these voting for war miraculously passed on their chance in Viet Nam: Menendez, Schumer, Corker, Cornyn, Isakson, Perdue.
As did these propagandists for war, any war: John Bolton, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and Rush Limbaugh.
All tough guys...with the lives of other people's children.
22
It is sad to see our war party reject any attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution with Iran, instead letting a bellicose Israel choose war or nothing as the only solution! We have negotiated with Russia and China in the past when they were considered massive threats to us. Wait, there was a difference, we had republican presidents and everyone was actually trying to do the right thing for our country!
3
Could you imagine the administration of George W. Bush allowing a Democratic congress the right to have a say in foreign policy negotiations?
5
Do you mean like asking the Senate to vote on a resolution authorizing the Iraq war?. The only thing unimaginable is the Democratis senators cowardice in not voting against the resolution. And the rewriting of history by those on the left.
It is bitter irony that the Republicans have spent six years doing anything but what they're supposedly in Washington to do - their jobs - yet they feel entitled to meddle into the President's actions while he is doing his job.
They have spent six years cooking up trouble and "investigating". They have sold this entire country out to God only knows who, courtesy of Citizen's United and their bought cadre of Republican Supremes. They show no interest in doing anything at work unless they can somehow weaken or embarrass our President. Now they desperately want their war with Iran. With, of course, OUR young people doing the heavy lifting.
Someone please tell me, what in the world is the matter with these people? They came sermonizing and praying, and they act like they have no responsibility to the American people. Do they not have the slightest concern for what their behavior has done to this country?
They have spent six years cooking up trouble and "investigating". They have sold this entire country out to God only knows who, courtesy of Citizen's United and their bought cadre of Republican Supremes. They show no interest in doing anything at work unless they can somehow weaken or embarrass our President. Now they desperately want their war with Iran. With, of course, OUR young people doing the heavy lifting.
Someone please tell me, what in the world is the matter with these people? They came sermonizing and praying, and they act like they have no responsibility to the American people. Do they not have the slightest concern for what their behavior has done to this country?
26
The Editorial Board is so egregiously pro-Obama, it is almost embarrassing. The fact that this paper only headlined Yemen's President's piece for mere hours (and never printed it in the US edition) while constantly shoving forward its own editorial board's discontent with Iraq, Congress, and anyone who opposes the negotiations is egregious and poor journalism. It is as if this paper is President Obama's puppet, and many are starting to realize that. This paper, like our President, seems to discount everything Iran does or says at an extremely high rate, as if its statements and actions carry a fantastical nature and couldn't actually be true. You criticize America's politicians more than you shed light on the truth about Iran -- the fact that it is a country that outwardly and openly sponsors terrorism, wishes for the destruction of an entire population of people, and despises America. And our politicians are the bad guys? How short-sighted and unprofessional of you. Shame on you for not giving the American people both sides of the issue, for condescendingly vilifying a significant number of Americans, and for blindly supporting negotiations with a country that has and will continue to threaten America and its allies. I am canceling my subscription.
9
Good for you. I'm also disgusted with the Times "Iran can do no wrong" talking points. I'm sick to death of hearing about 1953. All Obama wants now is some Grand Bargain deal to cement his foreign policy legacy, complete with a formal signing ceremony in the Rose Garden followed by a taxpayer funded state dinner for Iran's mullahs. Thank goodness for the American system of checks and balances which keeps everyone in line.
How utterly extraordinary that this GOP-dominated Congress, which has steadfastly refused to attend to its Constitutional obligation to debate and declare war, all while screeching about the "Imperial President Obama", has now completely trampled the inconvenient truth that Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and treaty negotiations is accorded to the President, and not to Congress. For a party ostensibly so dedicated to "strict construction", it would seem that the GOP has once again, proven itself incapable of leadership or governance, let alone fealty to our separation of powers. The GOP is recklessly irresponsible, willfully ignorant, and totally hypocritical - so what else is new?
68
What this bill does, is that it sent two messages. The first one being that some democrats have join the Tea Party in their distrust of a Twice elected US president. He is a "secret Muslim", he can't be trusted. President Reagan negotiated the same type of agreement with an adversary much more powerful ( The Soviet Union) without Congress getting involved.
The second message is that the Israeli Lobby has too much power in Washington. The only time Congress seems to agree on anything is when it Israel is concerned .That goes to show the power of money in American Politics.
In both cases, this is a sad day for America. And the Democrats who support this should be comes elections time.
The second message is that the Israeli Lobby has too much power in Washington. The only time Congress seems to agree on anything is when it Israel is concerned .That goes to show the power of money in American Politics.
In both cases, this is a sad day for America. And the Democrats who support this should be comes elections time.
34
Saint Ronald and his quest for the Holy Grail destroyed american industry and exported jobs to Mexico and China. Republicans have very short and selective memories.
So the fact that (so far) the other countries haven't decided to debate the deal is cited as a factor in why we shouldn't? And I figure at least Britain will debate it before all is said and done.
The editorial also assumes that President Obama knows better than everyone in Congress, which simply is not true.
The editorial also assumes that President Obama knows better than everyone in Congress, which simply is not true.
2
This is called Democracy. It is something that has been missing since the Obama Administration took office 6 years ago. The President has been shown that he is not omnipotent. Even though elected to office by the people, he is not above criticism from the People's true representatives in Government. This would be true as well should the Parties switch roles, with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
3
As my silly nickname implies, I'm not a troglodyte, but I just cannot get over the fact that the Iranian regime clearly, loudly and proudly states its fervent desire to commit genocide on the Israeli people. I also cannot get over the fact that the Iranian regime destroyed any chance of a decent resolution to the Syrian Civil War; it has the blood of those the Assad regime murdered on its hand.
Why is this regime not a pariah?
It's a sad, sad day when the Republican party is the voice of reason.
Why is this regime not a pariah?
It's a sad, sad day when the Republican party is the voice of reason.
5
That's not Republican voices you hear, it is AIPAC money talking.
An abomination. Lawmakers are elected to represent the interests of the United States of America. Where that coincides with the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia (who by the way, support the Wahabi sect that is responsible for Al Queda and ISIS) great, and where it needs to diverge we should diverge. Ironically, the agreement with Iran does more to secure Israel than any alternative (that is based in the real world) that has been proposed. How much does the money of Sheldon Adelson dictate this...who knows. I just know that when I hear the term Russian Oligarchs, which is frequently used in the press, I find myself thinking there is no difference between Oligarchs in Russia and those in the US (thank you Citizens United)
21
Wow, finally bipartisan agreement... and the NYT Editorial Board balks and again endorses an imperial presidency. In some ways events have already passed this by - Putin has already moved with his missile sale to Tehran.
5
This editorial is preposterous. We are dealing with a country that cannot be trusted, that wants to annihilate Israel, and has become the major acceleratant in the volatile Middle East. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is ready to give away the store merely in order to say he made a deal with the iranians. And the NYT thinks it's outrageous that Congress wants to exercise its oversight authority? Give me a break.
7
The President needs to call Congress on these bluffs and explain to the American people that there are five other countries and the European Union negotiating with the Iranians, and they are free to ratify any agreement and lift sanctions as they see fit. All of these countries will see an immediate economic benefit as commerce with Iran returns. And Iran will not have nuclear weapon capability.
Unfortunately, for the United States economy, only the defense industrial complex will see any economic benefit.
Unfortunately, for the United States economy, only the defense industrial complex will see any economic benefit.
9
Jim, as I have already noted (submitted reply) the New York Times needs to provide a complete OpEd explaining at least to NYT readers the situation you and others describe.
It appears that in the view of even Democrats in the US Congress the USA (or Benjamin Netanyahu, forgive me) is the sole party engaged in negotiations.
Jim I have to add that I am an American citizen since many readers assume I am a Swedish citizen. Not yet!
Larry
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
It appears that in the view of even Democrats in the US Congress the USA (or Benjamin Netanyahu, forgive me) is the sole party engaged in negotiations.
Jim I have to add that I am an American citizen since many readers assume I am a Swedish citizen. Not yet!
Larry
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Seems like these idiots are just bored because they can't get anything else done, so they decided to meddle in this. Either that or they're worried about campaign contributions. Take your pick. All that's clear right now is that once an agreement is reached, Congress will try to renegotiate it at the last second. Who elected these yahoos?
9
How long will the Senate and Congress let Israel lobby dictate foreign policy of US? It is really sad and ultimately very dangerous as it will add to fuel more conflicts in Middle East.
32
Answer: Until the first bombs have been dropped on Iran. Then the Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee will finally understand what God in the form of Netanyahu hath wrought.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
"How long will the Senate and Congress let Israel lobby dictate foreign policy of US?"
As long as the Israel lobby pays the freight.
As long as the Israel lobby pays the freight.
Big GT
Congress has thrown a roadblock on our best chance to come to a peaceful resolution of our impasse with Iran. The Iranian hardliners, like our own hardliners have been chomping at the bit to scuttle this deal and our supposedly responsible legislators have given them the opportunity to do just that.
Why in the world would the Iranians go into extensive negotiations and end up making an agreement that could simply be set aside by our legislative branch.
Especially, when our congressional members seem intent to do just that.
What is the alternative to these negotiations? To bomb Iran? For America to engage in another Mid East war, with all its costs in terms of American and Mid eastern loss of lives, infrastructure devastation, financial hardship in America,and finally the possible ruination of the US?
Haven't we had enough of this shoot from the hip, macho type of actions? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Yet Congress seems stuck in another century. They still believe we can bully the whole world. That we can bomb our opponents into submission. It hasn't worked recently, and it won't work now. How dumb can you be?
Blinded by hate for Obama and,thirsting for Sheldon Adelson's funds these legislators are acting in a manner that is not only irresponsible, but also borders on treason.
Congress has thrown a roadblock on our best chance to come to a peaceful resolution of our impasse with Iran. The Iranian hardliners, like our own hardliners have been chomping at the bit to scuttle this deal and our supposedly responsible legislators have given them the opportunity to do just that.
Why in the world would the Iranians go into extensive negotiations and end up making an agreement that could simply be set aside by our legislative branch.
Especially, when our congressional members seem intent to do just that.
What is the alternative to these negotiations? To bomb Iran? For America to engage in another Mid East war, with all its costs in terms of American and Mid eastern loss of lives, infrastructure devastation, financial hardship in America,and finally the possible ruination of the US?
Haven't we had enough of this shoot from the hip, macho type of actions? Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ?
Yet Congress seems stuck in another century. They still believe we can bully the whole world. That we can bomb our opponents into submission. It hasn't worked recently, and it won't work now. How dumb can you be?
Blinded by hate for Obama and,thirsting for Sheldon Adelson's funds these legislators are acting in a manner that is not only irresponsible, but also borders on treason.
639
Indeed, why would the Iranians negotiate? To see what more they can get on the cheap. We've handed them the ME on a platter. The only thing holding them back is the Sunni Shi'a divide and their fear of the US military. Congress is no more incompetent than the current administration and can serve as a backstop for policy decisions the electorate disagrees with. The dysfunction in the ME is not our fault and certainly not Sheldon Adelson's.
The biggest problem with what you have stated is that you make sense. I wonder when the draft comes if any of these hawks will serve themselves or allow their loved ones to fight like the rest of us, or will they have "other priorities"?
What part of this did you not understand?? "passed overwhelmingly by the Senate committee thanks to Democratic support" I guess they are waiting for Adelson's funds too????
Of course, the agreement may collapse of its own accord, but if all parties can agree and it is then trashed by the Senate, only two alternatives remain. Standing by as Iran develops a bomb, or war, two pretty lousy options. I expect this from the Republicans, but if even Democrats are willing to betray both the President and common sense than US politics is heading for a new low, which is really saying something.
23
"Congress has formally muscled its way into President Obama's negotiations with Iran"
And the NYT labels this as a "Reckless Act" ?
I am puzzled by this statement on behalf of the NYT, but I will awake in the morning and thank the Almighty that someone is looking over Mr. Obama's shoulder. Something I recall about checks and balances……after all he is not King Obama. And his inexperience is painfully obvious to the entire world.
And the NYT labels this as a "Reckless Act" ?
I am puzzled by this statement on behalf of the NYT, but I will awake in the morning and thank the Almighty that someone is looking over Mr. Obama's shoulder. Something I recall about checks and balances……after all he is not King Obama. And his inexperience is painfully obvious to the entire world.
6
I'm sorry but President Obama's foreign policy actions easily blow George Bush's 'achievements' out of the water. I admit the bar was set incredibly low but I still have to give a lot of credit to the current president for not wasting thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars overseas.
Too many critics seem to be itching for another war in the middle east.
Too many critics seem to be itching for another war in the middle east.
Actually no. What this part of the world sees is a highly intelligent, thoughtful and courageous President doing the right thing while a bunch of people who usually can't agree on anything vote to potentially stymie his country's contribution to effective control of the Iranian government's nuclear activities. For what and with what alternative in mind? The other parties to the discussions will agree a workable arrangement and sanctions will be removed over time. It is time for intelligence to be applied to the intractable problems in the Middle East not the perennial machismo which has characterised American involvement (shamefully suported by our equally woeful British politicians) in the past.
The irony of this is that it helps President Obama to realize the promise he made to bring cooperation to Washington. Bravo President Obama!
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
2
Looks like Senator Cotton was correct in writing a letter to the Iranians. Apparently, you can't trust America after all.
5
Did the British & French parliament, and the German Bundestag demand a vote from their Prime Ministers/Chancellor on their allies peace plan with Iran? Of course not!
So how come we have a twice elected President being pressured by a dysfunctional Congress into an unprecedented vote.
It seems the GOP can’t make up their minds what they hate more; Obama or a peace plan with Iran.
So how come we have a twice elected President being pressured by a dysfunctional Congress into an unprecedented vote.
It seems the GOP can’t make up their minds what they hate more; Obama or a peace plan with Iran.
22
"So how come we have a twice elected President being pressured by a dysfunctional Congress into an unprecedented vote ? "
Answer: Only one of the P5+1 has an AIPAC controlling the election process via the election campaign funding process.
Answer: Only one of the P5+1 has an AIPAC controlling the election process via the election campaign funding process.
I thought that the Senate had to approve all treaties. Why is this an issue? Or is it that the Administration was trying to go around the Senate's constitutional authority by making this an 'agreement', not an actual treaty.
4
I stand in bewilderment and disgust as Senate Democrats betray their own President and hand the keys to foreign policy to the same people who have been trying to destroy them and the President for the last six years.
29
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution:
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;
Too bad neither the President nor the NYTimes Editorial Board has read this document.
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;
Too bad neither the President nor the NYTimes Editorial Board has read this document.
2
This isn't a treaty so it isn't subject to that clause of the Constitution.
Amazing Ego-play by the Self-righteous wielding of Power by Republican intransigents. Democracy cannot mean what it meant before the thirst for control and power "before". These elected "servants" seem to hold little sense of "Service" beyond their own drive and desire for personal interest.
6
It looks very much like this deal is going to bring "pieces" for our time.
6
The United States and Iran have been bitter enemies since the Eisenhower administration overthrew the Mosaddegh government in 1953.
4
The rest of the world is shaking their head at the hopeless provincialism of the US Congress and moves on. Russia is ready to sell the S300 air denfense system and Germany will sell their industrial wares, Great Britain and France will follow suit and China is there already signing contracts.
The US is becoming increasingly irrelevant with politics made my yokels who don't know world but think it revolves around the US.
The US is becoming increasingly irrelevant with politics made my yokels who don't know world but think it revolves around the US.
31
What part of "Advise and Consent" does Obama and the editors of this newspaper not understand? Obama and Kerry should be required to read Allen Drury's famous novel or at least watch the movie with Henry Fonda.
The Senate is exercising its constitutional responsibility by not allowing Obama and Kerry to appease the fanatical mullahs in Tehran. If only the Lords and Commons had done the same to Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
The Senate is exercising its constitutional responsibility by not allowing Obama and Kerry to appease the fanatical mullahs in Tehran. If only the Lords and Commons had done the same to Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
4
I don't want to live in a country where the so-called leaders essentially owe their allegiance to a small country in the Middle East. I hope the people of this country realize how committed American Congress people are to the desires of Israel, even to the detriment of America.
This country desperately needs new political parties.
The American Congress: absolutely in the pocket of right wing Zionists.
This country desperately needs new political parties.
The American Congress: absolutely in the pocket of right wing Zionists.
56
When I read the beginning of your comment I thought you were talking about Saudi Arabia! We seem to do all their dirty work for them.
That sound you just heard was the cork popping in Tel Aviv.
24
We will have to see if Chuck Schumer continues to put the interests of his donors ahead of the country, his party and his president.
26
While we continue to be obsessed with the US Congress posturing, no one seems to realize that this deal with Iran does not depend on US involvement.
This deal is not controversial in the European, Russian or Chinese governments or press. These countries will continue with the deal whether or not the US Congress, or Israel, approves of the deal.
As Russia clearly signaled yesterday, absent Iranian unreasonableness killing the deal, the sanctions are going to be lifted. Will US businesses allow themselves to locked out of a lucrative market open to the rest of the world? Will Big Oil pass up the Iranian opportunity to the Chinese and Russians?
Any military action by the US or Israel will isolate both on a global scale and would quite possibly lead to European, Chinese and Russia withdrawing support for Israel.
It is always amazing to watch American's self centered view of their country and their myopic view of other countries.
American politicians' inability to think two steps ahead has led America into every major fiasco from Vietnam, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and even the deregulation/financial crisis. America continues to believe in Magical Thinking and 'American Exceptionalism', which are virtually indistinguishable.
I would predict that the Iran deal is going to become another Indiana where right wing posturing will come into conflict with the interests of Big Business. I have no doubt that our bought and paid for politicians will go with the money.
This deal is not controversial in the European, Russian or Chinese governments or press. These countries will continue with the deal whether or not the US Congress, or Israel, approves of the deal.
As Russia clearly signaled yesterday, absent Iranian unreasonableness killing the deal, the sanctions are going to be lifted. Will US businesses allow themselves to locked out of a lucrative market open to the rest of the world? Will Big Oil pass up the Iranian opportunity to the Chinese and Russians?
Any military action by the US or Israel will isolate both on a global scale and would quite possibly lead to European, Chinese and Russia withdrawing support for Israel.
It is always amazing to watch American's self centered view of their country and their myopic view of other countries.
American politicians' inability to think two steps ahead has led America into every major fiasco from Vietnam, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, and even the deregulation/financial crisis. America continues to believe in Magical Thinking and 'American Exceptionalism', which are virtually indistinguishable.
I would predict that the Iran deal is going to become another Indiana where right wing posturing will come into conflict with the interests of Big Business. I have no doubt that our bought and paid for politicians will go with the money.
265
AIPAC=$
1
Disgraceful. And not very bright. And it sets precedence that is more than a little dangerous.
24
"With a unanimous vote on Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a bill that would require Congress to review, and then vote on, the final text of a nuclear deal. "
Unanimous, bi-partisan approval? There goes the attack line against Republicans.
"In no other country has the legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement. "
Maybe that is because 'no other country' has the feckless foreign policy leadership of Obama and Kerry. Just a thought.
Unanimous, bi-partisan approval? There goes the attack line against Republicans.
"In no other country has the legislative body demanded the right to block the agreement. "
Maybe that is because 'no other country' has the feckless foreign policy leadership of Obama and Kerry. Just a thought.
15
Oh for the steady hand of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld et al. That was some muscular and decisive foreign policy that America could be proud of.
4
I hope the Iranians are sophisticated enough to understand our convoluted politics. This bill does weaken the president's negotiating stance, but it should not prevent a good deal in the end. Even our weak-kneed Democrats would support that good deal and the very able president who facilitated it.
12
Joseph G. Anthony, I can assure you that key Iranian figures involved in the whole process are "sophisticated enough" since some of them, as noted in the Times fairly recently, are Ph.D.s, have been educated in the US, and know the US well.
The same cannot be said of some of the key figures in the US Senate.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
US citizen just for the record
The same cannot be said of some of the key figures in the US Senate.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
US citizen just for the record
11
I'm sure the Iranians can withstand a little pushback from Congress. After all, up until now the Iranians have benefited from the Americans' involvement.
A recent Iranian defector, an aide to Rouhani, described the Americans as speaking on Iran's behalf and promoting the deal. This just ties Obama's hands a little as an advocate for Iran.
A recent Iranian defector, an aide to Rouhani, described the Americans as speaking on Iran's behalf and promoting the deal. This just ties Obama's hands a little as an advocate for Iran.
2
This shows the power of the hard-line Israel lobby, and the money that comes with it.
It also shows how many senators are bought by this lobby: enough of both parties to override a Presidential veto.
We need publicly funded campaigns. Only then will we see sanity restored to the U.S. Congress.
It also shows how many senators are bought by this lobby: enough of both parties to override a Presidential veto.
We need publicly funded campaigns. Only then will we see sanity restored to the U.S. Congress.
169
Publicly funded campaigns? And pray tell, who decide who gets funded?
2
Completely agreed. Throw in term limits for congress and restrictions on lobbying, and I think you have a pretty good recipe for a functioning democracy. Regarding term limits, I was flabbergasted to see Tom Cotton - the new senator from Arkansas, already a darling of the Tea Party - in his open letter to Iran say, almost as a boast, certainly as a threat - that Senators could potentially serve for "decades" in the Senate. What does Sen. Cotton know that the rest of us don't?
1
i agree. I would add that the money poring into Political Action Committees (PACs) and politicians is legalized bribery. The US has lost it's moral compass in this regard. We have no moral standing in lecturing the world about "corruption" until we fix our own legalized corruption of political contributions. I believe as you do that all political campaigns need to be ONLY financed by government (i.e. public financing). But I have lived long enough to be cynical about this coming into fruition. There is a slight chance that it might come to pass. Back in 2006 there was NO electric cars. There was NO hope or chance that it might come into mass production. It took a GREAT recession to make the electric car a reality for the masses. So pigs may yet fly and public financing of political campaigns may yet be the only money in politics.
It's interesting that when it comes to Waging War, the liberals and the NYT always want congressional approval- and now when it comes to making an Historic Agreement which could well spell,the difference beteeen War or Peace and the fate of Nations and the World, suddenly the Liberals and the NYT want only ONE Man to decide .
13
Yes! Good point. I am all for this deal but I fail to see any principled basis for arguing Congress should have no say in it. You can't just arbitrarily say when a deal of such scope is, or is not, a "treaty." If Repubs want to scuttle this deal and follow the lead of Cruz, Bolton et al, let them do so and take that message to the voters next year. It will really cost them. The worst strategy Dems could possibly have is to deny Repubs the opportunity to go on record, yea or nay, on this deal.
Israel lobby or no Israel lobby great majority of us are sick to death of trying to fashion a "new" Middle East. And, as has been pointed out, the deal goes forward whether we, or the Israelis, approve, since the rest of the world is not as politically stupid and does not have the delusional goals that our leaders mouth for the benefit of attracting tea party votes.
Israel lobby or no Israel lobby great majority of us are sick to death of trying to fashion a "new" Middle East. And, as has been pointed out, the deal goes forward whether we, or the Israelis, approve, since the rest of the world is not as politically stupid and does not have the delusional goals that our leaders mouth for the benefit of attracting tea party votes.
1
When iran's government factions debate this issue, its always soft-sold by this dreadful "publication" as "an example of another nation's democratic, balanced power structure in action", but when congress decides to do its constitutional duty and weigh in on a matter of high national security importance, this "publication" portrays it as "meddling" or "disrespectful" to the president.
3
Interesting, too, that Obama seeks Congressional input on choices that are politically unpopular. Syria and Iraq? Let Congress decide. Immigration? Good for democratic votes. Executive Action.
4
This is an insane move on the part of the Senate and significantly damages our standing as a meaningful player on the world stage. Having the biggest baddest military doesn't make us powerful...strategically exerting influence at important junctures of multi-party transactions makes us powerful. The Republicans' petty partisan politics and select Democrats bowing to the Israeli lobby have delivered a body blow to our leadership in the world.
56
Five other countries, US nuclear experts, the CIA director and the overwhelming majority of the American people like the framework and want the negotiations to be allowed to continue unimpeded but Boehner, Schumer and the rest of these cretins know better? Based on what? It's not intelligence. It's not expertise. It's not the will of the American people. Who are the arrogant imperious individuals determined to have their way at any cost in this picture?
88
According to the most recent poll, 68% of Americans do not believe that Iran will honor an agreement.
4
Now the Congress has decided to impose its "Constitutional" authority on the presidency? Now? What about the catastrophic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What about the condoning of torture of detainees? What about the targeting killings by drone warfare? What about waging war against ISIS? It seems Congress seeks to assert itself only when an American president uses his executive prerogative to "wage" peace--and seek a diplomatic solution to an extraordinarily dangerous situation--and not when he decides to trample on his Constitutional powers to wage war and wreak havoc.
111
It may be that this is the best deal we could ever get with Iran. Certainly bombing Iran as Mr. Cotton suggests is folly.
However, I wonder if we had left things as they were would the sanctions have eventually forced Iran into a better agreement. We seem to have made our play at the first strong sign from Iran's government that the sanctions were working and that may have defined and thus limited what might have been possible.
I do understand that this agreement is between not just America and Iran and we need other countries involvement to make this agreement and Iran sanctions work.
Some information on this from the administration would be helpful.
However, I wonder if we had left things as they were would the sanctions have eventually forced Iran into a better agreement. We seem to have made our play at the first strong sign from Iran's government that the sanctions were working and that may have defined and thus limited what might have been possible.
I do understand that this agreement is between not just America and Iran and we need other countries involvement to make this agreement and Iran sanctions work.
Some information on this from the administration would be helpful.
3
"Certainly bombing Iran as Mr. Cotton suggests is folly."
-
Bombing Iran is certainly a last resort. However, it was President Obama who said that the military option was on the table.
-
Apparently, what the President really meant, was that the military option would never get off the table - no matter what. Not exactly being honest.
-
Bombing Iran is certainly a last resort. However, it was President Obama who said that the military option was on the table.
-
Apparently, what the President really meant, was that the military option would never get off the table - no matter what. Not exactly being honest.
It's quite remarkable that an editorial critical of this vote could be written without using the most relevant word here, "Israel".
25
It's no coincidence that this vote came one day after Putin lifted the embargo on sending S-300 missiles to Iran. I guess congress said enough is enough.
8
Shameless hypocrisy. The Senate wants to give the President 30 to 52 days. The very same Senate who have not voted on the ISIL war authorization bill for over 62 days and the Attorney General for over 4 months.
48
These people are clearly in love with themselves.
And we elected them.
Shame on us.
And we elected them.
Shame on us.
15
Obama is in love with himself. And even many Democratic/leftwing media outfits, academics, etc. who supported him say his massive power grabs, lies, etc. are outrageous.
And we elected Obama.
Shame on us.
And we elected Obama.
Shame on us.
4
Any signed nuclear agreement with Iran will be the most significant international agreement since the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. Congress has the right to review such an agreement, since Congress imposed some of the sanctions. Congress will have to decide to eliminate them.
Contrary to the NYTimes editorial, Congress is not inserting themselves into the negotiations. No Congressperson is in Lausanne with Kerry, contradicting him in front of the Iranian negotiators. This is a review bill.
Contrary to the NYTimes editorial, Congress is not inserting themselves into the negotiations. No Congressperson is in Lausanne with Kerry, contradicting him in front of the Iranian negotiators. This is a review bill.
9
"Even if Congress barred Mr. Obama from waiving American sanctions, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council could lift the sanctions they imposed, thus undercutting the American decision."
If there is consensus among our allies that sanctions must be lifted, but a small faction in America is the only force against this lifting, Obama's concession to Congress could be political calculus aiming to make an inept GOP look even more stupid. Perhaps this is also a way to force the GOP to grow up and pass legislation. The world is watching, the stakes are too high, the pressure too great to dink around with unattainable caveats that kill the peace treaty. Maybe this is the moment when our leaders start working together.
If there is consensus among our allies that sanctions must be lifted, but a small faction in America is the only force against this lifting, Obama's concession to Congress could be political calculus aiming to make an inept GOP look even more stupid. Perhaps this is also a way to force the GOP to grow up and pass legislation. The world is watching, the stakes are too high, the pressure too great to dink around with unattainable caveats that kill the peace treaty. Maybe this is the moment when our leaders start working together.
5
Democrats and Republicans finally ARE working together in Congress to stop this Iranian "deal" madness!
2
And so the USA finds yet another avenue to look and act pathetically inept. Our future is now firmly in the hands of people who hate President Obama enough to do whatever wrong it takes to hurt him, and supposed liberals who need the Jewish vote to stay in office and apparently think stifling any deal with Iran is what that demographic desires. I'm disgusted.
46
It's true that "every president has negotiated similar agreements as part of executive authority." On the other hand it's not every president who's been accused of being a lying Marxist Muslim from Kenya and been otherwise disrespected by political opponents who can't even agree that human beings are responsible for global warming. How in heaven's name Mr. Obama manages to remains as calm and as even-tempered as he is is way beyond my understanding. It's good to know, however, that the U.S. has waiting in the wings a potential chief executive who can't trust the Iranian government to stop pursuing nuclear weapons but would condition a deal between our two countries on that government's willingness to recognize the state of Israel! I suppose incredulity can take you only so far.
219
Yes, Stu, "incredulity can take you only so far."
As an American Christian, I myself was incredulous that Kerry sat down at a negotiating table for Iran and the first item on the table was not the release of the three Americans that are imprisoned in Iran today.
One is an American Christian Minister, Saeed Abedini, who has been in jail for two and a half years for the simple crime of practicing his faith. His jail sentence is a 8 year term, and he still is awaiting a trial.
How in the world did we negotiate for Iran to have the okay for nuclear weapons in ten years, but we couldn't negotiate for our own Americans.
So, yes, this is mind blowing for us American Christians too.
As an American Christian, I myself was incredulous that Kerry sat down at a negotiating table for Iran and the first item on the table was not the release of the three Americans that are imprisoned in Iran today.
One is an American Christian Minister, Saeed Abedini, who has been in jail for two and a half years for the simple crime of practicing his faith. His jail sentence is a 8 year term, and he still is awaiting a trial.
How in the world did we negotiate for Iran to have the okay for nuclear weapons in ten years, but we couldn't negotiate for our own Americans.
So, yes, this is mind blowing for us American Christians too.
1
"How in heaven's name Mr. Obama manages to remains as calm and as even-tempered as he is is way beyond my understanding."
Because he'll blame everyone but himself when his next foreign policy effort fails.
Because he'll blame everyone but himself when his next foreign policy effort fails.
2
"How in heaven's name Mr. Obama manages to remains as calm and as even-tempered as he is is way beyond my understanding."
That's a bug, not a feature. It hasn't served Obama or the country well to continue to bow and scrape in meek obeisance time and time. It's only emboldened them.
That's a bug, not a feature. It hasn't served Obama or the country well to continue to bow and scrape in meek obeisance time and time. It's only emboldened them.
2
There are 80 million people in Iran, a majority of whom would assuredly like to ditch their religious reactionaries every bit as much as many Americans would love to ditch our religious reactionaries.
Either a continuation of sanctions against the current Iranian regime or a military campaign to set back its nuclear capabilities a couple of years, at most, will only end up punishing those brave Iranians who came out in the last election to vote for the most progressive candidates their clerics would allow.
Given the extraordinarily limited choices the Iranian people were given in their last election - an experience we Americans can certainly identify with - and their decision to vote for as much change as was allowed, why in God's name would our Congress insist on further punishing them, in an effort to appease a couple of million war-mongering Zionists in Israel (and their lackeys here in America)?
Are the sensibilities of perhaps 40 or 50 million Iranian lives worth so little to us? Isn't it enough that John Foster Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt were allowed to deliver them into tyranny? Will our Congress not be content until we've bombed another million or two to kingdom come, in an effort to appease perhaps a couple of million paranoid Israelis?
Either a continuation of sanctions against the current Iranian regime or a military campaign to set back its nuclear capabilities a couple of years, at most, will only end up punishing those brave Iranians who came out in the last election to vote for the most progressive candidates their clerics would allow.
Given the extraordinarily limited choices the Iranian people were given in their last election - an experience we Americans can certainly identify with - and their decision to vote for as much change as was allowed, why in God's name would our Congress insist on further punishing them, in an effort to appease a couple of million war-mongering Zionists in Israel (and their lackeys here in America)?
Are the sensibilities of perhaps 40 or 50 million Iranian lives worth so little to us? Isn't it enough that John Foster Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt were allowed to deliver them into tyranny? Will our Congress not be content until we've bombed another million or two to kingdom come, in an effort to appease perhaps a couple of million paranoid Israelis?
552
That's all well and good but an agreement of this magnitude is a TREATY and the procedures for approving or rejecting treaties should be followed. Playing word games does not change the reality of this agreement. Having the Senate approve or reject treaties is a safeguard that we should not dismiss so easily. I would also propose that removing the sanctions -which will allow the mullahs to amass money and weapons - will not move Iran to "regime change", it will keep the existing government in power longer.
1
"Will our Congress not be content until we've bombed another million or two to kingdom come, in an effort to appease perhaps a couple of million paranoid Israelis?"
They are also trying to appease defense contractors. Our congress is beyond dysfunctional at present.
They are also trying to appease defense contractors. Our congress is beyond dysfunctional at present.
11
Dave, have sanctions worked in upending the Castro regime in Cuba? And what will happen if our bought-and-paid for Congress refuses to ratify this eventual agreement, while the other signatories to it find it perfectly acceptable? We will retain our sanctions (and look foolish), while the Iranian regime looks to Moscow, Beijing and even Brussels for relief?
Moreover, there should a be a law in this nation strictly forbidding lobbyists for other countries, even our alleged allies, from giving even one dollar to influence an election in the United States. At this point in our national development, this "coalition of the bribed" that we call Congress is far too comfortable putting either the interest of multinational corporations or that other countries far ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans. I dare say that our electoral process is in danger of becoming every bit as manipulated - by gerrymandering, by the influence of corporate and oligarch money, etc. - as the Iranian electoral process.
Maybe it's time for the American people to become less concerned with regime change around the world and more concerned with regime change at home?
Moreover, there should a be a law in this nation strictly forbidding lobbyists for other countries, even our alleged allies, from giving even one dollar to influence an election in the United States. At this point in our national development, this "coalition of the bribed" that we call Congress is far too comfortable putting either the interest of multinational corporations or that other countries far ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans. I dare say that our electoral process is in danger of becoming every bit as manipulated - by gerrymandering, by the influence of corporate and oligarch money, etc. - as the Iranian electoral process.
Maybe it's time for the American people to become less concerned with regime change around the world and more concerned with regime change at home?
7
Time to drag out the old Marx Brothers routine:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyeKYQdYISg
God help the United States of America.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyeKYQdYISg
God help the United States of America.
63
We've wanted to open a drum on Iran since 1979. Simple as that.
Hilarious. Very much like our Congress, except not so funny!!
So Netanyahu rules the roost
And gives our right wingers a boost,
Repubs were elected
POTUS disrespected,
And the Dogs of War are unloosed!
And gives our right wingers a boost,
Repubs were elected
POTUS disrespected,
And the Dogs of War are unloosed!
462
@Larry,
If the dogs of war are unloosed it is because Obama and Kerry made it possible for Iran to obtain atomic bombs.
If the dogs of war are unloosed it is because Obama and Kerry made it possible for Iran to obtain atomic bombs.
Repubs? Right Wingers?
Jeez -- You did read the editorial didn't you? Did you notice the words "With a unanimous vote", at the beginning of paragraph 2?
Jeez -- You did read the editorial didn't you? Did you notice the words "With a unanimous vote", at the beginning of paragraph 2?
4
I guess the world's greatest military power is just an unpaid mercenary force for Israel now. In the old days, mercenaries at least got paid by the country they fought for! Israel cannot even begin to afford a downpayment on what they have *demanded* from us. Will Israel pay our troops, replace our lost ships and planes, maybe even entire aircraft carriers? Will they ring American doorbells to tell American families that loved ones will not be coming home?
Our children can't get educated. Our Poor cannot get food or services. Both are "not entitled" - and "we have no money." Our broken infrastructure can't be rebuilt. But Israel is entitled to borrow the best military in the world for free. They don't need to build a nuclear carrier group or pay taxes on it, or sacrifice for it: they get it for the asking. What do their citizens have that ours do not to get so much for nothing?
Our needy and poor need some of that magic. The GOTP wants this for their Biblically inspired sense of loyalty to Israel. Don't they know that caring for the Poor, and Compassion, is in the Bible too?
God help this sadly mislead and pathetic country.
Our children can't get educated. Our Poor cannot get food or services. Both are "not entitled" - and "we have no money." Our broken infrastructure can't be rebuilt. But Israel is entitled to borrow the best military in the world for free. They don't need to build a nuclear carrier group or pay taxes on it, or sacrifice for it: they get it for the asking. What do their citizens have that ours do not to get so much for nothing?
Our needy and poor need some of that magic. The GOTP wants this for their Biblically inspired sense of loyalty to Israel. Don't they know that caring for the Poor, and Compassion, is in the Bible too?
God help this sadly mislead and pathetic country.
19
Congress wouldn't recognize its constitutional duties if they appeared on the side of a milk carton underneath the heading " Have you Seen ? ".
Hopefully, John Boehner's rabid ferrets (hat tip Gail Collins) will load the final measure up with so many objectionable amendments that the Senate Democrats required for a veto-proof super-majority will abandon ship, thereby negating Legislative Branch over-reach into affairs of the Executive Branch.
Otherwise, we must conclude that South Park was right, and that we're all just reality show entertainment for the rest of the galaxy - and we should be worried that viewer ratings are dropping due to the incredibly bad (utterly predictable) plot lines.
Hopefully, John Boehner's rabid ferrets (hat tip Gail Collins) will load the final measure up with so many objectionable amendments that the Senate Democrats required for a veto-proof super-majority will abandon ship, thereby negating Legislative Branch over-reach into affairs of the Executive Branch.
Otherwise, we must conclude that South Park was right, and that we're all just reality show entertainment for the rest of the galaxy - and we should be worried that viewer ratings are dropping due to the incredibly bad (utterly predictable) plot lines.
374
does anybody ever ask why the US gets to have nuclear weapons and gets to say who does and who doesn't? (the US has dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities…no one else has)
8
The Editorial Board mistakenly assumes there is consensus among the participants and that Congress's caution will somehow negatively impact the US.
In fact, France is taking a much more cautious approach than the US, which has created friction between it and the US. The president of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, Elisabeth Guigou, said this*:
"The Americans, for several reasons, seem eager to reach an agreement rather quickly. It is the same for President Rouhani whose objective is also political: the lifting of the sanctions. In this context, I foresee that in the next round France will continue to play its role of guardian given the serious nature of a likely agreement."
******
*"French lawmaker: France acts as 'guardian' in US-Iran nuclear deal",
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/guigou-france-iran-dea...
In fact, France is taking a much more cautious approach than the US, which has created friction between it and the US. The president of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Assembly, Elisabeth Guigou, said this*:
"The Americans, for several reasons, seem eager to reach an agreement rather quickly. It is the same for President Rouhani whose objective is also political: the lifting of the sanctions. In this context, I foresee that in the next round France will continue to play its role of guardian given the serious nature of a likely agreement."
******
*"French lawmaker: France acts as 'guardian' in US-Iran nuclear deal",
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/guigou-france-iran-dea...
43
What possible impact can the French exert in a role as 'guardian' when the Russians are ready to supply weapons to Iran? The Obama negotiation was a credibly viable move. At least it engaged the only true nation in the region in a serious exchange.
99
winchestereast:
The editors claim that Congress's involvement will somehow put the president at a disadvantage. If anything, it will move him closer to France's position.
The editors claim that Congress's involvement will somehow put the president at a disadvantage. If anything, it will move him closer to France's position.
13
Interesting that France is now our most militaristic ally while Germany has become the most pacific one. In any case, it's pretty ironic that six nuclear nations (seven counting Israel) are insisting that another nation not build the weapons that the rest of us already own.
90
The Senate Democrats show their true color, yellow.
They do not have the courage to support the president, they would rather kiss up to Israel.
It is a sad say for the Democratic party, to see such cowardly behavior by them.
We know the Republicans will block any deal Obama makes, just because he made it. The enmity knows no bounds, they have no shame, they would rather send young Americans to die in the sand, than find a diplomatic solution.
Their mission is to see that Obama does not get an credit for detente with Iran, and now for improving relations with Cuba. They do not care right and wrong, all they care about is making themselves look good to the voters.
Cowards all.
They do not have the courage to support the president, they would rather kiss up to Israel.
It is a sad say for the Democratic party, to see such cowardly behavior by them.
We know the Republicans will block any deal Obama makes, just because he made it. The enmity knows no bounds, they have no shame, they would rather send young Americans to die in the sand, than find a diplomatic solution.
Their mission is to see that Obama does not get an credit for detente with Iran, and now for improving relations with Cuba. They do not care right and wrong, all they care about is making themselves look good to the voters.
Cowards all.
794
Given this outcome, which isn't entirely unpredictable, it wasn't smart of Obama to jump into these negotiations without any support in Congress. He doesn't get to fly solo.
30
@AACNY
Given the animosity toward Iran, and the kissing up by congress toward Israel, these talk never would have started.
Again, it takes a courageous person to begin to correct a situation that was the responsibility of the Republican god, Ike, and his buddy Winston, for the benefit of BP.
And worse yet, help install a totalitarian ruler for good measure.
Now those same Republicans and some Democrats are letting Israel influence our foreign policy, paid for by supporters of AIPAC.
Given the animosity toward Iran, and the kissing up by congress toward Israel, these talk never would have started.
Again, it takes a courageous person to begin to correct a situation that was the responsibility of the Republican god, Ike, and his buddy Winston, for the benefit of BP.
And worse yet, help install a totalitarian ruler for good measure.
Now those same Republicans and some Democrats are letting Israel influence our foreign policy, paid for by supporters of AIPAC.
294
He's not "flying solo." He's been working with five other nations.
203
"Any final agreement would be a political agreement, which Obama administration officials say does not require congressional action, and it would not be a legally binding document."
So Obama doesn't have to follow this agreement, unless he wants to. Congress doesn't have to follow it either. Do the Iranians have to follow it? Why should they follow it if we don't have to follow it?
The whole thing is a mess. The entire elected sovereign legislature, including both Republicans and Democrats are against it. Now Obama has agree to sign the bill, indicating that even he doesn't think the agreement is meaningful unless it is ratified. That leaves the NY Times Editorial Board, whose approval, as far as I know, is not required.
So Obama doesn't have to follow this agreement, unless he wants to. Congress doesn't have to follow it either. Do the Iranians have to follow it? Why should they follow it if we don't have to follow it?
The whole thing is a mess. The entire elected sovereign legislature, including both Republicans and Democrats are against it. Now Obama has agree to sign the bill, indicating that even he doesn't think the agreement is meaningful unless it is ratified. That leaves the NY Times Editorial Board, whose approval, as far as I know, is not required.
70
Incisive. Only the Editorial Board of the NYT would think it is smarter than the entire Senate.
3
Any president holds the power to make and break international treaties and agreements. This power is given to him directly from the US constitution. A president can make a treaty/agreement, but of course it is not legally binding because the state has to maintain its own sovereignty.
No country has to follow an agreement, but logically they will because it's been negotiated and agreed to in the first place.
Congress on the other hand usually has no business in foreign affairs, nor in the making of international agreements - especially those concerning nuclear disputes. Can you imagine if the House and Senate proposed this during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It's unheard of. In fact, I would even say its unconstitutional.
Congress's responsibility is to legislate for the greater good of its constituents. Its job is not to bury its nose into the foreign policy of the President. If this act does come to pass, I don't doubt that the Supreme Court will take it under judicial review.
No country has to follow an agreement, but logically they will because it's been negotiated and agreed to in the first place.
Congress on the other hand usually has no business in foreign affairs, nor in the making of international agreements - especially those concerning nuclear disputes. Can you imagine if the House and Senate proposed this during the Cuban Missile Crisis? It's unheard of. In fact, I would even say its unconstitutional.
Congress's responsibility is to legislate for the greater good of its constituents. Its job is not to bury its nose into the foreign policy of the President. If this act does come to pass, I don't doubt that the Supreme Court will take it under judicial review.
8
The editorial points out that no other leader is required to get legislative approval. Well, in this country the legislature is sovereign - if it can get the votes. I think Obama wisely concluded that an agreement that requires a veto to effect is unlikely to stand for long. The editorial also neglects to note the significance of a genuine compromise in the senate. Call it a "comity of errors" if you will but at least call it comity!
2
The absence of a viable alternative to the current negotiated framework assures an accelerated time table and production of an Iranian nuclear weapon. On the positive, given Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal, perhaps mutually assured destruction will eventually assure regional security. Or, perhaps Israel is looking for a fight it can't win alone, perhaps Iran is looking for an excuse to say the developed world can't be relied upon. In any case, the absence of trust and support to our President feeds these negative forces.
There is no upside any way you look at it.