KING OBAMA IN HIS (lack of) wisdom, has created in a terrorist-controlled state a new nuclear power.
Daring the legislature to act against his agreement, he promises to protect his gift to the ayatollahs by vetoing any Congressional attempts to kill or even modify the "compact."
- The U.S. constitution clearly delineates who may do what re treaties with foreign powers. See Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress.
MEANWHILE, some GOP presidential hopefuls, and perhaps a Democratic candidate as well, promise to cancel the agreement.
I don't know what impact that would have on Iran's ayatollahs, but it WOULD have a severely negative impact on America's already tarnished image as a trustworthy ally.
The Iran "deal" is as good as the one Hillary's husband made with North Korea. Both the Obama deal and the Clinton deal promised two things:
- One: That the North Koreans/Ayatollahs would give up their efforts to develop nuclear weapons
Two: That their neighbors would be safe.
In return, the North Koreans/ayatollahs would receive valuable compensation.
Read about the Clinton surrender in a New York times article at http://tinyurl.com/odpqxx9
- The independent Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) describes North Korea's (lack of) compliance to the Clinton compact.
Both Clinton and Obama deserve the Neville Chamberlain award for Pollyannaism in the face of aggression Note 1. Chamberlain's failure to see reality followed Benjamin Disraeli who, in 1878, told the English following the Congress of Berlin: "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." That reduction in hostilities lasted until the opening of World War I in 1914 - 36 years later.
So much for the "peace in/for our time" history lesson.
The U.S. has been known to ignore - not blatantly abrogate but simply ignore - agreements with other nations in the past. It also has had a number of chief executives who promised more than they delivered or delivered less than they claimed. Both parties have had less than sterling leadership in the White House and in Congress.
All of which leads others to take U.S. promises or threats with the proverbial grain of salt. China's Mao Zedong said, "In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger."
It is one thing to be a "paper tiger" but consistent. It is another to have an inconsistent foreign policy, even if that policy is severely flawed.
What message will the U.S. send to its allies and its foes if, upon taking office, the new president abrogates the agreement with Iran for no apparent reason?
I suspect based on the ayatollahs' past performance, that even before the current incumbent has vacated 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue the agreement will be violated; the ayatollahs have repeatedly promised that inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities would be allowed, only to renege and renege again. (Yet, Obama is convinced once the ayatollahs get what they want - removal of only partially effective sanctions - there will be an Open Door policy for international inspection teams to enter and inspect any and all of the ayatollahs' nuclear operations.)
IF, as I predict, the ayatollahs renege on the agreement, then the next president will be well within his - or her - rights to implement the sanctions the Pollyanna President lifted.
Note 1: Both Disraeli and Chamberlain said their agreements with the Germans would bring "peace FOR our time."
- Chamberlain outside 10 Downing Street: My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.
Disraeli, on his return from the Congress of Berlin in 1878: "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time."