With progress having been made on the Iran negotiations, Republican Senators opposed to a deal have been threatening the administration left and right over it. Today, they took a different tack, issuing an open letter to Iran, warning them against the deal on the grounds that they’re just going to sabotage it in the future.
The letter was pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR) and signed by 47 senators. Surprisingly, this included Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY), who had previously expressed opposition to Congressional attempts to sabotage the negotiations.
Just a month ago, Sen. Paul had admonished the Senate against standing in the way of negotiations in good faith. Now, with Iran a key issue in the upcoming presidential primaries, he seems to be wavering on the matter, and towing the party line.
The letter provoked a sharp criticism from the White House over the Senate’s attempt to interfere in diplomatic efforts, and a dismissal from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who said Iran didn’t take the threat seriously.
Whether Zarif’s comments reflect the view of the entire Iranian government remains to be seen, however, and opposition from US hawks, and a threat to sabotage the deal, should only add to the calls from Iran’s own right-wing to ditch the negotiations on the grounds that the US can’t be trusted to keep its bargains.
The argument has been pushed for a long time by Iran’s Conservative parliamentarians, who have been averse to the deal. With US Republicans now confirming as much, and explicitly writing a letter saying they can’t be trusted to keep any deals reached by Obama, the talks will surely suffer at least somewhat.
I dont think there's anything untrue in that letter. While most of the signatories may intend to break any deal made with Obama, I think Rand is merely pointing out the obvious. That is, a deal between executives is much shakier than a deal between Congress. This is another move where Paul can score a point on the AIPAC side of the debate without losing points on the antiwar side of the debate.
LOL. Stop making excuses; he clearly sold his soul to the devil by signing the letter.
Thanks. That's very similar to what I was going to say. The Supremacy Clause includes TREATIES within "the supreme law of the land" — BUT article ii, sec. 2, clause 2 requires that a treaty receive the concurrence to two-thirds of the Senate. Now, I certainly want to see a US-Iran agreement, and I want to see sanctions eased (or better yet eliminated), but constitutionally I'm in no way prepared to surrender uncontrolled treaty-making authority to the executive. Not that I think a treaty's necessarily required in this particular case; but if it's the supremacy of a treaty that's sought, then it very rightly should have the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate.
The US isn't required by a treaty to economically attack Iran, so yes, I agree that the only thing needed to stop the attacks is to just stop.
Does every bilateral agreement between nation states qualify as a treaty needing Senate approval? I have no idea. But since Uncle Sam has the biggest stick, he just does what he wants anyway, since constitutions, treaties, and laws are just pieces of paper to be ignored whenever they become inconvenient.
I'm guessing that he agreement between the P5 plus 1 and Iran will not rise to the treaty level requiring the Senate's ratification. The US doesn't abide by its treaties, anyway. For instance, numerous provisions of the IV Geneva Convention (which is a Senate-ratified agreement) regarding occupied territories were conspicuously violated by the US occupation of Iraq – with predictably disastrous consequences for the occupied country. The US supports Israel in its even worse violations of the same iv Geneva. Maybe the GCs don't apply to Arabs.
What a scumbag he is. Hopefully his dad gives him a good lecture.
For amartin too. In 2008 then President Bush signed SOFA-Iraq2008, a deal which he never asked the Senate to ratify. I do not remember that there was any hullabaloo about his signing then. The United Nations which had forced the Bush government to negotiate that deal signed on. Its duration was to be four years. In 2012 the current President was forced to withdraw all members of the US Armed Forces and their civilian support from Iraq by force of a non-ratified document signed only by our President Bush because his negotiations with the Maliki government failed. Had President Obama succeeded he would not have been legally obliged to ask for Senate ratification. Very few Senators protested. Did you write when President Obama was negotiating with Maliki: " I'm in no way prepared to surrender uncontrolled treaty-making authority to the executive"? After all SOFA-Iraq2008 was about war or peace, not exactly trivial matters.
I'm not sure if you were responding to me here as well.
I don't object to Presidential treaty-negotiating. It's ratification that's binding, and that's what requires two-thirds concurrence — though, going strictly on constitutional language, the President should also seek Senate "advice" during negotiations. I suppose the "advice" portion of the clause may be a bit dated; it was simpler to get advice from a mere 26 senators in 1789 than a hundred today.
But as far as anything that's binding — of a war-and-peace nature — of course it would require Senatorial ratification; and furthermore, actual war requires congressional declaration.
Yes, actual war requires a congressional declaration. Preventing war does not require any congressional declarations. It does not matter what a deal with Iran is called. Our current President's advisers have told him and the nation: no deal could mean war with Iran. Do you really believe that our Presidents need Congressional or only Senate approval to prevent a war? President Kennedy clearly did not and he committed himself to a few things that were binding without asking or even informing the Senate. No one called for his impeachment. Historians have praised him, his brother, and Khrushchev for their negotiated cutting through bullshit thereby preventing a possible nuclear war.
What's this about "JewPac"? It's AIPAC you're referring two, and the reference to Jews is (if not outright antisemitic) then at least unnecessarily distracting, considering that the issue is zionism and not Judaism.
Judaism is an Abrahamic religion. Zionism is a political ideology of blood, soil, and lebensraum. Zionism is no more Jewish than the Renaissance papacy was Christian.
Yeah, Rand was just pointing out the obvious. Did he actually read the letter before he signed it? If so, I think it's pretty obvious of its intent. You people just won't give up. He SUCKS.
Any true peace advocate who would vote for Rand Paul at this point is in serious denial. The claim that he was just being truthful, pointing out the obvious is ridiculous. If he were genuinely for peace rather than the warmongering fool he is, he would have broken publicly with the 47 and sent the Iranians his own letter expressing that if elected President he would abide by whatever the Obama Administration negotiates. As it is, he's putting everyone who doesn't have their head up their behind on alert that he, for one, will not abide by the agreement.
I also wonder what the rest of the P5 1 think of this? Let's suppose the next President breaks the agreement, or Congress overrides an Obama veto and imposes new sanctions. Do these fools think the other P5 1 members will follow the US lead? They're already balking over Ukraine, subtly warning Washington that they may walk away from NATO (faster, please) if it doesn't desist from its warmongering. Mike Whitney has an astute article on Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/10/nato-lies-…
Over 5 thousand American souls sacrificed for the war in Iraq and along comes Iran who now run their politics and military. Deal or no deal,clearly Iran is the winner.
If there is no deal, both the US and Iran are losers.
The first comment is correct. We will see how Paul runs his campaign. Is he being blackmailed or is hebeing a shrewd and calculating politician? We shall see?
Blackmailed? What do you mean by that, Johnny? This is a sellout and shows that Rand will stoop to any low to try to get the nomination. I've backed him in the past, as I know he cannot be like his father if he wants to make a serious run at the presidency, but this shows he has no scruples. I'm officially done with Rand and all republicans.
Kind of like when he got upset over being accused of not clapping enthusiastically enough for bibi? Was he being blackmailed or being a shrewd politician? Man, do you need a house to fall on your head to realize this guy is a POS.
Who cares if the end result is another major war. Rand Paul has less of a chance in being President than I do of scoring with a Playboy Playmate as a middle aged out of shape guy. He is just another quasi kook that will drive the GOP faithful into the arms of Bush. Also his old man is a useful idiot at best. All those libertarian anti war folks backed a candidate that had a snowball's chance of winning in 2008 and 2012. He had it right, but he came off a doddering old grandpa with a whiny voice. That image isn't going to get any person elected in the US of A. People are more style over substance. Why do you think that the GOP totally shut out Gary Johnson? He was the younger version of Paul for the most part. More charismatic and a lot younger. In other words dangerous.
It's like no one remembers, Ron Paul ran for office to educate people and accidentally got elected…Rand is an actual politician vying for the votes of people who elected, well, what we've had. The people who are surprised at such actions clearly weren't paying attention. He will continue to do what he feels necessary to keep up just enough Repub war cred for the primary, then go non-interventionist in the general.
For the love, the sanctions are WAYYY worse than some stupid letter in terms of human consequences, yet this is the line in the sand? Are you all seriously going to contend that there's no difference between Rand and say, Jeb, or Hillary? You don't think there's lives at stake in that difference?
So here's the enlightened antiwar consensus.: keep crying that Ron's gone (remember, he left his own delegates out to hang at the convention to make the deal for Rand), keep clicking on every Rand article, and bash him to pave the way for Bush/Hillary 2016.
"Are you all seriously going to contend that there's no difference between Rand and say, Jeb, or Hillary?"
Of course not. There's a BIG difference.
They're less dishonest.
Not sure I would call some irrelevant letter a "move to kill deal." It's disappointing all the same.
Then what would you call it Rick?
An irrelevant letter by a bunch of traitors who represent the interests of netenyahoo and not of their country.
“Obama says he’s ‘confident’ American people will support Iran deal US Politics”
by Philip Weiss
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/confident-american-…
47 Republican Senators Violated the Logan Act
:: PETITION TO FILE CHARGES AGAINST THE 47 ::
(Spread Widely)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/file-ch…
Interesting petition.
If it limited itself to calling for prosecution on Logan Act violations instead of twice throwing in the legally completely inapplicable term "treason," I'd probably sign it.
Rand Paul is self-centered piece of crap. Anyone who thinks he's a chip off the old block needs a frontal lobotomy. Libertarianism is ludicrous enough without a poster boy like Paul. Give him a few weeks and he'll be telling you to vote for Lindsey Graham.
CLARITY in who is the enemy.
Excellent.
Ah, what a surprise (not). Anyone who trusts Rand and believes he's being 'tactical' is out of his/her tiny mind. Unlike his pa, he has no principles at all. He's just yet another treacherous, ambitious politician making suckers out of YOU.
The following is my reasoning why President Obama does not need Senate ratification for this particular agreement with Iran. He is not negotiating a peace treaty with Iran for which he would eventually need Senate approval. His current negotiations have more the character of obtaining a kind of cease-fire with Iran, analogous to the documents signed at Versailles in 1918. Then President Wilson in his role as Commander in Chief authorized his representatives to sign those documents. I realize that the analogy is not perfect. Nevertheless I think that the analogy is sufficiently strong to argue that our Commander in Chief Obama has authorized Mr. Kerry to negotiate a "cease-fire" with Iran which does not require Senate approval. The fact that this cease-fire is not unconditional is irrelevant. Appomattox for example was not unconditional.
If Obama does not cave to this congressional bribery, and signs a deal with Iran on nuke development, the "So-Called" Republicans do not have the guts to cancel that treaty. Let them try, and they will bring the anger of the American people down on their heads; IE; if we can take a break from "dancing with the stars".
47 signed it. That means that 53 didn't. I wonder how many who signed are democrats, surely there are some. And I applaud all republicans with the backbone to go against the crazies who run that despicable party. Someone or something got to Rand, as he did not sign the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act last year, and was one of only two republicans who didn't. If he's doing this out of presidential politics, I hope it backfires. In any case, I'm done with him regardless of what excuses he comes up with.
I should have read the letter before popping off. I found it to be more embarrassing to those who signed than threatening. It tried to lecture the Iranians on our system of government like they are first-graders. Don't the Iranians know that Obama is done as potus after Jan 2017? And that senators serve 6 year terms, and can, (and often do), hang on until death? When I read who did not sign, I was surprised to see Corker's name. Odd that such an uber hawk did not lend his signature while Paul did. And I saw no democrat signatures – didn't they ask Menendez?
Rand's been a disappointment since he bailed out of supporting his dad for President and jumped on the Romney bandwagon.
Rand Paul has serious trouble making up his mind. (I haven't seen this much flip flopping since…Obomba.)
47 Republican senators signed the letter. Here are the 7 Republicans who didn't:
Lamar Alexander
Dan Coats, Senate Intelligence Committee
Thad Cochran
Susan Collins
Bob Corker, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Jeff Flake
Lisa Murkowski
I wonder if the fact that both Coats and Corker are committee chairs had anything to do with their decision not to sign? They're both big time hawks, especially Corker, (if I'm not mistaken).
Corporatocracy: How the Corporate Welfare State Divides and Conquers
A small, readily-identifiable ruling oligarchy that no serious political observer denies the existence of is able to keep the public from attacking it by dividing them along ideological grounds so that the public spends all their time arguing over definitions and splitting doctrinal hairs instead of attacking the commonly acknowledged enemy. You couldn't ask for a more perfect system of control.
http://youtu.be/Ez8I8VGLNUw
Yea Oligarchy! Sarc/off
Typical American politician,no principle.
Keep a promise — Only if it yields the pleasure of Empire expansion
Surely, as Rand Paul and our big-business one party government have the same problem, for to keep a promise if it hurts is against their interoperation of the US Constitution. For Empire USA was created by our slave owning Founding Father to rule supreme over the land and any promise that put us in submission to any man or government, surely it was fraud to begin with and needs to be broken.
I absolutely do not understand and I am perhaps even mystified why President Obama would need Senate approval now or even after he signs a nuclear deal with Iran when and if there is one. To me his negotiations with Iran are very similar to the negotiations of President Kennedy with USSR Secretary Khrushchev after the Cuban missile crisis. Did Kennedy give Khrushchev anything in that deal? Yes he did by removing certain nuclear-tipped missiles from the borders of the USSR and promising not to attack or support attacks by others on Cuba again. Did Kennedy ask the Senate to approve that missile removal? No, he did not even tell the Senate or the nation then what he had so sneakily done. Objective Kennedy: Get Fidel off our back. No war with the USSR or Cuba, or both. Objective Obama: get Netanyahu off our back. No war with Iran. Is that too difficult to understand? Starting a war once needed Senate approval. Preventing a war is completely in the hands of our Commander-in-Chief hence our President. The Senate has nothing to do with that. It is not anywhere in our constitution.
In both cases our Presidents were/are negotiating as Commanders-in-Chief. I hold that they can do that legally without asking approval form the Senate at any time. Bringing in our constitution is the reddest of red herrings.
It is extremely hyperbolic to refer to a condescending letter making a series of (mostly obvious) factual statements a "move to kill" an Iran deal.
Disappointed with Rand Paul but, not really surprised. Thought he might be a different kind of politician but, it looks more and more like he's not.
SENATOR TOM COTTON, Iran Letter author, RECEIVED $1 MILLION from ‘Emergency Committee for ISRAEL’
.
“Senator who spearheaded letter to Iran got $1 million from Kristol’s ‘Emergency Committee for Israel’”
by Philip Weiss
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/israel-fingerprints…