They are at the table to divide the world community, and it’s working. Russia and China are done with the sanctions regime no matter what it would seem.
Any violations with Iran will also divide the world community, just like Iraqi violations did. So the President’s “snapback” promise is just words unless he means that we will act alone if necessary to punish Iran economically. If by “snapback” he means" consult our allies first", then sanctions are over regardless of Iran’s performance.
I’m also still interested in the opinions of supporters of these talks on whether we should accept Iran’s interpretation of the agreement. None of you are quite willing to answer that question, apparently unwilling to bet that the administration will actually commit to either a good agreement or walking away.
Iran’s President now also echoes the “sanctions lifted immediately” demand. Which is something that the President cannot deliver, especially since he’s agreed to sign the Iran bill Congress is working on and which passed unanimously out of Senate committee:
So it looks like we do have to walk away if Iran insists on this. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
So it goes. We tried negotiating in good faith, but it might simply be that the differences are too broad for any agreement to be reached.
I’m proud of Obama for trying this first, for making the effort to let diplomacy fulfill its purpose.
If the talks fail, then I’m in favor of maintaining strict sanctions. But if China undercuts us on that, then I don’t have any suggestions for a new strategy.
It’s hard to govern when undercut by one’s allies.
China’s not an ally, and we’ve never felt the need to have our allies universally impose sanctions. The US is an important enough economy that simple things like denying grain sales to the Soviet Union hurts. Sure, it would be nice if China would sanction Iran too, but Iran would like the West’s sanctions lifted as well. Iran is not a fan of becoming a vassal state to infidels, which is what would happen if they became dependent on China economically.
But in order to do business with the West, they need to abandon their quest for nukes. Right now I think they feel they can have both.
Well shit, why even have a State Dept. at all? Think of the money saved, assigning Congressmen and Senators to oversee our agreements with foreign nations! Now, who do we have speaks Farsi and has a deep understanding of Persian culture and history?
Oh, what about Louie Gomert? Think maybe he can handle Chad or Ivory Coast? Maybe too risky. I know, we can assign him the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. He most likely won’t catch on…
Congress approves treaties, Congress approves sanctions. There is no such thing as an unlimited government power in our system. The President’s ability to conduct foreign policy is constrained by many of Congress’ powers, from the war power, to the treaty power, to the funding power.
That Iran bill – the new version unanimously passed in committee – in Congress is probably, in my opinion, welcomed by the White House (if tepidly in public) – it essentially gives him full control over the Congressional sanctions (all the sanctions, in other words), and not just the “executive” level sanctions, only overrideable by greater than 2/3rds majorities in Congress and the Senate.
As to the bloviating coming out of Iran, until a deal is signed (or ultimately rejected), it’s meaningless. Just boat-rocking, probably for domestic political purposes. We’ll see what the real deal is, if it’s signed, when it’s written and signed by all parties. I trust that Obama won’t sign a bad deal.
Don’t spin now. The President didn’t want Congress to have a role at all. CNN reports on why the President had to give in:
“Cave” might be too strong a word, but I’ll just take Earnest’s word for it: the bill became something the President was “comfortable” with, while containing a lot he didn’t like. That’s not “welcoming”.
Have you also noticed how well Democrats and Republicans are working together lately? They fixed the “doc fix”, they did the Iran bill, they passed three IRS reform bills.
Plus you’ve made an error: Congress does not have to disapprove by a 2/3rds vote to keep sanctions in place. Congress needs a simple majority vote, and it’s a resolution, so not subject to Presidential veto:
Actually, I’m in error too, “joint resolutions” are subject to Presidential veto. What you were actually wrong about is that the bill gives the President control over Congressional sanctions. It does not. The 2010 bill is still law and those sanctions can only be lifted permanently if Iran abandons its support for terrorism.
I’m speaking on my own, not spinning. I believe that this makes the President’s job (and goal) easier than it was before. I believe this was a big win for the possibility of negotiations with Iran.
You could be right – this is just my opinion based on the requirements in the proposed bill.
No I didn’t: “A joint resolution disapproving of the deal would need to muster a two-thirds majority, though, to override the veto Obama has promised – an unlikely, but not entirely unthinkable, scenario.”
You might be thinking of within the 60 days – within those 60 day review period, Obama can’t override a simple majority – but after the 60 days are up, Obama could veto any Congressional “disapproval”, and only a 2/3rds majority could override it.
You’re still wrong – after the 60 days, Obama can sign a deal (and veto Congressional “disapproval”) that lifts Congressional sanctions, and only 2/3rds majority can override the veto.
In essence, this bill gives Obama more power over sanctions than he had before (after that 60 day review period): before this, he would need Congress to lift its own sanctions… now he can sign a deal with Iran to lift them, and veto any Congressional disapproval, and only 2/3rds majority can override it.
That’s why I see this as a big win for the White House’s goals in negotiations.
Wrong. He could waive the sanctions before, immediately. Now he cannot, has to wait for Congressional approval or disapproval, veto it if disapproved, and the waiving of sanctions (unless approved by the Congress) is still not permanent.
Cite that he could, on his own, waive all the sanctions, including those imposed by previous Congresses? He can’t lift the sanctions and embargo on Cuba on his own – why can he (before this bill is passed) for Iran?
Thanks for the cite. From my understanding, the new law eliminates the requirement for the President to certify that Iran no longer supports terrorism (Sec 401 (a) 1) in order to waive the sanctions (or certain sanctions).
I’ll amend my earlier statement – the bill doesn’t exactly give the President more power over the sanctions… rather, from my understanding, he trades the ability to waive certain sanctions on his own to allowing Congressional oversight (in the form of a disapproval that is not veto-proof) on a potential deal for the elimination of that no-terrorism-support certification.
I’m still not sure that it counts as any net loss in Presidential authority over the sanctions, except perhaps in timing: even without this bill, the President might waive certain sanctions but Congress could respond by voting them back into place (and then attempting to override the veto), resulting in Congress having the same chance to re-institute sanctions that the President waives as they would after the bill to block any Presidential waiver of sanctions.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to serve as a barrier to the White House’s negotiations, and the possibility to achieve a deal with Iran to stop going after nuclear weapons. Further, I’m perfectly okay, philosophically, with Congress (even this Congress!) having the ability to “cancel” any potential deal as long as they can override a veto.
So I think I’ll take back my “big win for the White House” statement – it’s more like “acceptable for the White House and not a barrier to negotiations”.
I do think this makes Iranian compliance mandatory now, where before it was something they might have been able to fudge. Congress won’t override the President’s veto because he made a deal, because Democrats will want to wait and see if the deal is working before undermining their party leader. But if Iran seems to be cheating or dragging their feet, Congress is probably going to reimpose sanctions that the President can’t remove and they’ll do it overwhelmingly. Whereas if it was in the President’s discretion he might forgive a little Iranian cheating to keep the process alive.
Here is one possible answer. From the Center for Strategic & International Studies:
Iran, unlike the US or Israel, has seen two of its largest neighbors invaded and their regimes deposed in the past 15 years. Mainstream politicians in the US routinely talk or even sing about how we ought to do the same to Iran. I’m not saying the Iranian regime are nice people, but I can appreciate why they would view Western intentions through something of a paranoid lens.
I don’t know whether Iran will cheat under whatever deal, if any, is ultimately struck. However, I see no reason to assume that they will. It is entirely consistent with the facts to suppose that Iran in fact has no real interest in building a nuclear bomb (if they ever did) and is simply looking for a dignified and face-saving way out of the current state of affairs, where they are subject to sanctions and global pariah status.
That does not follow. As I said, they’re not my idea of nice people, which is why they hang gays and support terrorism. But they can do all those things and still not want a nuclear weapon.
The two are related though. Supporting terrorism is an act of war that can get you attacked in return. Having nukes is insurance against retaliation. Our intelligence services say that Hezbollah is heavily infiltrated into the US:
Probably waiting for a nuclear shield to be able to act with impunity.