Will Obama’s nuke deal need a two thirds approval vote by the Senate? Maybe not

[WelfareQueen]

Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.
Quite reasonable. I do not think any logical person could argue otherwise. If this is the deal Obama supports I will support him fully and say so on this board. If he gives away the store as I suspect....major problems.

Expecting to get everything you want in a negotiation isn't reasonable at all. Conceding on a point or two isn't "giving away the store". You have pre-determined that you will oppose the deal, despite your conciliatory pose.

With sanctions we can drive Iran into the ground. Why concede anything that is reasonable? Why?

This should be the deal. What specifically do you oppose?


Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.

 

[konradv]

With sanctions we can drive Iran into the ground. Why concede anything that is reasonable? Why? This should be the deal. What specifically do you oppose?
Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.

Sanctions have been in place. Why would they drive Iran to the ground now, when they haven't already? Snap inspections are unnecessary and just a rhetorical ploy from those who oppose any form of deal. With regular inspections they'd have to stop and start their progress, if they were trying to hide anything which in effect would do what inspections are supposed to do, slow them down. Sanctions aren't going to be lifted all at once, so you should be happy with that part of the deal. You've got to give up something or why would Iran negotiate at all? If that happened, they'd just what they need from bad actors like NK one of the former SU republics that need cash.

 

[WelfareQueen]

With sanctions we can drive Iran into the ground. Why concede anything that is reasonable? Why? This should be the deal. What specifically do you oppose?
Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.

Sanctions have been in place. Why would they drive Iran to the ground now, when they haven't already? Snap inspections are unnecessary and just a rhetorical ploy from those who oppose any form of deal. With regular inspections they'd have to stop and start their progress, if they were trying to hide anything which in effect would do what inspections are supposed to do, slow them down. Sanctions aren't going to be lifted all at once, so you should be happy with that part of the deal. You've got to give up something or why would Iran negotiate at all? If that happened, they'd just what they need from bad actors like NK one of the former SU republics that need cash.

Wimp.

 

[konradv]

With sanctions we can drive Iran into the ground. Why concede anything that is reasonable? Why? This should be the deal. What specifically do you oppose?Snap inspections anywhere anytime without Iranian pre-approval. Immediate halt of all nuclear enrichment. Gradual lifting of sanctions with proof of good behavior.

Sanctions have been in place. Why would they drive Iran to the ground now, when they haven't already? Snap inspections are unnecessary and just a rhetorical ploy from those who oppose any form of deal. With regular inspections they'd have to stop and start their progress, if they were trying to hide anything which in effect would do what inspections are supposed to do, slow them down. Sanctions aren't going to be lifted all at once, so you should be happy with that part of the deal. You've got to give up something or why would Iran negotiate at all? If that happened, they'd just what they need from bad actors like NK one of the former SU republics that need cash.

Wimp.

So, no decent argument.? Gotcha!

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[CitizenSeven]

Well, sure, BO can make any sort of deal he wants, it's just not legally binding unless approved by 2/3 of the senate. The next POTUS could undo it, or BO's position could "evolve" on a whim. The Iranians know this, so they are only going to abide by it if they get their perks up front. Personally, I think they're nuts for agreeing to forgo nuke development; possession of nukes is the only proven way to avoid invasion/casual bombing by the USFG in pursuit of diplomacy by other means, and hence is a trump card in maintaining sovereignty. But, then again, they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, struggling for decades to develop 70 year old tech.

From the USFG perspective, a deal lifting sanctions is not a smart move, either. Their foreign assets were frozen, their economy was on the ropes. Internal regime change, while maybe not imminent was inevitable. Now, they'll have the funds to do all manner of things, such as support adventurism in the ME or, if so inclined, buy nukes off the shelf from China, Russia, or Pakistan.

So, the Iranians bought time with a treaty-that's-not-a-treaty in exchange for mothballing a project they couldn't afford under sanctions.

 

[TooTall]

Wrong,
It is a Treaty under the meaning of the term in the Constitution, thus subject to ratification.

Says you. Historical precedent and the SCOTUS disagree.

In any case, Bob Corker hammered out a deal that also requires Congressional approval. If Obama fucks over the GOP in Congress he wont get anything done the rest of his term. Congress will declare the treaty null and void and act accordingly.

The Corker deal allows Congress to vote on it - but they'll need 67% to overturn Obama's almost certain veto, should they not approve it.

BUt it doesnt matter. The irananians have no intention of adhering to anything that restricts their activities. That much is clear. They will blow up this treaty as they've blown up previous ones. And they know Obama is in office only for another 18 months and after that is anyone's guess.

What else does your crystal ball tell you, oh great swami?

aka You don't even know the deal and your getting tingling sensations up your leg................enjoy it..................He's a fool and it will never work.............and if you think it will work............then you are a fool as well................They will never honor it..............whatever the hell it is...................

I haven't expressed any support or opposition to the deal - because I don't know what it is yet.

You, on the other hand...

So be it............

Do you really think Iran will Honor it, whatever the hell it is..........................hmm.

I don't pretend to be able to predict the future, I leave that to fake psychics such as yourself.

If Iran violates the deal, it gives us a legal framework to go after them for it, along with the other P5+1.

There is very little doubt that Iran will violate the deal. You don't need to predict the future to know that they have never kept a deal in the past. I am sure Obama will get the P5+1 to join him in bombing their nuclear facilities. China and Russia will probably abstain so it will be the P4 that do it. Don't argue because Obama made it crystal clear that the ONLY alternative to the deal was military force.