Posted on Jul 15, 2015
Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama - Should they Try?
11.1K
115
94
7
7
0
Iran Deal Leaves U.S. Republicans Short of Votes to Stop Obama
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-14/skeptical-congress-will-now-have-its-say-on-iran-deal
Should the Republicans and some Democrats try to stop this deal?
If Congress votes to disapprove the agreement, the ban on lifting sanctions would continue for another 12 days to allow time for the president to issue a veto. The period then would extend for another 10 days to let Congress consider an override.
Enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval would bar Obama from granting sanctions relief for Iran under the agreement. The resolution wouldn’t invalidate the agreement itself.
If Congress approved the deal during the review period, the president could begin waiving sanctions immediately. The president also could waive sanctions if the review period expired without action by Congress.
The law would allow Congress to reinstate sanctions waived by the president if Iran failed to make certifications required by the agreement.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-14/skeptical-congress-will-now-have-its-say-on-iran-deal
Should the Republicans and some Democrats try to stop this deal?
If Congress votes to disapprove the agreement, the ban on lifting sanctions would continue for another 12 days to allow time for the president to issue a veto. The period then would extend for another 10 days to let Congress consider an override.
Enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval would bar Obama from granting sanctions relief for Iran under the agreement. The resolution wouldn’t invalidate the agreement itself.
If Congress approved the deal during the review period, the president could begin waiving sanctions immediately. The president also could waive sanctions if the review period expired without action by Congress.
The law would allow Congress to reinstate sanctions waived by the president if Iran failed to make certifications required by the agreement.
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
IranUS CongressU.S. House of Representatives
Office of the President (POTUS)
Politics IranUS CongressU.S. House of Representatives Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 30
7
7
0
As it should be. It's on the opponents to make their case. If they can't make it convincingly, we need to move forward. There are no options that move us forward without risk or outright war, so it's up to them to come up with an alternative. They can't.
(7)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
CW3 (Join to see) - Fear is a terrible policy architect. The threat is real, but there are few options. War will not be a breeze, no matter what Senator Cotton thinks and the status quo has not worked. Forward movement requires risk and the answer to the Iran problem is to make being good worth more than being bad. That requires putting your neck out a little.
And yeah, it makes me uneasy too. I don't underestimate Iran in the slightest. Iran will look out for Iran.
And yeah, it makes me uneasy too. I don't underestimate Iran in the slightest. Iran will look out for Iran.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt Hunter Logan - When you're POTUS, you have to decide how much individual lives matter against the needs to the nation. As much as I'd like to see those American home, if it meant sinking a deal that could potentially avert a war, I'd have to let it go. Remember, for a deal to work, everyone has to go home thinking they won.
That said, increased diplomatic relations with Iran would theoretically give us the ability to leverage their release at a later date. Iran just needs to be given room to release them on their own terms. It has happened before and will likely happen again.
That said, increased diplomatic relations with Iran would theoretically give us the ability to leverage their release at a later date. Iran just needs to be given room to release them on their own terms. It has happened before and will likely happen again.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Everyone who is for the deal seems to think the only option is war. So we make a deal regardless if it is good. The deal does nothing to slow the advance of their ICBM technology. China and Russia are all ready ignoring the sanctions imposed and requested by the U.S. They only abide my the UN sanctions. And according to the U.S. Government, Iran is a major supporter of terrorist organizations. So by removing the sanctions and releasing the billions of dollars we in essence will be supporting terrorism.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Colonel; Those who oppose the deal (for whatever reason) should oppose the deal publicly and on the record - including an honest statement of their actual reasons for opposing the deal (even if that means admitting that they are voting against it because it was an agreement reached while a Democrat President was in the White House and they don't care if it is a good agreement or a bad agreement because they simply are going to do everything they can to make any Democrat look bad - regardless of the consequences to the United States of America of doing that).
They should also be up front with the American people in telling them that backing out of the deal will deal American prestige a heavy blow (that the US may not ever recover from).
They should also be up front with the American people and tell them that US law is likely to force the US government to place trade embargoes on over 90% of the countries in the world - including those countries from which materials vital to the US economy are imported - since those countries will not likely respect "American sanctions" and will continue/resume trading with Iran immediately Iran and the remaining countries have signed the deal and (under American law) countries which do not comply with US trade sanctions are, themselves, to be placed under trade sanctions.
They should also be up front with the American people in telling them that backing out of the deal will deal American prestige a heavy blow (that the US may not ever recover from).
They should also be up front with the American people and tell them that US law is likely to force the US government to place trade embargoes on over 90% of the countries in the world - including those countries from which materials vital to the US economy are imported - since those countries will not likely respect "American sanctions" and will continue/resume trading with Iran immediately Iran and the remaining countries have signed the deal and (under American law) countries which do not comply with US trade sanctions are, themselves, to be placed under trade sanctions.
(5)
(0)
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC James Sczymanski - Sergeant; I wasn't implying that YOU had used the term (even by implication) BUT there are large numbers of Americans who wouldn't vote anyone off the island if they did it (even by implication).
As an NCO you were taught that the First Rule In The Book is to "Always play by the rules."
As a good NCO, you learned that the REAL First Rule In The Book, is "Know what ALL the rules are (because there is always a rule that makes what you want to do mandatory [and there is also a rule that makes what you don't want to do prohibited]).".
Face it, the general purpose of "rules" is to prevent people who don't really know what they are doing (or don't realize what the potential unintended consequences of doing it are) from doing things which GENERALLY shouldn't be done.
As an NCO you were taught that the First Rule In The Book is to "Always play by the rules."
As a good NCO, you learned that the REAL First Rule In The Book, is "Know what ALL the rules are (because there is always a rule that makes what you want to do mandatory [and there is also a rule that makes what you don't want to do prohibited]).".
Face it, the general purpose of "rules" is to prevent people who don't really know what they are doing (or don't realize what the potential unintended consequences of doing it are) from doing things which GENERALLY shouldn't be done.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Jack S. - Sergeant; Surprisingly enough not ALL of Iran's neighbours are opposed to the deal (unless you consider that Iran's ONLY neighbour is Israel). The government of Israel is opposed to "The Deal" because it only delays Iran from being able to counter "nuclear blackmail" in the Middle East and doesn't turn Iran into an (effective) puppet of Israel.
Of course, Israel DOES have the ability to express its displeasure of "The Deal" by simply nuking any site in Iran that even looks like it might be a center for nuclear weapons research/development/construction/deployment. [And if you don't think that that option has received serious consideration by the Israeli government, I have some Swiss desert property that I can let you have for a song (provided that it isn't "The hills are alive with the sound of music" - which I hate).]
As usual in International Affairs, the "Big Boys" are the ones who make (and enforce as they see fit) "The Deals" (and they frequently do so without consulting the people who are going to be INDIRECTLY [and sometimes even those who are going to be DIRECTLY) affected.
Not only that, but no one has been "paid" for anything yet. The way that "The Deal" is structured, Iran only gets "paid" IF it complies with "The Deal".
PS - The "one month notice" period only applies to some types of sites (and those types of sites are the same ones that the US government would NEVER agree to "snap inspections" of.
PPS - You also appear to have forgotten that Iran does have a real reason to mistrust the American government. After all, it was the US government who orchestrated the ousting of the democratically elected government of Iran and the installation of an absolute monarchy (in the name of "Democracy" of course). Why? Because the democratically elected government of Iran had the gall to be considering making American petrochemical companies pay "fair market value" for the Iranian natural resources they were extracting.
Of course, Israel DOES have the ability to express its displeasure of "The Deal" by simply nuking any site in Iran that even looks like it might be a center for nuclear weapons research/development/construction/deployment. [And if you don't think that that option has received serious consideration by the Israeli government, I have some Swiss desert property that I can let you have for a song (provided that it isn't "The hills are alive with the sound of music" - which I hate).]
As usual in International Affairs, the "Big Boys" are the ones who make (and enforce as they see fit) "The Deals" (and they frequently do so without consulting the people who are going to be INDIRECTLY [and sometimes even those who are going to be DIRECTLY) affected.
Not only that, but no one has been "paid" for anything yet. The way that "The Deal" is structured, Iran only gets "paid" IF it complies with "The Deal".
PS - The "one month notice" period only applies to some types of sites (and those types of sites are the same ones that the US government would NEVER agree to "snap inspections" of.
PPS - You also appear to have forgotten that Iran does have a real reason to mistrust the American government. After all, it was the US government who orchestrated the ousting of the democratically elected government of Iran and the installation of an absolute monarchy (in the name of "Democracy" of course). Why? Because the democratically elected government of Iran had the gall to be considering making American petrochemical companies pay "fair market value" for the Iranian natural resources they were extracting.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Thank you for the honour, the courtesy is extended back.
One of the signs of a "good" deal is that BOTH sides feel that they have screwed the other more than the other side screwed them.
I'm prepared to credit the Iranians with having the smarts to get them t the point where they were (possibly) "selling" a non-existent nuclear weapons program for as much as they could get for it (Col Qaddafi did much the same thing).
I'm prepared to credit the US with having the smarts to not really be concerned over whether there actually was a nuclear weapons program as long as the possibility of one could be dramatically reduced.
This is what is known as a "Win - Win" scenario.
From the "Eastern perspective" the BIG "win" for the Iranians would be if "The Deal" recognizes that Iran actually did have the legal right to do whatever it was it was doing - but which the US government described as "nuclear weapons development". This would "build face" for the Iranians and the US would "lose face".
One of the signs of a "good" deal is that BOTH sides feel that they have screwed the other more than the other side screwed them.
I'm prepared to credit the Iranians with having the smarts to get them t the point where they were (possibly) "selling" a non-existent nuclear weapons program for as much as they could get for it (Col Qaddafi did much the same thing).
I'm prepared to credit the US with having the smarts to not really be concerned over whether there actually was a nuclear weapons program as long as the possibility of one could be dramatically reduced.
This is what is known as a "Win - Win" scenario.
From the "Eastern perspective" the BIG "win" for the Iranians would be if "The Deal" recognizes that Iran actually did have the legal right to do whatever it was it was doing - but which the US government described as "nuclear weapons development". This would "build face" for the Iranians and the US would "lose face".
(1)
(0)
Sir,
Obama said "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. This is not the time for politics and posturing.”
WHAT? Excuse me, this statement is BOTH posturing AND politics!
Good grief!
To answer the questions directly, I do think it's that important of an issue to at least try - to me, it's the right thing to do and we should not lose sight of that.
Obama said "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. This is not the time for politics and posturing.”
WHAT? Excuse me, this statement is BOTH posturing AND politics!
Good grief!
To answer the questions directly, I do think it's that important of an issue to at least try - to me, it's the right thing to do and we should not lose sight of that.
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CMSgt Mark Schubert That is what are system is suppose to do - test every piece of legislation that comes across Congress' desk, not just roll over. I'm not saying there aren't some positives in this deal, but there are some definite loop wholes that I believe were given up to keep the Iranians at the table. I just read that Iranians supported the killing of over 500 American during the last 14 years of war, so how can we trust anything they sign or agree too. By the way, I don't know how accurate that information is about the 500, so don't shoot the messenger!
(1)
(0)
MCPO Douglas Pennington
this entire Iranian deal sounds so much like the agreement Chamberlen and Hilter signed i think in 1935 where there would be no war between their countries yet look what happened 5 years later. Iran was given just about everything they wanted and their people still riot and burn our flag. I don't see this ending war of any kind in the Middle East if nothing it will invoke war especially between Israel and Iran, where there is no love lost.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google