But he was still able to embed a poison pill in the Congressional oversight authorization bill: instead of the two-thirds assent for treaties called for in the Constitution, a two-thirds rejection of the agreement would be required. But even that, apparently, was too much. Before the agreement was finally concluded last week, the administration had begun circulating an enabling resolution at the UN Security Council for a vote on Monday. Obviously this was an attempt to present Congress with a fait accompli.
Interestingly, acceptance of the agreement is dependent on the approval of the Majlis, Iran’s rubberstamp parliament. Congress did not even merit a mention in this wretched document.
Congress has repeatedly been stiffed during the entire negotiations process. Obama initially fought it tooth-and-nail over imposition of severe sanctions. Once those sanctions had forced Iran to the table, he took credit for their success. When Congress tried to strengthen his negotiating stance with further sanctions, and later with provisional sanctions to take hold only if negotiations failed, he threatened vetoes, claiming it would break up the talks. He repeatedly personalized the process, demanding unwavering support from Democrat legislators. The price paid by Senator Bob Menendez, his biggest critic among them, clearly got their attention.
So instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons program, as Obama repeatedly promised to do, he and Kerry, in their narcissistic pursuit for any deal at any price, have now enabled it. It’s now up to Congress, as representatives of the American people, to reject this declaration of abject American surrender. There’s little they owe Obama. He has shown them only slights and disdain.
Democrats ought to consider, too, the perils now placed before their party, which totally owns this agreement. When it blows up, as it surely will, they will pay a particularly painful political price. They thus have much to gain but little to lose by standing up forcefully against this catastrophically dangerous agreement.
Richard D. Wilkins
Syracuse, NY
What Capitulation Looks Like
There is a difference between engaging and capitulating. President Obama’s deal with Iran opts for the latter.
In 2008 Obama warned Tehran: “We will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions…. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.”
In 2012, Obama called on Iran “to give up its nuclear program…to re-enter the community of nations.” These were principled, responsible demands.
But in 2013 Obama abandoned those demands – and the leverage of six UN resolutions supporting them – by conceding Iran’s right to a uranium-enrichment program in the interim agreement he secretly negotiated with Tehran.
Now, just a few months after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared “death to America” to a large crowd in Tehran, and mere days after millions of Iranians chanted “Death to America! Death to Israel!” in rallies across the country, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have negotiated a deal that will grant Iran more than $100 billion in up-front sanctions relief.
This will fund Iran’s terrorist proxies including Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, bolster the Assad regime in Syria (a regime that has slaughtered more than 200,000 people), and further entrench the mullahs in power in Tehran. It will also end UN restrictions on Iran’s conventional-weapons and ballistic-missile programs.
In return, Iran conceded only temporary limits on its nuclear program. The deal won’t destroy a single centrifuge or close any of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran will retain its impenetrable Fordow underground facility and continue enriching uranium and developing advanced centrifuges and ballistic missiles.