We haven't seen the "deal" yet so I will wait. However, we are so far apart in what each side wants, the only way a deal gets made is if one side makes major concessions. It won't be Iran. Sticking points are -centrifuges. Iran has 19,000 and they want to expand by a factor of at least 10. The P5+1 want a reduction to mere thousands. The centrifuges allow them to keep enriching uranium. -Arak nuclear facility. It's a source of plutonium and it has to go. I doubt Iran will agree to that. -We want 10 years, they want 5. Either way, when we get to 10 years, Iran will be able to install an unlimited number of centrifuges and produce plutonium without violating any international accord. -ballistic missiles. Iran has refused to bring this issue to the table. If we negotiate without it, we are really stupid. I don't think they give a shit about that and they could also be subject to theft and use by other groups in the area who do want to blow shit up. Even if we send inspectors over there, that does nothing. They will have no authority to stop anything, only to report it. Iran can then just kick them out and say fugghetaboutit. Saudi Arabia is the snake's head.
Both sides will make concessions, that is the way these things work. Who says? If they don't make concessions there will be no deal. We ask for more than we expect to get and they will ask for more than they expect to get. It's how negotiations work. They have no delivery system, just like Korea, and no real capability to develop them, despite their rhetoric. Both nuclear weapons and ICBM's are frightfully expensive, of limited use in warfare, and Iran really cannot afford them. You must realize that these things are bargaining chips. Without them they have nothing. They will concede them grudgingly, as we will concede sanctions grudgingly. Don't underestimate just how badly Iran needs to get out from under sanctions.The government will not long survive if they don't. Don't assume that this agreement will be the last one. In ten years Iran may be a much more amenable place once the population starts getting the benefits from reduced sanctions. They will not want them reimposed. Give them a taste of western economic and social advantages and it is hard to give up. Economic relief buys them a lot more than a weapon or two, which only buys them more sanctions and a possible attack from Israel if Yahu gets re-elected. Were asking them to give up a great degree of sovereignty, control of their own infrastructure, a nuclear deterrent that we enjoy, and influence outside of Iran. They want us to get out of the Persian Gulf. That is not even on the table. Who has ever stolen a nuclear weapon? It just doesn't happen, despite fears. Who has ever given one away? We haven't even given one to the British or the French. It just doesn't happen. Russia has had attempts made to steal some fissionable material, but not a weapon. They are too expensive and dangerous to be unsecured by anybody. Not only are Iranians adamantly opposed to Sunni radicals and islamists, with whom they are also at war, but they are not foolish enough to give anybody a weapon with their return address on it. Unlike everyone else who owns a nuclear weapon, we have actually used one and have the means to deliver them, unlike Pakistan or Korea . . . or Iran for that matter. These Persians are not suicidal, like the Sunni Arab radicals. Not without severe consequences. They will lose a shooting war with the United States. They will lose an economic war with the United States (they have already had a big taste of this and they hate it). They will lose a cyber war with us (they have already experienced this in the Stuxnet attack). They will lose a nuclear war with Israel. They realize all of this. We can impose a total blockade and bankrupt them if we wish and there is not a damn thing they can do about it. We have invaded and occupied the countries on both sides of them and stayed as long as we wanted to. Our Navy dominates the Persian Gulf to the South of them. We defeated the former Superpower to their north with an economic war. This has not been lost upon them. It freaks them out, in fact. They have a lot more to lose than we do. We have little to lose at all versus the Iranians. In a strange way this ridiculous Cotton letter puts as much pressure on Iran as it does America. It's kind of a good cop/bad cop situation. If they don't strike a deal with Obama, they may be dealing with some seriously crazy fuckers down the road. John Kerry is probably already reminding them of that. Their main rationale for possessing a nuclear weapon is not to use it but to have deterrence against nuclear neighbors Pakistan and Israel (who has already destroyed Syrian and Iraqi nuclear reactors), not to threaten the United States or Europe. Israel and Pakistan both developed nuclear weapons against the wishes of the United States and they can defend themselves just fine. We don't have to do it for them. They left the umbrella.
Cotton is a shill for NDIA. In fact he spoke to a group of defense contractors almost immediately after the letter was sent. Yahoo, and Cotton and his gang of 47 want war with Iran so the guys who funded their campaigns can get rich-er...
No, no, no, no, no! You have it exactly backwards like this rookie senator, who should know better. The President has the exclusive authority to negotiate agreements and treaties and that is what is happening. Once an agreement or treaty is agreed upon between the relevant foreign parties. THEN (and only then) must he present it to Congress for ratification. No country can negotiate with 535 politicians, the very idea is absurd. The reason that the Constitution was drawn up that way was to prevent exactly these kind of domestic political shenanigans from derailing the nation's diplomatic efforts. Don't forget that this is also not the Congress officially interfering with the foreign policy. It is a political party interfering with foreign policy. Something the Constitution forbids and the Logan Act makes a crime.
An appearance that was scheduled in January. I get you don't like his politics but to call him nothing but a shill is shortsighted. Have you looked at his creds? Magna cum laude, BA degree in Government from Harvard, Fellowship from Claremont, Harvard Law where Sacagawea Warren was one of his teachers, Army Lieutenant, Platoon Leader 101st Airborne, deployed to Baghdad, conducted military honor funerals for veterans at Arlington, deployed to Afghanistan, Bronze Star, worked at McKinsey & Co before going home to work on his farm. I tend to think he has a well earned perspective on what's going on over there. Please. There has only been one indictment ever for a violation of the Logan Act and that was in 1803. "The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." In 2007, Pelosi used government funds to travel to Syria when they were sponsoring terrorism. She was not indicted. Jessie Jackson was never indicted. How about Kerry in 1985, visiting Nicaragua and Noriega? Or his later visit to Syria with Arlen Specter? Both of his trips were contrary to what our then President was doing.
I don't care what his creds are, (And they are impressive) but it's obvious he is bought and paid for by defense contractors. Sadly this is never going to change. As long as billionaires and corporations are allowed to donate (a word that should be changed to invest) unlimited amounts of money to campaigns, most of the politicians in Washington will be bought and paid for by special interests. I just wish once some men and women would have the courage to push through campaign finance reform, end all lobbying, and cut out this charade we call a democracy. D or R, they are all bought by someone these days.
Why, thank you. Opinions differ. Congress has no legislative duty whatsoever to conduct foreign policy, especially attempting to derail ongoing negotiations. They get to ratify treaties and declare wars. The Constitution is very clear on this. So is the Logan Act Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. Clearly Congressmen are not exempt. Clearly correspondence was carried on. Clearly intent to influence the conduct of a foreign government was committed. Clearly an attempt to defeat the measure of the United states was commenced. Neither the Logan Act nor the Constitution prohibit Congressmen from visiting a foreign country and foreign leaders. It happens all the time. Nor are Congressmen prohibited from annoying the President. Jesse Jackson got a US pilot released. Did he try to defeat the measures of the United States? Nope. And must I point out that what Reagan "was doing" in Nicaragua was illegal and 11 administration officials were indicted and convicted. Kerry and another senator traveled to Nicaragua on official business and spoke with people on both sides of the conflict to conduct an investigation into the situation--an investigation that exposed Oliver North and the Iran Contra Scandal for breaking US law, covertly trading 2,512 TOW missiles with the enemy, and illegally transferring government money to a foreign element that had been specifically prohibited by Congress. Pelosi was accompanied at the Syria meeting by a Republican congressman and Bush State Department officials. She informed the White House and State Department of her trip, and foreign policy experts said that her visit didn't stray from a "typical" congressional visit. Three Republican congressmen also met with Assad prior to her visit. Tell me, did Pelosi or Kerry correspond with a foreign government with intent to defeat the measures of the United States? Nope. Can you produce those documents? Nope. Were there ongoing negotiations with the governments of those countries that they tried to defeat? Nope. So, are you defending this Cotton weasel and his letter or just objecting to the Constitution and the Logan Act?
Seems that "measures of the United States" is the only thing that can be debated here. You'd have to 1st define that.
