The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

No but poverty is a root cause of Islamism....

How do you know that? There are shitloads of Islamists out there who are at least middle-class, and some who are actually very wealthy. There have been religious and other extremist movements throughout history where poverty was not a root cause. Radical ideologies often take root among students and other intellectuals who are not, relative speaking, worse off than the masses.

Not saying you are wrong; but, I doubt anyone can point to a root cause of terrorism and if you think you can you're full of shit.

Actually, that's my point. The Administration has specifically stated that the root cause of terrorism is poverty, and they are indeed full of shit. It's just their innate left-wing bias in favor of wealth redistribution affecting their ability to perceive reality.

 

[Soda]

Poverty is a root cause of adoption of religion in general, IMO.. I don't think that poverty is only correlated to Islam by any means. Poverty is close to rock bottom (for some it is) and I think it's at rock bottom where folks are driven to make a change.

 

[kosis]

So you think Iran is "unfairly maligned? Being a state sponsor of terrorism, supporting/supplying the Taliban, Hexbollah, Hamas, using Quds force personnel to facilitate terror attacks in other nations, etc.... is just the kind of mischief kids get into or something? You can just start with the footnote in Wikipedia for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

Then there's all the stuff about Israel being a cancer, and wiping it off the map because most of the people who'd be killed are just Jews anyway.

http://unitedwithisrael.org/genocide-of-jews-is-obligation/

Does none of that bother you, or do you just not believe it?

I specifically stated that Iran does not go to war with its neighbors. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, the US has also funded and sponsored the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Israel, and whatever other ME/Asian faction was convenient to support at the time. You know this though, so not sure why you're taking it that direction.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Poverty is a root cause of adoption of religion in general, IMO.. I don't think that poverty is only correlated to Islam by any means. Poverty is close to rock bottom (for some it is) and I think it's at rock bottom where folks are driven to make a change.

But the evidence is that terrorists tend to be better off than society at large. OBL was a millionaire when we was driven to make a change. His No. 2, Zawahiri, is a doctor. The hijackers who martyred themselves likewise tended to be at least middle-class. And look at all these kids from Europe who are going to join ISIS. They are deliberately giving up the material wealth/comfort of their homes in the West, and voluntarily putting themselves in comparative poverty just to fight. Clearly, there is something motivating them that is much stronger than a desire to avoid poverty because becoming (relatively) impoverished is a price they're willing to pay.

And if you want to approach it from the "making a change" perspective, I don't think history supports that either.

Look at the Iranian Islamist Revolution of 1979, which really introduced many of us in the U.S. to Islamism. Iran was a relatively prosperous nation, and not just at the top. That Revolution was due to a bunch of Islamists, leftists, and students, not some rebellious bunch of peasants. Or look at our own Revolution -- It wasn't led/inspired by a bunch of poor people. It was led/inspired by the wealthy/mercantile classes who were "driven to make a change."

It just worries me when we misdiagnose why these things happen, because that is going to lead to the adoption of remedies that simply are not going to work.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I specifically stated that Iran does not go to war with its neighbors.

And I specifically pointed out that it does fund surrogates and terrorists all over the world, so the mere fact that Iran's conventional armies don't cross the border in large numbers doesn't mean that it isn't instrumentally in deliberately murdering civilians.

If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, the US has also funded and sponsored the Taliban.

Just to be clear, are you referring to our support of the Mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation, and comparing that to Iran's support since the early 2000's?

Saddam Hussein, Israel, and whatever other ME/Asian faction was convenient to support at the time. You know this though, so not sure why you're taking it that direction.

Well, if you're going to equate our very limited support of Saddam -- who was not exporting revolution/terror to other nations at that time-- to Iran supporting groups that deliberately engage in terror attacks against civilians, and our support of Israel to Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas, I'll just say that we apparently are on different sides there.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican lawmakers warned the leaders of Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal they cut with President Barack Obama could expire the day he leaves office. The White House denounced the GOP's latest effort to undercut the international negotiations as a "rush to war."

Monday's open letter from 47 GOP senators marked an unusually public and aggressive attempt to undermine Obama and five world powers as negotiators try to strike an initial deal by the end of March to limit Iran's nuclear programs.

Republicans say a deal would be insufficient and unenforceable, and they have made a series of proposals to undercut or block it — from requiring Senate say-so on any agreement to ordering new penalty sanctions against Iran or even making a pre-emptive declaration of war.

Obama, noting that some in Iran also want no part of any deal, said "I think it's somewhat ironic that some members of Congress want to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition...."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150309/us--congress-iran-748cf90c24.html

I suppose it should be pointed out that under the same logic, the President is making "common cause" with the leaders of a country his own Administration considers a "state sponsor of terrorism."

 

[gourimoko]

Obama, noting that some in Iran also want no part of any deal, said "I think it's somewhat ironic that some members of Congress want to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition...."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150309/us--congress-iran-748cf90c24.html

I suppose it should be pointed out that under the same logic, the President is making "common cause" with the leaders of a country his own Administration considers a "state sponsor of terrorism."

I don't think you get what the President is trying to say.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think you get what the President is trying to say.

Yes, I do. I just think he's blind to who he's negotiating with, so he doesn't see his comment being the double-edged sword that it is.

I should add that his belief that he's really negotiating with the "moderates" in Iran, and that they are shielding us from the "radicals", reminds me very much of the faulty assumption underlying the Arms for Hostages deal. The Iranians played that "you need to strengthen the moderates" card back then, and it seems they are doing the same thing now.

And I do want to reiterate a point I made earlier -- I would not support either this letter of the Netanyahu invitation if the President was going to either 1) submit the agreement as a treaty to Congress or 2) enforce sanctions laws on the books unless/until they are repealed by Congress.

And, the best retort the President could have made to this letter is "What are you talking about? I agree that only Congress can eliminate these sanctions, and I will not lift them unless Congress does so."

But he didn't say that, because it's very clearly not what he is going to do.

 

[gourimoko]

Yes, I do. I just think he's blind to who he's negotiating with, so he doesn't see his comment being the double-edged sword that it is.

Blind? I support the negotiations as do most of the world's population most likely..

Would you think they are blind as well?

I should add that his belief that he's really negotiating with the "moderates" in Iran, and that they are shielding us from the "radicals", reminds me very much of the faulty assumption underlying the Arms for Hostages deal. The Iranians played that "you need to strengthen the moderates" card back then, and it seems they are doing the same thing now.

I think the bolded is your own view and not the President's.

And I do want to reiterate a point I made earlier -- I would not support either this letter of the Netanyahu invitation if the President was going to either 1) submit the agreement as a treaty to Congress or 2) enforce sanctions laws on the books unless/until they are repealed by Congress.

Since neither scenario 1 or 2 has happened yet, it's completely illogical to hedge support of an event since passed on these scenarios. That was my point to you earlier when you said this.

Netanyahu had no business speaking before Congress the way he did.

And, the best retort the President could have made to this letter is "What are you talking about? I agree that only Congress can eliminate these sanctions, and I will not lift them unless Congress does so."

At least we're on the same page with this. The President has very limited authority to lift sanctions, and it's highly highly unlikely that he would without Congressional approval.

But he didn't say that, because it's very clearly not what he is going to do.

We'll see...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Blind? I support the negotiations as do most of the world's population most likely..Would you think they are blind as well?

The "blind" observation was in reference to Obama's comment regarding the GOP aligning itself with "hard-liners" in Iran. Apparently, he's blind to the fact that he is negotiating with hard-liners.

I've got no problem with negotiations at all, even with hard-liners. But you can't be under any illusions as to who you're bargaining with, what their goals are, and the likelihood of compliance. My particular worry is that he's going to agree to a fairly crappy deal because the Iranians know that he's out on a limb politically to get something done. And then the Iranians are going to drag their feet, repeatedly, in terms of permitting access. The upshot will be that the deal as it is actually implemented/verified will be weak, and will simply buy the Iranians time to complete their work/production without meaningful sanctions being in place.

At least we're on the same page with this. The President has very limited authority to lift sanctions, and it's highly highly unlikely that he would without Congressional approval.

That makes absolutely no sense given how the Administration has addressed the issue of Congressional approval. There were public reports last January-- 2014 -- that the Administration was going to bypass Congress when it came to lifting sanctions. There were additional reports this past fall, and it's been a public issue since then. The response from the Administration has been complete silence -- other than repeatedly issuing leaks confirming it.

Congress is desperate enough not to be bypassed that there is a bipartisan bill pending requiring the President to get Congressional consent before lifting sanctions. The President's response has been to threaten a veto of that bill. Why on earth would he threaten that if he agreed with the premise? Republicans mentioned being bypassed as a reason for having Netanyahu speak, and this letter makes absolutely no sense if the President is planning on going through Congress anyway. Not even the Democrats attacking the letter are claiming that the President will go through Congress.

So why would the President go through all this, including threatening a veto on a bill requiring it, if he plans on submitting it to Congress anyway? What logical reason is there for him not coming out and saying publicly that he'll do it? It would instantly defang/neuter the criticism.

He's not even leaking that to supporters in Congress, because neither Harry Reid nor anyone else is saying "I'm confident he'll submit it to us", or even "why not wait and see if he submits it or not before taking these actions?" Even his own allies are taking it as a given.

Honestly, I can't find anyone in Congress or the Administration who subscribes to your expectation that he's going to submit this agreement to Congress, or condition the lifting of sanctions on Congressional approval. And the result has been this series of events that the Administration itself says may sabotage the Agreement. So again, why endure all the negative repercussions of this speculation and related actions if the intent is to comply anyway?

 

[gourimoko]

The "blind" observation was in reference to Obama's comment regarding the GOP aligning itself with "hard-liners" in Iran. Apparently, he's blind to the fact that he is negotiating with hard-liners.

I don't think this is accurate.

It's like saying Khrushchev was a "hard-liner" because he was a communist, and was the leader of our chief enemy.

It's not an accurate representation of the internal political structure of Iran to refer to it's present administration as "hard-line;" they aren't.

I wouldn't say they represent moderates either; but, they certainly aren't hard-liners.

I've got no problem with negotiations at all, even with hard-liners. But you can't be under any illusions as to who you're bargaining with, what their goals are, and the likelihood of compliance.

I think you and the President would likely disagree on "what their goals are" and "the likelihood of compliance."

Iran does have a valid reason to pursue nuclear energy capability (including military reasons). They also have a protected international right to do so under the NPT.

My particular worry is that he's going to agree to a fairly crappy deal because the Iranians know that he's out on a limb politically to get something done. And then the Iranians are going to drag their feet, repeatedly, in terms of permitting access.

I don't think either point is really accurate to the President's situation or the situation on the ground in Iran.

For one, the President is twice elected and two years into his second term, he's under no political pressure, at all, to get a deal done. In fact, the reverse is true. Neither the left or the right is pushing a deal, this is the Administration's own foreign policy agenda at work - not that of any other interested party.

Secondly, with respect to inspectors, the IAEA has stated repeatedly that they have had access to Iranian nuclear facilities. The issue at hand is the Parchin military facility that the IAEA is demanding to inspect while the Iranians refuse. The Iranians counter that this site is not a source of nuclear material, but instead a military base, and although suspected of developing explosives likely to be used in an implosion-style device, the Iranians stated their fears that the inspectors could access sensitive Iranian military systems and we could see another Stuxnet style attack.

Compounding the complexity of the issue, the nuclear power plant at Arak and it's potential use as a breeder for plutonium (which would explain the possible explosives research at Parchin) is also a major concern; however, the HEU enrichment facilities that the IAEA routinely inspect really don't have anything to do with this. They are two different courses of research and both could yield nuclear weapons (of differing types), as can most nuclear reactor designs.

Either way, there is a lot to negotiate, and Iran's position is not as simple as, "we want a bomb."

There are issues of sustainable energy, scientific research, sovereignty, and the honoring of international treaties like the NPT that must be taken into consideration.

The upshot will be that the deal as it is actually implemented/verified will be weak, and will simply buy the Iranians time to complete their work/production without meaningful sanctions being in place.

This really begs the question that the right has seemingly ignored... can we feasibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

I think most in the know would argue no. They already have the material, which is the most difficult part; that's no longer in question. Iran has enough HEU and plutonium already to construct several nuclear weapons.

I have no doubt Iran could test a shotgun-style uranium device in a matter of months if it wanted to. I'm pretty sure all the parties involved realize that Iran is at this threshold point.

But by the end of the decade, Iran will be a nuclear power, one way or the other sans a full-scale military invasion. And only one country on Earth is capable of pulling something like that off.

That makes absolutely no sense given how the Administration has addressed the issue of Congressional approval. There were public reports last January-- 2014 -- that the Administration was going to bypass Congress when it came to lifting sanctions.

You mean "news/editorial reports?" Why say "news editorials" are "public reports?" "Public reports" sounds like something from the Administration itself.

The Administration already addressed this issue:

SEN MENENDEZ: Does the administration intend to come back to the congress, if you have a final deal [with Iran], for ultimately lifting some of the [sanctions] elements that would be needed to be lifted under law?

JOHN KERRY: Well, of course. We’d be obligated to under the law. We would absolutely have to, and so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with congress. We well understand that.

There were additional reports this past fall, and it's been a public issue since then. The response from the Administration has been complete silence -- other than repeatedly issuing leaks confirming it.

No it hasn't been silence. That's just a talking point (literally, I still get the GOP talking points memos in my email and that is one of them).

Congress is desperate enough not to be bypassed that there is a bipartisan bill pending requiring the President to get Congressional consent before lifting sanctions. The President's response has been to threaten a veto of that bill.

These are two different issues and you are conflating them...

The President and the Secretary of State have made it clear, Congress has no role in approving a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1. As I stated earlier, this approach was used by Presidents going back to Kennedy particularly with respect to detente with the Soviet Union; going back to the first missile and testing negotiations.

So this issue is separate and distinct from the actual lifting of sanctions (the implementation of the agreement). It has more to do with the routine battling between the Executive and Legislative branches and jockeying for power, far more than it has to do with unprecedented abuses of authority.

Only Congress has the authority to lift sanctions, and it has given the President the means to initiate that process. But as I explained earlier, the terms for doing so would be unthinkable with respect to Iran. (i.e., removing from the list of state sponsors of terrorism).

Why on earth would he threaten that if he agreed with the premise?

He didn't. It's a fabrication.

Republicans mentioned being bypassed as a reason for having Netanyahu speak, and this letter makes absolutely no sense if the President is planning on going through Congress anyway. Not even the Democrats attacking the letter are claiming that the President will go through Congress.

Again, you're conflating two different issues. Whether or not the President can enter into international agreements (he can) or whether or not he can lift sanctions (he cannot).

The Democrats are split roughly 3:1 on the totality of the deal, but not with respect to these two points. Most Democrats do not think the President should go through Congress to reach a deal, but should go through Congress to lift sanctions.

Again, two different issues.

So why would the President go through all this, including threatening a veto on a bill requiring it, if he plans on submitting it to Congress anyway?

Because Congress is attempting to overreach it's Constitutional authority. Past Presidents have not had to get Congressional approval prior to reaching international deals.

This would be a first.

Again, it's not a treaty, at least not at this juncture.

What logical reason is there for him not coming out and saying publicly that he'll do it? It would instantly defang/neuter the criticism.

Perhaps because he does not want to play into the GOP's political nonsense? But when directly asked both the Press Secretary and the Secretary of State have been clear on the issue of who has the power to lift sanctions.

He's not even leaking that to supporters in Congress, because neither Harry Reid nor anyone else is saying "I'm confident he'll submit it to us", or even "why not wait and see if he submits it or not before taking these actions?" Even his own allies are taking it as a given.

Again, conflating two issues.

Honestly, I can't find anyone in Congress or the Administration who subscribes to your expectation that he's going to submit this agreement to Congress,

Because he's not.. I never said he was or should. It's two separate issues.. I keep saying this.

or condition the lifting of sanctions on Congressional approval.

That's a different issue, and you'd be wrong.

And the result has been this series of events that the Administration itself says may sabotage the Agreement. So again, why endure all the negative repercussions of this speculation and related actions if the intent is to comply anyway?

Let me try this one last time...

The President will not "comply" with Congress' demands that he get Congressional approval prior to reaching an agreement with Iran and the P5+1.

I agree with him on this, and most of the Democrats do as well. This is Congressional overreach.

However, the other issue at hand is can the President actually implement a deal without Congress? And the answer to this is frankly no, he can't. He does not have the authority to lift sanctions, at all.

So once a deal is signed and reached, then and only then, will the Administration come to Congress to request the sanctions against Iran be lifted.

This is completely different, legally, than saying "The President MUST include Congress in these negotiations." No he doesn't. If Congress says "we won't lift sanctions," then the deal is dead - but Congress does not have a seat at the negotiating table.

I'm not sure if you're open to understanding the President's position on this issue, or if this will be something that you'll see through a partisan lens. I figured it was worth a shot to try and explain his position.

 

[Jordan]

How do you know that? There are shitloads of Islamists out there who are at least middle-class, and some who are actually very wealthy. There have been religious and other extremist movements throughout history where poverty was not a root cause. Radical ideologies often take root among students and other intellectuals who are not, relative speaking, worse off than the masses.

To quote myself from an earlier post: "Between 2009-2011 the government raised fuel prices 163%; inflation fell 7.7% between 2008-2009 due to significant and strategic government spending cuts; between 2008-2009 Syria's FDI increased 70% but actually decreased by 5% in the three main Industrial cities; and Government released data during the second quarter 2010 that show civil servants are the highest paid sector while agricultural sector is lowest. 25% of people working in services earn SYP 15,000 per month or more while 30% of those working in agriculture earn SYP 5,000 or less. This is important because all of these policies drastically hurt the majority of the population while ensuring Assad's political group defended his back. What you saw, though, is places that were heavily agricultural and dependent on subsidies as well as purely industrial cities are where ISIS has gained the most power."

In fact, cities such as Der'a, Homs, and Der ez-Zor, three major industrial cities that were hurt by the FDI disparities were the early home to Islamists in the Syrian uprising. Moreover, this trend was also true in the industrial cities such as Latkia and Idlib. Whereas, in places like Damascus and Aleppo, where many of those who benefited from Assad lived, the Islamists never took hold.

If you want more case studies I would be happy to provide them for you

Actually, that's my point. The Administration has specifically stated that the root cause of terrorism is poverty, and they are indeed full of shit. It's just their innate left-wing bias in favor of wealth redistribution affecting their ability to perceive reality.

Can you provide an example where the administration has said that? You seem to be conflating Islamism, Jihadism, and Terrorism and that is a grave miscalculation.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think this is accurate. It's like saying Khrushchev was a "hard-liner" because he was a communist, and was the leader of our chief enemy.

Exactly.

Iran does have a valid reason to pursue nuclear energy capability (including military reasons). They also have a protected international right to do so under the NPT.

What "military reasons" are you talking about? Iran does not have a protected international right to develop nuclear weapons. And the most recent IAEA report again cites unresolved issues from past inspections, and what it refers to as "credible" information that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear weapon device. Iran simply refuses to cooperate in the IAEA investigation, claiming that they're based on mere "allegations". Here's the report -- relevant stuff is scattered throughout, but summarized at paragraphs 58-63.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2015-15.pdf

Secondly, with respect to inspectors, the IAEA has stated repeatedly that they have had access to Iranian nuclear facilities. The issue at hand is the Parchin military facility that the IAEA is demanding to inspect while the Iranians refuse. The Iranians counter that this site is not a source of nuclear material, but instead a military base, and although suspected of developing explosives likely to be used in an implosion-style device, the Iranians stated their fears that the inspectors could access sensitive Iranian military systems and we could see another Stuxnet style attack.

Exactly. But if all it takes is the say-so of the Iranians to place a site off-limits, then the whole thing becomes a joke.

This really begs the question that the right has seemingly ignored... can we feasibly stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

If you want to argue that we can't actually stop Iran from developing the bomb if it is are sufficiently determined, fine. I personally agree with that, and don't think the military option is feasible or desireable. However, we absolutely could fuck with their economy in a major way with heavier sanctions, and perhaps convince them that the bomb isn't worth it. But to essentially surrender to the inevitability of the bomb and not make them pay an economic price is not a policy most Americans would endorse.

SEN MENENDEZ: Does the administration intend to come back to the congress, if you have a final deal [with Iran], for ultimately lifting some of the [sanctions] elements that would be needed to be lifted under law?

JOHN KERRY: Well, of course. We’d be obligated to under the law. We would absolutely have to, and so clearly, what we do will have to pass muster with congress. We well understand that.

Menendez himself has evidently concluded that Kerry was weaseling, because he's one of the sponsors of the Senate bill.

He didn't. It's a fabrication.

See below:

However, the other issue at hand is can the President actually implement a deal without Congress? And the answer to this is frankly no, he can't. He does not have the authority to lift sanctions, at all.

Again, he cannot legally remove the sanctions from the law. He can just issue almost unlimited waivers and refuse to enforce the sanctions otherwise, because the effectiveness of the sanctions is dependent upon enforcement by the Executive branch. The remain on the books, but toothless.

So once a deal is signed and reached, then and only then, will the Administration come to Congress to request the sanctions against Iran be lifted.

This is completely different, legally, than saying "The President MUST include Congress in these negotiations." No he doesn't. If Congress says "we won't lift sanctions," then the deal is dead - but Congress does not have a seat at the negotiating table.

I understand that. But the bill doesn't require the President to consult Congress before reaching a deal. It only requires him to consult Congress after reaching a deal:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s625/text

White House Threatens to Veto Latest Iran Bill

WASHINGTON --
The White House says President Obama would veto a bill requiring congressional approval of any nuclear deal with Iran, as the two sides appear to be making progress toward an agreement.

"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan told ABC News. "If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it."

Along with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., introduced a bill this week that would allow Congress 60 days to review, and potentially reject, any deal to roll back U.S. nuclear sanctions on Iran.

In a statement issued by his office, Corker called the White House's veto threat "disappointing...."

http://6abc.com/news/white-house-threatens-to-veto-latest-iran-bill-/538904/

 

[kosis]

And I specifically pointed out that it does fund surrogates and terrorists all over the world, so the mere fact that Iran's conventional armies don't cross the border in large numbers doesn't mean that it isn't instrumentally in deliberately murdering civilians.



Just to be clear, are you referring to our support of the Mujaheddin during the Soviet occupation, and comparing that to Iran's support since the early 2000's?



Well, if you're going to equate our very limited support of Saddam -- who was not exporting revolution/terror to other nations at that time-- to Iran supporting groups that deliberately engage in terror attacks against civilians, and our support of Israel to Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas, I'll just say that we apparently are on different sides there.

Yes, I was referring to all of that. I don't play good guys vs. bad guys like you do. You'll justify every single shred of support that the US has given and will do the opposite for Iran. Great. Not really interested in any of that. My point is that both countries have supported some of the same organizations. Naturally, Saddam was a beacon of light when the US had his back.

 

[gourimoko]

What "military reasons" are you talking about?

Iran has valid concerns that it's chief rival is a nuclear power, does it not?

Iran does not have a protected international right to develop nuclear weapons.

No one said they did. But they have a protected international right to develop nuclear energy and that unfortunately entails the capability to develop nuclear weapons.

And the most recent IAEA report again cites unresolved issues from past inspections, and what it refers to as "credible" information that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear weapon device.

I know, I already mentioned this.

Iran simply refuses to cooperate in the IAEA investigation,

This is inaccurate.

claiming that they're based on mere "allegations". Here's the report -- relevant stuff is scattered throughout, but summarized at paragraphs 58-63.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2015-15.pdf

These two outstanding issues are what I referred to in my earlier post regarding an "implosion device." So yes, I'm aware.

Exactly. But if all it takes is the say-so of the Iranians to place a site off-limits, then the whole thing becomes a joke.

But, that's the framework of the JPA. The IAEA does not have authority to inspect Iranian military bases under the original framework. That's been Iran's (and China's/Russia's) position, and that's why we're hashing out a new agreement.

If you want to argue that we can't actually stop Iran from developing the bomb if it is are sufficiently determined, fine. I personally agree with that, and don't think the military option is feasible or desireable. However, we absolutely could fuck with their economy in a major way with heavier sanctions, and perhaps convince them that the bomb isn't worth it. But to essentially surrender to the inevitability of the bomb and not make them pay an economic price is not a policy most Americans would endorse.

Appeal to the majority?

Anyway, in this particular instance, Iranian nuclear capability, as we both seem to agree, is an inevitability.

The question is weaponization.

I think preventing weaponization can only be done diplomatically, and I don't think sanctions help to bring about a favorable end to this situation. Such heavy handed use of economic sanctions has had mixed results historically, and I doubt Iran would simply abandon it's nuclear program outright.

I think we would get farther if we could begin to somehow bridge the gap, diplomatically, between our two countries.

Because if we don't, then eventually, Iran will likely construct several basic uranium devices (if it hasn't already). And then what are our next steps?

Menendez himself has evidently concluded that Kerry was weaseling, because he's one of the sponsors of the Senate bill.

Politics is far more complicated than that, and if you think Sen. Menendez is anything remotely close to being the bellwether for Democrats on issues relating to Israel you're very very mistaken.

Menendez has been a rabid supporter of Israel and is a very large recipient of AIPAC funding. He's now likely to be indicted for corruption by the Obama Administration and was aware of this prior to signing on to the Senate bill.

Again, politics is fairly complicated.

Again, he cannot legally remove the sanctions from the law. He can just issue almost unlimited waivers and refuse to enforce the sanctions otherwise, because the effectiveness of the sanctions is dependent upon enforcement by the Executive branch. The remain on the books, but toothless.

This is possible, as in, it's possible we could be hit with a meteor tomorrow. The likelihood that this would happen is surely remote, as it would almost certainly result in Articles of Impeachment from the House, and carry the very distinct possibility of conviction in the Senate.

It's just fanciful to suggest that the President would lift sanctions against Iran on his own without Congressional approval.

Not going to happen.

I understand that. But the bill doesn't require the President to consult Congress before reaching a deal. It only requires him to consult Congress after reaching a deal:

Again, Congress is trying to force the President to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to Congress. The President has stated, numerous times, he does not need Congressional approval to make a deal, but he does need Congressional cooperation to implement any deal that lifts sanctions.

This might seem like semantics to you, but I get what the President is saying and why he would veto such a bill; I would too. It's an overreach, and it unnecessarily steps on the President's ability to conduct foreign policy.