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.