47 Senate Republicans Write Letter to Iran, Undermine US Foreign Policy

[YmirGF]

So, you don't like the way this hand was delt, but you are nevertheless satisfied with the results of the game. Is that what you're saying?

I'm glad if it makes the Iranians wary of signing any deal. I'm not into the idea of making a deal with them at all.

 

[columbus]

I disagree. I think it show significant disagreement to the Holy Rollers ruling in Iran and that they should be very wary of sign

This effecting any document with a president who is quickly moving into the lame duck portion of his presidency.

This effectively ends negotiations for two years.

By then the President might well be dealing with a middle east dominated by a nuclear tipped Iran.

And the Republicans will be blaming Obama for it.

Tom

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

However, it does create a precedent in the political process. And it's definitely not a good one.

I should have been more clear on this point. It creates a precedent for domestic political process in the general sense. That is, unless it's bitterly condemned. Political relations in the US are pretty terrible right now, and the letter just made things worse.

 

[CMike]

If this letter was authorized by congress, or at least by its senators, then it must represent the overall collective will of its members. Obviously that is not the case, either with Congress as a whole or with the Senate alone. The majority of senators did not sign it. The only level of consensus for publishing this letter was at the senate party-level. Ah! Now it's making sense...This letter was not a result of senate collaboration; it was a result of Republican collaboration. They should have stamped it as Republican party correspondence. The likely reason they didn't is because then there'd be no question at all that it was not authorized by the US, even to people who stretch the credibility of others to the breaking point.



The letter was drafted and released in private. The fact that it's available publicly doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't matter.

It was issued by the senators whom signed the letter based on their official roles as senators.

It's not "private correspondence".

 

[metis]

Besides the fact that this is pretty much a political ploy, what's the alternative to negotiations that these 47 are proposing? The answer is clear: nothing.

There is at least a chance negotiations might produce some positive results, although I have very strong doubts that it well. But nevertheless, there really is no reason not to try this route first since we can change the route any time we want. To not do so will have a negative effect on our European partners, which some seem to forget are involved also in these negotiations. What we're hearing from some of them is "Who the hell is running the show over there in the Disfunctional States of America?".

 

[CMike]

If you got the impression that I support the deal, you'd be mistaken. I don't even know what the exact terms are or would be, so I really can't comment. I have gleaned some details based on what a few in the thread have said, but that's the extent of it. That aside, although I don't consider Iran's nuclear capabilities as a significant threat, I do support non-proliferation. Having said all that, I just don't see how anyone could possibly consider this letter as having US authority. And that's all I was saying. The real problem is not what the letter does to the foreign relations equation; you're right, they're probably laughing. However, it does create a precedent in the political process. And it's definitely not a good one. You're right, they could have played a better hand. A much better hand, and perhaps one that could have garnered more support.

It hardly creates a precedent.

Democrat congressmen have a history of meeting with foreign leaders including Nancy Pelosi, John Boinior, and Ted Kennedy.

Below is a link to a list of 7 democrat congressman whom have met foreign leaders telling them to oppose the president.

7 Times Democrats Advised America's Enemies to Oppose the President - Breitbart

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm glad if it makes the Iranians wary of signing any deal. I'm not into the idea of making a deal with them at all.

There's also the possibility that the open & hostile opposition to Obama's negotiations might inspire Iran to work the best deal they can before the upcoming prez election, thereby backfiring on the Pubs.

 

[YmirGF]

There's also the possibility that the open & hostile opposition to Obama's negotiations might inspire Iran to work the best deal they can before the upcoming prez election, thereby backfiring on the Pubs.

Not if it really is non-binding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not if it really is non-binding.

Even if legally non-binding, it could be unacceptably awkward to unilaterally void it. So Iran has everything to gain & nothing to lose.

 

[xkatz]

TBH, I am rather mixed about this...
One on hand I believe that there is no good deal that can be made with Iran right now (and Obama's foreign policy is wack); OTOH I don't see the merit in trying to directly address the leaders of Iran, as it seems like rather poor in protocol.

 

[Adramelek]

What I find astonishing and frankly quite amusing about this whole thing is that the United States now has a president and an administration that is so naïve it actually thinks it can negotiate and strike deals with an enemy nation such as Iran. A nation that teaches its children to chant "death to America" and which despises our very existence and way of life. A deal with Iran? Hah, that dog won't hunt.

 

[Revoltingest]

What I find astonishing and frankly quite amusing about this whole thing is that the United States now has a president and an administration that is so naïve it actually thinks it can negotiate and strike deals with an enemy nation such as Iran. A nation that teaches its children to chant "death to America" and which despises our very existence and way of life. A deal with Iran? Hah, that dog won't hunt.

His naivete is countered by the naivete of those who think we could preemptively attack Iran, & that the world would become a safer place for Americastan & Israel.

 

[metis]

Ya, it's a real shame that Obama is trying to see if there's maybe a peaceful solution when instead we could go to war first and then try and figure out why things didn't work out so well.

 

[columbus]

I don't understand why anybody thinks that either the USA or Iran are negotiating in good faith.

The USA has a history of meddling and attacking Iran going back decades. CMike might not believe that the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons to use against Iran, but they do. George W Bush all but declared war and his brother might well be the next President.
The only way to ward off the existential threat posed by the "world's sole remaining superpower" is a nuke. The Iranian government knows that. They also know that the USA can't stop them without blowing up the whole middle east and the oil production facilities there.

Obama is trying to clean up a mess left by prior administrations. The best he can hope for is to delay the announcement that Iran has joined Pakistan and NK and all the other nuclear powers. I believe he will succeed in that. But the reasons for it were laid out years ago.

Tom

 

[fantome profane]

Not if it really is non-binding.

It was always going to be non-binding regardless. It can't be anything else.

 

[columbus]

It was always going to be non-binding regardless. It can't be anything else.

For at least two reasons.
The USA is famous for black ops and "plausible denial".
Also, as the 47 just trumpeted, the government is more concerned about scoring partisan points than governing. The next President might be willing to do something as stupid as renig on a deal to turn out the base.

Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

and voted for Romney, whose foreign policy experience is limited to hiding his money in Cayman Island accounts.

Don't forget ****ting all over the UK during the Olympics.

 

[Sleeppy]

Her emails are much worse.

Who knows what american intelligence was hacked by the enemies and what she was trying to conceal as Sec. of State.

Actually the letters are good. Allowing Iran to get nukes and to continue the world wide funding of terrorism is pretty close to evil. That's what the Obama deal would do.

It's now mid April. An outline for the deal is out. Do you honestly still believe, even after Iran allows the US to dismantle and inspect these nuclear facilities on an ongoing basis, that somehow this equates to the exact opposite?