Posted on 03/09/2015 1:28:53 PM PDT by fivecatsandadog
From the moment President Barack Obama took office, the Iranian government had its doubts about his administration. There were two schools of “doubt.” The first questioned his intentions. They believed his rhetoric and promises were just that — empty words. In deeds, the argument read, he was no different from his war-prone predecessor.
The other school doubted Obama’s abilities, not his intentions. Could an inexperienced, outsider president really shift America’s longstanding policy and attitude towards Iran? Was he even the real decision maker?
“I do not know who makes decisions for the United States, the president, the Congress, elements behind the scenes,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in 2009. By now, however, there should be less confusion in Tehran. Obama is on a roll.
Tehran’s doubts were not unfounded. What used to be perhaps an academic question, is today a very practical and pertinent one: The sanctions relief Obama is promising Iran in the nuclear talks are not his to lift. Obama has waiver rights, but only Congress can lift sanctions. Congressional opposition to a nuclear bargain with Iran has consequentially weakened Obama’s hand in the negotiations, rather than serve as a ‘Good cop, bad cop’ Jedi mind-trick that would compel Tehran to lower its demands.
It’s simple economics: Since the risk of dealing with a president that does not control the sanctions relief process is higher, the price Iran must ask for giving concessions must increase accordingly.
But the doubters in Tehran should take note. Some extraordinary changes to the political landscape in the United States have occurred that should prompt Iran to reevaluate Obama’s abilities.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/court-reveals-iranian-operatives-in-charge-of-obamas-iran-policy-since-2009/#SF0s83SzcbzA1e8V.99
"A ruling handed down on September 13th (2012) by the D.C. District Federal Court has finally made clear what many have known for years–that the Obama Administration’s Iran policy was initiated and advanced by a group with illicit, hidden ties to the Iranian Regime and financed by the U.S./Israel- hating George Soros.
In 2009, Barack Obama turned over virtually all responsibility and authority for foreign policy negotiations with Iran to Trita Parsi and his National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Founded by Parsi in 2003, the Washington-based NIAC is a powerful lobbying group that is “…widely considered the de facto lobby for the Iranian Regime in America.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/court-reveals-iranian-operatives-in-charge-of-obamas-iran-policy-since-2009/#SF0s83SzcbzA1e8V.99
Does Iran seems think the deal is in the bag?
The power to ratify treaties lies exclusively with the Senate. That is until Obozo decides he has a pen to overwrite the Constitution.
There is no treaty unless and until the United States Senate approves by a 2/3 vote.
US Constitution.
Anyone in Teheran or at Reuters could, if they wished, look it up.
Does Iran seems think the deal is in the bag?
Well Obama is giving his Illegals everything ,so Iran will get what ever is left
ps:
Obama could sign ALL of his various names, including in Arabic, his native Kenyan language, his Indonesian language, and in Ferengi
he could also add all of his various stolen or fake social security numbers
it will still not be a treaty unless and until the UNITED STATES Senate gives a 2/3 approval.
Who is in charge?
Answer: The poisoned fruit of Iran, Valerie Jarrett.
Next question please.
This would be the impeachable offense. Republicans should just sit back and let this play out. Throwing down the 2/3 majority in the Senate was a good poke in Obama’s eye, and he hates that.
Obama’s deceit on the Iran deal is he is not going to call it a treaty so therefore it does not require Senate ratification.
My understanding is that technically, the Senate does not ratify a treaty. They vote to give the President the OK to ratify a treaty. I am not sure what the difference is but that is the actual process.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
How will President Obama and Iranian born Co-President Valerie Jarrett deal with this "obstruction" to their nuclear madness?
The official language of the Constitution says the president can make treaties with the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate. In other words without the Senate, it means nothing.
Obama'll just threaten to close down the government and congress will sign whatever he sets in front of it.
Oh, for a GOP leadership with a spine, guts, and balls...
[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
in which event it has no force or effect as a treaty of the United States since it would not be a treaty of the United States without the 2/3 Senate approval.
(although while he is in the WHouse, he can say he is ‘honoring it’ ... just like the next person in the WHouse could, if he wishes, ‘honor a statue of Alfred E. Newman’)
But it doesn’t become a binding treaty of the United States until such time as it becomes a treaty (2/3 Senate approval) and this is why Obama is so ‘upset’ with the Senate for letting everyone know the obvious, that it does not intend to approve Obama giving Iran nuclear bombs and ICBMs (under any guise)
So it's like a "personal services contract?"
Obama’s pattern is to push and push and push and push anything that weakens America and our allies, or builds up the most dangerous type of IslamoNazi terror regimes (or Caliphate) anywhere and everywhere in the world.
This Iranian nuclear bomb and ICBM arsenal project... does both.
SO I predict (just my guess) that O will keep pushing it...
he has no way of knowing just how far he can get away with undermining USA until.... unless and until.... somebody eventually gives him some push-back
so he must figure....no push-back yet....so why not keep pushing!?
I think Republicans have this right where they need it to be. He can go agree to whatever he wants to with Iran, but it doesn’t bind our country in anyway. And when he is out of office in two years Iran may be out of luck.
Iran knows that its best deal by far is being handed to them, and they’d darned well better put it in that bag before Congress (or the next POTUS) takes it away.
They’re in danger of being the joke that ends “you’re on the 5th floor, there’s nothing here, you could have had everything you wanted but you got greedy.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.