Replies

It seems to me there are three points of view on this: the first, articulated here by The New York Times, is that Obama is honestly attempting to reach an accord with Iran and both parties negotiate in good faith to produce an ultimate agreement which will obviate the danger of Iran getting the bomb; the second, one that I hold as someone who has been posting for years that Obama is a communist and actively antagonistic to the traditional values the United States, believes that Obama is acting traitorously to those traditional interests because a powerful and "exceptional" America acting as the policeman of the world stands as the great obstacle to the onrush of a socialist world wide utopia; third, Obama is actively advancing jihadist interests because he is either a closet Muslim or his anti-colonial instincts drive him to support Third World Brown people over first world white people.

I do not pretend to be able to psychoanalyze the man nor do I presume to know whether he is acting as a communist, jihadist, or anti-colonialist but everything we know about Barack Obama, from his biography and from his actions in office, tell us that he is not negotiating in good faith for his country to whom he owes the highest fiduciary duty.

The problem is our point of view of the nature of the man never gets exposure in any establishment media. The great American electorate is not confronted with the possibility that their own president is a traitor. That means something more than he is a politician who has a political philosophy alien in to them, it means that he wants to destroy the American system. It means that the national consensus created by Pearl Harbor and nurtured in the wake of the dissent of the Iron Curtain is being surreptitiously swept away while the people believe that what is happening today is is a spat between two politicians.

This is not a problem between Netanyahu and Brack Obama, this is a problem between Barack Obama and the American people but the American people don't even know what game is being played and they certainly have no idea of the endgame.

Post 9/11/01 and pre-Obama, David Horowitz wrote of the intersection of the Worldwide Left and islam.

Destruction of the US is their shared short term goal. Differences over homos, women, crime and punishment, etc. are to be worked out after our demise.

In a republic, political ignorance is a deadly poison. Many Americans have crossed an intellectual line described by Tacitus. When citizens were asked by him if they missed the freedoms of the Roman Republic, most were too uneducated to know much of what expired over a hundred years prior, and secondly, they thought the emperor would adequately defend their liberty. In similar fashion, too many of us have mentally relinquished any notion of sovereignty and happily assume that an all-powerful Obama is our secular savior. A savior cannot be a traitor. Only critics of the savior can be traitors.

So yes, such a people have no collective idea of the possible endgame plans of Obama, ValJar.

What remains of our republic is horribly corrupted from its founding maxims. Nationwide elections did not get us into this mess, and no national election can get us out.

The aggressiveness underlines a calculation by Mr. Obama that an international accord with Iran to rein in its nuclear program is within reach despite Mr. Netanyahu’s adamant opposition, and that there is little value in being more conciliatory toward him.

“In a way, the administration has already won,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Democratic and Republican administrations. “If you get agreement by the end of March, it will be historic in nature, it will have demonstrated that the administration is prepared to willfully stand up to Republican opposition in Congress and to deal with members of its own party who have doubts, and has withstood Israeli pressure.”

On the other hand, given an agreement with Iran, we have this situation:

a. There is apparently sufficient support for the Senate bill requiring any agreement with Iran to undergo Senatorial muster that a presidential veto can be overridden.

b. Some 360 Representatives signed a letter to the president demanding that he submit any treaty with Iran to senatorial review. By definition that number includes at least 115 Democrats, a majority of the minority caucus. Further, this constitutes a bipartisan total that is easily sufficient to override a presidential veto.

c. There are evidently problems emerging with the other powers involved in the Iran negotiations. Obama has reportedly dealt with France's Hollande over the schedule for lifting sanctions. Whereas Obama wants to "gradually lift sanctions", France is stating a preference for "symbolically easing sanctions". Which position would, naturally, be unacceptable to the Iranians.

The net result of these developments is to result in the potential isolation of the U.S. President. If he does a deal with Iran under his terms, styled as an Executive Agreement, and vetos the Senate bill -- he risks his veto being overridden by a bi-partisan majority of Congress.

Remember, too, that only Congress can lift the sanctions so far as the USA is involved.

On the other hand, if he chooses to submit the agreement to the UN, processing it as a Security Council resolution, he risks a veto being cast by France (and/or, perhaps, Britain).

In which case, the President is totally isolated on the international front...and his Iran agreement is worthless.