The Iran deal

[Dill]

(05-10-2018, 08:56 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: We have 3 branches of government for a reason. I see hypocrisy for you and other praising Obama for circumventing 2 branches, then Trump does the same and since you disagree with his decision you bash him.

Hopefully a better deal is negotiated and then goes through Congress to be passed this time, the right way and only way for it to stick. Hopefully President Trump does does not follow the Obama rogue technique moving forward so long term results achieved and locked in versus a rogue President ignoring the will of Congress.

No one is praising Obama for "circumventing 2 branches"; They are praising him for a diplomatic accomplishment. You have not addressed any of my reasons why the Iran Deal was good and necessary. Instead you seem to be arguing that Trump should act against the national interest because of Obama "hypocrisy" or "rogue technique."

But Obama has not "circumvented" 2 branches with some "rogue technique" for the following reasons.

1. Only the Executive and Congress have enumerated foreign policy powers. The judicial only comes into play when there is a conflict between the the other branches. For example, the Supreme Court has frequently ruled that the executive has foreign policy powers BEYOND those enumerated, since there are powers which belong to every sovereign state which are not enumerated in the Constitution.   No way the Supreme Court was "circumvented" here. Congress was only circumvented in the sense that Obama took a legal executive action.

2. Obama was acting in line with precedent as Chief Exec to conduct agreements with foreign nations in the interest of the U.S.  The EC is not a "rogue technique."  Between 1990-99 alone presidents made 2,857 executive agreements and Congress ratified only 249. Congress would be overwhelmed if it had to turn every international agreement into a "treaty." And these agreements may "stick" like any treaty, when Congress puts aside partisanship. E.g., we have had a naval base in Bahrain since 1971 without a "treaty" simply because Nixon agreed to take over a British base there. That agreement has lasted longer than our 1954 Defense Treaty with the Republic of China, which Carter terminated without Congressional consent in 1978. So treaties don't "stick" without bipartisan support either.

There are only two questions which should have decided whether we keep the Iran Deal.

1. Was Iran in compliance?  And the answer is, yes, it was, though we were not.

2. Was it in US--not Israeli or Saudi--national interest?   I haven't seen you or any else in this forum make a decent case that it was not. All objections tendered so far simply repeat Trump/Netanyahu talking points with no reference whatsoever to specifics of the deal or the existing alternatives in 2013, 2015 or 2018.  All you are really saying is that it would have been better to let Iran get the bomb than sign a "bad deal" which kept them from getting them from getting the bomb.

And finally, I am just flabbergasted that you speak now of a "better deal" being negotiated. With whom? By whom? How? This is not The Apprentice. All international partners just learned that the longevity of any deal with the depends upon partisan politics.  One US party WILL break up deals the other made in the name of the U.S.  Our chief exec is "strong"--which means he attempts to get cooperation by threatening all parties, including our allies, with sanctions.  How has that worked with out own Congress?  Countries were persuaded to give upon billions in profits and to accept higher unemployment rates to keep sanctions on Iran--all in hopes of a greater good. The Iran Deal achieved that good and brought business back to those countries.  Why would it now be in their interest to impose sanctions again?

Very doubtful Trump will make any serious attempt at a new deal, and if he does, by throwing out conditions no one will meet, it will fail and he will blame everyone else.