UANI Chairman Senator Joseph Lieberman WaPo Op-ed on Iran Deal


Joe Lieberman is a former Senator from Connecticut and was the 2000 Democrat Party nominee for Vice President. In his last Senatorial election the Dem Party dumped him for a younger guy. Lieberman did not appreciate the lack of support so ran as an Independent and won re-election. On August 14 Joe Lieberman wrote a very logical yet scathing denunciation of Obama and Kerry’s Iran Nuke Deal. It is worth the read.

JRH 8/17/15

Please Support NCCR

******************************

In Case You Missed It: UANI Chairman Senator Joseph Lieberman Op-ed in Washington Post

United Against Nuclear Iran

Sent: 8/17/2015 3:12 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 17, 2015
Phone: (212) 922-0063
press@uani.com

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman, former U.S. Senator from Connecticut, called on Congress to reject the Iran agreement in an op-ed published Friday, August 14 in The Washington Post.

Congress Should Step Up to Block This Terrible Iran Agreement

By Joseph I. Lieberman
The Washington Post
August 14, 2015

As debate intensifies over the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, the Obama administration has sought to deflect criticism by arguing that there is no alternative to the current framework, no matter what its flaws, and that its rejection by Congress is guaranteed to produce catastrophe – isolating the United States from its allies and destroying any prospect for a diplomatic settlement. A vote against its preferred policy, the administration has argued (not for the first time), is a vote for war.

The administration has used these same arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions on Iran. Not only did the predictions of catastrophe fail to deter Congress from moving ahead but also, when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong – just as the current predictions will be. And when the scare tactics failed and the vote count in Congress started to turn heavily against its position, the White House changed course – just as it can and should now.

I was a member of the Senate when, between 2009 and 2012, Congress developed a series of bills that dramatically increased pressure on Tehran for its illicit nuclear activities, including adopting a measure in late 2011 that effectively banned Iran from selling oil – its economic lifeblood – on international markets. In every case, senior Obama administration officials worked to block congressional efforts, warning that they were unnecessary, counterproductive and even dangerous.

Much like today, the White House repeatedly argued that sanctions would isolate the United States and alienate our allies whose help we needed. In the case of the oil ban, a Cabinet member bluntly told members that adopting the measure risked torpedoing the global economic recovery.

These predictions proved false. In fact, it was only because of the sanctions adopted by Congress, and ultimately signed by President Obama, that sufficient economic pressure was put on the Iranian government that its leaders came to the negotiating table – a truth the Obama administration now accepts and asserts. Our allies and partners did not always welcome new restrictions on doing business in Tehran, but in the end, they decided it was more important to do business in the United States.

It is important for members of Congress deciding how to vote on the current proposal to consider this history because it reminds us of the administration’s past misguided efforts to stop, slow or weaken sanctions bills. Equally important, recent legislative history tells us that as bipartisan congressional support for these bills began to snowball, the White House shifted its position.

At first, members of Congress – particularly Democrats – were warned not to do anything. But as the administration began to see the votes slipping from its grip, it changed tack and started negotiating the timing and scope of the prospective new law.

Indeed, the same drama played out just a few months ago, as Congress debated whether it should review the then-impending nuclear agreement.

Here too, the White House insisted that requiring legislative review and approval of a nuclear agreement with Iran was obstructive and damaging. But when Democrats began to support the legislation, and it was clear that a strong bipartisan coalition was converging around the idea, the administration withdrew its opposition and the president signed the legislation. The current congressional review is the result.

Congress should keep this experience in mind as it reviews the nuclear agreement with Iran. While the White House predictably is trying to scaremonger Capitol Hill into taking no action, experience and common sense suggest that the reality after congressional rejection is likely to be quite different. In the aftermath of Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) principled and courageous stand against the proposed agreement, the prospects for such a bipartisan rejection seem increasingly likely.

If a bipartisan supermajority does in fact begin to cohere in criticism of the undeniable loopholes and inadequacies of the agreement, it is likely the administration will adjust its position. Provisions that today are impossible to change will become subject to renegotiation and clarification.

The best chance for a better deal, in other words, is overwhelming bipartisan pressure from Capitol Hill about the need for one, rather than acquiescing to the Obama administration’s claim that this is the best agreement possible because Iran will go no further.

That conclusion overlooks two truths: First, the Iranians are historically capable of adjusting positions they have claimed were immovable to new political realities, and, second, Iran, because of its depleted economy, needs an agreement much more than we do. Congress has the power now to act on these two realities.

This is an initiative, moreover, that many of our friends and partners are likely to welcome. Certainly the countries most affected by the deal – Israel and the Gulf Arab states – have made no secret of their dismay at the concessions granted to the Iranians in the quest for a settlement. Reportedly, even some of our European allies may not be wholly displeased by some congressional push-back – even if not all of them admit so publicly.

Not so long ago, everyone agreed that no deal with Iran was better than a bad deal. Now, the administration has changed the standard to whether it is possible to get a better deal than the flawed one it got in Vienna. History suggests it is – but we will never know unless a bipartisan super-majority comes together to demand it.

_________________

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

About UANI

United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group that seeks to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to obtain nuclear weapons. UANI was founded in 2008 by Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, the late Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and Middle East expert Dennis Ross. UANI’s private sanctions campaigns and state and Federal legislative initiatives focus on ending the economic and financial support of the Iranian regime by corporations at a time when the international community is attempting to compel Iran to abandon its illegal nuclear weapons program, support for terrorism and gross human rights violations.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), based in London, is an independent think tank that works closely with leaders in government, business, media and academia to develop multi-country responses to the major security and socio-economic challenges of our time and enhance Europe’s capacity to act effectively in the global arena. ISD’s activities seek to foster leadership and stability across Europe and its wider neighbourhood, actively bridging inter-communal, religious, socio-economic and political divides.

The UANI-ISD Initiative (UANI-ISD Initiative) is an unprecedented transatlantic partnership dedicated to combatting the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. By partnering together, UANI and ISD combine the knowledge and experience of READ THE REST

I’d rather go to War than Make a Deal with a Devil


John R. Houk

© July 31, 2015

Let me begin with a thirteen minute speech delivered by Caroline Glick. If you didn’t know that Glick was an American born Jewish gal that is now an Israeli citizen and senior editor for the Jerusalem Post, you would think she was an evangelical preacher. THIS IS GOOD PREACHING!

VIDEO: Caroline Glick speaks at Stop Iran Rally in New York City #StopIranRally

Published by Bob David

Published on Jul 22, 2015

Caroline Glick speaks out against Obama’s surrender to Iran and his facilitation of their mass murder terrorist operations and acquisition of nuclear weapons. (Video Hat Tip: United with Israel)

America has endured seven years of Obama cover-ups and lies. Combine this with a gullible duped electorate that admires America’s first Black President while ignoring the destructive nature of Obama’s transformation of America. You will see the full swing of tragedy engulfing America with Congress laying down its constitutional power to Executive Order authority.

International agreements that have the force of law comes under the category of a Treaty. The Constitution tells us all treaties need Congressional approval. Obama has flouted the Constitution by pushing the envelope of the rule of law with the fiat of an Executive Order. The Executive Order/Agreement is nothing new in the evolution of the Executive Branch stretching the bounds of the Constitution often with the consent of the Judicial Branch. UNFORTUNATELY this Iran Nuke Deal by Obama’s Administration has all the elements of a Treaty; however Obama’s EO power has placed Congress in the position of passing legislation to overrule an agreement that will affect America’s future National Security, Israel’s existence and undermine the few Arab/Sunni-Muslim allies the government has courted because of a threatening Twelver-Shia Iran.

Rather than being the constitutional position of the required 2/3 Senate approval of a Treaty, Obama is forcing legislation to pass both Houses and if there is a Presidential veto both Houses have to come up with 2/3 majorities to override the veto.

On a personal level it is my feeling that any agreement that allows a saber rattling and terrorist supporting nation such as Iran is not worth the paper signed upon. It is my understanding that Iran’s nuclear program is left intact including the ability to enrich weapons grade uranium. Iranians are just promising they won’t pursue such an enrichment for ten years. So even if we can believe weapons grade enrichment is suspended, Iran can pick up where they left off. And assuming there is no clandestine nuclear enrichment, Iran is more than free to develop weaponry including Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) capable of carrying some form of weapon(s) of mass destruction (WMD).

Also Obama’s nuke deal stops all economic sanctions against Iran BEFORE any verification of Iranian trustworthiness proceeds which includes releasing hundreds of billions of dollars confiscated due to previous sanction violations by Iran.

For clarity’s sake then, Iran can develop weaponry systems, continue to supply Islamic terrorists with weapons and plan Israel’s destruction pertaining to the death to America and death to Israel rhetoric that Obama dismisses as playing politics to the Iranian Twelver constituents who believe their Hidden 12th Imam will emerge to cause global chaos ushering in a Shi’ite-Islamic domination of planet earth.

The Obama supporters (including BHO) are planting the seeds of fear that the only alternative to the best deal that can be arrived at with Iran is war. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that war with Iran in some form or another is inevitable. So is it better to engage in a military action now in which Iran can only respond with conventional weapons now better than a nuclear war later in which many more lives perish including creating inhabitable land due to radiation?

Also the Obama international cohorts seem to indicate they are going through with sanction lifting against Iran whether Congress thwarts Obama or not. Iran Nuke Deal supporters claim that European abandonment to economics and oil benefits Iran who continue to enrich uranium without a deal thus producing a nuke weapon. So again, is a conventional war in the present favorable or a nuke war in the future which includes psycho-Iranians that have a death culture? That death culture means the Cold War adage that prevented an American vs. a Sino-Soviet nuclear war via the military theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will not stop Iran.

Iran is not a secular nation that reasons in geopolitics in the same way that Western Nations and global economic minded despotic nations like Russia and China would reason even today. As far as Twelver-Shi’ites are concerned a MAD scenario will simply bring a global Islamic era under Allah quicker.

For all the bad things Iran Nuke Deal supports believe will read this Foreign Policy essay by Suzanne Nossel: “This Is What Will Happen if Congress Blows Up the Iran Nuclear Deal: If the naysayers manage to blow up the newly minted agreement, it will be a disaster for the United States — and will only push Iran closer to the bomb.” –July 30, 2015

I know I’m just a small time Okie blogger, but sure seems a “NO” to the Iran Nuke Deal means bad consequences now. AGAIN I’m here to tell you a “YES” to the Iran Nuke Deal means WORSE consequences in our future. AND if Iran proves untrustworthy as I suspect, those WORSE consequences will arrive sooner rather than later.

Iran Nuke Installation May 2015 Map

I believe Norman Podhoretz sums up the reality of the Iran Nuke Deal in the last paragraph of his July 28 Wall Street Journal editorial: “Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later”.

The brutal truth is that the actual alternatives before us are not Mr. Obama’s deal or war. They are conventional war now or nuclear war later. John Kerry recently declared that Israel would be making a “huge mistake” to take military action against Iran. But Mr. Kerry, as usual, is spectacularly wrong. Israel would not be making a mistake at all, let alone a huge one. On the contrary, it would actually be sparing itself—and the rest of the world—a nuclear conflagration in the not too distant future. (Israel’s Choice: Conventional War Now, or Nuclear War Later; By Norman Podhoretz; WSJ; 7/28/15)

The best thing for the U.S. to do would be to back Israeli military action against Iranian nuke sites. When Iran counterattacks Israel, then would be a good time to demonstrate to Israel and other nominal Middle East allies that we protect our allies and nail Iran from all sides without necessarily planning an invasion. Incapacitating Iran’s infrastructure will cause Iran to run out of retaliatory options soon enough. AND thank god, a military strike now means no nuke WMD future options for Iran.

Further Reading:

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran Nuke Deal PDF) Vienna 7/14/15

Obama’s Gamble with Iran’s Theocratic RegimeIsrapundit cross posted from Gatestone Institute 7/28/15

Obama Administration’s “Side Deals” with Iran Make Waves in CongressBreaking Israel News 7/27/15

John Kerry hasn’t even seen one of the most crucial parts of the Iran agreementBusiness Insider 7/30/15

State Spokesman Repeatedly Refuses to Answer Whether There Are ‘Side Deals’ Between Iran and Nuclear WatchdogWashington Free Beacon 7/22/15

JRH 7/31/15

Please Support NCCR