Christian Whiton:
Congress will hold the first of several hearings on Obama’s Iran deal this Thursday, with some Democrats likely to join unified Republicans in opposing the disaster negotiated in Vienna. Getting the votes to send a disapproval to Obama’s desk should be doable. The two-thirds majority needed to override a certain Obama veto is harder to obtain, but not impossible.
GOP aspirants to the presidency have all expressed opposition to the deal. When he joined the race last Monday, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker promised to end the appeasement scheme with Tehran on “day one” of his administration if elected. (Full disclosure: I’ve endorsed Walker’s candidacy.) Other candidates have promised to kill the accommodation early in their tenure if elected, except for one: Jeb Bush.
Speaking on Friday in what was seen as a pointed jab at Walker specifically, Jeb vowed not to signal the end of a deal at the outset of his notional presidency. His excuse: the lack of a fully emplaced national-security team at that time, whose confirmation would take the better part of a year. In remarks similar to his scolding of the party on amnesty and Common Core, Jeb told a Nevada audience: “If you’re running for president, I think it’s important to be mature and thoughtful about this.”
This was a very Bush statement: preemptive diffidence masquerading as maturity. Furthermore, it’s not just a bad political move that detracts from the current disapproval effort on Capitol Hill; it’s also bad policy.
Whether or not Congress stops Obama’s Iran deal, our next president, beginning with his inaugural address, ought to change our dealings with Tehran. Administrations of both parties have ignored Iranian conduct consistently since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Iran never paid much price for sins such as taking American diplomats hostage, bombing the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon, likely aiding the bombing of the Khobar Towers barracks for U.S. servicemen, and planning a mass-casualty political assassination in Washington, D.C., in 2011.
Another lapse was the decision of Jeb’s brother to downplay Tehran’s role in killing and maiming Americans in Iraq during the insurgency.
Many of us at junior levels of the George W. Bush administration were appalled at what Tehran was getting away with doing to our servicemen. So too were many military officers, who at a minimum wanted the Iranian government called out for training and equipping insurgents. Better still would have been targeting the Iranian operatives who were inside Iraq.
President Bush largely rejected getting tough with Tehran, even after it was clear that it was responsible for hundreds of American deaths. Some of Bush’s senior advisers, much like Obama’s today, thought that pushing back on Iran was too provocative, failing to realize that weakness can be provocative, too.
In the current campaign, Jeb has said that he is his own man, conveying an unsubtle message that he won’t repeat his brother’s shortcomings. However, he has hired some of the same people who advised his brother poorly on Iran. Furthermore, his scolding of other Republicans on Iran sounds a lot like the Bushes of yesteryear.
Whether we like it or not, Obama is going to follow the terms of his agreement. When the next president comes to office, untangling that mess is how to avoid the unintended consequences. All Jeb said is we going to have to study it first. (But Jeb’s team will need to study fast if he comes 45.) As it stands, we don’t know what Obama has committed us to do.
Regarding Whiton: Bush 43’s decision with Iran is does he widen the war to take them on. We probably could’ve handled them, but we would’ve needed a better mix of forces and certainly a more robust effort. A lot more to consider than saying “let’s go.” We caught enough of Iranians and held them as unlawful combatants.
Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Constituent Assembly, or Majlis, holds the power to revise or delay key parts of the nuclear deal, so even this so-called deal hasn’t been agreed to in Iran.
“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.
The Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also something the parliament might hedge on agreeing to.
Without approval of it, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards.
Iran’s parliament is insisting on waiting until AFTER the USA’s Congress ratifies this treaty before they do.
This means they will wait a minimum of 80 days before signing on to this agreement.
No wonder the Ayatollah came before them with an AK-47 and promised them the USA, like Israel, would always be their enemy.
By the time the Iranians sign on this might be such a different agreement from what it is now that the USA’s Congress will have to insist we back out of it.