Obama's Warning Letter to Senate: Don’t Go Messing With My Iran Deal!

Suzanne Hamner 9 hours ago

Obama's Warning Letter to Senate:

Don’t Go Messing With My Iran Deal!

Obama wasted no time in having his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, fire off a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, (R-TN) warning "US Senators to withhold legislation" that "would likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations" with Iran. The letter is issuing a veto threat of Corker's Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 which requires Congress to approve any nuclear deal reached with Iran. Additionally, this letter from the administration could be seen as a response to one signed by 47 Republican Senators that was sent to Iran's Ayatollah.

McDonough claimed in his letter that "Since October 2013, senior Administration officials from the White House, the Departments of State, Energy, Defense and the Intelligence Community have conducted more than 200 meetings, classified briefings, and calls with Senate and House members and their staffs on Iran, over half of which have been conducted since January 2015." McDonough claims that the President, Vice President, cabinet officials, sanctions and nuclear experts were among the officials participating in the meetings.

Being that January has 31 calendar days, February 28 and so far 15 days have been completed in March, and using just half of 200, that would mean that these individuals met once per day and sometimes twice per day. Taking away weekends, Obama's golf and "rock star" personal appearance time, his time spent using the "selfie stick," and TV show appearances, it would up the number of meetings per day. While what McDonough indicated in the letter could be true, one would have serious doubts about the participation of Obama based on Obama's treatment of the office of the presidency. A letter signed by 47 Republican Senators sent to the Iranian leader would indicate that Republicans might be left out of the loop meaning the meetings have been conducted, if at all, with Democratic members of Congress.

McDonough indicated that Congress does have a role to play, along with voting, on any international agreement reached with Iran. However, he also stated in the letter that the Congressional approval of waivers given to the President to suspend some statutory sanctions should remain in place so they can "re-impose" sanctions should Iran falter on the commitment.

McDonough went on to write:

However, the legislation that you have introduced in the Senate goes well beyond ensuring that Congress has a role to play in any deal with Iran. Instead, the legislation would potentially prevent any deal from succeeding by suggesting Congress must vote to "approve" any deal, and by removing existing sanction waiver authorities that have already been granted to the President. We believe that the legislation would likely have a profoundly negative impact on the ongoing negotiations – emboldening Iranian hard-liners, inviting a counter-productive response from the Iranian majiles; differentiating the US position from our allies in the negotiations; and once again calling into question our ability to negotiate this deal.

And just who are the allies in the negotiations?

Obama has thrown most of our European allies under the bus to pander for Islamic governments and regimes. The countries participating in these negotiations may be allies on paper, but have been replaced in practice by our Muslim-in-chief. In the past, US presidents have been true leaders setting the course for others; however, Obama has continually "led from behind."

Are we to believe that any European nation or member of NATO would trust Obama to "help" negotiate any international deal with an Islamic government, such as Iran, when this man has supported the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, aided and abetted terrorist groups

and lied, not only to the American people, but on the world stage?

As the old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

McDonough cited several past incidences where Congressional approval was not needed in certain arrangements between a multitude of nations.

However, under McDonough's own admission, these incidences were either "non-legally" binding frameworks, guidelines, initiatives, codes of conduct, declarations, cooperatives or communique and work plans. These terms are much different than treaties or deals involving the international community.

The request from the White House via McDonough is simple enough –

let the negotiations be completed before Congress acts on legislation. According to the letter, the administration is "committed" to disclosing the details of the deal and the technical documents "related to a long-term comprehensive deal with Congress." The simple goal, according to the letter, is "using diplomacy to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

Once a comprehensive deal has been reached, if there are any serious flaws the Senate discovers, how will Iran react if the "deal" they were promised is not solidified? Isn't it better to discover those things before finalization of a "comprehensive" deal? It's long been known that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But, knowing Obama,

he would ignore any opposition from the Senate.

Is there any country who developed nuclear capability for "peaceful" purposes who didn't go on and develop nuclear weapons? Even though Japan signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty some 40 years ago, Japan has the capability of producing nuclear weapons with rumors existing of a "bomb in the basement."

Furthermore, the letter indicates that the United Nations Security Council would also have some role to play in the deal with Iran.

Because the principal negotiators of an arrangement with Iran are the five permanent members of the Security Council, we anticipate the Security Council would pass a resolution to register its support for any deal and increase its international legitimacy. A resolution would also increase the international pressure on Iran to live up to the deal and would expand the risks if they failed to do so.

The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The other members are rotating, serving two year terms, and elected from the General Assembly; however, the 10 non-permanent members do not have veto capability. Any time the UN is involved should cause some alarm. Looking at the five permanent members of the Security Council does not produce any confidence whatsoever.

None of these five permanent members will even identify the problem

with the Iranian government as its deeply cemented Islamic roots.

This government adheres to the strictness of Sharia law, engages in

all practices of deception to include taqiyya, and has partnered with Russia on several trade agreements including a joint oil exchange in

July 2010.

It boils down simply to one statement. Giving Obama's propensity of supporting Islam, aligning with Islamic governments, filling his administration with members of the terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood, and aiding and abetting America's enemies, such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, this man has no business whatsoever brokering anything with Iran. Congress, particularly the Republicans in the Senate, are right to be concerned as Democrats will not go against their "savior."

However, had Congress had the backbone to deal with the treasonous Criminal-in-Chief according to the US Constitution, and any successor accordingly as well, while expelling its own criminal elements, the members might could rest a bit easier knowing there was not a "loose wire" in the White House.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/obamas-warning-letter-to-senate-dont-go-messing-with-my-iran-deal/#fzpBcxCBSQ1YIMeY.99