Even the Bible Has To Agree
Published in der Freitag
(Germany) on 12 August 2015
by Konrad Ege (link to original)
The uproar over Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal makes for a lot of noise and is discussed on numerous talk shows, but the president holds the better hand in that game. He only has to ensure that his own Democrats hold their nerve and don't abandon him. So, in spite of the summer heat, he invites a lot of them to join him on the golf course.
The attacks from the right came before the politicians even had time to read the 159-page agreement designed to rein in Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. Opponents question the verifiability of such a pact and regret the fact that as soon as sanctions on Iran are loosened, the nation stands to benefit economically: Tehran will then invest that money in expanding their conventional weapons programs and “stir up trouble” in the region. The agreement is therefore unacceptable, according to Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner. He is seconded by presidential candidate Scott Walker, who says he will tear the treaty up on the first day of his presidency.
Overheated rhetoric likened Iran to the Nazis. Candidate Mike Huckabee spoke of the door to the ovens to which Obama will lead the Israelis with his treaty. On SiriusXM radio, Republican congressman Robert Pittenger commented that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made the same mistake in 1938 by appeasing Hitler. The consequences of the Iran deal, he said, will make Hitler look like “a minor player” in comparison. Even the Bible got into the act as Senator Tom Cotton compared Secretary of State John Kerry to Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands in innocence after sentencing Jesus Christ to be crucified.
Republicans trust Obama about as much as they trust Iran. Opponents of the deal aren't only opposed to it, but they also have a partisan eye on history: Obama can't be remembered as a strong president. Right now, he's not looking very weak — nothing like the image of a lame duck he had right after the 2014 election. Since then, he's had quite a few victories: The restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba following over a half century of cold war; domestically, the Supreme Court's affirmation of his gay marriage edict as well as his health care reform law, his most meaningful sociopolitical project. And now this historic deal with the Islamic Republic after so many years of futile negotiations.
It's not particularly hard to drum up anti-Iran sentiments in the United States. Iran has served as America's public enemy number one since it took over the U.S. Embassy in revolutionary Tehran in 1979, and held U.S. diplomatic staff prisoner there for 444 days. Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made several anti-Semitic statements that made it apparent that this was not a leader that should have access to nuclear weapons. Currently, Iran holds a Washington Post journalist captive on suspicion of espionage, a fate also shared by an American Protestant cleric.
The Great Opponent
Republicans have always been opposed to any nuclear deal with Iran. In March, Speaker of the House Boehner invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress in an attempt to scuttle any such possible agreement. A couple of weeks afterward, 47 Republican representatives sent a letter to the Iranian government, with the warning that Congress had the authority to overturn any such legislation at any time. Now the agreement is on the table, and it has finally dawned on those 47 legislators that they had bitten off more than they could chew. Obama doesn't even need a majority in Congress. The agreement was negotiated by seven nations. Beside Iran and the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany were also signatories. It's not a contract requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to approve it — a simple majority is sufficient.
In April, with a majority of seats in both House and Senate, Republicans passed a nuclear agreement with Iran, with a provision that Congress had 60 days to register its objections and to object to lifting any sanctions. The clock has been ticking since July 20. In the event of a possible congressional rejection, Obama has already announced he would veto that decision, which would require a two-thirds Republican majority in both houses to override. By then, even if the Republicans voted unanimously to uphold the veto, they would still need 13 Democratic Senators and 44 Democrats in the House to join in with them. But the Republican majority has never had good enough relations with the Democratic minority to be able to count on that scenario.
Besides, the Republicans are currently mired in a primary election. Seventeen candidates are fighting to be the party's nominee for the White House in 2016. Anyone hoping to be heard has to talk loudly and trenchantly — no complicated analyses. Jeb Bush warns of “appeasement” toward Iran. His rival Lindsey Graham insists that the Iran agreement is a “possible death sentence for Israel.” Donald Trump, author of “Art of the Deal,” condemned the negotiations, saying, “We know they're going to cheat.”
The great opponent who also has good ties to the Democrats is currently the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to The Washington Post, is now supporting a newcomer organization called “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” (CNFI). CNFI is running a $40 million television campaign threatening to withhold support for those members of Congress who don't vote their way. The “citizens” in their title are advised by a group including people like former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, who has already branded the nuclear agreement dangerous, noting that Iran has already violated more than 20 such agreements. His complaint echoes that of former Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu: The agreement allows Iran to continue development of its intercontinental ballistic missile program. AIPAC claims to be “America's pro-Israel lobby” — hinting that it is also the voice of American Jews. Of course, their opinions vary widely. As the Jewish Journal reports, 54 percent of American Jews support the Iran nuclear deal, as opposed to 35 percent against it.
America First
In a New York Times interview, Obama waxed nearly nostalgic about Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and their willingness to engage in diplomatic initiatives. Reagan even signed agreements with the “Evil Empire,” the Soviet Union itself, with the proviso that they were verifiable. And Richard Nixon saw the possibility of China deciding on a new course. Nixon was willing to make the change as long as nations didn't have to disadvantage themselves, while Obama praised the fact that diplomacy worked even if it didn't bring perfect results. Diplomacy might not have brought people everything they wanted immediately, but it allowed them to shape the future so current problems might be solved at a later date. The Iran agreement gave the world that chance, according to Obama.
With that, Obama distanced himself from the business-as-usual macho idea that the U.S. could get 100 percent of what it wanted, always and everywhere.
The attacks from the right came before the politicians even had time to read the 159-page agreement designed to rein in Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon. Opponents question the verifiability of such a pact and regret the fact that as soon as sanctions on Iran are loosened, the nation stands to benefit economically: Tehran will then invest that money in expanding their conventional weapons programs and “stir up trouble” in the region. The agreement is therefore unacceptable, according to Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner. He is seconded by presidential candidate Scott Walker, who says he will tear the treaty up on the first day of his presidency.
Overheated rhetoric likened Iran to the Nazis. Candidate Mike Huckabee spoke of the door to the ovens to which Obama will lead the Israelis with his treaty. On SiriusXM radio, Republican congressman Robert Pittenger commented that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made the same mistake in 1938 by appeasing Hitler. The consequences of the Iran deal, he said, will make Hitler look like “a minor player” in comparison. Even the Bible got into the act as Senator Tom Cotton compared Secretary of State John Kerry to Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands in innocence after sentencing Jesus Christ to be crucified.
Republicans trust Obama about as much as they trust Iran. Opponents of the deal aren't only opposed to it, but they also have a partisan eye on history: Obama can't be remembered as a strong president. Right now, he's not looking very weak — nothing like the image of a lame duck he had right after the 2014 election. Since then, he's had quite a few victories: The restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba following over a half century of cold war; domestically, the Supreme Court's affirmation of his gay marriage edict as well as his health care reform law, his most meaningful sociopolitical project. And now this historic deal with the Islamic Republic after so many years of futile negotiations.
It's not particularly hard to drum up anti-Iran sentiments in the United States. Iran has served as America's public enemy number one since it took over the U.S. Embassy in revolutionary Tehran in 1979, and held U.S. diplomatic staff prisoner there for 444 days. Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made several anti-Semitic statements that made it apparent that this was not a leader that should have access to nuclear weapons. Currently, Iran holds a Washington Post journalist captive on suspicion of espionage, a fate also shared by an American Protestant cleric.
The Great Opponent
Republicans have always been opposed to any nuclear deal with Iran. In March, Speaker of the House Boehner invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress in an attempt to scuttle any such possible agreement. A couple of weeks afterward, 47 Republican representatives sent a letter to the Iranian government, with the warning that Congress had the authority to overturn any such legislation at any time. Now the agreement is on the table, and it has finally dawned on those 47 legislators that they had bitten off more than they could chew. Obama doesn't even need a majority in Congress. The agreement was negotiated by seven nations. Beside Iran and the United States, Russia, China, France, Great Britain and Germany were also signatories. It's not a contract requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to approve it — a simple majority is sufficient.
In April, with a majority of seats in both House and Senate, Republicans passed a nuclear agreement with Iran, with a provision that Congress had 60 days to register its objections and to object to lifting any sanctions. The clock has been ticking since July 20. In the event of a possible congressional rejection, Obama has already announced he would veto that decision, which would require a two-thirds Republican majority in both houses to override. By then, even if the Republicans voted unanimously to uphold the veto, they would still need 13 Democratic Senators and 44 Democrats in the House to join in with them. But the Republican majority has never had good enough relations with the Democratic minority to be able to count on that scenario.
Besides, the Republicans are currently mired in a primary election. Seventeen candidates are fighting to be the party's nominee for the White House in 2016. Anyone hoping to be heard has to talk loudly and trenchantly — no complicated analyses. Jeb Bush warns of “appeasement” toward Iran. His rival Lindsey Graham insists that the Iran agreement is a “possible death sentence for Israel.” Donald Trump, author of “Art of the Deal,” condemned the negotiations, saying, “We know they're going to cheat.”
The great opponent who also has good ties to the Democrats is currently the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which, according to The Washington Post, is now supporting a newcomer organization called “Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran” (CNFI). CNFI is running a $40 million television campaign threatening to withhold support for those members of Congress who don't vote their way. The “citizens” in their title are advised by a group including people like former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, who has already branded the nuclear agreement dangerous, noting that Iran has already violated more than 20 such agreements. His complaint echoes that of former Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu: The agreement allows Iran to continue development of its intercontinental ballistic missile program. AIPAC claims to be “America's pro-Israel lobby” — hinting that it is also the voice of American Jews. Of course, their opinions vary widely. As the Jewish Journal reports, 54 percent of American Jews support the Iran nuclear deal, as opposed to 35 percent against it.
America First
In a New York Times interview, Obama waxed nearly nostalgic about Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and their willingness to engage in diplomatic initiatives. Reagan even signed agreements with the “Evil Empire,” the Soviet Union itself, with the proviso that they were verifiable. And Richard Nixon saw the possibility of China deciding on a new course. Nixon was willing to make the change as long as nations didn't have to disadvantage themselves, while Obama praised the fact that diplomacy worked even if it didn't bring perfect results. Diplomacy might not have brought people everything they wanted immediately, but it allowed them to shape the future so current problems might be solved at a later date. The Iran agreement gave the world that chance, according to Obama.
With that, Obama distanced himself from the business-as-usual macho idea that the U.S. could get 100 percent of what it wanted, always and everywhere.
Previous article![]( "John Kerry Can Play a Role in the Complete Eradication of Terrorism in Pakistan")
