Will congressional Democrats destroy Obama’s Iran deal?

posted at 11:31 am on November 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Short answer: Probably not. Longer answer: Probably not, but with a member of the leadership talking tough and Democratic aides refusing to give lefty bloggers a straight answer when they’re asked if they have O’s back on this, no one knows for sure. I’d guess the odds of a revolt are 10 percent — but check back with me in a week if HHS misses the November 30th deadline to upgrade Healthcare.gov. If Obama can’t get that done, droves of Dems might decide to abandon ship.

Less than a day after the news broke that a deal has been reached putting a temporary hold on Iran’s nuclear program, influential Senate Democrats immediately moved to cast doubt on the compromise, predicting Dems would pass a new round of sanctions on Iran. One core question is not just whether Dems will pass sanctions, but whether they would take hold before the deal’s six month deadline. The White House fears both outcomes, but the latter one even more…

A senior Senate Dem aide declined to rule out the possibility that Dems could pass sanctions that take hold before the six month deadline. When I asked if that was still possible, the aide said: “Don’t know yet,” adding that it might not be “possible to get a new round of sanctions up and running faster than that.” Sanctions legislation that takes hold before or after the six month mark remains a real possibility…

As it is, the Obama administration is wary of additional Senate-imposed sanctions that would kick in even after six months. The administration’s position is a delicate balancing act: On the one hand, it argues that the six-month expiration date is a deadline in and of itself, meaning there is no need for Senate Dems to impose their own deadline. On the other, the administration wants to preserve flexibility in a scenario where both sides want to keep negotiating after the six month expiration date in the belief that a long term deal is within reach.

Iran’s foreign minister said this weekend that passing new sanctions means the deal is off. What if those sanctions don’t take effect unless/until the new six-month negotiation period ends without a final deal, though? Not clear yet, although the FM did say that “I think the West, particularly the U.S., needs to do a lot to at least partially restore confidence — the confidence of the Iranian people.” I read that as him saying that any further escalation, even if it’s delayed and conditional, would lead Iran to walk away, but maybe he’s bluffing. If Iran walks now and opens a new rift with the U.S., Netanyahu may seize the opportunity to attack before the rift can be healed. Israel’s paralyzed as long as this U.S.-Iran detente lasts and Iran knows it, so maybe they’ll accept conditional sanctions simply in the name of keeping the IAF grounded. What happens in the spring, though, when — as will almost certainly be the case — the six months is up and there’s no deal yet, and the White House decides it wants another six-month extension to keep working on one? Maybe Obama’s political stock will have rebounded to the point where congressional Dems are more willing to work with him then than now, but given what you know about the political landmines facing ObamaCare next year, how probable do you think that is? Are Democrats more likely or less to want to run on the Obama record six months out from the 2014 midterms?

Obama might be able to avert all this by simply vetoing the new sanctions Congress passes, of course, but that creates three new headaches for him. One: Does he really want to be seen singlehandedly torpedoing legislation passed with heavy bipartisan support aimed at a key U.S. enemy? He gets enough heat from the right for being too soft on Islamist outfits like the Muslim Brotherhood. The last thing he needs is to have Democrats suddenly grumbling about that too vis-a-vis a major terrorist power. Two: If he decides not to veto in the name of keeping congressional Dems more or less on his side, would the new sanctions actually weaken his hand in negotiating with Iran? The point of the sanctions in theory is to weaken Iran’s hand by frightening them with the prospect of even more economic pain if they don’t make a final deal with the U.S. before spring. Iran surely realizes, though, that the White House is at least as frightened at the thought of Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure or, worse, the U.S. having to do it instead. Having new sanctions in the pipeline, waiting to go if there’s no deal in the next six months, means Obama will be even more desperate to strike a bargain before they take effect and push him into an even higher level of hostility with Iran. That could mean a lot of eleventh-hour concessions. Three: Er, what if O has no choice? The last time the House and Senate passed legislation aimed at Iran sanctions, they did it nearly unanimously. It’s quite possible that new sanctions would pass with veto-proof majorities, even with Dems knowing what a tough spot that would put Obama in. He screwed them royally in botching the ObamaCare rollout. What do they care if he suffers politically now?

My own take on the deal is that it achieves next to nothing but maybe doesn’t cost much either. If you’ve followed the Iranian nuke saga over the years, you know already that there are three enrichment benchmarks on the way to a bomb — five percent U-235 purity, 20 percent purity, and then 90 percent weapons-grade purity. You also know that most of the hard work in that process is getting from zero to five percent. Getting from five percent to 20 and then to 90 is fairly quick and easy. Iran just agreed, essentially, to give up its 20-percent pure uranium but to keep enriching at the five percent level. That’s no big concession. On the other hand, it may be a big concession by the U.S. to relax some of the sanctions on Iran temporarily. I’m unsure how the mechanics of loosening and then tightening sanctions work, but the group United Against Nuclear Iran thinks that loosening them even temporarily is a very big deal insofar as it’ll spur a rebound in the value of the rial that won’t quickly evaporate if/when sanctions are re-imposed in the spring. And that assumes that there’ll be political will internationally to reimpose them at all: More likely, western powers will want to keep the relaxed sanctions suspended to encourage rapprochement with Iran. Rouhani will say encouraging moderate-y things and “dialogue” will continue, even if the nuclear question remains unsettled. If Bibi thinks his job is hard now, imagine what it’ll be like in April.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I am not as pessimistic as you, so I certainly hope so.

Heck, let him blame Bush, or who ever he wants to so long as he fails.

Who was that guy who said: “I hope he fails”?

Who’d a’ thunk it was our side that reverted to hope…

cozmo on November 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I don’t know why any Democrat would be critical of a deal struck in the dead of night, suspiciously timed to change the focus from the domestic agenda failures, and without any consultation with Israel. Why would any Dem not be proud of that?

Oh yeah……….. the Jews. More specifically the Jews who contribute to Dem political campaigns.

Happy Nomad on November 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Negotiating with Iran is like having intimate, meaningful conversation with a hooker.

BobMbx on November 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

If they don’t obama will be responsible for:

1. Iran having the bomb.

2. Israel either attacking Iran soon, or be destroyed.

3. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and others soon acquiring the bomb.

4. Russia remaining the new capo in the ME, because obama made Putin so.

5. Syria and Iran ruling the ME.

Iran threatened obama with the petro-dollar because obama is beholden to the US greens, the eunuchy moron.

Plus, he’s always helping out his wild muzzie brothers.

The deal made the Iranians delirious with joy.

obama hates the USA and Israel.

Many Ds in congress/the senate know this.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Nice knowing you Israel…sad I never got to visit it.

nextgen_repub on November 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

The deal means nothing. Iranians are renowned world class liars just like Obama.

They are proceeding on schedule to produce a nuclear weapon.

Why is anyone buying into this dog and pony show?

fogw on November 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

KT McFarland said today “it’s like a popcorn machine…obama let them have the machine, supplies them with billions to buy more popcorn, but slowed down the butter for a time…”…paraphrased, but close.

Good luck monitoring, daily, 19,000 sites…that’s how much the Iranians have progressed under obama.

Wake up stupid Europeans and American. It’s all in front of your eyes.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

If Benjamin opposes it, I will side with him over our mope.

hillsoftx on November 25, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Doubtful…..they will stick with him to the bitter end……they may object but it’ll be all talk no action from the dems

cmsinaz on November 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The reaction, or non-reaction from all the other ME lands should tell you all you need to know.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:44 AM

It should go even deeper than that.

Negotiating with a hostile foreign power to lift sanctions in exchange for concessions on their part is an awful lot like negotiating a treaty, whether you call it that or not. And treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Constitutionally, this “deal” Obama has struck is invalid on its face unless and until the Senate votes to approve it.

However, we know how much this administration pays attention to the Constitution, and how willing the other two branches of government are to restrict him. So I suspect it’s all academic at this point.

Shump on November 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Israel’s paralyzed as long as this U.S.-Iran detente lasts and Iran knows it, so maybe they’ll accept conditional sanctions simply in the name of keeping the IAF grounded.

I’m not so sure Israel is paralyzed here. They’ve acted before (like hitting Osirak in 1981) and lived with the criticism. If they feel their very existence is threatened, why not act?

Bitter Clinger on November 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Two certainties:

Bibi will strike Iran.

Mitch McConnell is fighting Conservatives.

d1carter on November 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM

OT

Tha Azzhole in Chief is campaigning in SF and LA today and tomorrow. He sure ‘cares’ about all the unemployed, uninsured and the soon to be dead, due to obama’care’.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Negotiating with Iran is like having intimate, meaningful conversation with a hooker.

BobMbx on November 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

“My country just doesn’t understand me, maybe we could just cuddle a while……….”

Happy Nomad on November 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM

doesn’t know anything but…sad

cmsinaz on November 25, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Liberal logic: If Israel strikes Iran it will not be Obama’s fault, just like when insurers raised their premiums it was not Obamacare’s fault.

ctmom on November 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

What are the odds that there is a deal in 6 months ?
I say if anybody scuttles this ship, it will be the Iranians.
Of course, John “Magic hat” Kerry and his boss will probably try to move the goal posts.

J_Crater on November 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Tha Azzhole in Chief is campaigning in SF and LA today and tomorrow. He sure ‘cares’ about all the unemployed, uninsured and the soon to be dead, due to obama’care’.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Oh please! They’ll Potemkin village the whole visit and he’s there to raise money from rich liberals who are as much in-a-bubble as the lazy stupid bastard.

That being said, I hope that one or two of those rich Hollywood Jews give him a lecture on allies in the Middle East instead of giving him a check.

Happy Nomad on November 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

I’m not so sure Israel is paralyzed here. They’ve acted before (like hitting Osirak in 1981) and lived with the criticism. If they feel their very existence is threatened, why not act?

Bitter Clinger on November 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM

They are likely under massive pressure from the US to do nothing and allow Iran to go nuclear.

Part of the reason Obama’s doing this is because he needs some kind of foreign policy “victory” after the Syria and Obamacare fiascos. The King will be most wroth with Israel if they defy him and bomb Iran anyway.

Doomberg on November 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Israel’s paralyzed as long as this U.S.-Iran detente lasts and Iran knows it, so maybe they’ll accept conditional sanctions simply in the name of keeping the IAF grounded.

I’m not so sure Israel is paralyzed here. They’ve acted before (like hitting Osirak in 1981) and lived with the criticism. If they feel their very existence is threatened, why not act?

Bitter Clinger on November 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Agree. Maybe it will even make the Iranians complacent.

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM

This may be the trade the commie hate America Democrats of the Obama kind have up the crooked sleeve ,,,

“We will not go ahead with letting the Mullas of Iran have nukes all you have to do Republicans is vote for an amnesty.”

like that,, traitors cutting traitor deals…

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

It’s all in front of your eyes.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Obama was right there in front of their eyes too. An open book for all who cared to look. Yet he got elected…Twice!

Oldnuke on November 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Negotiating with Iran is like having intimate, meaningful conversation with a hooker.

BobMbx on November 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I’m quite certain that the average hooker has more intellectual depth than our current administration.

Shump on November 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The King will be most wroth with Israel if they defy him and bomb Iran anyway.

Doomberg on November 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Do you really think that Bibi cares what the legless stool in the Oval office thinks.

Rio Linda Refugee on November 25, 2013 at 12:03 PM

antifederalist hardest hit: WaPo Poll: 64% Oppose Nuke Deal With Iran, Only 30% In Favor

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The USSR never honored a treaty. Why would anyone think it would be any different with a muslim country where lying to the infidel is part and parcel of the basics of their barbarism.

TerryW on November 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM

slickwillie2001 on November 25, 2013 at 12:06 PM

The Troll won’t care. The voices in his head assure him that he is right.

kingsjester on November 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

That being said, I hope that one or two of those rich Hollywood Jews give him a lecture on allies in the Middle East instead of giving him a check.

Happy Nomad on November 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Thanks for the much needed LOL.

HumpBot Salvation on November 25, 2013 at 12:10 PM

More reasons to get rid of as many democrats as possible.

redguy on November 25, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Iran just agreed, essentially, to give up its 20-percent pure uranium but to keep enriching at the five percent level.

Baloney.

Did we learn nothing from North Korea? Apparently this clown show didn’t.

iurockhead on November 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM

This whole Iranian deal fiasco is nothing but crap. We’re dealing with raving lunatics. They will get nuclear weapons. The Norks already have them. Pakistan has them. More will follow. This genie ain’t going back into the bottle. This will not end well. Right now it’s not a matter of if one of these whackos will use them it’s only a matter of when.

Oldnuke on November 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Did we learn nothing from North Korea? Apparently this clown show didn’t.

iurockhead on November 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM

The ayahtolla (sp? and I really don’t give a crap) is just p!ssed that Kerry didn’t give him a basketball and arrange a visit from Dennis Rodman.

Oldnuke on November 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I am Obama, you will obey my lies.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on November 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Nice knowing you Israel…sad I never got to visit it.

nextgen_repub on November 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Don’t be a pessimist. And go visit Israel now. You won’t regret it.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

The entire deal is predicated on the honesty and willingness of the Iranian Mad Mullah’s to halt their nuclear weapon program as sanctions are eased. However, it’s already been well established that Iran has never honored any of the international commitments they have made regarding their nuclear program – and they have done everything possible to not only hide their efforts, but accelerate them.

To call this deal feckless and naive is perhaps an understatement.

Frankly, all I see in ‘complaints’ coming from Congressional Democrats are little more than examples of lip service designed and intended to placate liberal Jewish voters who are part of some of their bases. Nothing serious will come out from the Dingy Harry Senate to challenge the ‘deal’.

Athos on November 25, 2013 at 12:35 PM

This whole Iranian deal fiasco is nothing but crap. We’re dealing with raving lunatics. They will get nuclear weapons. The Norks already have them. Pakistan has them. More will follow. This genie ain’t going back into the bottle. This will not end well. Right now it’s not a matter of if one of these whackos will use them it’s only a matter of when.

Oldnuke on November 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM

And, maybe that’s the dog-eared traitor’s plan. He would want nothing more than an American city hit with a suitcase or other nuke. Certainly not DC nor Chicago, better a big city in a red state. The resulting chaos would give him all he needs to impose martial law throughout the land, suspend elections and the Constitution, you name it.

I put nothing past this bastard and his acolytes.

TXUS on November 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM

rat-eared, dog-eating traitor

TXUS on November 25, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Will congressional Democrats destroy Obama’s Iran deal?

Only if poll data interpretation suggests wide-spread congressional re-election consequences. This isn’t about honor, or ideals, or alliances, or deterrence, or any of that other platitudinal pap for peons crap, ya know. This is about converting defense spending to pork, to no-pay-back loans for the favored, for returns on bundler investments; this is about new business, not old bargains with low yields. U.S. military hegemony to protect Western trade is dead. Dead as the U.K. navy; it’s a zombie hitching a ride to the cemetery. Money flows the San Jose way westward, with a few stops along the way, to the East side of the Rim these days. Wake up.

/sheesh, it’s like talkin’ to Boy Scouts or something

M240H on November 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Obama was right there in front of their eyes too. An open book for all who cared to look. Yet he got elected…Twice!

Oldnuke on November 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Why the people are more to blame than he is. He fooled them. Too bad we got him too.

Schadenfreude on November 25, 2013 at 1:00 PM

This just in:

President Jarret is dating a Muslim. (Ahmad Rashad)
Yes, THAT Rashad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/valerie_jarrett_reportedly_dating_a_muslim.html

That would explain this Iran deal would it not??

ToddPA on November 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Negotiating with Iran is like having intimate, meaningful conversation with a hooker.

BobMbx on November 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Yea. And you’re get the same thing in the end.

Tsar of Earth on November 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM

They are likely under massive pressure from the US to do nothing and allow Iran to go nuclear.

Part of the reason Obama’s doing this is because he needs some kind of foreign policy “victory” after the Syria and Obamacare fiascos. The King will be most wroth with Israel if they defy him and bomb Iran anyway.

Doomberg on November 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM


Read up a little …

Israel has attacked Syria on at least three separate occasions THIS year while giving the SCOAMF administration NO heads up.

In one of those attacks, they used cruise missiles launched from their submarines – we know that fact due to “a highly placed Obama administration source.”

The Israelis have NEVER been deterred by the U.S. on anything they consider an “existential” issue.

PolAgnostic on November 25, 2013 at 1:08 PM

antifederalist hardest hit: WaPo Poll: 64% Oppose Nuke Deal With Iran, Only 30% In Favor

slickwillie2001

Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha………

xblade on November 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM

If dems haven’t had a come to Jesus by now, do you think they will over this? The documentary 2016 warned us of all of this but no one, once again, paid attention.

crosshugger on November 25, 2013 at 1:13 PM

So, are we to conclude that ValJar didn’t check in with Chucky before she cut the deal?

BKeyser on November 25, 2013 at 1:27 PM

No. To them Iran building a nuke is not worse than being called a racist for disagreeing with Obama…

albill on November 25, 2013 at 1:37 PM

A lot of people are going to die because of this. I think the Israelis would like to stop it, but I’m not sure they can do it conventionally. They might have to go nuclear just to protect themselves. If they don’t, Iran will destroy them.

The third big target in all of this is us. The Iranians only need one or two bombs to destroy Israel. I’d guess the others will be coming here. An EMP strike would put most of the US back to about 1870. If they want to sneak something in, Washington, DC and New York are, ironically, the biggest targets.

Of course, the greatest irony of all is that if they destroy any significant number of US cities, the democrat party will quite literally go up in smoke.

I’m getting happier and happier about moving out to the middle of nowhere.

trigon on November 25, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Of course, the greatest irony of all is that if they destroy any significant number of US cities

You know…an attack on NYC, DC, Boston, SF, and LA is sounding better and better to me.

PD Quig on November 25, 2013 at 8:28 PM

The USSR never honored a treaty. Why would anyone think it would be any different with a muslim country where lying to the infidel is part and parcel of the basics of their barbarism.

TerryW on November 25, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Not disagreeing with you, but even the US doesn’t have that great a track record.
Treaties are only as good as the people who make them, or the ones who follow; and only last as long as the conditions are useful to the signatories.
Some just have a shorter life than others.

AesopFan on November 26, 2013 at 12:03 AM