Uh oh: House Democrats ready to blow up Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran?

posted at 6:01 pm on December 6, 2013 by Allahpundit

The problem with O asking them to eat one crap sandwich after another on ObamaCare is that eventually there’s no room for dessert.

They abandoned him when he asked for congressional approval to bomb Assad. They’re not going to abandon him on this too. Are they?

The worry is that Dem Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Dem, may join with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor on a resolution or bill that will either criticize the current temporary deal with Iran, or call for a new round of sanctions, or set as U.S. policy some strict parameters on a final deal with Iran, such as opposition to any continued uranium enrichment, House Democratic aides say. House Dems and outside foreign policy observers have communicated such worries to Hoyer’s office, sources add…

Any resolution or bill along these lines that has the support of any House Dem leaders would increase the pressure on Senate Democrats to pass a measure of their own, which the White House opposes. And some fear that a measure in the House itself — even if the Senate didn’t act — could have an adverse impact on international talks…

Senate Democrats are already debating whether to vote on a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran that would take hold after the six month expiration of the temporary deal. But the White House has called on Dems to hold off, arguing that passing sanctions legislation could make it harder for both sides to continue negotiating after the six month mark if a deal is close. The administration also fears sanctions legislation could give Iran a way of arguing — and could create suspicions among the U.S.’s international partners — that the U.S. is negotiating in bad faith.

The last sentence is the killer. It’s one thing to make a deal with Iran that barely restrains their enrichment program, it’s another to break that deal yourself, giving them an opportunity to argue that the U.S. doesn’t want peace and can’t be trusted to keep its commitments, which means now they need a nuclear weapon — sorry, I mean “nuclear energy program” — more than ever. At the very least, you’d think Obama would have huddled with Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer before the deal was struck and asked for their word that they wouldn’t support the GOP’s attempt to impose new sanctions. By keeping the split in Congress strictly (or mostly) partisan, Obama could have reassured Iran that anything passed by the House is simple contrarianism by the minority party and has no force of law. As it is, if Democrats join with the GOP and pass some form of new sanctions, Obama’s either going to have to symbolically side with Iran by vetoing it or they’re going to pass it with two-thirds majorities in both houses and impose sanctions over his veto, which will kill the deal. I assumed, after the Syria “red line” debacle, that he’d know by now to line up congressional support before doing or saying anything dramatic on foreign policy. Nope.

But look at it from the Democrats’ perspective. How do they sell a deal to their constituents that would let Iran continue to enrich uranium?

The White House is currently examining ways to enable Iran to have its own “domestic” uranium enrichment program, according to a senior Obama administration official…

“Over the next six months, we will explore, in practical terms, whether and how Iran might end up with a limited, tightly constrained, and intensively monitored civilian nuclear program, including domestic enrichment,” White House National Security Council (NSC) spokesman Caitlin Hayden told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Any such program,” she said, “would be subject to strict and verifiable curbs on its capacity and stockpiles of enriched uranium for a significant number of years and tied to practical energy needs that will remain minimal for years to come.”

There are ways to sell that to voters, but no way I can think of that doesn’t involve (a) first tutoring them on the difference between low-enriched uranium for reactor purposes and highly-enriched weapons-grade stuff and (b) asking them to trust that the UN, with help from western intelligence, will somehow ferret out any Iranian attempt to covertly convert one of those forms of uranium into the other. Bear in mind, per Walter Russell Mead, the UN is already saying that it needs more money to inspect Iran’s nuke facilities properly, so this process is beginning with the chief watchdog underequipped for the task. And the problem for O is that, realistically, Iran will never give up enrichment. Rouhani has pledged repeatedly since the Geneva deal was struck that the program will continue; the White House likely agreed to continued enrichment for just that reason, because they realize it’s a point of nationalistic pride for the regime and that demanding an end to it would mean the end of the deal.

Exit question: Imagine for a moment you’re a member of Congress. How much of your credibility would you want to stake on a big international agreement when the two parties to it are already bickering over what it does and doesn’t say?


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

But look at it from the Democrats’ perspective. How do they sell a deal to their constituents that would let Iran continue to enrich uranium?

They could hold townhall meetings and say “forget about the price tag of a nuclear Iran”

BobMbx on December 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

“Smart Power.” Obama needs a reset button with Congress but it’s not his style.

Drained Brain on December 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

The White House had to cry “Uncle” already this week…LOL

d1carter on December 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

So once popcorn supplies are exhausted, what schadenfreudish treat is next…

hillsoftx on December 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

This was a “deal?!” How about you and me do a deal?

You give me all your money and I won’t kill you until the check clears.

That’s the personal equivalent of Obama’s Iran “deal.”

Wino on December 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Bacon: What can’t it do?

Obama: Who can’t he piss off?

Oil Can on December 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

At the very least, you’d think Obama would have huddled with Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer before the deal was struck and asked for their word that they wouldn’t support the GOP’s attempt to impose new sanctions.

Oh, come on. You really think Obama would lower himself by asking for advice from his minions? Surely you jest.

timberline on December 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Exit question: Imagine for a moment you’re a member of Congress. How much of your credibility would you want to stake on a big international agreement when the two parties to it are already bickering over what it does and doesn’t say?

Throw in your Jewish voters and donors (of which Hoyer has many) and it becomes problematic.

OT- The Five gave a mention but the Air Force Band’s Holiday Flash Mob video is worth the investment in time. If only for the music. link

Happy Nomad on December 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Everything The Idiot Obama does, destabilizes the Middle East.

Will congressional Democrats oppose their god-king?

Never.

Period.

MichaelGabriel on December 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Obama ate a dog…

It’s only natural he would betray those whom he claims to be his friends.

viking01 on December 6, 2013 at 6:17 PM

As it is, if Democrats join with the GOP and pass some form of new sanctions, Obama’s either going to have to symbolically side with Iran by vetoing it or they’re going to pass it…

Third option: The House passes new sanctions, with strong Democratic support. Democratic Senate candidates loudly proclaim their support for the sanctions bill and promise to vote for it the moment it comes up. But Harry Reid quietly ensures that the bill never does come up, serene in the knowledge that no member of the press will ever call him or the “renegade” Democrats on this blatant flim-flam.

Fabozz on December 6, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Here’s the bottom line, no matter what Obama, the Senate and the House decide to do.

1. Iran will approach 100% completion of building a nuke.

2. Israel will strike Iran, hard and fast.

You can only kick the can down the road for so long. At the end of the road built by Obama and Kerry lies a brick wall.

fogw on December 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

They could hold townhall meetings and say “forget about the price tag of a nuclear Iran”

BobMbx on December 6, 2013 at 6:06 PM

We’ve already had he first one. Obama gathered Jews and Israelis for a Hannakuh event yesterday on the ninth day of an eight-day-holiday and lectured them on why his deal with Iran was in their best interests. So what if Tel Aviv is a glowing radioactive mess, forget about the price tag!

Happy Nomad on December 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Popcorn anyone?

Mr. Joe on December 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM

The rooster shall not crow…
 
- Chris Matthews

rogerb on December 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM

As it is, if Democrats join with the GOP and pass some form of new sanctions, Obama’s either going to have to symbolically side with Iran by vetoing it or they’re going to pass it…

Third option: The House passes new sanctions, with strong Democratic support. Democratic Senate candidates loudly proclaim their support for the sanctions bill and promise to vote for it the moment it comes up. But Harry Reid quietly ensures that the bill never does come up, serene in the knowledge that no member of the press will ever call him or the “renegade” Democrats on this blatant flim-flam.

Fabozz on December 6, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Why not? He’s done that with the Constitutionally-required budget for five years.

davidk on December 6, 2013 at 6:27 PM

You sell it to voters by lying to the voters. Quite simple. Many lofos never heard of Iran.

Viator on December 6, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Ojesus and Lurch put their nonexistent credibility further in the red when they green-lighted this joke of an “agreement” without first getting some kind of a signal from Congress what they would and would not consent to.

Smart power is another g*****n lie from the most dishonest administration in the history of EVER.

hillbillyjim on December 6, 2013 at 6:33 PM

How much of your credibility would you want to stake on a big international agreement when the two parties to it are already bickering over what it does and doesn’t say?

better question for a congressman: Do I have any credibility left to stake???

ted c on December 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Worst Chief Executive ever, anywhere, for anything.

Another Drew on December 6, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Tolerant Dem O’Bots check in at the WaPo comments…

well I guess we know who runs our country. Israeli right wing government and their lobby AIPAC. They want a war between the US and Iran and they’ll do whatever they need to torpedo the deal. It’s a shame our congress cares more about Israel than american people.

Cheney said he’d support Reagan’s veto of sanctions again.

No wonder the fascists love that dісk.

(Mandela!)

The big shot nentanyahu has a lot of pull in Washington,(dems and reps.).Iran is not the prob,it is
nentanyahu.

Del Dolemonte on December 6, 2013 at 6:38 PM

“It’s not a nuke…. it’s a tax.”

—- Smirking Benedict Roberts the Vainglorious

viking01 on December 6, 2013 at 6:39 PM

But look at it from the Democrats’ perspective. How do they sell a deal to their constituents that would let Iran continue to enrich uranium?

Come on, most of their voters have no ideal what uranium is and couldn’t find Iran on a map if their life depended on it.

Alabama Infidel on December 6, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Very few will debate that the deal struck by Obama / Kerry is not a very bad deal as it basically gives Iran what it needs most to finish it’s nuclear weapon development program – time and relief from sanctions.

But are the numbers of Congressional Democrats willing to support a bill that would ‘blow up’ the deal sufficient to override the likely veto such a bill will receive from the WH?

What’s more likely is that any treaty, submitted to the Senate for ratification, will lose in the Senate – but even then, it’s all a fait accompli because the WH has already unilaterally eased up on sanctions that have damaged the Iranian economy.

I see all of this as just a diversion from the EpicClusterFark, a diversion from the litany of lies from the President / WH, a diversion from the fecklessness and irresponsible foreign policy of this President, and a diversion from the threat that a nuclear armed Islamic theocracy adds to the region / world.

Athos on December 6, 2013 at 6:44 PM

But look at it from the Democrats’ perspective. How do they sell a deal to their constituents that would let Iran continue to enrich uranium?

Tell them that Congress doesn’t have time to read the actual agreement, that it has to be implemented so we can find out what’s in it.

Bishop on December 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Bishop on December 6, 2013 at 6:46 PM

That advice can’t work out any worse than the other two times it was used….

Re Obamacare – you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it…

Re Barack Obama – we had to elect him to find out what kind of a President he would be…

Athos on December 6, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I assumed, after the Syria “red line” debacle, that he’d know by now to line up congressional support before doing or saying anything dramatic on foreign policy.

HE is THE KING!

Evidently the Democrats in Congress are getting weary of all the “Smart Diplomacy”.

King Barack the Magnificent is just one more attacked embassy away from disaster.

GarandFan on December 6, 2013 at 6:59 PM

i double dog dare you dems…

cmsinaz on December 6, 2013 at 7:17 PM

The rooster shall not crow…

– Chris Matthews

rogerb on December 6, 2013 at 6:21 PM

I am certain that Chris Matthews’s little red rooster has been on overdrive lately.

onlineanalyst on December 6, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Happy Nomad on December 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM

THANK YOU!

That was magnificent

timmytee on December 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Here’s the bottom line, no matter what Obama, the Senate and the House decide to do.

1. Iran will approach 100% completion of building a nuke.

2. Israel will strike Iran, hard and fast.

You can only kick the can down the road for so long. At the end of the road built by Obama and Kerry lies a brick wall.

fogw on December 6, 2013 at 6:19 PM

More likely;

1. Iran completes two or more “physics packages”, gives one to one of their tame terrorist groups.

2. The One secretly threatens Israel with a JFK-style “Cuba-Moscow” response if they so much as look at Iran crossways. LIVs don’t find out because Chris Matthews & Co. suddenly come over all “National Security”- conscious.

3. Tel Aviv gets glassed, courtesy of an Iranian IRBM.

4. The One makes a speech about “our long nightmare in the MidEast is over” and how it’s “a time to heal”.

5. The terrorists pick a target for the other A-bomb. Best guess; London. Second best; NYC.

(Paris is off the table. The French have IRBMs and SLBMs, and once there’s no more President in the Elysee Palace- and no more Palace, to boot- they might just use them.)

The One hates our civilization with every fiber of his being, and he is uniquely stupid into the bargain.

The result is a bizarre- and dangerous- cross between Neville Chamberlain and Benito Mussolini.

clear ether

eon

eon on December 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Happy Nomad on December 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Ah heck, I’ve been waiting all day to slip that into QOTD

:-(

rottenrobbie on December 6, 2013 at 8:37 PM

eon on December 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Well said … the dastardly deeds of this admin and their allies … unlimited.

Fark the rest of the world … and who cares about the American people … chumps.

ORrighty on December 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Obama spent major gobs of his immense political capital on health care, and on the many scandals he’s done absolutely nothing to resolve. How many ram-it-down-our-throat moves can he make? Now the Dems themselves are fracturing, because at some point, Wasserman-Smith’s delusions aside, they know they have to face an awoken and angry electorate. And if that isn’t exactly putting the fear of God into them, it’s bad enough that it is demonstrably making them flee to religiosity for cover.

paul1149 on December 6, 2013 at 8:59 PM

The last sentence is the killer.

Are you serious? The whole thing was already done in bad faith behind the backs of all the allies and citizens. Goebbels tactics.

Rea1ityCheck on December 6, 2013 at 11:06 PM

At least it will still provide cover from the Obamacare disaster, right?! Lucky ‘bammy.

The Nerve on December 6, 2013 at 11:13 PM

If you like your nuclear enrichment you can keep your nuclear enrichment, only this time I’m not lying.

jukin3 on December 6, 2013 at 11:55 PM

But look at it from the Democrats’ perspective. How do they sell a deal to their constituents that would let Iran continue to enrich uranium?

Like their constituents are actually going to give a damn about anything involving Iran, as long as their EBT cards keep working and they can keep surfing the internet for porn on their Obamaphones.

Gator Country on December 7, 2013 at 8:22 AM

How much of your credibility would you want to stake on a big international agreement when the two parties to it are already bickering over what it does and doesn’t say?

I believe that the most relevant thing I read in that regard was someone who longed for the good old days, when in any dispute with the Iranians one could assume that was the mullahs who were lying.

Given that in their dealings with Republicans the donks are the Past Masters of “negotiating” in bad faith, one wants to believe that that when they sit across the table from the Iranians, the Russians, the Syrians, the Chinese, et al., they’d operate from the standpoint of, “It takes one to know one.”

But no, when that happens somehow the magically turn into Republicans when it comes to mistaken faith in the “good faith” of the other side.

Spurius Ligustinus on December 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM

These scum of the earth lowlife democrats aren’t going to take their noses out of his rear-end long enough to go against him. NO CHANCE

tmgrant on December 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM