dagblog - Comments for "Not "The Onion": GOP Senators Tell Iran Obama's Not The Boss, They Are"

From the perspective of a

Bruce Levine — Sat, 14 Mar 2015 14:41:58 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your response. I

From the perspective of a negotiator, and stripping away my bias in an effort to be more clinical, given the fact that we already have had a few extensions, I think it is difficult to get by March 31 without a framework agreement. And if the parties are close, it doesn't matter what hardliners are screaming or writing away from the table -- the problem constituencies of the respective parties are already well known by now and are baked into the process. And, while I continue to believe that the president should have resolved oversight and ratification issues earlier, if the Iranian team has a bona fide reason to believe that the U.S. team did not require authorization by Congress (and this has been the public US position), it is now difficult if not impossible to now go back and say: "Hey you know the deal we're this close on, by the way it means nothing unless the hostile folks in Congress get to vote on that." That's OK at the beginning of bargaining, and in fact that's what's called leverage, but at this stage it's not kosher. I'm not defending Iran, but I do recognize reasonable expectations arising out of a bargaining relationship, where a special bond develops that is the spiritual component of getting a deal.

On the other hand, whatever has been represented at the table to Iran and our coalition partners doesn't alter the role of Congress. So that's why I'd like to see a compromise for oversight and for something like a delayed vote from Congress in order to give "peace a chance" or whatever. I'll say this--the oversight issue could be resolved if there are Democrats and Republicans who take oversight as seriously as I do. And there are any number of ways to work out an arrangement to satisfy all. The president needs to bring in the Corkers of the world, and he should do it now.

Finally, I was going to write about the factual predicate for my particular interest in oversight but I've spilled enough ink. I supported the president twice, the second time with a vigor that many Democrats no longer shared. His position on Iran in 2012 was identical if not more extreme than the position he mocks Bibi and others for taking at this point. The only difference was that Obama thought that negotiations with strong sanctions should be attempted before going to war. Check out what the president said in the final debate with Romney on Iran, for example, and try to distinguish the positions he takes there with what hardliners appear to be pushing for now. I think it would help give context to why some of us are unhappy with how things are proceeding, but who don't write letters to the Supreme Leader and continue to respect the president.

But, as a matter of fact, Obama now ridicules positions that he formerly stated were fundamental, namely the permanent dismantling of Iran's infrastructure that could be used to develop a bomb. He now appears to be intent on an agreement that would contain Iran's capacity, and not eliminate it as he pledged was necessary back in 2012. I know things change over time, but I would like the president to explain why his position has changed so drastically, and whether he ever intended to pursue the kind of deal that he promised to pursue back in the 2012 campaign. It's not a gotcha point, but it's an important one. I and many supporters of the president didn't need any promise about Iran to get the guy's vote. But it bothers me that he mocks those like me who are confused by the radical departure from his campaign promises. It's fair to ask him to explain himself, and I promise I will listen in utmost good faith to his response. But a response he owes nonetheless, and Congress should be involved in consideration of any such response.

P.S. Here's what the president said about Iran on the eve of the election in his debate with Romney (my bold):

OBAMA: We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles.

And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it is a threat to Israel's national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.

Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to non-state actors, that's unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map.

So the work that we've done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice. They can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a United States president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table.

The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake, because when I've sent young men and women into harm's way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort.

Thanks for your response. I

CVille Dem — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 21:47:52 +0000

In reply to I believe oversight is

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your points and agree with some of them. I wish I could believe that oversight is truly oversight. The Republicans have indicated that they are against this deal before it has seen the light of day. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

I guess my remaining question is this: if President Obama presents Congress with a deal that all other players are on board with, and there is a heavily partisan GOP vote of: NO, what then? Because frankly I can't imagine any other outcome can you?

Yes, it is true that if Congress reviews the deal and makes suggestions which Obama can then in good faith take back to the UN Security Council, that would be ideal. Having lived through SIX years of disrespectful and contemptuous behavior that culminated with this insulting letter, I can't imagine anyone thinking that approval of such an agreement could come to pass, if for no other reason than to simply deny Obama any kind of credit for doing anything, never mind actually being a party to it.

It took Obama an incredibly long time to learn this, but he learned it the hard way.

Reality Check: The Iran

NCD — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 03:14:08 +0000

In reply to Not "The Onion": GOP Senators Tell Iran Obama's Not The Boss, They Are

Reality Check: The Iran sanctions are enforced by Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — the five permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany. This is not a US going it alone, no permission slip needed deal, it is a unified international UN process.

If we or any one or more of those nations splits from the process, vetoes further measures, or lifts its own or the UN sanctions, the sanctions/negotiations game is pretty much over.

Hissy fits and 'educational letters' to ayatollahs by Republicans trying to make a name for themselves with their Fox News indoctrinated base are not going to affect the policy of any other nation on this issue.

And if international cooperation fails on Iran, unilateral pre-emptive war by the United States, boots on the ground and occupation of Iran (many times the size of Iraq) would seem the only option to guarantee no nuclear weapon development. Be well everyone.

I don't claim to understand

moat — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 03:13:06 +0000

In reply to Reply to Moat from Above.

I don't claim to understand all of the dimensions of the language used in these documents. I looked at examples of "successful treaties", ie, proposals that made it all the way to becoming "law.." Nothing jumps out as a sure bet of what works or not. The only thing I can point to so far is that they all started in this iffy place of diplomacy where nothing is promised until it actually is a part of a deal.

I bet your experience as a negotiator is full of examples of that place before there is a place..

Reply to Moat from Above.

Bruce Levine — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 01:10:54 +0000

In reply to Not "The Onion": GOP Senators Tell Iran Obama's Not The Boss, They Are

Reply to Moat from Above. Thanks Moat, but I don't rely on the guidance memo as if it's law, but honestly I don't think I was the only one who first knew that the president was negotiating an "non-binding" agreement until yesterday. And I didn't know what it meant, and certainly not in the context of international law. So I went on the Secretary's website and found this guidance and I shared it for guidance. And I think one point in the guidance is well-taken, to wit that clarity about the binding nature of an agreement being negotiated is something that is extremely important (edited). That's a point in the guidance, but it's a point far more universal in bargaining having nothing to do in its genesis with this guidance memo!

Does that help a little even????

P.S. That was friendly snark but I just didn't feel like leaving a smiley face, so I hope you took it that way. :)

Lots packed in that little

Bruce Levine — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:55:43 +0000

In reply to We are talking past each

Lots packed in that little nugget of a comment! -- See below.

We are talking past each

moat — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:42:00 +0000

In reply to I'm not agreeing with the

We are talking past each other to at least some degree.
I agree that it is wrong to have Iranians think an offer is not what they have been told it is (by somebody). On the other hand, stating the confusion is only the result of a small set of words in a State Department document ignores what so much of negotiation is actually about. Actual negotiations sound like this:

Give me something that won't shut down the entire deal.

I believe oversight is

Bruce Levine — Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:09:41 +0000

In reply to Could you explain what

I believe oversight is important for a number of reasons, including any notion that a deal which may be agreed to meets the president's own criteria. Remember, the president has stated that he will not sign any deal and that no deal is better than a bad deal. So, that's the standard, and so we may have a dispute as to whether the Congress should be able to evaluate any deal based on that standard.

I wrote that I would like the president to explain the notion -- if he believes this -- that we have two choices, and two choices, only, this non-binding agreement or war. What I wrote is that I don't accept that at face value. And further I believe without reservation that the president should bear the burden of explaining these two stark choices, why continued sanctions won't work to yield a more acceptable deal, or why easing sanctions perhaps as an incentive to continue negotiations also won't work. That's why oversight is important.

In any event, if you think my opinion is relevant, I begin with the premise that Iran has negotiated a very good deal and that it needs the deal and is not about to walk away -- regardless of the existence of hardliners in actual control. There would have been no negotiations had the hardliners not wanted a deal. And so that, combined with the willingness of even strident hardliners like Israel's prime minister to move off the no enrichment capacity position that he had held on too for so long, suggests that continued negotiations are a third alternative to consider. Bibi's former positions, by the way, was also the position of the president back when he was running for re-election in 2012.

I also believe that the idea floated by Bibi in his speech to expand issues to include non-nuclear issues, while belittled by everyone and anyone, is actually an excellent idea for reasons I would bet he might not even have understood. Opening up the field at the bargaining table, just like on a soccer pitch, allows for breathing space when folks at the table are in a jam. There is more room to negotiate, and sometimes getting a new issue off the table promotes an anxious bargainer to give a little more of what he's been holding back in the nuclear portion of the negotiations. [Note--This paragraph has been edited because it was totally unreadable, I thought--Substance is same]

But all of this is speculation because we don't know what has been placed on the table at this time, and so there could be lots of reasons that I'm full of it. But you asked, so. . .fwiw.

As to oversight by Congress, I don't believe we can determine its role on matters of critical national security significance based on the composition of the elected officials. And when I say work with Corker et al. I'm not insisting that his piece of legislation requiring an up or down vote, etc. is necessary. But I think there's a chance and the president should seize it, to work on a compromise with moderate Republicans and those in the Democratic Party that don't like the deal but want to work with the president. Whatever happens, again, IMO, the president's failure to lead and at least attempt to isolate the bad folks, would be a terrible mistake. I know labor negotiations are different than president/congress negotiations, but it's not rocket science to understand that buy-in by the Corkers of the world would be a great help here and perhaps for remaining years of this presidency.

I'm not agreeing with the

Bruce Levine — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:54:10 +0000

In reply to Maybe you are referring to

I'm not agreeing with the foreign minister of Iran. I'm saying that if the Iranians believe at this juncture that any agreement will be binding under "international law", and if Secretary Kerry stated just yesterday that it would be a non-binding agreement, then such a state of affairs is contrary to the guidelines of the State Department. And I believe those guidelines are consistent with a fundamental notion in bargaining, that the parameters or rules under which the parties will bargain are understood at the threshold.

Maybe you are referring to

moat — Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:16:03 +0000

In reply to I don't follow your point,

Maybe you are referring to statements like this by Mohammad Javad Zarif

"He warned that a change of administrations would not relieve the U.S. of its obligations under an international agreement reached under the previous administration. Any attempt to change the terms of that agreement, he added, would be a "blatant violation of international law."

The memo you linked to is not saying a "non binding agreement" is equivalent to the "international agreement" Zarif is talking about. The Executive branch simply does not have the power to make an irreversible agreement alone. A good explanation of the difference can be found in this WSJ article:

But treaties are also trickier to come by, because they need Senate approval. That is one reason why presidents in recent decades have opted for executive agreements, which typically don’t require congressional input. But they carry a major drawback: they can be reversed by the next president.

If the Foreign Secretary of Iran does not understand the difference, there is no need for us to repeat the error.