Iran: novi front

[theanswer]

hvala qrcu da neko reagovao kad vec nece ova sisa koji nabija glavu u pesak...tako ti je kad (greskom) dobijes nobela umesto oskara

 

pitanje za milion dolara jel mislila na inteligenciju ili obaveštajnu službu? :D

[marv]

pitanje za milion dolara jel mislila na inteligenciju ili obaveštajnu službu? :D

 

[Prospero]

ovo je kratko i jasno:
 

The Disgraceful Spectacle in Congress
By Daniel Larison • March 3, 2015, 12:16 PM

There was nothing interesting in the content of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress this morning. One remarkable thing about the event was how shamelessly the prime minister repeated one dishonest or tendentious claim after another. He held up an utterly unrealistic “much better deal” that Iran would never agree to as the only alternative, and he absurdly claimed that the deal currently being negotiated would “pave” the way to an Iranian nuclear weapon. The “much better deal” that he insisted on isn’t remotely possible, and the only reason to insist on it is to try to kill off the best chance of reaching an agreement. Netanyahu nonsensically warned about an unrestricted Iranian nuclear program ten years from now at the same time that he was agitating for the rejection of the only deal that could restrict the program. Needless to say, Netanyahu’s record of false predictions and warnings about Iran’s nuclear program makes him an especially unreliable source of information. The fact that his obnoxious performance was received so warmly in Congress today is not surprising, but it is nonetheless deeply discouraging for anyone interested in peace or foreign policy restraint.

The other remarkable thing was the embarrassing, rapturous response of the assembled members in the audience. Except for extremely rare occasions when an American president has enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings, I cannot recall such a loud, overwrought response from members of a Congress to a visiting speaker. The audience this morning enthusiastically cheered on the sabotage of a major U.S. diplomatic initiative, the undermining of an important U.S. policy goal, and the blatant meddling of a foreign leader in our domestic politics. It is one of the more disgraceful things I’ve seen an assembly of American political leaders do, and that is really saying something.

[Anduril]

 

 

Bibi Goes to Washington

NEW YORK – Why did he do it? What possessed Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi" Netanyahu to accept an invitation from the Republicans in the US Congress to come and attack President Barack Obama's policy on Iran without letting the White House know?

Netanyahu claims that his was “a fateful, even historic mission" to voice his concern for the fate of Israel and all Jews. But we already knew about his concerns – and that many Jews, in the US and elsewhere, do not feel that he was speaking for them.

Did Netanyahu crave the applause of his Republican supporters? Is he gambling on the chance of a Republican presidency in 2016? If so, he got the applause; but, given the current polls, the latter motive would be quite a gamble.

Or was Netanyahu simply using the US Congress as a venue for his own campaign to keep his job? Did he wish to impress voters back home with a starring role on a world stage?

This, too, would seem to be a gamble: many Israelis, however worried they might be about an Iranian nuclear bomb, have been highly critical of Netanyahu's provocation of Obama, and of many Jewish Democrats. Two former Mossad directors joined a chorus of Israelis in arguing that he should no longer be prime minister. Meir Dagan, who resigned as the Israeli intelligence chief in 2011, called Bibi's grandstanding in Washington “destructive to the future and security of Israel."

Whatever his motives, Netanyahu has achieved what no Israeli leader ever has: not only infuriating the US president (who was already quite angry with him), but also earning the public rebuke of people who would normally have supported any Israeli leader, whatever they might have thought in private. If an Israeli prime minister cannot even count on the backing of a man like Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, he is in trouble.

By forcing Americans – and not just Jews or Democrats – to choose between their loyalty to Israel and the president of their own country, Netanyahu has punched a large hole in Americans' normally bipartisan support for Israel. This is not to say that US politicians have always agreed with Israeli policies. But few have thought it worth their while to express their criticism in public. The benefits of doing so rarely outweigh the costs: lost campaign contributions, accusations of anti-Semitism, charges of betraying a close ally (“the only democracy in the Middle East"), and so on.

The fact that Israel could always count on US backing, especially on such public occasions as congressional speeches by an Israeli leader, only confirmed the assumption of many people around the world that Israel and the US are joined like Siamese twins. Some think that Israel is the cat's paw of the US; others believe it is the other way around. In the spirit of that notorious nineteenth-century czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anti-Semites think “the Jews" run the US government, Wall Street, and the media.

Such beliefs, of course, have been around for much longer than the modern state of Israel. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century European nationalists often regarded the US as the natural home for capitalists and “rootless cosmopolitans" without any loyalty to their native soil. Only money ruled in America, it was thought, so that meant that the Jews ruled.

Though it was Stalin who used the phrase “rootless cosmopolitans" to describe unwanted Jews, anti-Semites believed that Jews were natural Bolsheviks and probably pulled the strings in the Soviet Union, too. It was widely assumed than Jews, whether capitalist or communist, knew no allegiance except to their own people; after 1948, that increasingly came to mean the state of Israel. By claiming to be the leader of all Jewish people, wherever they live, Netanyahu has only strengthened that notion.

In fact, the US was not always as pro-Israel as it is today. The French were Israel's greatest supporters until President Charles de Gaulle turned away from the Jewish state after the Six-Day War in 1967. America's subsequent patronage of Israel had less to do with evangelical passion for the Holy Land, or a spontaneous love for the Jewish people, than with the Cold War. But over time, especially in conservative political discourse, criticism of Israel increasingly came to be regarded as not just anti-Semitic but also anti-American.

There is some truth to this view. The old anti-Semitic myth about America being run by Jews has not completely disappeared – especially (but by no means only) in the Middle East. But the almost automatic identification in Washington of US interests with Israel's has made it difficult to criticize either country without criticizing the other.

Now, by openly seeking to undermine the US president, Netanyahu is breaking that link. He has made it easier for American Jews, even those who feel a deep devotion to Israel, to be critical of its leaders. This will also make it less costly for American politicians to oppose Israeli policies with which they disagree.

Some might see this as a defeat for Israel. In fact, the opposite may be true. Bibi's ill-considered trip to Washington might be the best thing that could have happen to Israel. It is in neither country's interest to be seen as the other's pawn. And a tougher US stance toward its ally might force the Israelis to try harder to come to terms with the Palestinians.

This is not what Netanyahu intended. But it might end up being his greatest achievement.

 

Dosta dobra analiza o mogucim posledicama ove Bibijeve price.

[Prospero]

jbt kakav cirkus prave

 

 

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Forty-seven Republican U.S. senators warned Iran's leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal with President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, an unusual partisan intervention in foreign policy that could undermine delicate international talks with Tehran.

The open letter was signed by all but seven of the Republicans in the Senate and none of Obama's fellow Democrats, who called it a "stunt." Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed it as a "propaganda ploy" from pressure groups he called afraid of diplomatic agreement.

 

In the letter, the senators said Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements. Noting Obama will leave office in January 2017, they said any deal not approved by Congress would be merely "an executive agreement" that could be revoked by Congress.

...

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden is furious.

 

Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate, Monday night blasted Senate Republicans in a long, angry statement for their letter to Iran's leaders, which he described as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

Forty-seven Republicans on Sunday wrote directly to Tehran to suggest that any nuclear deal with the Obama administration would not be constitutionally binding because a future president or Congress could take steps to revoke it. Biden called the move an unprecedented affront "designed to undercut a sitting president."

 

"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.

 

"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine," he added.

...

[Muwan]

Jbg, kada su američki senatori i kongresmeni počeli da se ponašaju kao najjadniji balkanski pilićari onda znaš da je svetska politika ušla u tešku degradaciju i raspad.

Edited March 10, 2015 by beowl

[hazard]

Mene svaki put fascinira ta destruktivnost republikanske partije. A i s druge strane, mlitavost demokrata kada imaju većinu.

[Аврам Гојић]

Jbg, kada su američki senatori i kongresmeni počeli da se ponašaju kao najjadniji balkanski pilićari onda znaš da je svetska politika ušla u tešku degradaciju i raspad.

 

Mene to plaši, iskreno, kao što bi me plašilo kada bi se sličan proces odvijao u Rusiji. Želim da te dve zemlje budu stabilne.

[MancMellow]

jbt kakav cirkus prave

 

 

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Forty-seven Republican U.S. senators warned Iran's leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal with President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, an unusual partisan intervention in foreign policy that could undermine delicate international talks with Tehran.

The open letter was signed by all but seven of the Republicans in the Senate and none of Obama's fellow Democrats, who called it a "stunt." Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif dismissed it as a "propaganda ploy" from pressure groups he called afraid of diplomatic agreement.

 

In the letter, the senators said Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements. Noting Obama will leave office in January 2017, they said any deal not approved by Congress would be merely "an executive agreement" that could be revoked by Congress.

 

 Srbija do Milvokija

[Muwan]

Mene to plaši, iskreno, kao što bi me plašilo kada bi se sličan proces odvijao u Rusiji. Želim da te dve zemlje budu stabilne.

U Rusiji moć ne leži u Dumi, tu smo navikli na svakojake cirkuske predstave dok se politička stabilnost postiže na drugim mestima i drugim sredstvima. Ovo u SAD je meni baš bez veze, tamo se baš puno pažnje poklanja ozbiljnosti i reputaciji najvažnijih institucija (do nivoa ritualnosti). Obe partije su decenijama vodile računa da to ne narušavaju i da državna politika uvek bude jača od bilo kakvog odnosa snaga u senatu/kongresu, i onda u nedelju dana uzmu i obe te institucije svedu na nivo srpske ili neke slične banana skupštine. Veliki fail i jako loša stvar.

[Аврам Гојић]

Znam,  mislio sam na analogni nivo u Kremlju a ne u Dumi :)

 

I da, ovo jeste jako loša stvar. Ne znam šta je gore, republikanska nezainteresovanost za...res publica, ili Obamin apsolutno neadekvatan odgovor na ovo, pušta da Pelosi plače u kongresu i da Bajden vrišti u medijima, a sam ćuti. 

Edited March 10, 2015 by Грешни Василије

[Prospero]

ouch :(
 

The Error in the Senators’ Letter to the Leaders of Iran
By Jack Goldsmith
Monday, March 9, 2015 at 5:55 AM

Josh Rogin reports that a “group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran’s leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama’s administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.”  Here is the letter.  Its premise is that Iran’s leaders “may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and in particular may not understand the nature of the “power to make binding international agreements.”  It appears from the letter that the Senators do not understand our constitutional system or the power to make binding agreements.

The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.”  But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification” (my emphasis).  Or, as this outstanding  2001 CRS Report on the Senate’s role in treaty-making states (at 117):  “It is the President who negotiates and ultimately ratifies treaties for the United States, but only if the Senate in the intervening period gives its advice and consent.” 
 
Ratification is the formal act of the nation’s consent to be bound by the treaty on the international plane.  Senate consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition of treaty ratification for the United States.  As the CRS Report notes: “When a treaty to which the Senate has advised and consented … is returned to the President,” he may “simply decide not to ratify the treaty.”

This is a technical point that does not detract from the letter’s message that any administration deal with Iran might not last beyond this presidency.  (I analyzed this point here last year.)  But in a letter purporting to teach a constitutional lesson, the error is embarrassing.

[MancMellow]

 

 

JEBOTE

Edited March 10, 2015 by MancMellow

[Аврам Гојић]

Ovako se postaje kurac od države.

[Lord Protector]

Svi se čude da je senator Rand Paul potpisao to glupavo pismo, iako se u početku protivio.

 

još jedna zanimljivost:

 

 

 

IMMEDIATELY AFTER LAUNCHING EFFORT TO SCUTTLE IRAN DEAL, SENATOR TOM COTTON TO MEET WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

The NDIA is composed of executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.

Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As The New Republic’s David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”

On Iran, Cotton has issued specific calls for military intervention. In December he said Congress should consider supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called “bunker-buster” bombs — both items manufactured by NDIA member Boeing — to be used for a possible strike against Iran.

Asked if Cotton will speak about his Iran letter tomorrow, Jimmy Thomas, NDIA Director of Legislative Policy, said, “[M]ost members…talk about everything from the budget to Iran…so it’s highly likely that he may address that in his remarks.” According to Thomas, the Cotton event was scheduled in January, “but certainly we bring people to the platform that have influence directly on our issues.”

Edited March 10, 2015 by slow