Schumer To Vote Against Iran 'Deal'

[Kathianne]

I don't hold out much hope that Congress can overcome the veto, but this is a possible step:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0


Chuck Schumer Opposes Iran Nuclear Deal, Shaking Democratic FirewallBy JENNIFER STEINHAUER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/jennifer_steinhauer/index.html) and JONATHAN WEISMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/jonathan_weisman/index.html)<time class="dateline" datetime="2015-08-06" style="font-size: 0.6875rem; line-height: 0.75rem; font-family: nyt-cheltenham-sh, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 12px;">AUG. 6, 2015


</time>WASHINGTON — Senator Chuck Schumer (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/charles_e_schumer/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the most influential Jewish voice in Congress, said Thursday night that he would oppose President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s deal to limit Iran (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s nuclear program (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).


“Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed,” Mr. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in a lengthy statement. “This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”


Mr. Schumer had spent the last several weeks carrying a dog-eared copy of the agreement in his briefcase and meeting with Mr. Obama and officials like Wendy R. Sherman, the deal’s chief negotiator. With his decision, he paves the way for other Democrats on the fence to join Republicans in showing their disapproval.

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” Mr. Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”

...

[Perianne]

This may mean trouble for Obama. I hope so.

[Voted4Reagan]

I cant stand Schumer.. But I can applaud him on this.

It's a Bad deal.

It needs to be rejected.

[Drummond]

I cant stand Schumer.. But I can applaud him on this.

It's a Bad deal.

It needs to be rejected.

Absolutely !

It's not just a stupid deal, because trusting the Iranians is itself stupid (and more, it amounts to an outright betrayal of Israel) .. but the Iranians have already positioned themselves so as to make the so-called 'checks' on them worthless.

Whatever it takes to scupper this deal, IF it can be done, I'll cheer for ...

[Voted4Reagan]

If Schumer gets this deal killed.... Hell....I may just have to vote for his Liberal ass next time he's up for election.

[Drummond]

If Schumer gets this deal killed.... Hell....I may just have to vote for his Liberal ass next time he's up for election.

.. steady on, there:poke: ..

[Voted4Reagan]

override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over thepresident's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.

That means 67 votes in the United States Senate

That means 291 votes needed in the House of Representatives.


I urge all members of Congress to work in a BI-PARTISAN manner to reject this abomination.

[NightTrain]

If Schumer gets this deal killed.... Hell....I may just have to vote for his Liberal ass next time he's up for election.

Now that's crazy talk! :poke:


I wonder if this is a play to get something he wants in order to change his vote.

[Voted4Reagan]

Now that's crazy talk! :poke:


I wonder if this is a play to get something he wants in order to change his vote.

You know me... I defend Israel... And Schumer is just doing the same. I NEVER agree with anything he does.. but on this Issue I will back him and praise him.

If Schumer can unite left and right on this issue his stock will rise dramatically..

[hjmick]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while...

[Kathianne]

This isn't playing well and I see a problem on the horizon for Obama & Kerry:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/07/us-russia-iran-soleimani-idUSKCN0QC1KM20150807


Fri Aug 7, 2015 3:47pm EDTRelated: WORLD, (http://www.reuters.com/news/world)TECH (http://www.reuters.com/news/technology)
Iran Quds chief visited Russia despite U.N. travel ban: Iran officialLONDON

The head of Iran's elite military Quds Force, who is subject to a United Nations (http://www.reuters.com/subjects/united-nations) travel ban, has met senior Russian officials in Moscow, an Iranian official said on Friday.


Qassem Soleimani, chief of the force which is an overseas arm of the Revolutionary Guards, has been subject to an international travel ban and asset freeze by the U.N. Security Council since 2007.


But the Iranian official, who declined to be identified, said Soleimani had made the trip in the second half of July, where he had held talks covering regional and bilateral issues and the delivery to Iran of S-300 surface-to-air missiles and other weapons.

Soleimani had arrived in Moscow on July 24 and met President Vladimir Putin and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu before departing three days later, Fox News reported on Thursday.


A Kremlin spokesman denied any meeting between Soleimani and Putin had taken place, RIA news agency reported.


However, two U.S. security sources told Reuters the United States believed the meeting between Putin and Soleimani took place.


U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, said all states were obliged to enforce the ban. "These are very concerning reports but we are still tracking down the facts," she told reporters after a Security Council meeting on Syria.


Both Russia (http://www.reuters.com/places/russia) and Iran back Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against rebels in the country's civil war. Indications of a new diplomatic push to end the war have emerged following last month's signing of an accord on Iran's nuclear program between Tehran and world powers.


Diplomats say Russia and Iran are the prime movers behind the latest push following the July 14 nuclear deal.


MOSCOW MEETINGS

One of the U.S. security sources said Soleimani also had numerous other meetings in Moscow in July.

...

[Kathianne]

Obama: War in Iran will be Jews fault. He collapses with enemies and demonizes allies.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192719/obama-to-jewish-leaders-lay-off-the-iran-deal-and-i-will-lay-off-you


Obama to Jewish Leaders: Lay Off the Iran Deal, and I Will Lay Off You

Obama met with Jewish leaders this week in a private meeting in D.C., followed by a curious speech the next day


By Lee Smith (http://www.tabletmag.com/author/lsmith/)


On Tuesday, President Obama met (http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-if-congress-kills-iran-deal-rockets-will-rain-on-tel-aviv/) with Jewish community leaders at the White House for two and a half hours to explain the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Agreement. “He spent 45 minutes, laying out deal, speaking without notes,” said one participant in attendance. “He argued why the deal is better than the alternatives, even as he acknowledged that Iran is not a good actor. The meeting was very emotional, everything was out on the table.”


The participant told me that some Jewish leaders in the meeting objected to how the administration characterized the JCPOA’s critics. “Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they can be even more dangerous,” he said the president was told. “The community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”


Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlG90dMLo50) the next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-tars-iran-deal-skeptics_1005743.html) and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.


A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”

...

[Max R.]

I don't hold out much hope that Congress can overcome the veto, but this is a possible step:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
It's a step in the right direction. No Democrat wants to be associated with an Iranian bomb 5-10 years from now.

This treaty is appeasement. A temporary solution. It's not going to stop Iranian aggression in the ME nor stop their plans to reclaim the Persian Gulf as their personal lake.

[Kathianne]

The extreme reaction from the left gives one hope:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250572-liberals-go-to-war-with-schumer-for-iran-opposition


August 07, 2015, 01:19 pmFury of left falls on Schumer


By Julian Hattem (http://thehill.com/author/julian-hattem)

Liberals are livid at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to oppose the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran, and have threatened to launch a full-scale war as retribution.

Activists and former top officials within the Obama administration are openly contemplating whether Schumer’s stance disqualifies him from serving as the next Senate Democratic leader — which he is primed to do — and seeking to temporarily cut off money to Democrats in the upper chamber.

It’s unclear whether Schumer’s announcement will have a devastating effect on the White House’s efforts to prevent Democrats from killing the deal when it comes up for a vote in Congress next month.


But it’s clear that he will be Public Enemy No. 1 for liberal activists throughout the August recess, as they aim to rally support from Democrats on the agreement.
...

[Black Diamond]

Obama: War in Iran will be Jews fault. He collapses with enemies and demonizes allies.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192719/obama-to-jewish-leaders-lay-off-the-iran-deal-and-i-will-lay-off-you




On Tuesday, President Obama met (http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-if-congress-kills-iran-deal-rockets-will-rain-on-tel-aviv/) with Jewish community leaders at the White House for two and a half hours to explain the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Agreement. “He spent 45 minutes, laying out deal, speaking without notes,” said one participant in attendance. “He argued why the deal is better than the alternatives, even as he acknowledged that Iran is not a good actor. The meeting was very emotional, everything was out on the table.”


The participant told me that some Jewish leaders in the meeting objected to how the administration characterized the JCPOA’s critics. “Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they can be even more dangerous,” he said the president was told. “The community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”


Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlG90dMLo50) the next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-tars-iran-deal-skeptics_1005743.html) and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.


A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”

...

More of the same false dilemma by Obama. War or deal.

And the whole "It's the Jews' fault". .....
My God.

[Black Diamond]

The extreme reaction from the left gives one hope:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250572-liberals-go-to-war-with-schumer-for-iran-opposition
Savage was saying Schumer is risking his career by doing this. Maybe Savage is right.

[Max R.]

Savage was saying Schumer is risking his career by doing this. Maybe Savage is right.
The downside of party politics; if you don't support the party, the party won't support you come election time.

Still, I admire any person who stands up for what is right even if it means being run over by a line of tanks.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2ischeo.jpg

[Kathianne]

A closer look:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/07/charles-schumers-iran-deal-statement-is-a-game-changer/


Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
announced late Thursday that he intends to vote against the Iran deal.


A furious White House reportedly told (https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/629511035632910336) the Huffington Post, which broke the story in the midst of the Republican presidential debate, when it would receive the least attention.


It is easy to be skeptical about Schumer’s motives. He has been very reluctant to lead on the issue, and certainly delayed his decision long enough to allow the Obama administration to lobby for more votes, including that of Schumer’s junior New York colleague, Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/250455-gillibrand-backs-iran-deal).


Yet what is truly remarkable about Schumer’s position on the Iran deal is the statement (https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478) he published to explain his reasoning. In a simple, humble, yet elegant essay, Schumer completely negates President Barack Obama’s most powerful argument–namely, that there is no real alternative except war.


Not so, says Schumer. There is, in fact, a third option on Iran: “Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.”


Schumer is very respectful, urging “all fair-minded Americans” to “acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.” Nevertheless, he destroys Obama’s arguments.

...


After 10-15 years, Schumer notes, there is no guarantee that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. “If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience,” he says. Then there are the “non-nuclear elements of the agreement,” he explains, which worry him most–especially Iran’s support for terror groups and its ballistic missile program.

There is also no reason to believe the regime will become moderate over time: “Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?”

Schumer concludes:



To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.


Better, he says, to reject the Iran deal and push for new talks.


Schumer’s arguments could have a serious impact, especially because President Obama was so vicious (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/05/iran-deal-obama-says-republicans-make-common-cause-with-enemy/) in attacking critics of the deal in his speech at American University the day before.


Schumer is not making “common cause” with the Iranian regime. He is presenting, in a fair and convincing manner, the case for an alternative that Obama had mocked (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal) as a “fantasy.” It certainly is more realistic than Obama’s claims that chants of “Death to America!” in which the “Supreme Leader” joins and leads somehow do not represent Iran’s true intentions.

...

[Voted4Reagan]

The downside of party politics; if you don't support the party, the party won't support you come election time.

Still, I admire any person who stands up for what is right even if it means being run over by a line of tanks.

http://oi57.tinypic.com/2ischeo.jpg

The picture says it all... One man standing on his principles CAN make a difference and change history.

If he loses support of the Democrats he will gain the respect of those that support Israel and the principles that it was founded on. Israel supports equality, human rights and is the lone democracy in the entire region.

We know Obama does not support Israel, his record is clear on this issue.

Senator Schumer is Jewish. If he chooses the cause of freedom and democracy as well as supporting his faith he will emerge stronger in the long run.

I support Sen. Schumer on this issue, regardless of ideology or partisan politics.

Doing the RIGHT THING is always the hardest thing to do.

Sen Schumer seems to be doing it and deserves our support.

[Kathianne]

A case of 'should have been paying attention from the first':

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192751/crossing-a-line-to-sell-a-deal


Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal

The White House and its allies shouldn’t need to smear American Jews–and a sitting senator–as dual loyalists to make their case


By the Editors (http://www.tabletmag.com/author/editors/)

Chuck Schumer is a politician—a skilled and successful one. Which means that today’s announcement (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192729/chuck-schumer-comes-out-against-iran-deal), following months of wildly uncharacteristic silence, that the senior Senator from New York is opposing the Administration’s nuclear deal (http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192222/iran-and-world-powers-agree-to-nuclear-arms-deal)with Iran is first and foremost a reflection of his calculations as to where his own self-interest lies. It does not take an electoral genius to imagine why a Senator from New York State might oppose a deal that keeps many Jewish voters—and an even higher percentage of non-Jewish voters—up at night. Keeping your base happy is generally the first rule of political survival.
...

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/opinion/sunday/republican-hypocrisy-on-iran.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1), or of selling their votes (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/us/politics/obama-and-senator-robert-menendez-spar-on-how-to-handle-iran.html?_r=0) to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/) of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-will-echo-kennedys-american-university-nuclear-speech-from-1963/2015/08/04/b037d0fe-3ab8-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html). It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it (http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.670005).


We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.

[Kathianne]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/08/when-youve-lost-david-brooks.php


POSTED ON AUGUST 7, 2015 BY STEVEN HAYWARD (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/author/steven) IN IRAN (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/iran), OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/category/obama-foreign-policy)WHEN YOU’VE LOST DAVID BROOKS. . .
I know reader opinion here about David Brooks is . . . divided (full disclosure—oh hell, you don’t need to be told, but I will add that if you ask Charles Krauthammer who his favorite liberal columnist is, he’ll say “David Brooks”), and it is certainly true that Brooks tends to give Obama the benefit of the doubt too much of the time. Still. Brooks’s column today (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/opinion/david-brooks-3-us-defeats-vietnam-iraq-and-now-iran.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0) in the NY Times today is brutal on the Iran deal. He says it is a loss on par with the Vietnam War:

...

[Kathianne]

Harsh, deserved, but harsh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/16/saudi-prince-bandar-says-iran-nuke-deal-worse-than-failed-north-korea-deal/?postshare=2821439167276609


Saudi Prince Bandar: The U.S. nuclear pact with North Korea failed. The Iran deal is worse. By Adam Taylor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/adam-taylor) July 16


Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States between 1981 and 2005, has written a damning column in which he compares the Iran nuclear deal to the failed nuclear deal with North Korea -- and concludes it will have even worse consequences.
Writing for the London-based Arabic news Web site Elaph (http://elaphjournal.com/Web/News/2015/7/1024259.html), Badar suggests that President Obama is knowingly making a bad deal, while President Bill Clinton had made a deal with North Korea with the best intentions and the best information he had. The new deal will "wreak havoc" in the Middle East, which is already destabilized due to Iranian actions, Bandar writes.

...

The Saudi royal then contrasts this with the present situation with Iran, "where the strategic foreign policy analysis, the national intelligence information, and America’s allies in the region's intelligence all predict not only the same outcome of the North Korean nuclear deal but worse – with the billions of dollars that Iran will have access to."
Bandar says Obama is smart enough to understand this but that he is ideologically willing to accept collateral damage because he believes he is right. (Sounds oh so familiar!)

...

The Saudi prince says the new Iran deal and other developments in the region have led him to conclude that a phrase first used by Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more" – is correct.

[Kathianne]

be a blow for years to come for the Democrats? Only if this election cycle manages to pin it on them. Following the blurb I'm posting, the author is addressing ways that Clinton and Schumer can rectify the problems. This is a liberal leaning piece:


http://www.thetower.org/article/the-democratic-party-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/



The Democratic Party, on the Edge of the Abyss ​
Martin Peretz (http://www.thetower.org/?author=132)How the party of FDR and JFK deals with the Iran agreement will determine its credibility on foreign policy for decades to come.


Two of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party, former and current senators from New York, now hold the fate of the putative deal with Iran in their hands. Because they alone can overturn it, this means that presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer carry a heavy burden that will deeply affect their personal reputations and, most probably, the trustworthiness of the Democrats in foreign policy for at least a generation.


Their former senatorial colleagues Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry already own their decision, though their logic still remains unclear to both the most diligent and the most casual observer. The president asserts that his piece of paper will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, presuming both the honesty of a regime that has displayed mendacity and hostility for 35 years as well as the existence of a wide-ranging verification capability that his own agreement has fatally compromised. And then, of course, there is the sunset provision that enables Iran to acquire nuclear weapons anyway. As they congratulate themselves on the hard work that produced this bizarre document—Bloomberg News related that “[a]ll present were in a kind of awe”—have these former Solons stopped to wonder why Iran negotiated in the first place when their leaders still insist on claiming they don’t want nuclear weapons? The entire process is built on lies. If the Iranians didn’t want nukes, then why would they want a time limit?


Of course the Iranians are dissimulating—they want the funds that come from sanctions relief, the legitimacy that comes from press conferences with great powers in central Europe, and, finally, an eased path to nuclear weapons. They have managed to achieve all three, without having to pause their “Death to America” street rallies, return their American hostages, curb their aggression in the Middle East, or release their defrauded presidential candidates from house arrest. (Nor has the U.S. President seen fit to even mention these ongoing depredations.) On the U.S. side, the assertion is that Iran will modify its irredentist behavior, even as its last demand (to which Obama and Kerry shamefully caved) was to lift the arms and ballistic missile embargos. Not exactly evidence-based decision-making when you consider the Ayatollah Khamenei’s comment just this weekend: “Our policies toward the arrogant government of the United States will not be changed at all.”


...