Congressional Approval Is Bypassed
If a strong majority in both chambers cannot stop the sellout Iran nuclear deal, what is next?


A nuclear Iran is a flash point that will ignite the Middle East and the ensuing heat will devour Israel and permanently cripple the USA.



With momentum on their side, the white house and senate democrats hope to find seven more votes next week to filibuster the republican resolution of disapproval. That would ensure the resolution would never leave the senate, and Mr. Obama would not be forced to use a veto.



Even we outside the intelligence community can discern that the Iranian regime wouldn’t have gone to all the trouble to prepare for a bomb without first doing the comparatively easy part – make the casings, the electronics, the firing mechanism and the other components of a mature 21st century weapon. Key members of the intelligent community know that Iran has them.

Just where are Iran’s bomb-assembly materials? Where are the detonators? Where is the apparatus needed to implode highly enriched uranium into a nuclear explosion? Where are those “atomic bomb kits” hidden? Well informed observers are certain that these items (the designs for which Iran has possessed for years) have already been manufactured.

Take note: Possession of a “bomb kit” leaves just one last step: the loading of bomb-ready uranium. So where might the handcuffed international inspectors locate Iran’s bomb kits? The answer is straightforward: The bomb assembly apparatus – by necessity – is hidden in a large, secure facility designated “military.” This is a facility to which the Iranian regime continues to deny access to the international inspectors.

It is hidden in plain sight.

Public focus has been on the two main uranium enrichment sites – Fordow and Natanz – see the BBC map at < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-11927720 >. These facilities house the centrifuge farms that have already built up a cache of bomb-ready, or nearly bomb-ready, enriched uranium. The pending agreement does contemplate inspection of those facilities.


When the current “peace” agreement was announced, administration officials were already in a sudden rush, bordering on diplomatic panic. Why?

It turns out that Iran has a cache of uranium that was enriched to 20%. Sources conflict about where that cache is now sited, whether it is still in the rapidly upgradable gaseous state or some other form. But no one claims that the inspectors will be allowed to get to a substantial part of it.

In other words, one price the Obama administration was willing to pay for this agreement is that the fruits of Iran’s earlier atomic bomb making efforts will be retained.

Uranium enriched to 20% is military-use fissile material, no ifs, ands or buts. It turns out that this development is a dangerous tipping point such that further enrichment to the bomb grade level would be – and still is – but weeks away. When upgraded, this cache will power 8 to 10 atom bombs. In a New York Ties piece critical of the deal’s shortcomings, General Petraeus revealed the following: “Iran … is three months from break-out capability and with a stockpile of 10 bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium.” Bulls Eye Iran, by Dennis Ross and David H. Petraeus, in the August 25, 2015 New York Times.

Is it unreasonable to point out that this Administration, having enjoyed years of control over US intelligence and national security policy, was asleep at the switch?


Where is the bomb assembly facility? It is in a military complex to which the Iranian regime continues to deny access to the international inspectors. That facility has a name.

It is Parchin.

The Parchin facility is off limits under the agreement. Off. Limits.

The administration must have been very desperate to have agreed to such a thing.

The retained 20% enriched uranium and the atomic bomb kits held in Iran’s tight grasp mean that, at any time of the terrorist regime’s choosing, the inspectors can be evicted, and working atomic bombs can be assembled before the cumbersome inspection and sanctions process that the Obama team agreed to can produce any meaningful results.

Given this standoff, it is curious that anyone looking at the situation would expect any appreciable delay before Iran goes nuclear.

What is the regime waiting for? The billions of dollars in promised relief.

And I might add – What is Mr. Obama really hoping for? …A decent delay before Iran’s breakout, hopefully until many months after January 20, 2016, when the blame for the built-in failure of this faux disarmament scheme will be shared by another administration. …Or when the awful responsibility of using force will be on someone else’s head.


One key Senator, Chris Coons (D-Del), delivered a “powerful blow to opponents of the plan because the Delaware Democrat had previously voiced some of the deepest skepticism about the controversial deal” (per the Washington Post). On the Senator’s website, we can find his s attempt to justify the decision to cave —

“I am troubled that the parties to this agreement – particularly Iran – have differing interpretations of key terms, and I remain deeply concerned about our ability to hold Iran to the terms of this agreement as we understand them. Under this agreement, Iran retains a civilian nuclear enrichment program that grows steadily in scope and the hardened underground nuclear facility at Fordow continues to exist filled with centrifuges which, while sidelined from enrichment for fifteen years, are not permanently shelved.

“We cannot trust the Iranians, and from the requirements and scope of snapping back sanctions to the timing and mechanisms of inspections, I found several areas in the text of the agreement where I would prefer the terms of enforcement to be clearer and stronger. I also stand with my colleagues who have raised real questions about the details of the IAEA’s agreement with Iran over the assessment of past nuclear weaponization activities at Parchin and the integrity of future inspections and enforcement as a result.


“Would another round of negotiations produce a stronger result or merely additional months or years of uncertainty and instability?

“I have called on the Administration to take additional steps to strengthen this agreement, and they agreed to do that by:

{…among other things} “Certifying that the IAEA inspection process at Iran’s military base at Parchin will not negatively impact the inspections regime or serve as a precedent in the future.


The last line quoted s a masterpiece of obfuscation by a Senator who should know better. Coons is saying that the non-existent inspection process at Parchin should not be a model for the future. I would add, if there is a future…

Senator Coons speaks in code. When he says, “I also stand with my colleagues who have raised real questions about the details of the IAEA’s agreement with Iran over the assessment of past nuclear weaponization activities at Parchin and the integrity of future inspections and enforcement as a result.” Then adds a “but,” to wit: “This agreement will substantially constrain the Iranian nuclear program or its duration, and compared with all realistic alternatives, it is the best option available to us at this time.”

My translation:

The international sanctions that brought the Iranian regime to its knees are too hard to sustain, and this president and many of my most influential constituents cannot stomach the necessary military action, therefore diplomacy is the best option available to us at this time while we have Mr. Obama at the helm. I pray that Joe Biden or Hillary will do better. God save America.

Democratic Senator Schumer, in opposing the deal, expressed similar ambivalence. The administration wants even more votes in the Senate, so that debate can be curtailed. That would be an outrage. I respectfully submit that when a full debate unfolds and additional facts are made known, the president will lose more votes.


The stakes are far too high for this kind of naiveté. This is not a problem for diplomats. It is a matter for military strategists.

Long ago, the Democratic Party produced patriotic lions, among them –Harry Truman and Senator Henry Scoop Jackson. Those days are gone. And I write as a long time registered democrat (in CA) whose party long ran off the rails.

I have no party.

Young John F Kennedy once wrote a book about the coming Nazi storm and the ambivalence of the countries that were devoured by Hitler’s forces. His title was “Why England Slept.” While hospitalized, Senator Kennedy wrote another book called “Profiles in Courage.”

From a later generation, perhaps now in grade school, another writer will emerge to tell the truth about the Democratic politicians who denied, excused, allowed their critical faculties to sleep and their courage to give flight while radical Iran armed itself with nukes. That writer and other like her will write an account with titles like “Why the Democrats Slept” and “Profiles in Cowardice and Denial.”


Let me quote from a National Review article – linked at < http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417128/corker-bill-isnt-victory-its-constitutional-perversion-andrew-c-mccarthy >

Cravenly elevating their own political interest over the national interest, many on the GOP side of the political class calculate that it is more important to avoid blame for frustrating Obama — this time, on his delusional Iran deal — than to succeed in actually frustrating Obama

But …the Constitution mandates that no international agreement can be binding unless it achieves either of two forms of congressional endorsement: a) super-majority approval by two-thirds of the Senate (i.e., 67 aye votes), or b) enactment through the normal legislative process, meaning passage by both chambers under their burdensome rules, then signature by the president.

The Corker bill [was] a ploy to circumvent this constitutional roadblock. …it would require the president to submit any Iran deal to Congress, it is drawing plaudits for toughness. But like … Once the deal is submitted, Congress would have 60 days (or perhaps as few as 30 days) to act.

If within that period both houses of Congress failed to enact a resolution of disapproval, the agreement would be deemed legally binding — meaning that the sanctions the Iranian regime is chafing under would be lifted. [But] passage of a resolution of disapproval — even if assured in the House with its commanding Republican majority — could be blocked by the familiar, lockstep parliamentary maneuvering of just 40 Senate Democrats. …And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes.


If the country is lucky, the next president will have the necessary time, the means and the guts to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. In the meantime, it is incumbent on every member of the House and the Senate to work tirelessly and honestly to ratchet up all sanctions, giving ever sharper teeth to the inspection process, and – this is an essential element – to find effective ways to get the necessary military and intelligence support and weapons into the hands of the Israelis before it is too late.

If you thought the nuclear standoff with Russia during the Cold War was a dangerous time, then consider where Mr. Obama is taking us now. If or when Iran goes nuclear, that Cold War period will seem like a cake walk.



See Jay Gaskill’s earlier articles, starting with http://jaygaskill.com/TheDECEPTION.htm

Then please take the time to study the following piece in full, excerpted below as published in Commentary Magazine.

How Restraint Leads to War



By Henry R Nau

http://www.hoover.org/profiles/henry-r-nau (See bio. below.)


[Key Excerpts]

War happens when the United States is not ambitious or aggressive enough, and more aggressive nations respond by stepping up and attacking the interests of the United States and its allies because there is no one to prevent them from doing so.

Disturbing indeed, especially since the deal gives sanctions relief to Iran worth tens of billions of dollars to carry out its “Death to America” threat. The United States has no say over how this money can be spent. Given the Islamic Republic’s current combat offensives in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere, we are likely to see a renewed surge of Iranian provocation once those funds are freed up. And in light of Khamenei’s boastful defiance, Iran may pour that money directly into an illicit nuclear program.

And so, as has often been the case in the past, an effort to avoid conflict may lead to far worse conflict down the road.

Why does America cycle between excessive ambition and excessive restraint, always followed by new attacks, which precipitate a much bigger war than might have been necessary earlier?

The internationalist tradition, sometimes called liberal internationalism after the Democratic presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt who championed it, encourages the United States to believe it can tame international violence and spread democracy largely through multilateral diplomacy and economic interdependence, eventually replacing the balance of power with collective security that pools force and uses it as a last resort only with multilateral consent—the first Persian Gulf War being the prime example.

But what if other nations do not reciprocate with friendly responses? What if they choose not to work together in international institutions but to compete for political, economic, and military advantage? What if they, like Russia and China, use UN negotiations to drag out or dilute nuclear negotiations with Iran and North Korea and support rather than oppose states, such as Syria, that sponsor terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere? What if they initiate military interventions of their own in Ukraine and the South and East China Seas to roll back Western influence?

The other two traditions, realism and nationalism, expect other countries to behave this way.

Realists and nationalists consider it naive to believe that America can spread democracy through economic ties and international institutions. They empathize with other countries when these countries push back and defy Western encroachment. Why should Russia let Ukraine join NATO when Moscow has naval bases in Crimea? Why should China not patrol its own coastal sea lanes? The world is messy, and realists and nationalists have always said that America must accept the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. Other countries value their independence and form of government as much as we value ours, and often their values and our values clash. Domestic differences cannot be altered; democracy is Western, not universal; and international affairs remain an arena of decentralized competition and anarchy that can be managed only by a statesmanlike combination of defense and diplomacy.


Under the influence of liberal internationalism, America overextends to transform the world in hopes of reducing the use of military force and subjecting it to multilateral control. Under the influence of realism and nationalism, America retreats from the world to concentrate on stability and limited military defenses and abandons support for expanding freedom. Each internationalist overreach encounters pushback by other countries and eventually higher military costs. Each realist or nationalist retreat is followed by renewed anarchy in the world and fresh attacks on the United States or its allies, attacks more devastating than if the United States had stayed in the world and acted earlier.

It is time for a fourth approach.

This approach would combine liberal internationalism’s commitment to spread democracy and make the world a better place with the instruments of realism to back up diplomacy with military force. But it would limit this combination of freedom and force by making the spread of freedom a priority only on the borders of existing free countries, primarily in Europe and Asia, not in “every nation and culture” worldwide. And it would tie military actions to diplomatic compromises that favor freedom—not to military victory followed by occupation and interminable nation-building. In the end, such restrained ambition—what we might call conservative internationalism—aims for a world in which nation-states remain separate, sovereign, and armed, and do not entrust vital national-security interests to international institutions—and yet, as democracy spreads, live side by side in peaceful competition under the democratic peace.

This approach was favored by Presidents Truman and Reagan, the presidents who initiated and won the Cold War. They did not shrink from the support of freedom abroad, and they armed their diplomacy to negotiate with authoritarian powers. But they also disciplined their approach. They prioritized the advance of freedom along the borders of existing free countries in Europe and Asia—not in every country in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. And they accumulated and used military leverage not to defeat their adversaries, but to achieve timely compromises that pushed authoritarian states incrementally toward freedom.

Henry R. Nau is a professor of political science and international affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. He holds a BS degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and MA and PhD degrees from Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. From January 1981 to July 1983, he served on President Reagan’s National Security Council as senior director for international economic affairs.

His most recent book is Conservative Internationalism: Armed Diplomacy under Jefferson, Polk, Truman and Reagan, to be published by Princeton University Press in August 2013. Other published books include Worldviews of Aspiring Powers: Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China, India, Iran, Japan and China, coedited with Deepa Ollappally (Oxford University Press, 2012); Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas, 3rd edition (CQ Press, 2011); At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy (Cornell University Press, 2002); and The Myth of America’s Decline: Leading the World Economy into the 1990s (Oxford University Press, 1990). His most recent articles include “The Jigsaw Puzzle and the Chess Board: The Making and Unmaking of Foreign Policy in the Age of Obama,” Commentary, May 2012, and “Ideas Have Consequences: The Cold War and Today,” International Politics, July 2011.

Commentary is a monthly American magazine on politics, Judaism, social and cultural issues. It was founded by the American Jewish Committee in 1945. Besides its strong coverage of cultural issues, it provided a strong voice for the anti-Stalinist left. By 1960 its editor was Norman Podhoretz, originally amainstream liberal Democrat
. He and his magazine moved to the right in the 1970s and 1980s.[1] Benjamin Balint describes it as the “Contentious Magazine That Transformed the Jewish Left Into the Neoconservative Right”.[2] Historian Richard Pells says that “no other journal of the past half century has been so consistently influential, or so central to the major debates that have transformed the political and intellectual life of the United States.”[3]

With the exception of the quoted material from other sources, the foregoing article (Obama Defies the Congress) is Copyright © 2015 by Jay B Gaskill, Attorney at Law. A license to link to the piece and/ or to copy excerpts with full attribution, is hereby granted to the readers and followers of The Policy Think Site www.jaygaskill.com . This article and the other pieces on TPTS are distributed free to promote public knowledge, dialogue and discussion.

For all other permissions and comments, please contact the author via email at law@jaygaskill.com.

The author served as the chief Public Defender for the County of Alameda, CA, headquartered in Oakland for 10 years, following a long career as an Assistant Public Defender. Then Mr. Gaskill left his “life of crime” to devote more time to writing.

Learn more about Jay B Gaskill, attorney, analyst and author, at http://jaygaskill.com/WhoIsJayBGaskill.pdf

Leave a Reply