The same. This isn't a cheer leading squad.
Backstabbing Republicans Publish Open Letter To Iran Undermining Negotiations
- Thread starter juleswin
- Start date
The same. This isn't a cheer leading squad.
Your response would have been unnecessary.
I don't know, this is really getting a lot of negative press. Rand signing on to letters like this helps him with GOP primary voters but hurts him among moderates, independents, and the liberty movement. I have no problem with the content of the letter but can see how it comes across to some as overly partisan.
YesI'mALiberal
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 325
Now on BenSwann.com:
Republican Senators Vow to Sabotage Iran Deal
by Jason Ditz, March 09, 2015
With progress having been made on the Iran negotiations, Republican Senators opposed to a deal have been threatening the administration left and right over it. Today, they took a different tack, issuing an open letter to Iran, warning them against the deal on the grounds that they’re just going to sabotage it in the future.
The letter was pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR) and signed by 47 senators. Surprisingly, this included Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY), who had previously expressed opposition to Congressional attempts to sabotage the negotiations.
Just a month ago, Sen. Paul had admonished the Senate against standing in the way of negotiations in good faith. Now, with Iran a key issue in the upcoming presidential primaries, he seems to be wavering on the matter, and towing the party line.
The letter provoked a sharp criticism from the White House over the Senate’s attempt to interfere in diplomatic efforts, and a dismissal from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,who said Iran didn’t take the threat seriously.
Whether Zarif’s comments reflect the view of the entire Iranian government remains to be seen, however, and opposition from US hawks, and a threat to sabotage the deal, should only add to the calls from Iran’s own right-wing to ditch the negotiations on the grounds that the US can’t be trusted to keep its bargains.
The argument has been pushed for a long time by Iran’s Conservative parliamentarians, who have been averse to the deal. With US Republicans now confirming as much, and explicitly writing a letter saying they can’t be trusted to keep any deals reached by Obama, the talks will surely suffer at least somewhat.
image by Gage Skidmore via Creative Commons license.
Rand Paul Caves on Iran, Backs Move to Kill Deal
Republican Senators Vow to Sabotage Iran Deal
by Jason Ditz, March 09, 2015
With progress having been made on the Iran negotiations, Republican Senators opposed to a deal have been threatening the administration left and right over it. Today, they took a different tack, issuing an open letter to Iran, warning them against the deal on the grounds that they’re just going to sabotage it in the future.
The letter was pushed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R – AR) and signed by 47 senators. Surprisingly, this included Sen. Rand Paul (R – KY), who had previously expressed opposition to Congressional attempts to sabotage the negotiations.
Just a month ago, Sen. Paul had admonished the Senate against standing in the way of negotiations in good faith. Now, with Iran a key issue in the upcoming presidential primaries, he seems to be wavering on the matter, and towing the party line.
The letter provoked a sharp criticism from the White House over the Senate’s attempt to interfere in diplomatic efforts, and a dismissal from Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif,who said Iran didn’t take the threat seriously.
Whether Zarif’s comments reflect the view of the entire Iranian government remains to be seen, however, and opposition from US hawks, and a threat to sabotage the deal, should only add to the calls from Iran’s own right-wing to ditch the negotiations on the grounds that the US can’t be trusted to keep its bargains.
The argument has been pushed for a long time by Iran’s Conservative parliamentarians, who have been averse to the deal. With US Republicans now confirming as much, and explicitly writing a letter saying they can’t be trusted to keep any deals reached by Obama, the talks will surely suffer at least somewhat.
image by Gage Skidmore via Creative Commons license.
Rand Paul Caves on Iran, Backs Move to Kill Deal
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
The press is just looking for any excuse. It helps not to give any to them, but if not this then something else. A little condescending, perhaps, mostly it demonstrates Congressional distrust in our President. It's pretty unprecedented. There is this little threat of war-ish at the end, but the target of this isn't Iran, it's Obama. I mean, Congress going directly to Iran to express a lack of faith in the President's power to negotiate? I can't imagine such a thing ever happening before.
Now Obama has to beg the Senate for 3/5 approval on something he will never get. They just said, "Hey Ayatollah, don't bother listening to this guy, he's a lame duck, and he doesn't speak for us." Whatever Obama was trying to accomplish it just ended right there like that. Now it's just a visit for old time's sake. Congress just chopped Obama off at the knees as he started walking into Iran. I am sure that was not by accident. The only thing the Republican Senate will accept now is capitulation, which Iran will never give. If they got wind of Obama planning to give up something considered horrible (who knows, just speculation) they may have broke this to stop something of an emergency matter. Honestly, with Obama's history I wouldn't be surprised. God knows what the man could do at any moment.
All I'm saying is doing this kind of thing is profound, unprecedented, and impossible to do by accident. Our own Senate just chopped our own President off at the knees, as he walked into negotiations with Iran. Good, bad, or indifferent, it's big. Imagine Congress telling China that Nixon didn't actually represent them. Imagine Congress telling Gorbachev that Reagan was not our guy. Whatever is going on here, it's not a joke.
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
Eh. I've never been shy about criticizing Rand's warmongering, but the letter reads like a lesson in American government. I wish he would get involved in sending these lessons to a lot of other people before bothering Iran, but whatever. I'm indifferent. Hell, when I saw the headline I expected much more in the way of direct threats and saber rattling, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see Rand sign a letter like that either.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,655
Oh come on...stop.
You don't think they know what the basic system of power (at least on paper) is here in AmeriKa?
It was a veiled threat, simple as that.
"Hey, you might skate with this current moron, but let our plans come to fruition and we'll be stomping mud holes in your asses come next election."
And it was a disgusting, cheap, political whore of a move by Rand to sign on to this dreck.
Shame on him.
Last edited:
YesI'mALiberal
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 325
No.
Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.
He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.
Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."
Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Asked about the open letter of 47 US Senators to Iranian leaders, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Javad Zarif, responded that "in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."
Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.
The Iranian Foreign Minister added that "change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Irans peaceful nuclear program." He continued "I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with the stroke of a pen, as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.
He emphasized that if the current negotiation with P5+1 result in a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the US, but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
Zarif expressed the hope that his comments "may enrich the knowledge of the authors to recognize that according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement at any time as they claim, and if Congress adopts any measure to impede its implementation, it will have committed a material breach of US obligations.
The Foreign Minister also informed the authors that majority of US international agreements in recent decades are in fact what the signatories describe as "mere executive agreements" and not treaties ratified by the Senate.
He reminded them that "their letter in fact undermines the credibility of thousands of such mere executive agreements that have been or will be entered into by the US with various other governments.
Zarif concluded by stating that "the Islamic Republic of Iran has entered these negotiations in good faith and with the political will to reach an agreement, and it is imperative for our counterparts to prove similar good faith and political will in order to make an agreement possible."
Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Gold Standard
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,188
Yeah, international law means less than nothing to me. To me, this is like when Ron would endorse a neocon scumbag to score political points in the party. I wish Rand wouldn't have signed the letter, but the letter, while ridiculous, is technically correct and doesn't directly threaten anyone, so whatever. He can sign on and score some points with the idiot Republicans, and tell libertarians that he wanted to force the president to bring the treaty before Congress like he is supposed to. When he calls for sanctions against Iran or calls for creating a Kurdish state, that disgusts me. This letter is nothing compared to other stuff he has advocated.
enhanced_deficit
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 28,575
EM.
While Cotton is a war monger cheerleader in his own right, I doubt that this is as simplistic as it seems. These Republican, Christian Evangelica-based politicians are probably mostly interested in money and causing infighting within money factored jewish lobby behind Dems. They do not really care that much about Israel or jewish people. That is why real Zionist Bill Maher gave $1 Million to Obama, as did Goldman Scahs many times X.
WaPo: "This week, Schweich seemed to be getting anxious about some comments he alleged Hancock made about his faith. He told the AP that he had heard rumors that Hancock made some comments last year that Schweich was Jewish and he thought Hancock should step down from his position as party chairman, to which he was just elected. Messenger, from the Post-Dispatch, said in his statement that Schweich told him he thought Hancock meant to “harm him politically in a gubernatorial primary in which many Republican voters are evangelical Christians.”
Schweich suicide: Missouri GOP chairman denies spreading rumors about Schweich’s religion
Brilliant move by Boehner to invite Netanyahu; Jewish lobby behind Dems is getting fractured
It's politics as usual. Left wing / moderate neocons in team Obama are less war mongering in this case than Right Wing neocons but they are no peace corpse. And GOP President would never attack Iran for Israel.. it is just lip service to get some jewish lobby money, Iran war lobby's best hope is a democrat.
Recall GOP President Bush prosecuted AIPAC Israel lobby for espionage and FBI raided pro Israel "journalists" when the lobby got bit too noisy about Iran war, it was Israel lobby's puppet Obama who quietly dropped AIPAC Espioange prosecution right after getting selected to the White House.
it was childish. while the senate is technically correct, it's intent is to interfere with the negotiations, and cause a war. I still don't see the need for USA permission for Iran to have nukes. Israel and Pakistan did not.
I see something strange with this letter. nothing like was ever done before. Almost as if it was meant to embarrass Rand. all the others had no political or moral risk.
Last edited:
Saint Vitus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Rand Paul signs Tom Cotton's threatening letter to Iran
What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html
What is your opinion on the fact that Rand Paul is aligning himself with the likes of Tom Cotton and signing letters such as these?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...ran-open-letter-nuclear-agreement-115888.html
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
What was threatening about the letter? Did you read it?
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
The letter itself isn't threatening but the people behind it are diametrically opposed to Rand's position. The catch is Rand is really in a no-win situation. The Ron Paul Institute put out a video with Ron and Dan McAdams talking about the whole thing. Even they said it should be handled like a treaty, although as we know that would likely submarine the talks. Rand really has no chance to look good as he's trying to uphold both the peace position and the constitutional one.
Saint Vitus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Yes, I did read it. It basically threatens Iran that any deal that they make with Obama is likely to be voided by a future president or congress. It is very unordinary for the Senate to send such letters. The fact that it was written by Tom Cotton, a raging neocon who is itching to go to war with Iran, makes me wonder why Rand Paul would sign it. Not every Republican senator signed it.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
Can you point out in the letter where it "basically threatens"? I admit to only having quickly read it yesterday and it appeared factual and informative. Why should Iran not be fully briefed on how our govt works and what Obama could actually achieve in negotiations? I contend that Iran should be appreciative of the letter.
Saint Vitus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 276
Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically Obama is attempting to meet with leaders of Iran and work out an agreement that would suspend Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions on the country. This would lead to reduced tensions between us and them. I'm not an Obama fan, but I believe diplomacy and trade with Iran is a good thing. Why is Rand Paul seemingly working with Tom Cotton to undermine this?
And specsaregood, the very idea that they sent this implies that they will work to overturn any treaty that Obama works out with them, which is threatening.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-many-gop-neocons-in-the-federal-senate/
And specsaregood, the very idea that they sent this implies that they will work to overturn any treaty that Obama works out with them, which is threatening.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/how-many-gop-neocons-in-the-federal-senate/
Last edited:
Similar threads
