The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Monday, March 16, 2015

End Run

With a smirk that has become one of his trademark expressions, Barack Obama indicated before the 2014 elections that he was not "an emperor" and did not have unilateral authority to make law. But this president has demonstrated repeatedly that he puts very little value on the truth when it gets in the way of his political objectives. It therefore comes as no surprise that he has acted unilaterally and intends to do so, not only in a relatively mundane regulatory context (although that, in itself, is potentially unconstitutional), but in a major nuclear arms deal that has created bi-partisan concern in the Congress.

Should a bad deal be reached (that's the only kind of deal that can be reached by Obama's Team of 2s negotiated with Iran, a terror state), Obama now threatens to block congressional approval by going directly to the UN, an organization only too happy to drop Iranian sanctions so that its members can benefit financially.

The Wall Street Journal comments:
The larger context here is that Mr. Obama is trying to make his Iran deal a fait accompli before Congress has any say. His plan is to strike a deal and submit it to the U.N. Security Council for approval, hemming in Congress. He’ll then waive some Iran sanctions on his own, while arguing that anyone who opposes the deal wants war.

Mr. McDonough’s letter includes a long list of previous agreements that “do not require congressional approval.” But the examples he cites are either minor accords or have had substantial bipartisan support. There is no precedent in the nuclear era for a President negotiating such a major arms-control accord without Congressional assent.

Mr. Obama might have avoided this showdown with Congress if he hadn’t treated America’s elected representatives as little more than a public nuisance. His minions have disclosed more details of the Iran talks to the media than to Congress. It’s little wonder that few Members of either party trust his negotiating skill or security judgment.

Mr. Corker has 65 supporters for his legislation, and he has already delayed it through March 24 at the request of Democrats. If he delays it any more, he risks conceding Mr. Obama’s desire to make Congress the irrelevant equivalent of the Iranian parliament.
If a bad deal is struck and international sanctions are dropped via an Obama UN end run, congressional approval is meaningless and Iran will march toward nuclear weapons—destabilizing the Middle East and presenting a major threat to world peace over the long term. This president is either too self-absorbed to be concerned about the collateral damage. After all, his failed presidency needs a "legacy" moment, doesn't it?