Category Archives: Russia

The White House Charming Venezuela

Posted on by

Did you consider that normalizing relations with Cuba, which blind-sided everyone was part of the demands by Iran in the nuclear talks? Uh huh…

Did you consider and additional demand for Venezuela?..Hummm

A U.S. State Department lawyer, Tom Shannon has traveled to Caracas to meet with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and there have been other clandestine meet-ups in Haiti to set the table for restoring relations between the two countries.

Strangely enough, the University of Rhode Island was also chosen along with 4 other universities to enhance relationship opportunities through student exchanges.

Barack Obama feels empowered now due to the deal with Iran and the notion that Cuba and the United States have formally opened respective embassies.

Obama is now exploiting the moment where he used Cuba as a springboard when he attended the Summit of the Americas last April. His ‘new chapter’ has been read and accepted as noted in his speech at this summit. Actually he had many secret and formal messages in his speech which sounded much like that of his outreach speech to the Muslim world in his 2009 Cairo speech.

“President Obama indicated our strong support for a peaceful dialogue between the parties within Venezuela,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House’s National Security Council. “He reiterated that our interest is not in threatening Venezuela, but in supporting democracy, stability and prosperity in Venezuela and the region.”
Maduro later described the meeting as frank and cordial, saying the 10-minute exchange could lead the way to a meaningful dialogue between the two nations in the coming days. “I told him we’re not an enemy of the United States,” Maduro said. “We told each other the truth.”

Several charming people and words and being delivered and dispatched, Venezuela is here.

 

Obama Charm Offensive Targets Venezuela After Iranians, Cubans

The Obama administration’s charm offensive with unfriendly states has rolled through Myanmar, Iran and Cuba. Next stop: Venezuela.

Just months after the administration declared Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security, it’s working to improve relations, driven by concern that upheaval there could destabilize the region.

State Department officers have been meeting quietly with officials in the leftist government of President Nicolas Maduro since April to develop what Secretary of State John Kerry has called “a normal relationship.”

The outreach is another test of President Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural pledge to “extend a hand” to repressive and corrupt regimes if they are “willing to unclench” their fists.

Falling oil prices, plummeting foreign reserves, a 68.5 percent inflation rate and growing political tensions are battering Venezuela. There’s enough at stake that even a Justice Department probe into the alleged drug ties of the lead Venezuelan in the talks hasn’t derailed the diplomacy.

“The U.S. has a broader goal here, no matter what they think about the Venezuelan government,” said Christopher Sabatini, a Latin American studies professor at Columbia University in New York. “The goal is to prevent a black hole that will suck in other Latin American economies.”

One frequent critic of the administration’s foreign policy has cautious praise for the effort. “I’m very glad the administration is trying to deal with them” on political repression and staging fair elections in December, said Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Toilet Paper Queue

Corker visited Caracas last month and returned dismayed by the sight of Venezuelans queuing outside stores in the early morning hoping that toilet paper might be in stock.

“I don’t think I’ve been to a place that has more potential but is totally blowing it,” Corker said in an interview. “It’s just sad.”

Beyond the hyperinflation that burdens ordinary people and erodes the government’s spending ability, the country’s international reserves fell to a 12-year record low of $15.37 billion on July 27, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The country’s basket of crude oil and petroleum, a major source of national revenue, fell 4.2 percent last week to $45.87 per barrel, according to the Oil Ministry’s website. A year ago, a barrel of oil brought Venezuela about $96.

‘Fear of Contagion’

Venezuela and its state oil company have about $5 billion in bond payments due in the last three months of this year and about $10 billion in 2016, according to Bank of America Corp. estimates.

Harvard Professor Ricardo Hausmann is saying Venezuela will have no choice but to default on its debt next year amid shortages of staples such as medicine and milk.

“One of the fears is contagion,” said Carl Meacham, director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. With the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has wielded regional clout by offering neighbors cheap energy and subsidies.

Now, with the country becoming “more and more a hub for international drug cartels,” Meacham said the U.S. effort is about preventing it from becoming a failed narco state. “The spillover won’t just affect folks inside Venezuela, it also has the potential to affect countries all over the region,” he said.

Trading Partner

There also are strategic considerations. The U.S. is Venezuela’s biggest trading partner, the country currently has a vote on the United Nations Security Council as one of 10 nonpermanent members, and it has allied itself with Cuba and other nations hostile to the U.S., sending oil to Syria’s regime despite sanctions in 2012 and last year agreeing to let Russia establish naval and military bases in its borders.

The U.S. “wants Venezuela to relax its international positions on countries like Iran, Russia, Syria and Greece,” said Carlos Romero, an international relations professor at the Central University of Venezuela.

There’s concern, too, that tensions with Venezuela could damp efforts to improve relations with other Latin American nations. Kerry said on July 20 that he and Cuba’s foreign minister had discussed the U.S.-Venezuela relationship, and “our hopes that we can find a better way forward because all of the region will benefit.”

Diplomats Expelled

In the past two years, both nations have expelled diplomats from the other country, and the U.S. has sanctioned Venezuelan officials for human rights abuses.

Maduro, who embraces the socialist rhetoric of his late predecessor Hugo Chavez, called the sanctions the “most aggressive, unjust and disgraceful” action ever taken against Venezuela.

In May, the Justice Department launched its investigation into Diosdado Cabello, the president of the National Assembly, for possible cocaine trafficking and money laundering.

By then, though, there already were signs of change. In March, officials say, Maduro reached out to initiate talks.

“He was afraid of another round of sanctions, and he was afraid of losing support from the rest of Latin America,” said Romero of Venezuela’s Central University. “The majority of Latin American countries, including Ecuador and Bolivia, have been improving ties with the U.S., and Venezuela wants to be recognized as legitimate.

‘Modus Vivendi’

Maduro’s government is eager to reach some sort of ‘‘modus vivendi’’ with the U.S., Romero said. The precarious economy, coupled with the sight of other Latin American countries — particularly Cuba — warming to the U.S., was a spur for Maduro.

Maduro publicly voiced optimism for U.S.-Venezuela relations after speaking with Obama at the Summit of the Americas in Panama in April, an event where Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro shook hands as their countries’ moved toward normalization.

‘‘There’s a real sense the U.S.-Latin American relationship had been a bit distant and now has new possibilities,” said Harold Trinkunas, director of the Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution. “The one thing that could spoil that is the situation in Venezuela, so the administration is looking for ways to manage that.”

So far, the talks have focused on regional issues such as the peace process in neighboring Columbia and Haiti’s elections, and on domestic issues such as jailed opposition leaders and the need to hold credible elections in December with international observers, according to a State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic business.

Immediate aims include finding “an exit to Venezuela’s political crisis” and preventing its “breakdown into lawlessness,” Sabatini said.

Meacham, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is among critics who question the effectiveness of the talks.

“Is it the right approach? Up to now I’d say no,” he said. “We haven’t seen progress with the political prisoners, we haven’t seen them commit to international observers.”

Still, Meacham said, “there is something to be gained from opening the channels of communication.” If things go badly, it will help the U.S. “predict and assess the scope of the damage for the region.”

 

 

 

What the Obama Admin is not Telling you About Iran

Posted on by

In 2012, the U.S. Treasury Department which is responsible for maintaining the global terror list, placed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Crops Qods Force in the terror database for violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act for trafficking Afghan narcotics in exchange for weapons to the Taliban.

On July 14, 2015, the U.S. Treasury posted the sanctions relief document on their website as a result of the signed agreement known as the JPOA.

From the Daily Beast in part: The bigger, more complicated story, though, is how the deal will go down with the organization that now plays a huge role in running Iran, albeit behind the country’s clerical façade: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), also known as the Pasdaran, some of whose internationally infamous leaders showed up on the lists in the nuclear agreement annexes as people who will have sanctions against them lifted.

Whether this was an oversight, a sleight-of-hand, or an attempt to win Pasdaran support, it has to be understood that ever since Rafsanjani (ironically, of all people) let the IRGC into the Iranian economy, allowing it to invest in the country’s leading industries, the group has grown to become Iran’s most important financial power.

The IRGC is now the biggest player in Iran’s biggest industries: energy, construction, car manufacturing and telecommunications. A Western diplomat recently told Reuters that the IRGC’s annual turnover from all of its business activities is around $10 billion to $12 billion, which, if accurate, would be around a sixth of Iranian GDP.

From the United Nations 106 page report in part:

Northern Route

There are various supply chain structures in Central Asia. Trafficking through Turkmenistan appears to feed the Balkan route through the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than the Northern route. Turkmenistan is also unique in Central Asia as a destination country for Balkan route opiates.

 Traffickers increasingly utilize Central Asian railways to transport opiates to the Russian Federation and beyond. The size of some loads detected in 2010 suggests that traffickers are operating with a heightened confidence level. Massive seizures of hashish in containers destined to North America are a confirmation that railroad trafficking is also linked to transcontinental trafficking.

 The Customs union agreement between Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Belarus can be misused, as traffickers may opt to re-route opiate deliveries to Europe through the Northern route, as opposed to the traditional Balkan route. There are plans to extend the Customs union agreement to other states such as Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine, and possibly Tajikistan.

 Countering the flow of drugs is complicated by difficulties in co-ordinating efforts between national agencies within Central Asia and between this region and Afghanistan. This is reflected in limited intelligence sharing along lines of supply.

 Drug trafficking and organized crime are sources of conflict in Kyrgyzstan and potentially in the region as a whole. The inter-ethnic clashes that occurred in southern Kyrgyzstan in 2010 have been used by ethnic Kyrgyz criminal groups to assume predominance over ethnic Uzbek criminal groups and to control the drug routes through this part of Kyrgyzstan.

 Rising militancy has been reported across Central Asia, but there are no observed direct connections between extremist groups and drug trafficking. The preoccupation with combating insurgents in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan does, however, hinder counternarcotics efforts by, at least partly, shifting the focus of law enforcement away from drug control.

From the United Nations report in part:

Southern Route

 

Afghan heroin is trafficked to every region of the world except Latin America. The Balkan route (trafficking route through the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey) has traditionally been the primary route for trafficking heroin out of Afghanistan. However, there are signs of a changing trend, with the Southern route (a collection of trafficking routes and organized criminal groups that facilitate southerly flow of heroin out of Afghanistan) encroaching, including to supply some European markets.

Unlike the northern or Balkan routes that are mostly dedicated to supplying single destinations markets, the Russian Federation and Europe respectively, the southern route serves a number of diverse destinations, including Asian, Africa and Western and Central Europe. It is therefore perhaps more accurate to talk about a vast network of rouhtes than one general flow with the same direction.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan face a tremendous challenge in dealing with the large flows of opiates originating from Afghanistan to feed their domestic heroin markets and to supply demand in many other regions of the world. The geographic location of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan makes them a major transit point for the trafficking of Afghan opiates along the southern route.

Iran will propagandize a narcotics problem but in truth, it feeds their economy, criminal activity, weapons smuggling and terrorism.

The opium trade and smuggling routes are so successful due to the criminal network and money, females are also trafficked for slave labor and sex.

Officials of the regime in Iran are involved in the “sex trafficking of women and girls”, the U.S. State Department said in an annual report on human trafficking released this week.

“Iran is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor,” the State Department said in its annual ‘Trafficking in Persons Report 2015.’

“Organized groups reportedly subject Iranian women, boys, and girls to sex trafficking in Iran, as well as in the United Arab Emirates and Europe,” the TIP report said.

“In 2013, traffickers forced Iranian women and girls into prostitution in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. From 2009-2015, there was a reported increase in the transport of girls from and through Iran en route to the Gulf where organized groups sexually exploited or forced them into marriages. In Tehran, Tabriz, and Astara, the number of teenage girls in prostitution continues to increase.”

“Organized criminal groups force Iranian and immigrant children to work as beggars and in street vendor rings in cities, including Tehran. Physical and sexual abuse and drug addiction are the primary means of coercion. Some children are also forced to work in domestic workshops. Traffickers subject Afghan migrants, including boys, to forced labor in construction and agricultural sectors in Iran. Afghan boys are at high risk of experiencing sexual abuse by their employers and harassment or blackmailing by the Iranian security service and other government officials.”

So, back to the question, what is the real reason for the Obama administration aggressive relationship with Iran? With the sanctions lifted, the forecast of future terror activity coupled with smuggling and trafficking women, weapons, slaves and narcotics, the Obama administration has legitimized Iran as a world power forced to be equal on the global stage.

Putin’s Kill List and a Victim

Posted on by

Putin ‘personally ordered Litvinenko’s murder’: QC at inquest into Russian spy’s death says ‘direct and solid evidence’ ties ‘morally deranged’ President to the killing

By Steph Cockroft for MailOnline

Vladimir Putin ‘personally ordered’ the killing of Alexander Litvinenko and should be held responsible for his death, the inquiry into the former spy’s death has heard.

The lawyer for Mr Litvinenko’s family said there is ‘direct and solid evidence’ which ties the Russian state to the 43-year-old spy’s ‘assassination’.

Making his closing remarks at the end of the six-month inquiry into 2006 poisoning, Ben Emmerson QC added that it would be ‘impossible’ for the killing to have taken place without the approval of the ‘morally deranged’ Russian president.

He added that Mr Putin – whom he described as an ‘increasingly isolated tinpot despot’ – targeted Mr Litvinenko because he was ‘bent on exposing him and his cronies’.

He told the inquiry: ‘Vladimir Putin stands accused of this murder on solid and direct evidence – the best evidence that is ever likely to be available in relation to secret and corrupt criminal enterprise in the Kremlin.’ The Kremlin has always denied the claims.

Mr Litvinenko died nearly three weeks after drinking tea laced with polonium-210 in London in November 2006. Police concluded that the fatal dose was probably consumed during a meeting with Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoi at a hotel in central London.

British authorities later decided that the pair – who deny involvement – should be prosecuted for murder. But the inquiry heard how the trial is now unlikely to take place.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Litvinenko’s widow Marina claimed that her husband’s killers had finally been ‘unmasked’

She added that her husband had ‘vowed to expose corruption’ in the Russian Federal Security but that he had ‘paid the ultimate price’.

Paying tribute to the ‘loving father and husband’ who she says was killed by ‘nuclear terrorsim’, she said: ‘It was very difficult but very important to do this.

‘I’m very, very happy for what (the inquiry) will be able to bring to the open air for all people to be able to listen and see and discuss. Even more I’m so glad that people are still interested after more than nine years.’

Asked how certain she was that Mr Putin was behind her husband’s death, she said: ‘After 15 years being in charge, of course he is responsible for this. What I want to say I did exactly by this public inquiry. What I did is my tribute to my husband.

‘Any reasonable who looks at the evidence will see my husband was killed by agents of the Russian state in the first ever act of nucelar terrorsim on the streets of london and this could not have happened without the knowledge of Mr Putin.’

The inquiry, which began at the end of January, has heard from 62 witnesses in a bid to establish how Mr Litvinenko died and, crucially, who was responsible.

Sir Robert was told about forensic evidence linking Kovtun and Lugovoi to the murder, including the discovery of polonium-210 in the pair’s hotel rooms.

The inquiry also heard how Litvinenko’s whistle-blowing about Mr Putin and his alleged links to organised crime made him an ‘enemy of the state’.

Mr Emmerson QC had described the pair as ‘henchman’ who had been ordered to ‘liquidate’ Mr Litvinenko by the Russian state with the backing of Mr Putin.

WHO POISONED SPY LITVINENKO? THE PRIME SUSPECTS 

Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy are suspected of murdering the Alexander Litvinenko.

Litvinenko, 43, died nearly three weeks after consuming tea laced with polonium-210 in London in November 2006.

Mr Litvinenko is thought to have been working for British secret service MI6 whilst in the UK.

Both Kovtun and Lugovoy deny any involvement and remain in Russia.

They both initially refused to take part in the inquiry.

However in March 2015, Kovtun dramatically changed his mind and offered to give evidence before pulling out today. 

He described an honour awarded to Lugovoi for services to the ‘Motherland’ by the president in March as an attempt by Russia to undermine the inquiry.

He said: ‘It was a crass and clumsy gesture from an increasingly isolated tinpot despot – a morally deranged authoritarian who was at that very moment clinging desperately on to political power in the face of international sanctions and a rising chorus of international condemnation,’ he said.

‘Putin’s award to Lugovoi should be seen for what it was – a crude attempt to intimidate an independent judicial inquiry through cowardly political bluster.’

The inquiry had been due to hear from the prime suspect in the case, Mr Kovtun, but he withdrew at the 11th hour, amid claims of interference from Moscow.

Sir Robert said of the last-minute withdrawal: ‘This unhappy sequence of events drives me to the conclusion either that Mr Kovtun never in truth intended to give evidence and that this has been a charade.

‘Alternatively, if he has at some stage been genuine in his expressed intention to give evidence, obstacles have been put in the way of his doing so.’

In a statement given to the Inquiry, Mr Kovtun claimed he had ended up in the bar at the Millennium Hotel with Mr Litvinenko and Mr Lugovoi ‘completely by chance’.

He said Mr Litvinenko had ‘flopped down’ at their table before grabbing a teapot and pouring himself some tea.

‘He gulped down two cups and then had a coughing fit. In the course of the conversation he coughed constantly and wiped his mouth with a napkin.’

Mr Kovtun added that he had the impression that Mr Litvinenko had ‘mental health problems’ and was ‘driven to despair’, adding: ‘He was prepared to do anything to achieve his financial goals.’

The hearing had also heard from Mr Litvinenko’s father Walter, who claimed that his son’s final words on his deathbed were: ‘Daddy, Putin has poisoned me’. He said that his son also claimed the Russian president was ‘perverted’ and ‘very dangerous’, warning him to be ‘careful’ himself.

The Russian Embassy in London said it did not trust the public inquiry, which it claimed it had been ‘politicised’, and disregarded international law.

Both Mr Emmerson and inquiry chairman Sir Robert Owen praised the meticulous detective work of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr Emmerson described the investigation as one of the most extensive murder inquiries ever carried out in the UK and the post mortem on Mr Litvinenko as “the most dangerous” in British history.

Inquiry chairman Sir Robert Owen said he expected to return his conclusion by the end of the year.

Obama’s Conference Call Gathering his Armies for Iran Deal

Posted on by

Several names and organizations you may know, but Barack Obama and his anti-Israel pro-Iran keeps them close and calls on them often.

Some key items first however.

In part from IranWatch: While Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities were not considered a core issue in the nuclear talks, the language of the new U.N. resolution and the terms of the JCPOA have consequences for the future of Iran’s ballistic missile program:

  • The U.N. resolution removes the existing ban on Iranian activity related to nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, including launches.
  • The U.N. restrictions on sales of missile technology to Iran are extended for up-to eight years, but missile imports will be less strictly controlled than nuclear imports, relying primarily on reporting from Iran and due diligence by its suppliers.
  • The agreement does not appear to allow the “snapback” of sanctions in response to illicit missile procurement.
  • Sanctions will be lifted early next year on several banks that have facilitated illicit missile-related transactions in the past.

Iran’s efforts to advance its nuclear-capable ballistic missile program – through test launches, production, and illicit procurement – will be made easier, while attempts to punish or deter Iran’s ballistic missile activity and illicit procurement will be made more difficult.

***

That IAEA side deal discovered by 2 members of Congress that flew to Vienna to meet with the IAEA membership of which Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Council Advisor Susan Rice both say they have not read but have been briefed on, is found here.

During a hearing of which I personally watched, John Kerry was questioned about going beyond the law to over-ride a Congressional vote, Kerry deferred and replied, you need to ask the President. What??? Well a Democrat from California took notice to the Kerry response.

***

From TWS: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who has been one of the more skeptical Democrats on the agreement, said that Obama appeared ready to ignore Congress, even if lawmakers vote to kill the deal and then marshal the two-thirds majorities to override a White House veto.

“The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,’” Sherman told reporters off the House floor after the meeting.

“He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” Sherman added. “At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s allowed by law.”

Sherman suggested that Obama could refuse to enforce the law and could actively seek to undermine congressional action in other countries, if Capitol Hill insists on stymieing the plan.  

***

So, the entire Obama regime wants this deal as much or if not more than he did on Obamacare, so a conference call was place today.

Some of the names you know like MoveOn.org, happily and earnestly funded by the spooky dude, George Soros. In a previous post on this blog site, we already know about Global Zero enlisting Hollywood.

But we cannot overlook yet another outfit close to the White House, one known as The Truman Project. Here such elitists include:

Madeleine Albright, General James Cartwright, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, now running for U.S. Senate from Illinois, Michele Flournoy, who was on the short list to replace Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel until she turned it down, Leslie Gelb the president of the Council of Foreign Relations, Janet Napolitano, the President of the California University system and former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and last but certainly not least, Kamala Harris, Attorney General for California who just gained the temporary restraining order on the group filming those Planned Parenthood videos.

Obama in call to arms: Stop big money from quashing nuke deal

President tells supporters of accord the agreement with Tehran is not ‘the best of bad alternatives but actually a very good deal’

TimesofIsrael:  President Barack Obama rallied supporters of the Iran nuclear deal in a conference call Thursday evening, urging them to make their voices heard in the effort to convince Congress to ratify the agreement.

According to participants in the call, the president warned listeners, which included members of a number of progressive and anti-proliferation organizations, that they were battling $20 million in ads intended to sway Congress against the deal.

White House organizers listed a number of groups whose supporters participated in the conference call, including Americans United for Change and MoveOn.org, and the Truman Project, although there were a number of other organizations participating, including J Street.

In the conversation, Obama repeatedly drew parallels between the current Congressional review of the Iran deal and the run-up to the highly unpopular US involvement in Iraq, saying “some of the same forces that got us into Iraq” were now actively campaigning to quash the controversial deal. Obama told listeners that one of his key goals as president, alongside non-proliferation, was to “end the war in Iraq but also to end the mindset that got us into the war.”

The president talked up the deal itself, arguing that “I am absolutely convinced that this is not just the best in a series of bad alternatives but actually a very good deal that we should be proud of and that achieves critical security objectives not just for the US but for our allies and the world, including Israel.”

But while Obama devoted time to the administration’s talking points, explaining why the deal was effective — and reinforcing his commitment to Israel’s security — his final message was more of a call to arms.

The president told activists to challenge those who oppose the deal by asking what they would have done better or differently, while casting doubt on the motivations of those leading the opposition to his landmark foreign policy initiative.

“Every argument that has been put forth with this deal is inaccurate or presupposes that what we should be doing if we were to negotiate is to get a deal in which Iran forgoes any peaceful ability to get nuclear power,” Obama stated, saying that such a deal only existed “in dreams.”

“There is no expert who suggests that Iran would have agreed to that,” he argued. “In the real world, this is a deal that gets the job done.”

“What you have to say is that Iran would not do that, and the only way to do that effectively is if we were to go to war,” he added.

Obama warned that Congress might be swayed by the “$20 million dollars of advertising paid for by lobbyists” — a monetary figure he repeated throughout the conversation. The figure is identical to the amount that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee was believed to be prepared to devote to its effort to oppose the deal during the period of Congressional review.

J Street recently said that it would up its budget in support of the deal, but the total amount represents less than 20% of AIPAC’s reported budget for opposing it.

Congress is expected to vote in September on either a resolution of approval or disapproval of the nuclear deal. Obama has vowed to veto any disapproval, and the White House must ensure that at least a third of the members of one of the two Houses vote in favor of the deal in order to sustain a presidential veto.

Obama criticized “columnists and former administration officials that were responsible for us getting in the Iraq war and were making these same claims in 2002-2003 with respect to Iraq.”

The same theme was used repeatedly to rally listeners to action.

“You are going to see the same forces that got us into the Iraq war leading us away from an opportunity for a diplomatic solution,” Obama warned again.

He urged the participants to call members of Congress and make their support for the deal known, implying that right now the loudest voices being heard were those who oppose the deal. “One of the frustrations I’ve always had about the Iraq war is everybody got really loud and really active after it was too late,” he said.

Obama noted that unlike in the run-up to the Iraq war, “the advantage is that now we have a president in the oval office who is on your side,” but added a warning: “As big as a bully pulpit as I have, it’s not enough.”

“When you have a bunch of folks who are big check writers to political campaigns, and billionaires who give to super PACS…this opportunity could slip away.”

Amb. Hill and General Mattis Roundtable Discussion, Iran and America

Posted on by

The last half of the video is better than the first half, but in totality, it must been viewed.

Hoover Institute:

Recorded on  July 16, 2015 – Hoover fellows Charles Hill and James Mattis discuss the Iran deal and the state of the world on Uncommon Knowledge with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson. In their view the United States has handed over its leading role to Iran and provided a dowry along with it. Iran will become the leading power in the region as the United States pulls back; as the sanctions are lifted Iran will start making a lot of money. No matter what Congress does at this point, the sanctions are gone. Furthermore, the president will veto anything Congress comes up with to move the deal forward. This  de facto treaty circumvents the Constitution.

If we want better deals and a stronger presence in the international community, then the United States needs to compromise, and listen to one another other, and encourage other points of view, especially from the three branches of government. If the United States pulls back from the international community, we will need to relearn the lessons we learned after World War I. But if we engage more with the world and use solid strategies to protect and encourage democracy and freedom at home and abroad, then our military interventions will be fewer. The United States and the world will be in a better position to handle problems such as ISIS.