Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Iran Nuke Deal just another Obama legacy sandcastle

    Iran Nuke Deal just another Obama legacy sandcastle

    An increasingly aggressive Iranian Mullah regime at war with us and our allies is Obama’s lasting legacy, and it will be more difficult to wash away than the nuke deal.

    In withdrawing from the Iran nuke deal, the U.S. did not breach a commitment of the United States.

    The Trump administration reversed a non-binding, ephemeral policy preference of Barack Obama, who refused to submit the deal as a Treaty under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Had the nuke deal been a treaty, it would have been the supreme law of the land.

    Nor was the Iran nuke deal entered into with the consent of Congress, by treaty or otherwise, or under any other authority that made it irrevocable.

    Senator Ben Sasse put it perfectly:

    The Iran deal has always been terrible. Today is a reminder that if you live by the Presidency, you die by the Presidency. We ought to be clear about this: Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty; he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. Two and a half years ago, President Obama made a bad deal with Iran without support from Congress, and today President Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do so. American foreign policy makes lasting progress when it is led by the President, approved by Congress, and presented honestly to the American people.

    This is another example of Obama’s sandcastles washing away with a new administration. Obama bragged how he would use his pen and his phone to go around Congress on a host of international and domestic issues.

    In so doing Obama left most of his legacy at the mercy of the pen and the phone of his successor. Had that successor been Hillary, Obama’s legacy would have been secure. A disaster for our country, but secure.

    But Obama’s successor wasn’t Hillary. And Obama’s legacy is washing away.

    In the case of the Iran nuke deal, that’s a good thing. The deal was part of Obama’s Grand Bargain with the Mullahs, to give Iran regional hegemony in exchange for a delay in going nuclear. Obama’s hope allegedly was that the Mullah regime in the interim would moderate. That was alway a fraud perpetrated on the American public by Obama, Ben Rhodes and the echo chamber.

    Will this lead to war?

    Iran has been at war with us and our allies in the region with an increasing intensity since the nuke deal was signed. That’s Obama’s lasting legacy, and it will be more difficult to wash away.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Henry Hawkins | May 9, 2018 at 3:40 pm

    It’s OK, Mr. Obama. Let it go. Just remember – they’ll never take Cash For Clunkers away from your legacy.

    “In so doing Obama left most of his legacy at the mercy of the pen and the phone of his successor. ”

    Constitutional scholar? This is like a NASA rocket scientist fumbling the Law of Thermodynamics.

    I guess Harvard Law isn’t what it used to be.

    Arminius | May 10, 2018 at 6:16 pm

    Milhouse is a font of bad information. Congress legislated in 1996 that victims of terrorism could sue designated state sponsors of terrorism for damages. Courts found defects in the law, ruling that while victims of terrorism could sue individual officials, agents, subsidiary organizations, etc., Congress had not provided a federal cause of action against the designated states themselves.

    In order to remedy the situation, Congress attached a rider to the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act, specifically to provide a federal cause of action to sue designated state sponsors of terrorism and to make it clear that the assets of the states themselves were available to pay damages to those victims.

    In 2012 President Obama froze $2B that Iran’s central bank had illegally concealed in a New York bank account. In the same year, Congress amended the law to state that $2B was to available to victims of Iranian terrorism. Everything had been spelled out by law. There were exceptions for frozen Iraqi funds, as by 2008 the status of Iraq had been changed by force of US arms, but there were no exceptions for frozen Iranian monies.

    Which led to this:

    Milhouse simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Yet, that doesn’t stop him from being absolutely sure in his error.

      Arminius in reply to Arminius. | May 10, 2018 at 6:19 pm

      You can either believe me + Supreme Court, or you can believe the unsupported word of Milhouse.

      Those are your choices.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Arminius. | May 10, 2018 at 8:08 pm

        False dichotomy. We can believe neither. ;o)

          Arminius in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 10, 2018 at 10:30 pm

          No, there is not third option. The SCOTUS ordered the judgement in the case of BANK MARKAZI, AKA CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN v. PETERSON ET AL enforced. Unlike what Milhouse intends, the Obama administration made no move to intervene and protect Iranian assets from the plaintiffs because the law is clear. It would have been illegal for Obama to do so.

          You have no other option unless you are saying you opt out of reality entirely.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend