Of course, almost any deal could be better than this turd sandwich
Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal
Secretary of State John Kerry has been painting an apocalyptic picture of what would happen if Congress killed the Iran nuclear deal. Among other things, he has warned that “our friends in this effort will desert us.” But the top national security official from one of those nations involved in the negotiations, France, has a totally different view: He told two senior U.S. lawmakers that he thinks a Congressional no vote might actually be helpful.
His analysis is already having an effect on how members of Congress, especially House Democrats, are thinking about the deal.
The French official, Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.
According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.
“He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,†Sanchez told me in an interview. “He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.â€
This is followed by a blurb about the French embassy and Audibert denying the comments, but, the congress critters cited, as well as a few others, both Republican and Democrat, stand by their claim as to what Audibert said.
Audibert’s comments as recounted by the lawmakers are a direct rebuttal to Kerry, who in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations on July 24 said that if Congress voted down the deal, there would no chance to restart negotiations in search of a tougher pact. Kerry also said that Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would erode the U.S. credibility to strike any type of international agreement in the future. “Do you think the Ayatollah is going to come back to the table if Congress refuses this and negotiate again? Do you think that they’re going to sit there and other people in the world are going to say, hey, let’s go negotiate with the United States, they have 535 secretaries of State?†Kerry said. “I mean, please.â€
That’s a rather Authoritarian comment, wouldn’t you say? Last time I checked, the Constitution enabled the election of citizens to represent the interests of the nation’s citizens.
Q: Does the world stand with the U.S. in supporting the #IranDeal?
A: Very much so ? http://t.co/HFlEmHIIFv— The Iran Deal (NARA) (@TheIranDeal) July 30, 2015
That was retweeted by the White House and Josh Earnest (Press Secretary), among others.
https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/627139635114823681
Every poll has the deal underwater. But, hey, good news, China is thrilled by this deal
As members of Congress debate whether to back the deal over Iran’s nuclear program, one source of support seems guaranteed — China. It’s one of the biggest winners in the agreement, with the lifting of sanctions as Iran pulls back key elements of its enrichment program set to allow Beijing to deepen its historic partnership with Tehran. While China is undoubtedly eyeing the potential economic benefits, Beijing also likely sees an opportunity to challenge U.S. influence in the Middle East.
Russia would likewise see more money and influence in the region. Syria and many terrorist groups would see more support from an Iran flush with cash. Iran would have more influence and control of the region. And could restart their nuclear program in just eight years. What, exactly, is the benefit for the interests of the United States, the nation Kerry and Obama are supposed to represent?
the “experts” who ar against this deal are the same ones who told us that Saddam had WMD.
The sanctions are already falling apart
Our influence in the Mideast is neglible after Bush’s disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan
You think China is stupid enough to send its army into that sectarian mess?
The time that the USA dictates to the world what is going to happen is over. Get used to it
France signed on as well as virtually every country on the planet. Except Israel.
That’s great! It will be easy for you to describe a realistic “better deal”.
That’s right. In foreign affairs, that elected citizen is the president.
he won’t be getting a christmas card for barryboy this year
I just sat in on a meeting with John Barasso and Mike Enzi discussing the Iran deal.
1. There are many democrats who are opposed to this deal for many of the same reasons that the gop is opposed to this deal.
2. Testing will be conducted by the Iranians and the inspectors will be denied access to the areas being tested and the tested material will then be provided by the IRANIANS to the inspectors. Meaning any attempts at hiding anything will require NO effort at all…they simply deny access to whats behind door number one and the inspectors and the world must comply.
3. The Obama administration promised under this deal we would have anywhere, anytime access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. The ‘access’ section of the agreement, however, provides for a process where the International Atomic Energy Agency can ‘request’ access and Iran has two weeks to negotiate over that access.
And now if thats not enough for ya……the Iranians are now calling Obama a liar……..
LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.
Trust but verify…..This deal is full of trust on our part and very little if any verification.
The reason the former USSR and America were able to finally downsize their respective nuclear arms was because very sound verification methods along with the actual witnessing of the destruction of the weapon in person.
Trust but Verify was put into action and results were achieved….N. Korea was able to get sanctions lifted and they built a bomb despite supposedly not being allowed to even have a program in exchange for food from the West.
Trust but verify goes a long way in friendships, partnerships and marriages.
John, Jeff,
I really have difficulty trying to figure out it the two of you are terminally stupid or just so naïve and lacking in real world experience that you can’t understand what would happen with a nuclear Iran. Yes, I can see a better deal. The fact that neither of you can speaks volumes.
John, Jeff,
I really have difficulty trying to figure out it the two of you are terminally stupid or just so naïve and lacking in real world experience that you can’t understand what would happen with a nuclear Iran.
They’re typical leftist trolls.
No more, no less.
dave,
Let me once again point out that you are an admitted traitor and white supremacist. The south is going to rise again, my ass. You and your Klavern brothers going to reinstitute slavery? Lord knows the white southerners are too lazy to work.
And fuck you, asswipe. You don’t even know what the provisions of the deal are.
Speaking for myself, I didn’t fall for the right-wing bullschtick about Iraq and won’t fall for it now. The same class of evildoers that led us into Iraq are now urging military action in Iran. They were woefully wrong then, why believe them now? How’s the democracy we established in Iraq working out for ya?
Again, dave, how would you keep Iran from getting nukes? Bomb? Invade? Elect that awesome negotiator, Trump? This deal pushes back their nuclear program a decade or so. In fact, the sanctions brought the Iranians to the negotiations without bombing or invading.
Almost all that you’re hearing on FOX “News” about the deal is wrong. Almost all that Liam is posting is wrong.
Congress has sufficient time to investigate the deal and take their votes.
J-“How would you keep Iran from getting nukes? Bomb? Invade? The deal pushes back their nuclear program a decade or so.” Really? That 100 billion or so they get will only be used on building art museums, right? And then, if what you say is true, we’re right back to square one after the ten years is up. Of course during those 10 years our kind friends will no doubt use that money and time to increase their nuclear program.
John-“the same experts who told us Saddam had WMDs.” As you like to say, even the NYT believes in the WMDs. See Oct.14, 2014
Wrong again Jeffery.
Additionally with the lifting of Sanctions in Iran…..Iran is going to flood the market with MORE OIL bringing the price even lower and thus forcing alternatives to be beyond the reach.
I should think you AGW Truthers would be at the fore front demanding congress nix this deal.
No one wants to invade Iran. Sanctions have been crippling, the Israelis set them back 5 years with their virus…..Iranian scientists have disappeared or had sudden heart attacks……
But here you are pounding the drum for a deal with Iran which will then flood the market with even MORE EVIL FOSSIL FUELS…….
Your one corny fellah you have no consistency to your pathway to citizenship.