“Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States reached a historic accord on Tuesday to significantly limit Tehran’s nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions,” the New York Times reports.
“The deal culminates 20 months of negotiations on an agreement that President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency. Whether it portends a new relationship between the United States and Iran — after decades of coups, hostage-taking, terrorism and sanctions — remains a bigger question.”
Bloomberg: “Under legislation passed in May, Congress will have 60 days for public debate and hearings by as many as eight Senate and House committees. Lawmakers then could vote on a joint resolution to approve or reject the nuclear deal, though they also may not act at all.”
Politico: “If it succeeds, the agreement could upgrade President Obama’s checkered foreign policy legacy, as well provide a crowning achievement for Kerry’s 30-year political career.”
President Obama, “in an early morning appearance at the White House that was broadcast live in Iran, began what promised to be an arduous effort to sell the deal to Congress and the American public, saying the agreement was ‘not built on trust. It is built on verification,’” the New York Times reports.
But Obama made it abundantly clear that he would fight to preserve the deal in its entirety: “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”
First Read: “If Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval (from both the House and Senate), and sends it to President Obama’s desk for his signature, it would start another 12-day clock which gives Obama the ability to veto the resolution. After President Obama presumably vetoes the resolution, Congress would have 10 days to attempt to override the veto, which would require a two-thirds vote from both chambers.”
GOP presidential hopeful and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Bloomberg on Monday morning that the Iran nuclear deal announced by President Obama is “akin to declaring war on Israel.” Oh Good. Can we stop giving billions each years to the apartheid state then?
Steve Benen pauses to take stock in the generational and historical scope of this day and this agreement:
At the start of the process, the smart money said these talks would fail. The hurdles were simply too great. Indeed, plenty of very credible observers feared that the attempted diplomacy itself might be a mistake – failure would leave the world in an even more precarious position than before the talks began.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry recognized the challenges and risks, and they took it on anyway. Their success will likely put a stop to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, but it also marks one of the most dramatic diplomatic accomplishments in generations.
I’ve seen some suggestions about this being Obama’s “Nixon goes to China” breakthrough, but the comparison is imprecise – the Obama administration’s task was far more difficult. I’m reminded of this piece from the Washington Post’s Steven Mufson, published in March.
…Obama is not Nixon, and Iran is not China, and the comparison – made in newspaper columns and by some foreign policy experts – is illuminating largely because of important differences it exposes.
Nixon’s visit to China was a powerful symbol – a longtime anti-Communist president strolling along the Great Wall and dining with senior party leaders. Unlike Nixon, Obama lacked a political record that would shield him from criticism for reaching out to a longtime foe.
China also welcomed Nixon’s visit, whereas Iranian leaders still harbor suspicion of the United States.
[T]he nuclear agreement with Iran is arguably a greater diplomatic accomplishment than anything we’ve seen in modern American history.
As Andrew Sullivan often said… Meep Meep Motherfuckers. Barack Obama will go down as the greatest President since Franklin Roosevelt.
Ed Kilgore on the immediate reaction from critics (some of which you have seen above):
In his usually understated way, Bibi Netanyahu called the agreement “a mistake of historic proportions” and claimed it would make Iran “a terrorist nuclear superpower.” But Bibi has his own issues to deal with, since he now faces recriminations from those in Israel who argue that his aggressive posture towards the U.S. over the deal did not stop it, but did do lasting damage to Israel’s most important alliance.
Indeed, I do not consider Israel an ally of the United States. It’s not an enemy, but it’s not a friend either. It is led by a racist and insane fanatic in Netanyahu. So let’s just say I don’t care what he or the government of Israel says anymore.
Here at home virtually the entire Republican Party can be expected to assault the deal. […] Interesting [that Lindsay Graham] opened his comments by announcing he would refuse to comply with an international agreement that includes the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the EU. And Republicans call Obama “lawless.”
In any event, Obama made it clear this morning he would veto any attempt in Congress to upend the deal, and so it would take significant Democratic defections before a veto override attempt becomes realistic. It will be interesting to see if Netanyahu becomes even shriller—if possible—in an effort to put pressure on congressional Democrats to kill the deal, or cuts his losses at home and in the US by staying out of what would probably be a losing cause.
Paul Blest at The New Republic says Bernie Sanders is not the Left’s Ron Paul:
And much like Bush and McCain fifteen years ago, Clinton and Sanders are closer on the issues than a lot of progressives would like to admit. Sanders is championing reforms—a legislative or constitutional fix to Citizens United, universal healthcare, increased regulation of the financial system, income inequality—that most Democrats have supported for years, including Clinton; she was the face of the universal healthcare fight during Bill Clinton’s first term and has focused on income inequality and Citizens United in her 2016 campaign. Similarly, McCain’s biggest issues in that 2000 campaign—national defense and the Middle East—would define the Bush administration and the neoconservative movement as a whole for the next decade.
On the major issues that Sanders and Clinton disagree on—the extent to which the banking system should be reformed, surveillance, and free trade—Sanders’s position is just as popular within the party as Clinton’s, if not more so. These are the battles for the future of the Democratic Party, and where both Sanders and Clinton will seek to stake out a position independent of the other.
GOP strategists tell The Hill that Jeb Bush “needs to walk a fine line in responding to Donald Trump’s attacks, Republican strategists say, and avoid going toe-to-toe with the brash New Yorker.”
“They say getting into a ‘food fight’ with Trump would diminish Bush, the two-time Florida governor who is a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination. But Bush also can’t sit back and let Trump’s barbs go unchallenged, Republican operatives say, so he will have to pick his battles as the 2016 races unfolds.”
Cody Fenwick asks whether the President will undo some of the harms of the War on Drugs?
Reports are circulating that President Obama is preparing to commute the sentences of dozens of individuals currently imprisoned for nonviolent drug-related crimes. [DD: and he commuted the sentences of 46 people yesterday, after Mr. Fenwick wrote this article] So far in his presidency, he has only commuted the sentences of 43 individuals; that number is expected to approximately double with his imminent plans. [And it did].
But 80 or 100 total commutations would fall far short of the 30,000 requests from federal inmates to be considered for clemency. […]
Of the 1.5 million arrests for nonviolent drug violations in 2013, nearly 700,000 of those were for marijuana. Eighty-eight percent of marijuana arrests are for mere possession. All this despite the fact that states around the country have been liberalizing marijuana policy and have found few downsides, even where it’s been legalized for recreational use.I could go on.
Early though it is, Dante Chinni explains “Why the GOP Should Worry About Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers” at NBC’s MTP web page: “The Urban Suburbs (about 29 million votes in 2012) should be the place the GOP nominee aims to sway voters, and going by these numbers, Rubio would be the best candidate there. He loses by only 17 points. But, it’s very early — and losing by 17 points probably isn’t going to get it done for the GOP. That’s worse than Romney did.”