Secretary of State, John Kerry, has abruptly left the Middle East, to join European Diplomats in Geneva, Switzerland. It is believed that an interim agreement to curtail the Iranian nuclear weapons?program could very well be near.? And Israel, and some in Congress, Democrats included, are not happy. ?Meetings have been taking place in Geneva between the European and Iranian officials since yesterday.? Secretary Kerry is scheduled to meet today with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.
Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has slammed the proposed agreement as a bad deal as Iran:
?Got everything, and paid nothing.
The proposal is described as a ?First step agreement? with Iran, making four concessions in either stopping or delaying steps toward the development of weapons grade nuclear material. The United States, in return, would lift some of the economic sanctions that are in place against Iran.? Congress can lift sanctions or impose new sanctions at any time no matter what the President desires.
There is a group in the United States Senate which opposes the proposed agreement.? The Senators are Republicans Mark Kirk, IL, John McCain, AZ, Lindsey Graham, SC, Kelly Ayotte, NH, and Roy Blunt, MO,?along with Democrats Robert Casey, Jr, PA, Chris Coons, DE, Barbara Mikulski, MD, Patty Murray, WA, and Charles Schumer, NY.
While the Intelligence assessment provided to the President is that:
?There is no evidence that Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program.
And the lead U.S. negotiator in Geneva has called for a delaying new sanctions and or relaxing of some of the existing sanctions,? Senator Kirk has said that:
?To do so would constitute appeasement.
There are some voices in the American Jewish community, such as Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino billionaire who has been linked to overseas drug traffickers and spent millions funding Republican candidates and causes during the 2012 election, who opposes any deal with Iran.? Adleson, who chairs the ?Republican Jewish Coalition?,?supports a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran.
Keep in mind that when President Obama spoke over the telephone to Iranian President?Hassan Rouhani in late September of this year, it had been some thirty-four years?since the last direct talks between the two countries had taken place. This also harkens back to the 2007 when candidate and then Senator, Barack Obama, said that:
?He would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.
The then Senator Obama, also said at that time, when speaking about Iran, that if he were elected President, he:
?…would engage in aggressive diplomacy.
When it comes to Foreign Policy, an area that is the responsibility of the President of the United States, there is always the danger of ?either/or? thinking.? Should the United States, as the world’s most powerful military force, engage in preemptive war, go it alone, even if there is only a small chance that the use of restraint might result in catastrophe?? That was the Bush/Cheney Doctrine.
Or, should the United States stay out of foreign entanglements at all costs, unless the direct national interests of the United States are actually threatened?? This is the position of the isolationists, such as former Congressmen, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, and the soon to be former Senator, Rand Paul.
But the emerging ?Obama Doctrine?, seems to be clear;?Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and now Iran.? Don’t go it alone, talk to your enemies, find common ground, and by persevering with your allies, American boots need not hit the ground. ? Peaceful solutions to difficult problems can be found.? And American might and resolve is always at the ready as a matter of last resort.
Edited by SS
