What Did Corker's Deal Do For Republicans?

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, written by Republican Senator Bob Corker, set up a framework that mandates Congressional review of any arms control agreement with Iran, but allows the agreement to go into force unless Congress can override President Obama’s veto of a bill to stop the agreement.  Since the agreement seems very tilted in favor of President Obama, why would Corker write and help pass such legislation?

What Corker bought us is an on the record vote by every Democrat in Congress on the Iran agreement. Without the Corker bill, there would have been no vote at all. Traditionally, Congress does not vote on Executive Agreements. You must measure Corker’s agreement by the way the Smartest President Ever got the agreement ratified in the UN before Congress could even vote.  Without Corker’s agreement, there would have been no vote and no debate in Congress on the Iran deal.

Further, once that vote is taken, it will be a matter of public record that Barry the Brilliant acted without the advice and consent of anybody beyond his circle of cronies. The Israelis and Saudis are not going to wait quietly while Iran gathers the strength to kill them. They will attack first. The situation will quickly deteriorate in the Middle East to the point that even the Pravda Press can't ignore the general, perhaps nuclear, war that the agreement triggered. We will have a Democratic president, Obama, supported by Congressional Democrats who voted on the record, who made an agreement the majority of both Houses of Congress voted against. This Chicago Machine Prodigy will carry it out anyway, showing his true colors as an arrogant aspiring dictator. That will be a great campaign issue against every Democrat in 2016.

You should note that the Obama administration feels free to ignore Executive Agreements concerning nuclear disarmament whenever convenient. In 1994 the US, UK and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with the Ukraine. In return for the Ukraine surrendering all of the former Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory, the US, UK and Russia guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. Last year, Russia seized the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine, then invaded the Ukraine from the east. The Smartest President Ever refused to send any weapons to help the Ukrainians. He only sent "non-lethal" aid. I know that US field rations are much better than Soviet era leftovers, but do you really believe that's keeping the promise of the Budapest Memorandum?

Since the Smartest President Ever has ignored Executive Agreements he didn’t like, and since the Iran Executive Agreement will have been put in force after being rejected by a majority in both houses of Congress, it should be relatively easy for a Republican president to cancel it in 2017.  If a Democrat is elected in 2016, the country will have so many problems that nuclear war in the Middle East may seem relatively minor.

Iran Deal Will Lead To Middle East War

Democrats believe that Saudi Arabia and Israel will wait patiently until Iran uses the benefits of Obama's deal to gather enough strength to kill them.  The deal frees $150 billion in frozen assets that Iran can use to buy weapons, train terrorists and finance weapons development.  The agreement allows the inspection of only "civilian" Iranian nuclear sites and allows the Iranians to demand 24 days advance notice of inspections.  So Democrats believe this deal has secured peace in our time.

I believe that Saudi Arabia and Israel will attack Iran very soon after the deal goes into effect because both Saudis and Israelis believe that Iran's threats to convert or kill all Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia and to wipe Israel off the map are exactly what the Iranians intend to do if given the chance.  

Iran's economy is very easy to damage.  About 90% of Iran's oil exports flow through the big oil terminal on Kharg Island, 16 miles off shore.  The Iraqi air force knocked out Kharg Island during the 198-1988 Iran Iraq war.  Both Saudi Arabia and Israel have air forces far superior to the Iraqi air force of the 80's.  

Also, while Iran has lots of crude oil, it has no oil refineries.  They import all refined oil products, including gasoline, diesel and kerosene.  Kerosene is widely used for home cooking, so shortages would cause political instability.  Mining Iran's major ports from the air would stop the importation almost all refined imports.

If the Saudis and Israelis decide to hit Iranian nuclear facilities directly, they can't do it with conventional weapons.  In particular, Iran's nuclear facility at Fordow has equipment levels as low as 300 feet below ground.  A 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb with conventional explosives might be able to inflict significant damage.  Unfortunately, only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver a bomb that heavy against current Iranian air defenses. The alternative for the Israelis is nuclear weapons.  What's worse is that any nuclear weapons targeted at Fordow will have to be ground bursts, that is the fireball will have to touch the ground.  This means a lot of radioactive dirt would get sucked up into the atmosphere.  Also, it’s not clear that only one nuclear weapon would do the job.  Due to payload restrictions of Israeli aircraft, they might not be able to use the kind of heavily armored ground penetrating nuclear bombs required to destroy Fordow.  Instead, they might have to dig Fordow out with two or three nuclear explosions spaced out 15 to 30 minutes apart.

To sum up, in my view, no deal means continuing the brush fire wars of the Middle East.  Singing the agreement means a general war in the Middle East that would likely escalate to nuclear weapons.  Liberals who back the deal with Iran are the real war mongers.

Is Obama's Deal Less Damaging Than Bush's Invasion?

The left is saying that Obama’s agreement with Iran is less damaging than Bush invading Iraq.  Given their own arguments, this can’t be true.  As the left reminds us constantly, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Under Barry the Brilliant's agreement, Iran will have nuclear weapons in at most 10 years time. A failed state in Iraq can inflict at most one World Trade Center scale attack on the US. While that would be terrible, three thousand killed would be dwarfed by the casualties of a successful nuclear attack on New York City. The left seems to be arithmetic challenged in both budgetary and military matters.

The Smartest President Ever has maneuvered the world to the point where Israel's only option appears to be war with Iran. Ironically, this appears to be the only option left to Saudi Arabia as well. The Saudis and Israelis have been quietly discussing cooperation in the last year or so.

The deal gives Iran access to $150 billion of frozen assets. To put this in perspective, Iran has about $55 billion in oil revenue per year. I don't think Iran's enemies in the region will permit Iran to sell oil in addition to the $150 billion they will have to spend on weapons and financing terrorism. About 90% of Iranian oil exports pass through the Kharg Island oil terminal, which is about 16 miles offshore. It is packed with oil storage tanks. We will know the war has started when we see a big fire on Kharg Island which destroys the oil terminal. In the Iran Iraq war (1980-1988), Saddam Hussein's air force knocked out Kharg Island.

The biggest problem that the Community Organizer in Chief has created with his extended diplomacy is the fortification of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. It's now the case that to destroy key facilities would probably require a 30,000 pound enhanced bunker buster bomb. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver this conventional explosive bomb against Iran's current air defenses. The Saudis and Israelis would need to use nuclear weapons. The Israelis have an estimated 150 nuclear warheads. The Saudis financed Pakistan's bomb, so they can always buy a few if they need to.

So all of this "peaceful" diplomacy has created a situation where war is almost inevitable. The only good news is that it won't involve US military action right away. We will probably have to pay some ransom to get back our troops in Iraq from Iran's control, but that's the end of our short term involvement.

Longer term, the world will be a huge mess we have to live in.

Liberals Take Undeserved Credit for Cheap Oil

Liberals are trying to take credit for falling oil and natural gas prices, which is ludicrous.  Fracking in the US and Saudi Arabian oil production policy are the main causes of big moves in energy prices.  The initial falling prices of oil and natural gas came from fracking, which Liberals strongly oppose and have outlawed in New York and California. If the Keystone Pipeline had been built and if it was legal to export crude oil from the US, the price of oil would be even lower. Liberals oppose both of those actions in the name of preventing global warming. The other contributing factor to crashing oil prices is Saudi Arabia's conclusion that the Chicago Machine Prodigy in Chief will not stop the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. They decided to maintain Saudi oil production at current levels to crash the price and bankrupt the Iranian mullahs. For the Saudis, damage to Russia was a nice side benefit, as the Russians sell weapons and reactors to Iran. Which of these actions did our Dear Leader have any positive contribution towards? I grant that the "Reset" with Russia and the endless nuclear negotiations with Iran caused the Saudis to conclude they had to act alone. Do you think that was the intended consequence when the Smartest President Ever made those moves?

Mess in the Ukraine, Global Implications

War weary commentators of the left and right are arguing that the Ukraine is not our problem.  In disagreement with any contrary argument, these folks like to ask whether the holders of opposing viewpoints are willing to be on the front lines personally.  I think they are completely wrong.  Remember that NATO now includes Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The first 3 are Baltic States that used to be part of the USSR and might be next on Putin's list of targets. We made a commitment to the Ukraine to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for Ukrainians giving up their Soviet era nuclear weapons. If we ignore our commitment, we will need to quickly move a large number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland, because at that point Putin will really be tempted to grab the Baltic States. Regardless, just letting the Ukraine be cut up will make countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel wonder about our commitment to them. This could start a general, probably nuclear, war in the Middle East brought on by Iran's unchecked move towards making their own nuclear weapons. So enjoy playing games with who's going to get shot at. And get some popcorn, because the show is only just beginning. 

I think the best possible response to Putin would be to withdraw from the New START disarmament treaty now in effect with Russia. It is a unilateral step that the president can take immediately. Unfortunately, the One We Weren't Really Waiting For will not do this. As I said before, another thing we could do is start moving a significant number of US and NATO aircraft to Poland and the Baltic States. Our Dear Leader won't do that either. Our Smartest President Ever will at best tell Putin that the Ukrainian border is a red line he should not cross. Most likely, our Community Organizer in Chief will warn Putin that Russia risks condemnation from the whole international community and all Citizens of the World if he grabs any more Ukrainian territory. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people. They lost the last US election and will have to pay for it even though they didn't get to vote.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373392/putin-opens-second-front-ukraine-tom-rogan#comment-1285280931

Encouraging Israel to Nuke Iran

The fact is the only way Israel can destroy enough Iranian centrifuges is to nuke their underground facilities.  Please explain to this ignorant red neck why it's wise to encourage the Israelis to nuke the Iranians.  While the unanticipated result of Obama's foreign policy is to reconcile Israel and Saudi Arabia, the improved relationship itself shows just how terrified both countries are of a nuclear Iran.  Add in the Kurds, who are already very friendly with the Israelis and are getting friendlier with Saudi Arabia, and a general war in the Middle East becomes much more likely.  The world in general is very reminiscent of 1914, when a minor league assassination set off World War I and millions died.  In the face of all this, commenters on this site are talking about John Bolton's mustache.  A new level in Liberal/Progressive ignorance. 

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/5373872-74/iran-iraq-obama#axzz2qHvjuswy