Black Caucus Should Support U.S.-Iran deal



Comments (2)

Comment Feed

Clarence Lusane:

Clarence Lusane:

Your article suggests that there is a legitimate parallel between the fact that only 1/2 of the CBC boycotted Netanyahu and the current issue of Congress’ subverting Obama’s Iran deal.

I think there’s a good deal less to the parallel you suggest than you appear to. Despite the fact that I loathe Netanyahu and all he stands for, I probably would have attended his speech had I been in Congress. He’s the legitimately elected representative of a foreign government and as such, as a Congress person I would think twice about absenting myself from his speech, especially since it was clear very quickly that others were going to do so. (I’m glad SOME did). To make a long story short, I don’t think this decision is an easy litmus test about much of anything.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear ANY rational suggestion as to why the Iran deal should be rejected. It’s certainly fair enough to argue that it may not work out; as far as I know, everyone acknowledges that. But there are, in fact, no realistic alternatives.

Sanctions would simply isolate the US, since it’s quite clear that the rest of the world will not follow the US in trying to maintain them if Congress rejects the deal. (Obviously, if the deal falls through for other reasons, that’s a different ballgame). That means that Iran will be able to sell its oil – which is the most significant thing for its economy – and it’s virtually certain that EU countries will be lining up (in fact, they already are) to maximize their opportunities in a significant market.

And war would virtually guarantee that Iran WILL press forward to build nuclear weapon, unless it’s accompanied by indefinite occupation. No one is suggesting an indefinite occupation.

Maybe I’m way off base, but I would be quite surprised to see more than one or two members of the CBC (if that) opposed to the deal. Indeed, I suspect MOST Congressional Ds will come around when push comes to shove.

John Greenberg more than 2 years ago

There is no deal. The

There is no deal. The president merely bought himself more time by announcing with much fanfare a supposed tentative framework agreement for a possible deal, which we now know the Iranians reject. The March deadline has passed and Congress should prepare for the June deadline to pass as well, and with many Dems including Chuck Schumer aboard it may be necessary to increase the pressure. It does not mean war, and Iran would be foolish to take that route, but the western democracies need to plan for what to do if there is no deal. And further delays are not the answer; new deadlines merely give Iran what they want - time to finish their bomb development. .

Anonymous more than 2 years ago

Built with Metro Publisher™