• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Admin: Congressional Crackdown on Terror Will Violate Iran Deal

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
102,001
Reaction score
45,496
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senior Obama administration officials are expressing concern that congressional attempts to tighten laws preventing terrorists from entering the United States could violate the Iran nuclear agreement and prompt Tehran to walk away from the agreement.

Congress is considering measures that would tighten the Visa Waiver Program to make it harder for potential terrorists to legally enter the United States by increasing restrictions on individuals who have travelled to countries with prominent terrorist organizations from bypassing security checks upon entering the United States.

Iranian officials have in recent days repeatedly issued threatening statements to the Obama administration, saying that such moves would violate the nuclear agreement, and the Obama administration last week conveyed the Iranian anger to American lawmakers.

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that these congressional efforts “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

Under the revised law, which came in the week of a deadly terrorist attack in California, individuals who have travelled to Iran—a lead sponsor of global terrorism—would no longer be eligible to participate in the Visa Waiver Program, which permits individuals from 38 partner nations to more easily enter the United States.

Congress remains concerned that gaps in the program could prevent federal law enforcement officials from detecting terror-tied individuals before they are granted entrance to U.S. soil.

However, a portion of the Iran nuclear deal mandates that the United States not take any action that could harm Iran’s economic relationships with other countries. Iranian officials maintain that the new restrictions violate this passage of the deal.

Iran | Visa Waiver Program


So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

this is another one of those should have read it before you signed it deals.
the fact is Obama can do nothing about this. the Iran deal is not a treaty
and congress doesn't have to abide by the agreement.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?

Not even remotely.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

If Obama signed a deal that forbids any measure that could harm Iran's economic relationship with an other country, tben Obama negotiated an absurd deal. It is totally impossible not to do things that will not so affect Iran. So either there is more to the wording of the deal or the deal is invalid as it stipulates the impossible.
That is not to say that screening people that travel in areas like Syria or Iran would not make sense.
 
I'm sure glad we have Obama and Kerry to make our deals for us.
 
From the OP article:

... a portion of the Iran nuclear deal mandates that the United States not take any action that could harm Iran’s economic relationships with other countries. Iranian officials maintain that the new restrictions violate this passage of the deal.

How does denying VISAs on terror suspects from Iran harm their "economic relationships with other countries"? It's not like our VISA restrictions would stop anyone from Iran from traveling to...Russia...Germany...Switzerland...or even Iceland if they wanted to.

Sound like somebody will say or perhaps do anything not to rattle this Iran deal. First volley comes from Iran making unfounded, unsubstantiated claims; next comes from folks within the Obama Administration (State Dept.) who panics at the first hint of a nuclear reduction deal going south. I say, "Buck up and Grow a pair!" and stop freakin' out each time members of (the GOP-led) Congress start their anti-immigration Sabre rattling.
 
From the OP article:



How does denying VISAs on terror suspects from Iran harm their "economic relationships with other countries"? It's not like our VISA restrictions would stop anyone from Iran from traveling to...Russia...Germany...Switzerland...or even Iceland if they wanted to.

Sound like somebody will say or perhaps do anything not to rattle this Iran deal. First volley comes from Iran making unfounded, unsubstantiated claims; next comes from folks within the Obama Administration (State Dept.) who panics at the first hint of a nuclear reduction deal going south. I say, "Buck up and Grow a pair!" and stop freakin' out each time members of (the GOP-led) Congress start their anti-immigration Sabre rattling.

You are missing the point. The visa restriction is for anyone that visited Iran. That means if a shoe salesman from Sweden simply visited Iran then they may be restricted from entering the US. That could negatively impact shoe trade with Iran - could it not?
 
Beheading the Blacksmith of Balkh: Iranian Americans scapegoated again
radicalised, American-born Pakistani went to Saudi Arabia and married another Pakistani brainwashed with an extremist version of Wahhabism that is the Saudi state religion. The couple came to the US and shot up a Christmas office party killing 14 people.

Guess who is being chosen for punishment for this despicable crime? Iranian Americans, who have never shared that extremist ideology and who, as far as we know, have never had anything to do with this or any other act of terrorism anywhere in the world.

The passage by the United States House of Representatives of the Visa Waiver Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, or HR 158, brings to mind a Persian story about a ruler who heard a blacksmith had committed a crime in the city of Balkh, now in northern Afghanistan. In his desire to appear swift in meting out justice he ordered the arrest and beheading of the culprit.

But, as Balkh was too far away, the ruler decreed that beheading any blacksmith would do. And yet his henchmen were unable to find such an artisan in nearby towns. All they found was a coppersmith in the city of Shushtar in western Iran. So, our zealous ruler called for the execution of the poor coppersmith of Shushtar lest the crime of the blacksmith of Balkh went unpunished.

The US House of Representatives just reenacted that story. If backed by the Senate and president, then the new law will bar Iranian-Americans from a 38-nation visa waiver programme that allows visits to signatory countries for up to 90 days without a visa.

Even if we grant that prudence in the cause of security justifies collective punishment, HR 158 does not punish either Pakistani or Saudis dual nationals. Instead Iranian Americans are to be punished – along with dual nationals from Iraq, Sudan and Syria, as well as anyone who has been to any of these four countries in the past five years.

Advertisement

Why? Two reasons. One: somebody had to be nailed. Two: nobody ever pays a political price for targeting Iranian Americans. This is despite the fact no Iranian national, let alone an Iranian American, has ever been proved to be involved in terrorism in the US or Europe – this should not be confused with the state- sponsored assassinations of dissidents by agents of the Islamic Republic that ended in the late 1990s.

So, why do Saudis receive a get-out-of-jail card every time they land on the terrorism square, as they often do? Because they have been the favourites of the American political elites and its ersatz aristocracy including the Bush and Trump dynasties.
more
 
The only deal I know of involves the Obama administration. Iran's signature means nothing - they have no intention of abiding by any of the terms of that agreement that they view as disadvantageous to their goals. If they intended to honor the agreement, they wouldn't have already conducted two nuclear capable ballistic missile tests already.
 
You are missing the point. The visa restriction is for anyone that visited Iran. That means if a shoe salesman from Sweden simply visited Iran then they may be restricted from entering the US. That could negatively impact shoe trade with Iran - could it not?

Alright...good point.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

Good morning, Mycroft. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: Where exactly in the "agreement" with Iran does it state that we must allow anyone who wants to enter this country to do so? :bs: We are a sovereign Country, and Iran does not dictate what we may or may not do! Were Obama and Kerry drunk? Go Congress!
 
So the deal is basically....

Iran has to follow none of it. The US has to follow all of it.

Nice job, Obama and Kerry.
 
This seems to be Obama trying to get his way. He does not want to have tougher immigration standards. Congress, with bipartisan support, is following the will of the people and instituting tougher standards. So Obama is pulling out the "but but" out his arse to try and block congress from doing the job he dosen't want done.

If Iran walks away from the deal using this smoke screen as cover, it is because they are looking for a reason.
 
So the deal is basically....

Iran has to follow none of it. The US has to follow all of it.

Nice job, Obama and Kerry.

:doh What are you talking about? Where did the article indicate that Iran "has to follow none of it"? I look forward to your ****ty partisan talking points about the P5+1 deal
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.
Obviously you hate Obama because he's black and you've been listening to Faux New and the Right Wing Noise Machine, there just CANNOT be another explanation for your thoughts...
 
Also the USA is State Sponsor of Terrorism...
 
talk about your partisan talking points.

See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah
 
Since Congress wasn't involved in Obama's deal with Iran, I'm not sure they should really care. If this was a treaty ratified by the Senate, it would probably be a different situation.
 
See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah

ahh the old help people over throw the dictator bit.
not what I call terrorism.

you evidently are using some other definition to terrorism.
 
See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah

You forgot about three important and timely examples:

1.) The US sponsores of the entire Salafi movement by supporting and financing Saudi Arabia. Beyond this, we literally were the chief financial backer of the mujahideen in the 1980's, whose second major backer was Osama bin Laden, and literally turned into the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Which, in turn, recently became ISIS. The gift that just keeps on giving.

2.) We bombed the al-Shifa medical factory in Sudan (and other targets in Afganistan), which killed some 200 people, injured 4,000 people, and because it was the sole medical facility in a nation with a trade embargo, it resulted in the needless deaths of some 100,000 people who couldn't get medication for treatable illnesses. That was a major tipping point in people's support for militant Islam, and become a rallying cry to Osama bin Laden to do the 9/11 attacks (Quite literally, Osama bin Laden mentioned the al-Shifa bombing as one of the motivations for the 9/11 attacks).

3.) We supported Iran getting nuclear weapons in the first place. Many Iranians were going to US universities to get nuclear engineering degrees. That was under the brutal dictator, the Shah, who thye American political establishment loved. Then when the revolution happened, suddenly then Iran was a terrible nation with a different terrible dictator, we're 100% against Iran. The main difference? The new brutal tyrant doesn't play ball with the US.


These aren't talking points, they're facts and their truth has consequences. And the fact that people don't understand that they're facts, that has real consequences, too.
 
Back
Top Bottom