It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[CountDeMoney]

Ted Cruz drops Munich on the Euros, and John Hero hits 'em with Neville Chamberlain for a 1-2 Nazi combo!

European allies join in criticism of Republican letter to Iran
By Karen DeYoung
March 13 at 1:04 PM
Washington Post
National Security

European allies are joining the Obama administration in criticizing Republican congressional interjection into nuclear negotiations with Iran, saying that an open letter from Republican senators to Iranian leaders has been counterproductive and comes at a particularly sensitive time in the talks.

"Suddenly, Iran can say to us: 'Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?' " German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Washington.

"This is no small matter we're talking about," Steinmeier warned in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is not just an issue of American domestic politics."

Germany, France and Britain, along with Russia and China, are U.S. negotiating partners in the Iran talks.

Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took aim at Washington, saying that political divisions in the United States made Iranian negotiators question the Obama administration's ability to follow through with any agreement.

"Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing," Khamenei said Thursday, according to Iran's Mehr News Agency.

European allies are alarmed by U.S. political tensions on a host of foreign policy issues.

President Obama has so far resisted demands from a bipartisan congressional majority to send lethal military equipment to Ukraine. Germany and France, which helped negotiate a sputtering cease-fire between the Ukrainian government and Russian-backed separatists, have said Western arms shipments would only escalate the conflict and undermine a possible solution.

Republicans, in turn, have struck back at European criticism. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said that what he considered U.S. and European capitulation to Iran was reminiscent of Western appeasement of Adolf Hitler.

"I believe we are at a moment like Munich in 1938," Cruz said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show on Thursday.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) extended the World War II metaphor to Ukraine in a direct attack on Steinmeier. "The foreign minister of Germany is the same guy that refuses, in his government, to enact any restrictions on the behavior of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, who is slaughtering Ukrainians as we speak. He has no credibility."

Steinmeier, McCain said, "is in the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy," a reference to the British prewar prime minister who signed the 1938 Munich agreement conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler's Germany.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry told lawmakers Wednesday that the letter to Iran by 47 Republican senators "risks undermining the confidence that foreign governments in thousands of important agreements commit to. It purports to tell the world that if you want to have any confidence in your dealings with America, they have to negotiate with 535 members of Congress."

The letter warned Iran that any nuclear agreement signed by Obama could be revoked "by the stroke of a pen" by any future president, and that Congress could modify its terms "at any time."

Some of the letter's backers have sought political cover as they were flooded with broad-based rebukes.

On Friday, one signer, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told Bloomberg journalists that he now questions the decision to address the letter to Iran's leaders.

"I suppose the only regret is who it's addressed to," Johnson said. "But the content of the letter . . . none whatsoever."

Obama further added to the White House backlash in comments reported Friday: "I am embarrassed" for the letter signers, he was quoted as saying.

"For them to address a letter to the ayatollah who, they claim, is our mortal enemy and their basic argument to them is: Don't deal with our president because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement," Obama said in an interview with Vice media that is expected to be released Monday, according to the AFP news agency.

Earlier this week, Vice President Biden called the letter "a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our commander-in-chief cannot deliver on America's commitments — a message that is as false as it is dangerous."

Kerry and the other negotiators will meet with Iranian officials next week in Lausanne, Switzerland, for another round of talks.

The administration has said a framework for a deal must be agreed to by the end of this month if technical details are to be completed before the negotiating deadline at the end of June. Negotiators have said that deadline will not be extended.

U.S. and European officials have cited recent progress in the negotiations, while cautioning that a deal may not be possible. Outstanding issues are said to include the future status of Iran's underground nuclear-enrichment facility at Fordow, near the city of Qom, and aspects of Iran's nuclear research and development program.

Obama has said the goal is to block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon in a lasting and verifiable way. Opponents have insisted that Iran's nuclear capability — which Tehran says is designed only for legitimate, peaceful energy purposes — must be destroyed.

Even before Steinmeier's visit on Thursday, Germany, Britain and France had repeatedly expressed concern about congressional interference in the talks. Ambassadors from the three Western European countries have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade lawmakers to hold off on new Iran sanctions or any other legislation related to the negotiations while they are underway.

Following publication of the letter Sunday night, French Ambassador Gerard Araud, a diplomat of long experience in this country and a prolific user of social media, posted a Twitter link to the letter and his own comment that "for a foreigner, Washington can be full of surprise."

In London on Tuesday, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told a parliamentary committee that new legislation on Iran "could become a spanner in the works" and "have an unpredictable effect on leadership opinion and public opinion in Tehran."

[Jacob]

That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.

It's a trivially easy distinction to make.

My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.

It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.

No matter where the line is, I'm sure it's possible to find ways to dance right up next to it and get away with it; but crossing the line is still crossing the line.

[grumbler]

Saw it a while ago, didn't recall the exact details, wouldn't necessarily trust Hollywood to get it accurate anyway.

The kinds of things you are talking about seem more like overseas "fact-finding" missions where the discussion centers around implementation of existing policy.   There is  precedent for that sort of thing although if the administration was not kept in the loop it would seem a bit dicey to me.

The book was more credible, I think.  The movie was, as is the case in all fictionalizations f real events, not accurate in terms of persons or timelines.

Wilson was acting as a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which had oversight over the money being spent.  I'm not sure the 47 Senators belonged to the Senate equivalent (in fact, I don't think that there is a Senate subcommittee with oversight over treaty negotiations).  So, no, there is no meaningful comparison between what Wilson was doing and what the Senators were doing.

[Valmy]

Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, took aim at Washington, saying that political divisions in the United States made Iranian negotiators question the Obama administration's ability to follow through with any agreement.

Well I guess they got what they wanted.  Diplomatic mission accomplished!

[grumbler]

That doesn't seem that difficult a distinction to make.

It's a trivially easy distinction to make.

My point is that it seems like a fairly minor and technical point to hang a constitutional argument on.

It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.

No matter where the line is, I'm sure it's possible to find ways to dance right up next to it and get away with it; but crossing the line is still crossing the line.

The line is whether the legislators are acting in their role as overseers of the budgets they pass, or are acting as politicians seeking partisan gain.  It is, as you note, not a trivial issue.  If the Republicans are going to abandon the 225-year-old American political tradition of not giving aid and comfort to enemies of the US for partisan gain, that's neither fairly minor nor merely technical.

[Berkut]

The effect of this is actually greatly more despicable than the intent behind it.

Assuming the intent was just to make the President look bad, if they succeed, the result will be a vastly greater chance for war.

Their letter to Iran is basically saying "Hey, we don't want a deal, we really want to fucking bomb you, so please don't make a deal!"

I want to believe that they are just fucking clueless, and don't realize that what they are doing is an attempt to force us into a war that will result in a lot of people dieing. I really do want to believe that...

[Admiral Yi]

It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.

That's a little circular.  I'm saying this particular line is rather technical and arbitrary.

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile despite months of polls saying Israelis are mainly interested in social and domestic affairs according to the last pre-election polls Likud's strategy of only talking about security hasn't worked.

Zionist Union in the lead. In some polls Likud down to 20 seats. Lots of talk of a possible grand coalition but it looks increasingly unlikely that Bibi will be PM

Caveat: Israeli election polls are notoriously inaccurate and Israeli elections unpredictable

[The Brain]

Caveat: Israeli election polls are notoriously inaccurate and Israeli elections unpredictable

[Jacob]

It seems neither technical nor minor to me. Either a line was crossed or it wasn't.

That's a little circular.  I'm saying this particular line is rather technical and arbitrary.

Yeah I got that; but so far you have not advanced a credible argument for why it's technical and arbitrary.

[Admiral Yi]

I have advanced one that in my mind is credible.

[Valmy]

Zionist Union in the lead.

Wow really?  Awesome.  Here is hoping they pull it out.

[Sheilbh]

Zionist Union in the lead.

Wow really?  Awesome.  Here is hoping they pull it out.

And just days after I'd said how much Lieberman had moderated he said disloyal Israeli Arabs should be beheaded

[Valmy]

And just days after I'd said how much Lieberman had moderated he said disloyal Israeli Arabs should be beheaded

The Israelis are going native on us.  They are so much like the other Middle Easterners now.  That is why I have a hard time considering them trusted allies. At least that is my interpretation.

[Jacob]

I have advanced one that in my mind is credible.

It doesn't seem to have convinced anyone else.