RUSH: We have to talk about this Iranian nuclear deal. I know it’s not sexy and I know that it’s kind of over there. But we need to bring it back here, ’cause it’s not good. It’s like everything else happening with this Regime. It just isn’t good. We’re not just transforming America, we are transforming the world, and we are reordering America’s position in the world. We are a country that has been placed into a state of decline on purpose.
The main objective of this Regime is to manage that decline while trying to convince a bunch of low-information clowns that we’re not in decline, and they are succeeding.
RUSH: But first the Iranian nuclear deal. Now, where this deal stands, the basics of the deal are that we’re gonna permit the Iranians — if they’ll just be patient — to have nuclear bomb in 10 years. I mean, if you want to boil this down to its essence, that’s the Obama nuclear deal with Iran. They can do whatever they want these next 10 the years. They can acquire, they can experiment, they can research, they can develop, but they can’t build.
But after ten years go by, they can, with the blessing of the United States, the blessing of the world. Now, John Kerry — the haughty John Kerry, current secretary of state (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) — said yesterday that the deal that’s being negotiated would not be legally binding. And I saw that, and I asked myself, “Well, what’s the point, if it isn’t legally binding?” That takes us to the letter the 47 Republicans signed written by Tom Cotton, sent to the ayatollahs and the mullahs in Iran.
It’s warning them that this deal that they do with Obama is only as good as Obama’s time in office, meaning, “When Obama’s gone, this deal is gonna be history! So you mullahs and you ayatollahs better take that into account as you’re negotiating the deal.” This has caused numerous mullahs and ayatollahs — in fact, the grand pooh-bah ayatollah, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — to respond to the Republicans much like the Democrats do.
It’s amazing. When these Democrat and Iranian leaders speak, they sound identical, when they’re criticizing Republicans or when they’re criticizing Americans. Okay, so here is the preposterous gibberish from John Kerry. Kerry “in an often contentious Senate hearing, told lawmakers Wednesday the US isn’t negotiating a ‘legally binding’ agreement with Iran, meaning future presidents could choose not to implement the accord,” which is exactly what the Republicans said and the senators said in their letter to Iran.
Yet Kerry and the Democrats are objecting to it, and Pelosi was livid about it. More on her in a moment. “[A] group of 47 GOP senators sent an open letter to Iran’s leaders asserting it could quickly change or discard any agreement once President Barack Obama leaves office, further stirring discord as an end-of-month deadline approaches. Mr. Kerry, joining other members of the Obama administration in rebuking the GOP senators, said their claims that Congress could nullify or alter a deal had the effect of undermining US foreign policy.”
But it is the truth, and the Iranians should know the truth. “He also said they were incorrect in their claim they could alter the terms of the deal. ‘We’ve been clear from the beginning: We’re not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan,’ Mr. Kerry said, so it doesnÂ’t have to be submitted for approval to Congress.” See, that’s the game they’re playing. They want a deal with Iran. They desperately want a deal with Iran, and the deal contains or includes the provisions for Iran to get the nuclear bomb.
Pakistan. Do you know when they got the bomb, Snerdley? Do you have any idea? Does your memory…? (interruption) But when did they officially acknowledge that they had the bomb? It was recent, 1998. It happened in the Clinton administration. Now, Pakistan has never been same as Iran in terms of foreign policy as far as that goes. Iran’s a definite enemy, Pakistan has been. But we didn’t stand in the way of Pakistan because the Indians had one. That was stabilizing, to give the Pakistanis a nuke or stand by and let ’em have it.
But people are using it to ask (haughtily), “Well, we let Pakistani get a nuke! Why can’t Iran?” See, what’s missing from the Democrat side of this is the concept that we’re the good guys. That’s what’s missing in this. Their viewpoint is: “Who are we to tell any nation they can’t have a nuke? What if somebody would have told us that we can’t build one? What would we have done?” We would have nuked ’em. That’s their whole point. There is no such thing as America as the solution to the problems of the world.
There is no such thing as America as the beacon of freedom in the world. There is no such thing as America as the good guys. “We’re no different than any other nation. Who are we to say who and who can’t have a nuke?” They’re hell-bent on the Iranians nuking up, and part of this is Israel. Israel is considered the problem is in the Middle East by this Regime. I’m just gonna say it flat-out. There’s no denying it, in the realm of common sense. The Iranians getting a nuclear weapon?
This Regime, the Obama people look at it as stabilizing the Middle East, which is very, very dangerous. Now, Kerry’s point here about having it be nonbinding means it wouldn’t have to be submitted for approval like a treaty would to the Senate or anybody in Congress. So a nonbinding agreement means Obama can do whatever he wants, which is the objective. Now, there’s another thing that is happening here. As you note, Hillary Clinton has really launched an attack on Tom Cotton for his letter.
Cotton just launched back, fired right back at Hillary on Twitter over the fallout over this letter. Clinton “tweeted a warning to those potential Republican candidates who have praised the letter. ‘GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership. No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing on.’ Arkansas Sen. Cotton fired back. ‘No, .@HillaryClinton, letter to Iran helps protect USA from bad deal. No [commander in chief] should allow worldÂ’s worst regimes to get world’s worst weapon.'”
I mentioned when I was talking about Walker, I like this Cotton guy. He’s unaffected. He doesn’t play by the existing Republican leadership rules of shutting up and not wanting to offend the media. He just fires back. And it’s like anything. He’s just defending himself. He’s defending his actions, and what he did was Hillary that was attacking him. Not the other way around. He simply defended himself and his actions.
RUSH: What is actually taking place with the Iranian deal now is an attempt, in order to sidestep Congress, to have the nuke deal with run to actually become a UN Security Council resolution, legally. This has been written about by a guy named Jack Goldsmith.
Goldsmith has figured out a way — Andy McCarthy is been following this and kept me up to speed on it. Goldsmith has figured out a way that Obama can get this Iranian nuke deal done through the UN charter by a binding Security Council resolution which would also ace out the Senate and the Congress from having any say-so in its ratification. The technique that Obama is using here has been practiced before. It’s called the International Law Game. That’s the parlance here.
The objective is to impose a binding agreement on the United States without complying with the Constitution’s treaty requirements. Now, remember, as I pointed out countless times, the Constitution is the number one obstacle to Obama and the current Democrat Party and their objectives and their agenda. The Constitution is in their way. Be it immigration or whatever they want to do, the Constitution standing in the way, and they have to find a way around it, either to ignore it, or to trample it.
In whatever technique they employ, they’re realizing on the fact that the Republicans are not gonna do anything about it because the Republicans have so stated that they will not use constitutional or power-of-the-purse means to stop Obama from any of this. But Cotton, with his letter, has changed that game a little bit. Tom Cotton’s letter to the Iranians has made it clear that the Republicans in the Senate, at least 47 of them, are just not gonna stand idly by while Obama negotiates a deal with Iran excluding them and the treaty ratification process providing for in the Constitution.
So the first technique, the first trick was to make it nonbinding.
“If it’s nonbinding,” meaning nobody has to agree to it, “then there’s no reason to ratify it!” Then the letter comes up, and that changes the game. What is suspected now is that the Regime is considering going to the United Nations and having this Iranian nuke deal between us and Iran drawn up as a United Nations Security Council resolution, which of course obviates the Congress and the Senate. If it’s not a treaty, then the Senate has no say. If it’s a Security Council resolution, that’s up to Obama.
That’s an executive branch thing.
That’s up to him and his ambassador to do what they want to do.
We have a seat on the Security Council. We can get the Security Council to go along with it, which they would because it’s obviously damaging America and favoring one of America’s enemies. They think it’d be a slam dunk. So that’s the way they’re going with this. They are hell-bent on subverting the Constitution. They want to get a deal with Iran. They want a deal that gives Iran the bomb in ten years. And remember, what they are saying is that they can’t stop Iran. Nobody can stop ’em!
So they want to use the power of persuasion to convince Iran to never use it, but they don’t want to deny them the bomb because we don’t have that right.
RUSH: The Jack Goldsmith guy, he writes at the lawfareblog.com, and he’s cited by people I respect. I’m not that familiar with his prior work, but it’s been cited to me by people who are.
Here’s where we are just in a nutshell, just to review. John Kerry said the Iran deal is nonbinding and could be changed by any future president. He then attacked the Republican senators for saying the deal was nonbinding and could be changed by any future president. I mean, he attacked them for saying what he’s saying, but they said it in a letter to the mullahs. “This is undermining American foreign policy. This is traitorous.” It’s not. But that’s a sideshow.
Meanwhile, the fate of Israel, the fate of the Middle East, the fate of the United States is going to rest on some secret deal between Obama and a regime full of treacherous Muslim fanatics that is not legally binding? This is what we signed on for? This is why we elected Obama, so we could have a secret deal with a bunch of extremist Muslims about nuclear bombs that they will acquire? And that’s where Jack Goldsmith comes into play again. He writes as a legal analyst, maybe a lawyer at Lawfare blog.
He says: “The Case for the PresidentÂ’s Unilateral Authority to Conclude the Impending Iran Deal is Easy Because it Will (Likely) be a Nonbinding Agreement Under International Law,” which opens up all kinds of presidential authority. It’s nonbinding, there’s no treaty requirement, there’s no approval, ratification requirement. If anybody can change it or just ignore it, then big deal. But it’s not nonbinding for that reason. It’s nonbinding to avoid the Constitution. It’s nonbinding on purpose to keep the Senate out of the whole thing.
Goldsmith points out that Obama did this via the UN in order to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons, and he has also done it on climate change agreements. In other words, Obama has already tried this technique, committing the United States to various international propositions that would normally require ratification by the United States Senate. Obama has gone around that by making everything so-called nonbinding and having it appear to originate from the United Nations.
“There may be tricky questions about sources and proper scope of the PresidentÂ’s power to make sole Executive agreements that bind the United States under international law.”
But he concludes that Obama’s gonna do this anyway. There’s nobody to stop him. So why wouldn’t Obama do this? So brace yourselves.