Iran and nuclear weirdness

 ..................................................................................................................

Sen. McCain said:  "They’re calling it an agreement.  If it were a treaty, then it would require 2/3 vote of the Senate in a positive fashion.  You know your Constitution.”
 When pressed further on the issue, McCain said, “Not when the administration doesn’t call it a treaty--okay?  They’re the ones that label it--it is not a treaty.  We can’t designate it.  They have the ability to call it an agreement.  We do not.  Those are the facts.”  He went further, “The Congress cannot designate it as a treaty.  Ask a Constitutional scholar.  We cannot call an agreement a treaty.  The administration has to call it a treaty.  Ask anyone who is an expert on the Constitution.  Yes, you’re frustrated.  I am terribly frustrated, because I think this is going to be a new nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and further destabilizing the most destabilized part of the world.”

Levin, a constitutional attorney, calls McCain’s claims about treaties wrong.  “Reading is fundamental and John McCain doesn’t know how to read the Constitution, "  Levin told The Daily Caller. “The treaty power belongs to the Senate. The President doesn’t get to designate whether the Senate is involved in the treaty process or not.  The Senate has independent power to make that determination.” Levin explained, “And John McCain voted to surrender that power to Obama. Otherwise, why bother to have a vote at all on the Corker bill?  The Senate could have taken up this agreement as a treaty and had a full debate on the Senate floor and involve the entire nation on what’s taking place and the Senate either ratifies or does not ratify.”
“If two-thirds of the Senators present vote ‘yes,’ it’s ratified.  If two-thirds do not, it’s not ratified.  The president simply cannot designate that he has negotiated as something that it is not and then the Senate simply abide by a president’s declaration,” Levin said.  “I would suggest that Senator McCain take a few moments off from his appearances on Cable TV to read the history of the treaties clause of the Constitution.”
 http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/15/exclusive-levin-unleashes-on-mccain-iran-vote-he-voted-to-surrender-power-to-obama/

another angle on this Constitutional question:

According to many other official U.S. reports, Iran also has been cheating on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for the past 30 years.  Thus, we could be in a situation of cheaters — the Russians — verifying cheaters — Iran. This might be an ideal situation for KGB Lt. Col. Vladimir Putin. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/8/david-sullivan-iran-deal-a-treaty-or-just-a-deal/

.............................................................................................................................
8-16-15  
Unlike most of his fellow rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, real estate mogul Donald Trump would not rescind President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.
"I've heard a lot of people say, 'We're going to rip up the deal.' It's very tough to do when you say, 'Rip up a deal,'" Trump said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press."
Instead, the businessman who is currently leading GOP polls in the race for the White House promised to "police" Iran to make sure the country doesn't break the terms of the agreement.
"You know, I've taken over some bad contracts. I buy contracts where people screwed up and they have bad contracts," he said. "But I'm really good at looking at a contract and finding things within a contract that, even if they're bad, I would police that contract so tough that they don't have a chance. As bad as the contract is, I will be so tough on that contract."  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-iran-deal_us_55d0a844e4b0ab468d9d907e
By Sept. 2015 Trump apparently changed his stance on Iran deal.  -R
......................................................................................................................................

"So, if anyone goes against their nuclear program, presumably, our planes, our bombs, our soldiers, our money, will go to protect their program," she marveled.
Bachmann was referring to provisions in the third annex of the deal obligating the United States and signers of the deal to provide "training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."
She lamented the administration would become a party to teaching Iran how to defeat sabotage, especially as sabotage by the U.S. and Israel reportedly had been slowing down the country's nuclear weapons program.
"In other words, everything that we tried to do to keep them from gaining a nuclear weapon?  Now we're going to teach them all of our tricks."
Flabbergasted, she added, "You can't even make up a scenario like this.  Ian Fleming, with James Bond, couldn't even come up with a story line that is this ridiculous because no one would believe it."
Bachmann was concerned this was more evidence of the difficulties Israel could face if it decides it has run out of time and must stop Iran by itself.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/bachmann-drop-bombs-on-irans-nukes/#HsxEZYRFqWkABU6C.99
................................................................................................
So, what is the riddle inside the enigma concerning Iran nuclear?  Especially for Republicans, including Sen. McCain who was long close to Kissinger, the riddle inside the enigma is simply--
Kissinger.  Kissinger studied all this stuff, not least MidEast dynamics, and wrote a chapter specifically on Iran in a book of his--Does America Need a Foreign Policy?.  (For Kissinger's view on North Korea see pp. 127-31 of:) https://books.google.com/books?id=xeoNAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=kissinger+foreign+policy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ7KWlkfbKAhXFrB4KHeM7DCYQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=kissinger%20foreign%20policy&f=false
  But Kissinger is very subtle.  In general he favors "spheres of influence", Iran being quite near Russia's supposed sphere of influence--at least I read him that way.  See for yourself.
Here's a recent for-public-consumption pitch of his:     http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wsj040715.html
4-8-15    "Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of UN resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head," Kissinger and Shultz write. "Iran's centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today. The threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran."

"While Iran treated the mere fact of its willingness to negotiate as a concession, the West has felt compelled to break every deadlock with a new proposal. In the process, the Iranian program has reached a point officially described as being within two to three months of building a nuclear weapon. Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer."

Kissinger, the secretary of state under Republican President Richard Nixon, and Schultz, who held the role under Republican Ronald Reagan affirm their "respect" for Obama's Democrat administration, but argue that the terms for the inspection of the facilities by international monitors are insufficiently clear.  http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/henry-kissinger-george-schultz-warn-against-barack-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1495452

.................................................................................

.