Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has indicated his belief that enough bipartisan support exists to override a promised presidential veto of a bill that would grant Congress authority to review, and possibly reject, a multilateral nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations which includes the U.S., the U.K., France, China, Russia, and Germany.
Surprise, surprise. Our war monger in Chief would never have promoted this deal unless he knew Congress would kill it. Now he gets to look like the victim once again. The Obamabots love it. If by some chance Congress doesn't kill it, plan B will be to use some phony violation of the agreement by Iran (can you say "false-flag operation") to trigger the inevitable attack on Iran by either the U.S. or Israel (or both.) Either way, they sociopaths get their war on Iran
Obama is a master of the long con. He has set up another win win situation for himself and his handlers.
Now that Iran is getting advanced air-defense missiles from Russia, you can bet that the Israeli pilots are going to sit this one out.
This whole matter is just more political theater.
mcp
I saw this headline last month:
BIG BANKâS ANALYST WORRIES THAT IRAN DEAL COULD DEPRESS WEAPONS SALES
Greenwald / Intercept coverage: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/20/asked-iran-deal-potentially-slowing-military-sales-lockheed-martin-ceo-says-volatility-brings-growth/
excerpt:
The possibility of an Iran nuclear deal depressing weapons sales was raised by Myles Walton, an analyst from Germanyâs Deutsche Bank, during a Lockheed earnings call this past January 27. Walton asked Marillyn Hewson, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, if an Iran agreement could âimpede what you see as progress in foreign military sales.â Financial industry analysts such as Walton use earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm profitability.
Hewson replied that âthat really isnât coming up,â but stressed that âvolatility all around the regionâ should continue to bring in new business. According to Hewson, âA lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of things that are happeningâ in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region means both are âgrowth areasâ for Lockheed Martin.
The Deutsche Bank-Lockheed exchange âunderscores a longstanding truism of the weapons trade: war â or the threat of war â is good for the arms business,â says William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy. Hartung observed that Hewson appeared to regard the normalization of relations with Iran not as a positive development for the future, but as an impediment. âAnd Hewsonâs response,â Hartung adds, âwhich in essence is âdonât worry, thereâs plenty of instability to go around,â shows the perverse incentive structure that is at the heart of the international arms market.â
Thanks for posting. Doesn't leave much question about Wall Street's relationship to our continual warring.
mcp
Most of Barry the Liar's time in office has been a con. "Hope and Change became "Even More of the Same". I read recently that in the pursuit of 41 "HVT's (high value targets) in the Middle East that our drones have killed more than a thousand innocent civilians. That blood is dripping from the hands of Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. The hypocrisy and the brutality of these enablers of the Deep State is staggering. I am 66 and this 114th Congress is easily the most loathsome I have ever seen.
I guess that's why Russia is getting the S-300 missile system in to Iran as fast as possible. Israel and the US will think twice about trying to attack Iran if they have it. Protecting partners in the region against the Empire of Chaos.
We are witnessing once again the murder of Peace on the steps of Congress for pieces of silver.
The only alternative to diplomacy with Iran is WAR. After failed wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc, we do not need more of the same. Let President Obama and Secretary Kerry do their job.
Someone needs to put a cork in Corker. He should be air dropped on the Iraq Iran border as ambassador at large.
So Obama should have not pursued a deal instead?
Yes, everybody knows that spooky forces control the world, resistance is futile, and ranting on about your feelings of helplessness on the internet gives good warm and fuzzy feelings of self-righteousness. Push that tin foil hat down a little tighter.
There is the very real possibility that this is a US ruse. There also remains the possibility that Obama is sincere. For arguments sake, assuming the latter and honest negotiations continue to a July conclusion, it seems likely that many in Iran will have a say whether or not it is a deal they can accept. It is logical to expect that our legislature - at that final time - should say whether it is a deal they, as our representatives, can also accept. If this were a sanely and representatively functioning democracy I'd say well then, good. But it isn't.
These bills should be killed. When the negotiations are completed without legislative and factional interference, then everybody gets their say. If this is the reality, then we'll have that argument at that time. No-one should fail to notice the framing of the moment for the load of toxic shit to be unloaded on us in the next 18 months.
So true, America has become the land of the banksters, pirates and merchants of death. The wars on Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost about 2 million lives and since wwii America has killed either directly or indirectly more than 22 million people. How can you work for weapons makers and sleep at night?
jangles, you are sadly lacking a brain. As spotless says, the new russian missles will likely change the dynamic. However, this is far more dangerous than mere "political theater."
Sorry about commenting again, but the more I think about your comment, the more idiotic it becomes.
Using your logic, when we in our millions got in the streets to protest in the run-up to the Iraq war, we were really engaging in a plot to promote the war, because were fairly certain that the POTUS and US congress, (and the British Parliament) would proceed with the war anyway. Therefore our protests were actually support for the war, right?
You are engaging in some rather seriously psychotic thinking here...
Oh you go Barbara Boxer! Supposedly she represents the "progressive" push back to the war mongers, yet she uses the language of the same i.e., "looming threat".
I get so sick of this crap.
The sooner we get rid of all these Israel Firsters and secret society members that are imbedded in our government, the better. ; )
The thing is this: What good would it do for the Congress to do anything? This is not just an agreement between the US and Iran. It also includes Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany. If those countries all agree with the final terms of the deal what difference would it make if Congress doesn't agree?
People like Senator Bob Corker have no conscience. Bob and his ilk are nothing but corporate soldiers for the Amerikan Empires war business. Like most in Congress, they are stooges who are nothing but sycophants and fawning parasites beholden to the .01% and their hit men, the MIC.
I am not a fan overall of Obama. Having said that, how in the hell is it his fault that there are irresponsible and insane people in government now trying to kill this deal? The people doing this are irrational, none of their arguments hold up logically, they propose no real alternative (other than more confrontation, war and sanctions) and their ultimate aim is war (profiteering) with Iran. Anyone who thinks it through for a second realizes what a horror show that war would be, for us, for Iran and for the region. He does con people often but this isn't one of them. He has tried to act responsibly on this issue and those trying to derail it aren't.
