With Iran and now Cuba, Obama breakthroughs face hard sell

[webfact]

With Iran and now Cuba, Obama breakthroughs face hard sell
By JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) — After breakthroughs abroad, President Barack Obama is finding stern challenges at home to his foreign policy, facing hard sells to skeptics over U.S. shifts, first on Iran and now Cuba.

Obama returned to Washington early Sunday still basking in the attention from his historic meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro at a summit of Western Hemisphere leaders. But Obama is certain to find a less appreciative crowd in Congress than the one he left behind at the Summit of the Americas in Panama.

To complete a nuclear agreement with Iran, Obama must deal with resistance in Congress and the unpredictability of the Iranian leadership, which has a distinctly different interpretation of what the sides have settled on so far.

Cuba and Iran offer Obama, whose term ends in early 2017, the potential for legacy-crowning achievements. Iran may prove a greater challenge than Cuba, but together they are subjecting Obama's foreign policy to the kind of scrutiny that most international issues, short of war, rarely draw.

Obama made clear in a closing news conference late Saturday in Panama City that he believes he can handle the twin trials. The American public is on his side on Cuba, the president said, and he had tough words for Republicans defying him on Iran.

Both have their roots in decades of grievances. Both have had constituencies in the U.S. deeply mistrustful of the governments with which Obama is dealing. Pro-Israel Americans cannot fathom a deal with an Iran that will not recognize Israel's existence. And for long, Cuban-Americans who escaped Fidel Castro's revolution could not imagine a U.S. government not committed to ousting the Havana government.

On the flip side, Cuba is hardly the threat Iran could be. Public opinion no longer demonizes Cuba. In the end, Obama's efforts to re-establish normal relations looks like the lesser burden.

When it comes to Cuba, "the American people don't need to be persuaded," Obama said.

Still, there are reminders that the barriers have not all fallen.

Castro, in a lengthy speech at the summit, recited a litany of objections to past U.S. policies. And the room where Obama and Castro met displayed no flags, thus declaring the absence of diplomatic relations.

Obama's next step is removing Cuba from the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism. Such a decision, recommended by the State Department, could come in days. Obama would have to notify Congress. Lawmakers do not have to ratify the decision, but they have 45 days to disapprove it.

Such a vote, if attempted, probably would not succeed. But the issue is percolating just as 2016 presidential candidates are jumping into the race.

Florida, once the center of anti-Castro activism, is a pivotal presidential state, and some Republican candidates will try for a political upper hand by accusing Obama of weakening America's place in the world.

"President Obama's foreign policy has been one appeasement toward autocratic dictators, thugs, and adversaries after another," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican toying with a presidential run, said amid news Obama was to sit down with Castro.

The White House hardly appears worried about the politics of Cuban diplomacy, given that support for ending more than 50 years of U.S. isolation of the island nation crosses party and geographic lines.

"''Perhaps the most important difference is that while Iran is inherently a security issue, today Cuba is the opposite," said Carl Meacham, a former senior Republican aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who now is a director at the Center for Security and International Studies. "If he removes Cuba for the list of state sponsors of terror, President Obama will demonstrate that the United States can no longer reasonably look at Cuba as a threat to our own security."

Obama perceives the Iran deal as far more fragile.

Iran and the world powers negotiating the deal have until the end of June to reach a final deal. Congress is angling to assert authority over the final agreement, and even some of Obama's Democratic allies support that.

But Obama reserves most of his frustrations for Republicans and he singled out Sen. John McCain of Arizona, his 2008 presidential rival, for specific scorn during Saturday's new conference.

McCain last week declared a major setback in the nuclear talks after Iran's supreme leader demanded that sanctions against Tehran had to be lifted immediately after a deal went into place.

Obama cast McCain's criticism as an assault on the credibility of Secretary of State John Kerry.

"Now we have a senator suggesting that our secretary of state is purposefully misinterpreting the deal and giving the supreme leader of Iran the benefit of the doubt in the interpretations," Obama said. "That's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who is president or secretary of state."


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-04-13

[Loptr]

Yes, it's a hard sell at home for Obama's dalliances in foreign policy... Especially considering that the Ayatollah himself called Obama a liar, being deceptive and having a "devish plan" for Iran...

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

[The Deerhunter]

Quote: "Thanks to his fantasies that he is a “man of peace” (remember that ridiculous Nobel prize he was given back in 2009) Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the military advice it was too soon."

Don't forget, the Islamic definition of the word "peace" is not what we think. In Islamic speak, "Peace" translates as "Submission to Allah"

I continue to be confused about Obama. Does his election (twice) rate as an indictment on the Democrats who voted for him, or rather on the Republicans for not being able to field a candidate that middle Americans would have rather voted for than for him (twice)?

[sanuk711]

Yer quite right ezzra...we need someone in charge who can make sense ---lets hope Jebb gets in...we need a few more unwinnable wars to show how the world how strong we are ............

A few words from the last great President of the USA……lest we forget what we have all been missing

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''—Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."—U.S. News & World Report, Jan. 3, 2000

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, it's a hard sell at home for Obama's dalliances in foreign policy... Especially considering that the Ayatollah himself called Obama a liar, being deceptive and having a "devish plan" for Iran...

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

It takes a liar to know a liar.

[up-country_sinclair]

Both of these initiatives are practical, common sense approaches that face over the top resistance from two of the most entrenched lobbies in the US:

1. The anti-Castro Cubans in Miami

2. The Israel Firsters in DC

President Obama has his work cut out for him, but he should be commended for taking on these groups.

[Rimmer]

Off topic troll, conspiracy theory post removed

[hawker9000]

Quote: "Thanks to his fantasies that he is a “man of peace” (remember that ridiculous Nobel prize he was given back in 2009) Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the military advice it was too soon."

Don't forget, the Islamic definition of the word "peace" is not what we think. In Islamic speak, "Peace" translates as "Submission to Allah"

I continue to be confused about Obama. Does his election (twice) rate as an indictment on the Democrats who voted for him, or rather on the Republicans for not being able to field a candidate that middle Americans would have rather voted for than for him (twice)?

Hard to overcome a demonstrably racist black voting block. What was it, 93%? No need to overthink it.

[metisdead]

A post containing content copy and pasted from another source has been removed as it was in violation of fair use policy. A reply has been removed as well.

[The Deerhunter]

Quote: "Thanks to his fantasies that he is a “man of peace” (remember that ridiculous Nobel prize he was given back in 2009) Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the military advice it was too soon."

Don't forget, the Islamic definition of the word "peace" is not what we think. In Islamic speak, "Peace" translates as "Submission to Allah"

I continue to be confused about Obama. Does his election (twice) rate as an indictment on the Democrats who voted for him, or rather on the Republicans for not being able to field a candidate that middle Americans would have rather voted for than for him (twice)?

Hard to overcome a demonstrably racist black voting block. What was it, 93%? No need to overthink it.

Sorry I don't understand. Are you saying that 93% of the US electorate are black?

[hawker9000]

Quote: "Thanks to his fantasies that he is a “man of peace” (remember that ridiculous Nobel prize he was given back in 2009) Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite all the military advice it was too soon."

Don't forget, the Islamic definition of the word "peace" is not what we think. In Islamic speak, "Peace" translates as "Submission to Allah"

I continue to be confused about Obama. Does his election (twice) rate as an indictment on the Democrats who voted for him, or rather on the Republicans for not being able to field a candidate that middle Americans would have rather voted for than for him (twice)?

Hard to overcome a demonstrably racist black voting block. What was it, 93%? No need to overthink it.

Sorry I don't understand. Are you saying that 93% of the US electorate are black?

93% of blacks who voted, voted for Obama. IOW, straight down racial lines...

[chuckd]

It was 96% in the election of 2008.

[Chicog]

Oooh look a story about the Republicans blocking Obama.... again.

Anyone got anything new?

[Ulysses G.]

19-0 AGAINST Obama, including democrats. Congress will have the power to review any nuclear deal with Iran.

[Chicog]

19-0 AGAINST Obama, including democrats. Congress will have the power to review any nuclear deal with Iran.

They were going to get that anyway; did you forget that they are the only ones who can relieve the sanctions they imposed?

And if they don't, then the P4+1 will all be rubbing their hands in glee as they go and mop up all the trade deals.

Having said that, if it makes everyone happy (and even Israel are supporting it), then good news all round.

Now we just have to see if they can come up with a deal to review.

[Ulysses G.]

19-0 AGAINST Obama, including democrats. Congress will have the power to review any nuclear deal with Iran.

They were going to get that anyway; did you forget that they are the only ones who can relieve the sanctions they imposed?

That must be why the Obama administration put so much pressure on the democrats to vote against it. Between this vote and the realization that there probably would have been another veto proof bipartisan vote AGAINST Obama if he had not given in, he was humiliated today.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

That must be why the Obama administration put so much pressure on the democrats to vote against it. Between this vote and the realization that there probably would have been another veto proof bipartisan vote AGAINST Obama if he had not given in, he was humiliated today.

What has he "given in" to?

Under the bill, Obama could unilaterally lift or ease any sanctions that were imposed on Iran through presidential executive means. But the bill would prohibit him for 60 days from suspending, waiving or otherwise easing any sanctions that Congress levied on Iran. During that 60-day period, Congress could hold hearings and approve, disapprove or take no action on any final nuclear agreement with Iran.

If Congress passed a joint resolution approving a final deal -- or took no action -- Obama could move ahead to ease sanctions levied by Congress. But if Congress passed a joint resolution disapproving it, Obama would be blocked from providing Iran with any relief from congressional sanctions.

Sounds to me like all they've done is put a clock on what would happen anyway - Obama could never remove the sanctions imposed by Congress.

And there is still nothing here to stop him signing an Executive agreement.

The talks continue.

So where is the "humiliation" of which you speak?

Added: Aaaah I see. 90 Day reporting. That's gotta piss him off.

In addition, the president is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the terms of the final agreement.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Chicog