The Obama administration has announced some kind of initial framework towards a deal with the country of Iran over the topic of nuclear weaponization. As foreign policy will be a hot topic in 2016, many of the possible 2016 candidates have offered opinions on the deal.

First, the two Democrat responses I could find from Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley.

Hillary Clinton:

Clinton, meanwhile, held up the tentative agreement as an “important step” in preventing a nuclear Iran.

“Getting the rest of the way to a final deal by June won’t be easy, but it is absolutely crucial. I know well that the devil is always in the details in this kind of negotiation,” Clinton said in a statement. “The onus is on Iran and the bar must be set high. It can never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon.”

But the former secretary of state allowed leeway for herself in case things go awry in the coming months, stating, “There is much to do and much more to say in the months ahead, but for now diplomacy deserves a chance to succeed.”

Martin O’Malley:

On the other hand, he stated that a nuclear-armed Iran would present the gravest “man-made” danger to American interests. “The greatest threat that we face right now in terms of man-made threats is a nuclear Iran and related extremist violence,” O’Malley said. “I don’t think you can separate the two.”

All he had to say about a possible deal with Iran was: “I’m hopeful.”

Reached for comment, O’Malley’s spokeswoman Lis Smith told JP, O’Malley “believes that allowing negotiations to continue has been the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. As the details of a possible agreement emerge, that agreement must be evaluated on its merits.”

As expected, Republicans were quick to pounce on the deal with criticism.

Rick Perry:

“Americans and our allies are right to be wary of a nuclear deal with Iran that is riddled with concessions by the Obama Administration,” Perry said in an emailed statement to Breitbart News.

Mike Huckabee:

The likely 2016 presidential candidate issued this statement: “Each and every day, Iran undermines our allies, threatens our vital interests and murders innocent civilians across the globe. John Kerry lacks the judgment, common sense and moral clarity to negotiate any deal, much less Iran, and I am very concerned with the framework of this deal.”

Huckabee added, “We should be tightening our grip with the current sanctions not abdicating to the Ayatollah’s interests.”

Carly Fiorina:

“U.S. officials know that Iran has had a long-term plan to gain a nuclear weapon and destabilize the region through its support of terrorist organizations. And it is known that President Rouhani has never agreed to full and unfettered United Nations inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” the potential 2016 presidential candidate wrote.

She went on to say the Iranian government constantly violated sanctions placed on Iran by the United Nations.

Jeb Bush:

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the deal — aimed at reining in Iran’s nuclear capabilities — “will only legitimize those activities.”

“Nothing in the deal described by the administration this afternoon would justify lifting U.S. and international sanctions, which were the product of many years of bipartisan effort,” Bush said. “I cannot stand behind such a flawed agreement.”

Ted Cruz:

“The very first step for any deal, good or bad, should be submitting it to Congress, and the President making the case both to Congress and to the American people why this advances the national security interests of the United States,” Cruz told reporters after a town hall in Cedar Rapids. “Now everything President Obama has said up to this date has suggested that he is going to do everything he can to circumvent Congress.”

Scott Walker:

“By leaving Iran as a nuclear threshold state, President Obama’s deal with the Supreme Leader risks provoking a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world, one that threatens the survival of our closest regional ally Israel and our key Arab partners,” the post said. “History and common sense tell us that we should remain distrustful of Iran.”

More comments as I find them.

26 COMMENTS

  1. The only country opposing the Iran agreement is Israel, unless you want to recognize the US Congress as a country unto itself. Saudi Arabia is lukewarm on the agreement. Due to Saudi’s hatred of Isreal it is mostly silent. The US
    Congress just can’t control it’s letter writing habit of threatening people and nations. Republican Representatives Doug Lamborn (Col) and Randy Weber (Tex) circulated a letter to world leaders last month that they claimed, among others,
    had been signed by four European lawmakers. The letter said “We do not wish to hinder the negotiations. However we believe Iran must realize that any failure to negotiate an acceptable deal, one that prevents a nuclear armed Iran, will result without fail in tougher sanctions than ever”. German parliamentarians Johann Wadephul and Roderich Kiesewetter, followed up with a formal letter stating they had “at no time signed nor agreed to support” the letter.

    Iran has pushed for an immediate lifting of the sanctions during the negotiations, but the P5+1 — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States plus Germany – are pushing for phasing the sanctions out over two years.

    The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — have the nuclear bomb and in their possession approximately 16,300 nuclear weapons. What is the reasoning that we trust China, Pakistan, India and North Korea with the bomb more than Iran? Or Israel, who is the most demanding of all nations. Putin, at this moment, is threatening to use nuclear weapons if Ukrainian forces continue to fight the Russian forces.

    Iran remains the fifth largest producer in the OPEC oil cartel. Today, it exports around 1.1 million barrels per day of oil. This is the minimum that it could export. Iran has the second-largest gas reserves in the world behind Russia. Lifting of sanctions which chokes Iran’s economy, could offer an unparalleled opportunity for American oil companies to return.

  2. If an alien came to earth and listened to the media, they’d think Israel was the world’s superpower, with the way everyone jumps when they say something/anything–when they should have the same relative importance as, say, Guatemala.

    • Goethe — “Guatemala” … LOL, good one!

      Unfortunately Israel OWNS the USA, so they think they own the world.

      But, our recent failure to win two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fought only to protect the foreign State of Israel, may end this Zionist hegemony!

      Americans are finally waking up to the fact that our American fighting men and women are dying in Muslim lands ONLY to protect a FOREIGN NATION — the Terrorist State of Israel — that keeps Palestinians in a Virtual Concentration Camp.

      A new US President MUST finally get elected that will say what Ron Paul stated: “Stop all Aid to Israel, they are big boys and should take care of themselves”!

  3. Back in 2011, when Rand Paul,was settling into the Senate, he proposed a budget that was more fiscally conservative than the proposals offered by his Republican contemporaries. In a bid to cut $500 billion from the federal budget, Paul proposed a spending outline that would have eliminated ALL foreign aid entirely.

    The section on Israel said this: “While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all
    foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea. In 1996, during an address before the U.S. Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that his nation would eventually wean itself fromdependence on U.S. foreign aid.

    Paul’s own website included a second version of Paul’s budget proposal, dated May 2011– two months after the first one was released. This one treated foreign aid differently.

    During a 2013 trip to Israel, Rand Paul stated he would favor a more“gradual” approach to ending aid for Israel, compared to other countries.

    August, 2014 Omaha, Nebraska, campaigning for Senate GOP nominee Ben Sasse, Rand Paul was ask repeatedly about Isreal “you can mistake my position, but then I’ll answer the question. That has not been a
    position – a legislative position – we have never introduced to phase out or get rid of Israel’s aid,” he continued “That’s the answer to that question.” He went on to emphasized that he voted to
    send $225 million to the country for its missile defense system, known as the
    Iron Dome.

    • Walker has stumbled a few times since he burst into the 2016 scene in January. He’s just lucky it’s happening now and not a year from now.

      • Thus, my headline, “Walker not READY for primetime .”

        I didn’t say treasonous mentality was something we should beware. . .

      • I swear you two are not Independent – you set up crucifying Walker when the asinine AOL.com poor journalism didn’t complete the cycle by talking to Walker as well. If they or you would have – it would be obvious that what Walker said related to the desires of Congress who are listening to their constituents and to the many experts on how Obama is giving the go ahead to IRAN to become a nuclear power (not to mention – “annilihate Israel & kill America”.

  4. On Iran, Scott Walker pledged to “blow up” any deal with Iran if he became president, regardless of what the Europeans thought of that, and to do it on his first day in office.

    Marco Rubio called the Iran deal “troubling.” He accused the Obama administration of facilitating a nuclear weapon for Iran: “In five years we’ll just build them one.”

    Ted Cruz, controlling his usual bluster, insisted that it be cast in the form of a treaty and voted on by the senate. Thanks, Ted

    Rand Paul, at present, is saying “no comment”. At the January presidential forum Rand said “Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in
    100,000 troops? … I’m a big fan of trying to exert and trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions… But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you’re ruining it.” In search of redemption, he signed the
    infamous letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Each man attempting to win favor with one man: Sheldon Adelson, the sleazy casino magnate who made his pile in unsavory ways in Macao, China. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts winning vote to the strike down campaign finance reform has awarded billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers the right to buy and sell American presidents.

    • Clearly, Rand Paul is the only candidate “ready for prime time.” The rest are petty, pandering nincompoops, verging on treason (over the line, in the case of Walker).

      While the children are making matters worse, to Rand, it was a matter of questioning executive power, which has run amok since LBJ–not a misguided attempt to undermine respect for the United States of America.

      ========
      But for those who don’t know the difference between Ron and Rand, on Saturday RON dismissed the Iran letter as a “joke.”

      Ron said, yes, Congress should have a role in reviewing agreements, but that’s not what this is about.

      “I strongly disagree with the motivation of that statement made by so many members of Congress, especially in the Senate [Rand],” Paul said at a conference on liberty at the University of Texas at Austin, Saturday.

      “They’re out to stop peace,” he said. “They’re terrified that peace might break out.”

      http://www.chron.com/news/politics/us/article/Ron-Paul-Senate-s-Iran-letter-a-joke-6193986.php

      ============
      But Rand does have a problem of appearing to be a flip-flopper, which is what the reporter was really asking last week.

      Rand now says, you know, um, well, I was just, sorta, being the “bad cop,” so the president could be the “good cop” in the negotiations. “You know, Congress is full of idiots that Obama has to deal with!” Ummmm. . .o. . .k. . .

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/15/rand-paul-iran-obama_n_6874582.html

      • Like Tess, you always quote the leftist “rags” (i.e., media) – which I’m guessing is where you spend your time.
        As the situation changes so does “what to do” – it’s kinda dynamic don’t cha know. When will the liberal media have enough balls / ovaries to ask the same exact questions to the Democrats?!

        • And you, as usual, are blaming the messenger. If it’s the truth, you don’t get to deny it, just because you don’t like where you heard the truth.

          I got the Ron Paul story from the HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Texas’ largest daily. It was quoting a speech Ron made yesterday at The University of Texas.

          Here’s a video of Ron calling the letters “propaganda tools” directly from the RON PAUL INSTITUTE:

          http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/march/25/ron-paul-another-letter-on-iran-house-sends-message-to-president/

          AS FOR RAND, Here are his exact words:

          “But I want the
          negotiated deal to be a good deal. So my reason for signing onto the
          letter, I think it reiterates what is the actual law, that Congress will
          have to undo sanctions. But I also signed onto the letter because I
          want the president to negotiate from a position of strength which means
          that he needs to be telling them in Iran that ‘I’ve got Congress to deal
          with.'”

  5. Ron Paul spoke at the University of Texas under the sponsorship of Campaign for Liberty (founded
    by Ron Paul in 2008) and Future of Freedom Foundatiom, of which Ron Paul is a columnist and he also presented the organization with a plaque “Ron Paul Liberty in Media Award”. Whether he was critical of his son is questionable. He did not call him out by name. I cannot say that I agree with Ron Paul’s philosophy but I have great admiration for his tenacity and never say die attitude. He is strictly one way. I also believe that Rand Paul actually adheres to these views. However, in order to win the gold ring, Rand needs to maintain his dad’s base while also reaching out to more mainstream voters. That is why he is so wishy-washy on the Iran negotiations. If you want to truly know what Rand Paul believes, read his Newsletters. I do. I also follow Ron Paul’s Institute for Peace & Prosperity. You know, it is difficult to tell Ron from Rand if you just use your eyes for reading..

    • I don’t think they’re alike as you think. Yes, all his life, Rand has heard his father’s philosophy, and couldn’t help but absorb it, but to him, it is expendable. And, yes, I know, Ron didn’t specifically repudiate his son, but by signing the Iran letter, the son largely repudiated the father.

      Unlike Surfisher, I don’t have blinders and a teen girl’s unconditional love. I haven’t idolized a president since Ike and JFK. If I like a politician, I am EXTRA critical of missteps. If Rand makes it to the White House, he will rule very differently from how Ron would have. I’m keeping a wary eye on indications of what ideals he will let go.

  6. Nate Silver made this comment on Rand Paul Apr 9, 2015:

    There
    Are Few Libertarians. But Many Americans Have Libertarian Views. No — we’re not that optimistic about his (Rand) chances
    here at FiveThirtyEight. Part of that is because the hard-core partisans who
    vote in presidential primaries are much more likely to take
    consistently liberal or conservative positions than the broader American
    population

    • Common wisdom is that a Republican has to be a rightwingnut to get through the primaries, and that a Democrat has to be a leftwingnut. That’s how it looks, but both parties also desperately want to win, so many will go for someone they think will win. Certainly, nobody really liked Romney, but they thought he could win. Likewise, JEB doesn’t really fire up people, and he has even said he won’t pander to the far right, but he’s considered a frontrunner.

      Meanwhile, Rand has espoused some uncharacteristically Neocon and socially conservative issues. If he can catch on with independents, he’ll be more popular with Republicans.

      • You know, I think you are right about Rand Paul. As an independent, when I get caught up in some of his prose, he jumps on another truck leaving town and changes partners.

        • Up to this point, JEB has been trying to straight-talk, saying he won’t pander to the far right, even though it is mainly the far right that votes in primaries. It will be interesting to see if he sticks with that.

          Rand has a pretty firm hold on fiscal conservatives, so he’s been trying to find other constituencies. It was a blow that the NRA repudiated him.

            • Nah. “Detriiment” suggests loss. Nobody as insignificant as a president or presidential candidate can impact the nearly unlimited power of the NRA.

            • I just mean, why tick off someone who could be the Republican nominee, and potentially president, when they’re sympathetic to your cause? Seems petty.

              I guess you’re right though.. it means little for them now.. but maybe it comes back to bite them in the future..

  7. I think Congress should reassert its authority, especially that they should demand a declaration of war before we go to war.

    However, the current idiocy regarding Iran is not Constitutional and it’s not intelligent. Even if they pass the new claim, Obama will veto it, and if he didn’t, the courts would overturn it

    What Iran really wants now is the raising of sanctions. Congress DOES have control over the sanctions, and without raising sanctions, Iran won’t agree to anything. Instead, Congress is having petty playtime, again.

    • Unless I’m mistaken, didn’t Bad Odor lift some sanctions to get Iran to the “table” so he could cut a deal and add to his “legacy” ??

      Why can’t the U.S. just back away and put heavy duty sanctions on Iran and say, “You can give up on nukes or the sanctions are there forever! If you don’t, we will bomb your ass and all your centifuges. Then you won’t have an economy or nukes!!” No boots from the U.S. just 20,000 bombs – use Iran as the target for training missions! It can replace Fallon, NV.

      • I appreciate your frustration, but think about it.

        The reason the sanctions have had impact is that we’ve been able to get even Russia and China to go along. If we start acting insane, everyone else will sell to them, and we’ll look ridiculous. At that point, we either admit we’re impotent, or we do an unprovoked attack that would make us an international pariah. Not to mention, universal target.

        Guns and bombs are not the answer to everything.

        [BTW, If I were Iran, I would have begun negotiations by demanding that Israel give up its nukes first.]

        • I would think if rational minds chatted with the “5+1” they would actually prefer an Iran w/out nukes and as all know sanctions is the most peaceful way to take down a country via its economy.

          Bad Odor has 17 mos left to run rampant over our foriegn policy – Israel has proven as long as no-one starts toward nukes it will leave their nukes out of the equation. And I think it’s a good idea to have someone right there who does have enuff nads to take out Iran’s facilities should Iran get “froggy” about nukes.

          If you read my comment – “Guns and bombs” was a possibility after exhausting all else. And Iran will go straight to “end of times” if it can nuke up. So every group / country in the world who is not of the Irainian Sect of Shia will be a target for Iran’s “Guns and Bombs”.

Comments are closed.