The backlash would be even worse than it was to the 2003 Iraq invasion And if a

The backlash would be even worse than it was to the

This preview shows page 15 - 16 out of 45 pages.

America betraying its commitments to the nuclear deal. The backlash would be even worse than it was to the 2003 Iraq invasion. And if a Democrat wins the White House, congressional Republicans will be in a worse place than they are now. It is certainly possible that the deal could fall apart in some other way: Maybe Iran will stonewall inspectors on verifying that it's complied with the terms, for example. But it is just very difficult to imagine any plausibly functional way in which Republicans can now unilaterally kill the deal. The Iran deal is almost certainly here to stay . Republican presidential candidates will likely say all sorts of things about rolling it back. The party's hawks are a critical constituency in the upcoming primary battle, and saying that you hate the deal and want to kill it helps convince those folks that you share their priorities. But don't confuse those pledges with, y'know, actual policy commitments. A Republican president will have little choice, like it or not, but to see the deal through. (__) No override—strong democratic support Davis 7/14 (Susan Davis; July 14, 2015; Chief Washington correspondent for USA Today; “Congress unlikely to block Iran deal”; USA Today; ) jskullz If Congress were to pass a resolution seeking to block the deal, President Obama said Tuesday he would veto it.Opponents would then need a veto-proof, two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a scenario that seems unlikely today as top Democrats issued early statements of support . " The historic nuclear agreement announced today is the product of years of tough, bold and clear-eyed leadership from President Obama," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. "I commend the president for his strength throughout the historic negotiations that have led to this point." (__) No Impact - Iran only wants nuclear weapons for defensive. Shanahan 15 (Roger Shanahan; Jan. 8 th 2015; ANU’s National Security College and is a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy; “Would Iran Start a Nuclear War?”; National Interest; ) jskullz The language is dramatic but the posts lack much by the way of reasoned argument . Don’t get me wrong, I’m a devoted counter-proliferator and think that a nuclear-armed Iran should be stopped simply to avoid other states seeking to do the same. But I disagree with the view advocated by Andy Nikolic and others that a nuclear-armed Iran will seek to use those weapons to become more regionally influential or to launch them against Israel. ¶¶ (Recommended: 5 Iranian Weapons of War Israel Should Fear) ¶¶ The main reason I oppose such views is because they lack intellectual rigour. Firstly, simply having nuclear weapons doesn’t make anyone more influential .
Image of page 15
Image of page 16

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture