by wj
I don’t know when the talks with Iran over nuclear weapons will conclude. Maybe they finish by the latest deadline. Maybe they go thru some more extensions. But eventually they will end. And there are only a few ways that they can end. In rough order of probability (as I see it):
- They reach an agreement. At that point, we see a lot more inspections in Iran. And the sanctions get rolled back. (Except for the ones legislated by the US Congress. Those may get “suspended,” but don’t actually get repealed until 2022.) Iran’s economy starts to recover, and it starts to become more integrated into global society again. It also evolves in a generally Western direction — even though it is a theocracy, it rapidly becomes less religiously conservative than the nominally non-theocratic Saudis.
Oh yes, and American conservatives go into utter hysterics. - The talks break down, and everybody else feels that it is America’s fault. At that point, the sanctions regime start to collapse. America and Israel, possibly the Arab states, and maybe Pakistan maintain them — but the rest of the world removes them. Iran becomes less isolated, but still feels particularly unhappy with the US. (And maybe we find out if Ayatollah Khamenei was serious when he proclaimed nuclear weapons were “un-Islamic.”
- While the talks are still going on, someone (i.e. Israel) launches a military strike on (some of) Irans nuclear facilities. At that point the talks break down. And the sanctions regime collapses (even faster than the previous scenario). And, “un-Islamic” or no, Iran starts a crash program to build nuclear weapons — and succeeds relatively quickly. (While they are doing that, the Saudis also launch a crash program to do so.)
- The talks break down, and the other parties feel that it is Iran’s fault. The sanctions generally continue (albeit with some erosion). And the Iranian government successfully spins this at home as everyone else’s fault, thus bolstering its strength and allowing it to continue in spite of the economic pain.
And American conservatives start demanding military action. Whether they get it depends on how the next couple of elections go. But if they do, the result makes the Iraq War look like a dizzying success.
Anybody see a fifth possible outcome?
how about this–
the sides reach an agreement at which point the republican controlled congress goes completely batshit crazy and starts trying to force the united states into a war with iran by passing authorizations of military force, declarations of war, and even more intense sanctions of iran. obama will veto them but at some point the most conservative democrats side with the republicans and one of the preceding list gets passed at which point there becomes a constitutional issue over obama’s failure to execute a duly passed law and possibly articles of impeachment based on that.
The question I would have is, could any of those kinds of laws or declarations get enough votes to override a veto? I rather doubt that they could — not least because public enthusiasm for getting into another war in the Middle East is over on the none side of slim.
I would not be surprised if they try to pass something like that. But I expect it would fare about like the repeated bills to repeal the ACA. Plays well with the Republican base, but goes nowhere.
So, after a couple of rounds (or even a steady quarterly, or even monthly attempts) of that, they step back and focus on winning the Presidency in 2016 so they can have their war. Unless Iran does something seriously dumb before that, I suspect it actually damages their chances of winning.
i agree that such a declaration is unlikely to get enough votes to override a veto. on the other hand, public enthusiasm for another war in the middle east is actually on the rise. as of 2/19/15, a cbs poll found 57% of americans favor using ground troops against isis/isil with 50% of democrats and 53% of independents favoring deploying combat forces. i realize that isis/isil and iran are, in fact, bitter enemies but enough people are either unwilling or unable to distinguish between different actors in the middle east, or are perfectly willing to conflate disparate threats that i have very little confidence that public opinion would trend towards keeping us out of conflict.
Great post. One thing you didn’t mention was Netanyahu and I wonder if it is because you don’t think he will be a factor or you don’t know how to factor him in. I don’t follow the Israeli political scene very closely, but for a while Talking Points Memo has a string of items about the possibility of overreach on his part. You may be factoring him in for 3rd option, but I wonder if a change in the government of Israel would some sort of catalyst for change.
A change in government in Israel certainly would reduce the probability of Option 3. But however much Netanyahu may want to launch an attack, it appears that the Israeli military and intelligence folks are clear just how problematic it would be. Problematic as in unlikely to be effective in eliminating Irans capabilities, and also likely to motivate Iran to move as fast as possible to build a nuke.
And also rather more aware of just how much damage such a unilateral move would do to US-Israeli relations. That’s not to say that Iran couldn’t do something that would leave the American public convinced such a step was justified. But the Iranians don’t seem daft enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Option 5:
The sides reach agreement. The Congressional Democrats show some spine and turn back GOP attempts to override. The sanctions melt away. Greater integration with the West brings some prosperity to Iran. The Iranian middle class gets restive, and they revolt (cf. Crane Brinton, On Revolution). Democracy ensues. They build the bomb anyway. Nobody really pays much attention, after all if India, Israel, and Pakistan have bombs who will notice?
Mutual assured destruction brings a modicum of peace to the Middle East, but the Great Game continues.
It’s not a possible outcome, but I have often fantasized that one day Obama packs a 1 megaton bomb aboard Air Force One, flies to Tehran, and presents it, giftwrapped, to Khamenei.
“Mr. Supreme Leader,” Obama says, “you now have a bomb. We know you have a bomb. You know we know you have a bomb. We know you know we know you have a bomb, and we wish joy of safeguarding it. Oh, and here’s a DVD of Dr. Strangelove as a personal gift for you.”
It’s possible I aired the same fantasy here, back when the protagonists would have been Dubya and Ahmadinejad. If so, I apologize for repeating myself.
Most people would of course call it a lunatic fantasy because the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a state that defines itself by a religion, and that justifies current policy (like territorial claims) with ancient scripture, is downright obscene. But that description fits more states than just Iran. If certain elements of the American right wing had their way, the US itself would qualify.
There will be a deal. It will not prevent Iran from building a bomb if it really wants to. It may make Iran less likely to want to. That would be decent outcome.
If the deal holds up for 10 years, it’s more likely than not that John McCain will be dead, Bibi will be the irrelevant crotchety old man singing “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran” in a doomed election campaign, and another round of negotiations will end with another deal that the apocalypse fantasists on all sides will denounce for not settling the problem once and for all. By that time, of course, Tom Lehrer’s 50-year-old nightmare may have come true, and Alabama may have The Bomb. The future is always scary. Then it slowly becomes the present and life muddles on.
–TP
So, basically you’re not willing to consider the possibility that they reach an agreement, and then the Iranians break it? Not even willing to consider the possibility that an agreement is reached, and then things don’t turn out well?
If they reach an agreement, (Never mind the details of it.) everything is going to be peachy? All the bad outcomes stem from an agreement not being reached?
That’s essentially what you seem to be saying, and I think that’s crazy. There’s a huge range of bad outcomes that start with an agreement being reached. Depending on the details of the agreement, it may even promote a bad outcome.
@brett bellmore
i’d welcome a description of the “. . . huge range of bad outcomes that start with an agreement being reached.” the scenario i contrived above might be unlikely but i thought it through, described it thoroughly, and explored a possible result. if you have some substantive ideas to relate for discussion it would be nice if you would do so instead of offering a sweeping dismissal of the trend of the discussion so far with a rain of rhetorical questions.
personally, i think it would be just as likely for our republican controlled legislature to attempt to violate an agreement as it is for iran to do so but i think my reading of the history of the united states and its willingness to violate and unilaterally break treaties it doesn’t like is probably different from yours. still, if you have something to contribute please do so explicitly.
Problematic as in unlikely to be effective in eliminating Irans capabilities, and also likely to motivate Iran to move as fast as possible to build a nuke.
And also rather more aware of just how much damage such a unilateral move would do to US-Israeli relations.
I think that is dead on. Even if Israel had the capabilities to launch an effective attack on Iran’s nuclear capabilities (and I’m doubtful they do), that would sour US-Israeli relations at a time when Israel would *really* need US support.
basically you’re not willing to consider the possibility that they reach an agreement, and then the Iranians break it?
Well I won’t speak for everybody, but I’m willing to consider the scenario. Especially if, as navarro suggested, you offer specifics.
In general, I find it unlikely they would outright break an agreement to which Russia is a signatory, because that would alienate Russia, and Iran needs Russia.
I think Tom Clancy could probably write a novel where Russia and Iran formed a secret alliance and launched surprise attacks on the West…but even in that unlikely scenario I doubt they would want to use nukes. And if they did, I find it unlikely that Iran would have to be the supplier.
Perhaps Iran would create a nuke, smuggle it out of the country and into the hands of a terrorist group. But that’s also pretty unlikely. I don’t see what Iran would gain, and they’ve never really demonstrated that level of crazy. Rhetoric, sure. Covert support for insurgents, sure. Giving a 3rd party a nuke? Seems pretty stupid.
The worst scenario I can think of is they secretly develop the nuke, and detonate it to demonstrate their power…leading to rounds of crippling sanctions from pretty much everybody. Iran gains nothing except isolation.
Oh, nos! Iran might get the bomb!
North Korea has nukes.
QED
North Korea has nukes.
Yeah, I can’t say I’m as blase about the prospect of more countries joining the nuclear club. The fewer there are, the better.
But I’d think Iran has at least as much motivation to be responsible as North Korea, in that they actually have some economic engagement with the world.
So, basically you’re not willing to consider the possibility that they reach an agreement, and then the Iranians break it?
You mean like you are not willing to consider the possibility that they reach an agreement and the Iranians keep it?
It is true of any agreement, whether between nations or between individuals — to some degree you are counting on the other person to live up to their side of the deal. In some cases, you simply count on the demonstrated track record of the other party. In others, you count on the encouragement of the sanctions that apply if it is broken. But mostly you count on the fact that it is in their self-interest to play straight.
And I’m with thompson, Iran has a lot of motivation to be responsible. Not to mention a better track record than many of doing so. (It was not Iran, after all, which was using poison gas in the was with Iraq.)
i’m just getting the fear. if Iran gets a Bomb, then what? they will have spent untold billions of dollars to get something that, once used, makes their country a target for absolute annihilation ? it gets a way to make threats that the world knows it can never follow-through on ? they get to join the same club that we work so hard to keep everyone out of, everyone except Israel ?
i’m just NOT getting the fear.
I think Brett’s scenario is at least worth adding to the list at least as a 1b): we reach an agreement, but Iran manages to continue a clandestine nuclear program that the inspections fail to detect. Iran winds up with some nuclear capability in spite of the agreement, while also improving their economy in the absence of sanctions.
I’m not terribly worried about that scenario, though. I think Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons is primarily defensive, and they’d be most unlikely to use, or even proclaim, them unless they feel threatened. My personal belief is that the best way of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to keep them from wanting nuclear weapons for defense, and that means normalizing diplomatic relations.
I agree with Roger Moore (and thus the neutral version of Brett’s scenario a s a real possibility).
My personal opinion is that Iran wants the capability to build a bomb but not the bomb itself, i.e. they are interested in the know-how but not the hardware. I would even consider it possible that Iran is willing to get rid of the bulk of their enrichment equipment, if they come to the conclusion that they could quickly rebuild them in case of need.
I assume that Germany could produce a nuke within a year, although we do not have a production line ready, simply because we have (or so I believe) all the necessary knowledge and engineering capability. I think Iran would like to get to that point and after reaching it would get very cooperative. Until then it has to be no trust without verification.
Unfortunately, no one involved can claim a good track record as far as trustworthiness or keeping agreements is concerned and there are too many that have an interest in sabotaging any progress.
Will the murder of Iranian nuclear scientists stop? Will the support of terrorists against Iran stop not just on paper?
—
Iranian support of terrorists abroad, of Hamas and of Assad is a different topic not directly related to the nuclear program. I am fully open to discuss sanctions for that but it would be nice*, if Saudia Arabia and accomplices would get treated the same way.
*and very unrealistic to expect. Even Germany puts a higher value on selling the Saudis arms (that Riadh does not actually need or knows to handle) than on human rights.
but Iran manages to continue a clandestine nuclear program that the inspections fail to detect.
This is, in fact, pretty much impossible, if IAEA gets tips from Western governments. The non-proliferation regime was greatly expanded and improved after the Iraqi clandestine nuclear weapons program came to light.
Currently, the expanded safeguards protocol of IAEA allows it to conduct a visit to any facility in a country at 24 h notice. It is impossible to decontaminate a site where highly-enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium are handled in that time. If either type of material has been handled at a location, there are bound to be traces of it there, and laboratory tests can, with extreme certainty, distinguish between normal spent fuel, fresh fuel for commercial or research reactors and weapons material.
Having a clandestine program under the current investigations regime is impossible.
I agree with Hartmut: the Iranians want to become a “threshold state” like Germany, Japan and other industrialised non-nuclear-weapon nations.
In short, Iran wants to become a “developed nation.” Which is not an unreasonable goal for any country, albeit beyond the reach of many at the moment. And Iran has, I think, the ability to get there — probably before India (let alone Pakistan), which is a nuclear power.
That, I think, is something that we ought to be encouraging. Real developed nations tend to be less interested in making trouble for others (well, with perhaps the exception of those who combine a belief that they are exceptional with a belief that they have a responsibility to solve all the world’s problems ;-).
Getting Iran to that point would also likely send its theocracy on the road to replacement by something else. Not certainly, but probably. It’s just too hard to keep something like that going when your voters have the ability to (and the interest in) seeing what is happening in the rest of the world.
you’re not willing to consider the possibility that they reach an agreement, and then the Iranians break it?
Consider it considered.
the best way of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to keep them from wanting nuclear weapons for defense, and that means normalizing diplomatic relations.
What Roger Moore said.
my thought about Iran has, for a while, been that there’s an opportunity for a friendly relationship. in spite of the “death to the great satan!!” rhetoric. that BS is, I think, of no greater weight than Frum’s “axis of evil” line of bull.
yes, it’s a country ruled by a fundamentalist religious claque, but it also seems to be a place whose culture and sophistication makes them a more likely, and more promising, candidate for cooperation than the freaking feudal autarchy that is, for example, Saudi Arabia.
in my opinion, Iran is a country that could move in the direction of greater openness, greater democracy, greater constructive engagement with the rest of the world, if it could be made clear to them that we aren’t looking for the best available excuse to destroy them.
i recognize the animus between Iran and Israel, but a quite similar relationship existed between Egypt and Israel, and they worked it out.
I don’t see that as out of the question for Iran and Israel, assuming Netanyahu could shut his freaking mouth for ten minutes.
They’re Muslims, and the nominally ruling cabal are nominally fundamentalist, but to my eye they don’t have the kind of insane apocalyptic crazy factor that the Wahabists and Salafists bring to the table.
They don’t seem to want to set the wayback machine for the 7th C.
There’s an opportunity there.
And one indication that there is ann opportunity is the fact that, back in 2002, Iran was offering (asking even) to help against the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. The more fools us for not siezing the moment then and taking them up on it.
But if we can grab a second chance, it seems like a great opportunity. As Russell says, it’s a far more modern country, overall, than Saudi Arabia. We manage to get along with the Saudis mostly — the fact that most of the Islamist terrorists are Saudis or inspired by mosques that the Saudis fund notwithstanding. Surely we could do the same with the Ayatollahs.
Agree that Iran is an opportunity, and that the politics of Israel are the worst thing ever for our foreign policy in the Middle East. A couple of months ago, I watched “The Gatekeepers.” I’m thinking that I should watch again. It’s really important that people understand how deeply reactionary and destructive Netanyahu is. I know that most folks here do. But for the Republicans to embrace him … well, I’ll leave it to the Count.
There seems to be one scenario missing: What if there is an agreement and we break it?
any agreement that anyone enters into, in any context, any place and any time, is subject to the possibility that one or the other party will break it.
maybe both.
if that is all it takes to prevent an attempt to move forward, then we should all just pack it in and sign up for Hobbes’ state of nature.
you have to assume good faith, and then build in whatever capabilities are available to insure good implementation and execution.
trust but verify, said Saint Ronald. apparently contradictory, but in practice a workable and sufficient approach.
if you can’t do that, don’t waste your time. and, if you can’t do that, the problem is as likely to be on your side as on your interlocutors.
Hey, just make a list of international agreements/treaties that the US and Iran have violated since 1979, rank them by order of seriousness and severity.
But, hey, NOBODY is safe around a god-infested flawed democracy with nukes, no matter how “special” they say they are.
“if that is all it takes to prevent an attempt to move forward, then we should all just pack it in and sign up for Hobbes’ state of nature.
you have to assume good faith, and then build in whatever capabilities are available to insure good implementation and execution.”
No, you don’t have to assume good faith, when you’re explicitly gaming out possible scenarios. In fact, when you’re gaming out different scenarios, you’re pretty much obligated to consider the possibility of bad faith.
But, if it makes you feel better, assume that Iran is currently run by saints, who get replaced in a few years.
it’s true, we here sitting around the ObWi cracker barrel “gaming out scenarios” can make whatever assumptions we want.
at the point that somebody speaking for the US is actually sitting across the table from somebody speaking for Iran, both parties will be obliged to assume good faith on the other’s part.
sainthood is not required, “good faith” simply means the intention to abide by whatever is signed. the purpose of negotiation is to establish those terms that both parties can agree to abide by.
if such terms can’t be found, no deal.
part of any such negotiation is building into the agreement conditions that add some stick to whatever carrots are included. if you fail to comply, x y and z will happen.
likewise, part of any such negotiation is identifying the scenarios under which the deal will be null and void. if x happens, or if y changes, then the deal ends.
all of that is called negotiating, with an eye to coming to some agreement.
the necessary basis of entering into a negotiation is the assumption that the other party will not simply walk away from the table and do whatever they hell they like.
if that’s your assumption, you just stay home.
or, more completely:
if that’s your assumption, you make provisions for a nasty, brutish, and short life, and stay home.
on that topic, here is what our bold (R)’s in Congress are offering by way of good faith.
russell, do not forget treaties where one party is betting on the OTHER side breaking it or on being able to construe any behaviour of the other side as breach of treaty. I usually call those ‘Roman treaties’ because the Romans were to my knowledge the first to make it their prime tool of foreign policy. ‘Rome, the only empire to have grown out of pure self-defense’ as was dogma with Roman writers. The political equivalent of loan shark contracts would be a similar case.
russell, that’s completely different because we are, by definition, awesome and the best.
I nearly linked to the thing Russell linked to, but in response to that seditious act by the Republican Party I offer another scenario for “whither Iran”.
The paranoid Mullahs, counting the few cards they hold, already possess several deliverable nuclear warheads and decide, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and in an ill-advised heading off of a certain attack on their country in the Spring of 2017 by a Republican President, to take out Washington D.C. and a couple of other major targets hither and thither.
Next Thursday.
Coincidentally and soon after the bombing, having been tipped off by Soviet (Republicans and Putin are very tight; similar worldview) and Israeli intelligence, it will be learned that all Republicans and their staffers and families discreetly evacuated our Capitol city on Wednesday, leaving everyone else across the aisle to be incinerated.
Crazy conservative Iranian mullahs helping their murderous U.S. counterparts.
“The paranoid Mullahs, counting the few cards they hold, already possess several deliverable nuclear warheads and decide, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and in an ill-advised heading off of a certain attack on their country in the Spring of 2017 by a Republican President, to take out Washington D.C. and a couple of other major targets hither and thither.”
Back in the 70’s, the joke going around in AFROTC circles, was that the Soviet strategic targeting plan omitted D.C., so as to slow down our recovery after the war. We should be so lucky as to have somebody nuke D.C. while Congress is in session, and the President present.
how about: the GOP leadership gets strung up as TRAITORS and the deal goes through and the world is an incrementally better place.
that’s my vote.
Back in the 70’s, the joke going around in AFROTC circles…
One thing that unites all rank-and-file military is their belief in the stupidity of their civilian leadership.
We should be so lucky as to have somebody nuke D.C. while Congress is in session, and the President present.
i think this counts as a murderous diatribe.
just saying.
I’m posting this on multiple threads, so please forgive the redundancy.
Over on Crooked Timber, we had a nice discussion thread (as of when I left it), in which a certain troll kept trolling, but nobody answered him.
100% troll ignoring, and it helped – the conversation was productive an informative, and not threadjacked.
I strongly recommend it here – ignore him – whomever that troll is 🙂
The NY Daily News weighs in on the (R) Senators letter to Iran.
For folks who are not familiar with NYC’s print media environment, the Daily News ain’t the NYT, politically or otherwise.
Own goal, Senators.
What amazes me is that these guys apparently want a war (and in Syria, as well as with Iran) . . . run by an administration which they firmly believe is utterly incompetent at everything. Why would they believe that it would run a war any better? Or with better results than the last couple wars in the Middle East? Magic?
Technically, I think they believe that the administration is fairly consistently devoted to doing the wrong thing, not incompetent. And that a war would get in the way of helping Iran become a nuclear power.
That would explain their behavior. Although, as noted, I think a war would make Iran more likely to become a nuclear power. And sooner.
A war is what would probably unite most Iranians behind the goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Barry–I wouldn’t ignore Brett in this thread. He is, unfortunately, speaking for most Republicans and some Democrats. And it’s not on some silly subject like who wrote a speech.
whatcleeksaid
And that a war would get in the way of helping Iran become a nuclear power.
it would also give ISIS, and al-Q (and whatever new group rises up) a brand new power vacuum to fill.
FFS, “conservatives”. al-Q, the Taliban, ISIS, Libya, et al. * , are what happens when we go into a ME country and try to make things go our way. we are utterly incompetent at nation-building and thankfully have no stomach for complete annihilation, we just create a situation where whatever radical group is the best-armed rises up and turns everything 10x worse than it was previously.
* – you could probably put the Iran revolution in there, too.
Well, whether a war would make Iran more likely to become a nuclear power, and sooner, depends on what happened during the war. Want to, certainly, but losing a war, and having their nuclear facilities destroyed, wouldn’t exactly boost progress in that direction.
The question is, of course, whether Obama would pursue a war to that end. I have my doubts, and anything short of that would doubtless give them a strong incentive to get those weapons.
It really is a pity that Thorium reactor technology was abandoned for so long, just exactly because it wasn’t useful in making nuclear bombs. It would be the perfect route to go for a country that wanted nuclear energy, (Which is perfectly reasonable for Iran to want, even if it is run by dangerous maniacs.) but wanted everybody to know that it wasn’t pursuing nuclear weapons.
But, of course, Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons.
Well, whether a war would make Iran more likely to become a nuclear power, and sooner, depends on what happened during the war.
If there is one thing I would hope we could all take away from our experience over the last 15 years or so, it’s that initiating wars as a way to bring about desirable diplomatic outcomes is REALLY F***KING STUPID.
I’d like my neighbor to move his fence. I know, I’ll blow up his freaking house, kill his kid, and rape his wife.
That will convince him.
If anyone in the Senate is, in fact, contemplating provoking a war with Iran as a way to dissuade them from acquiring nuclear weapons, I sincerely hope they experience a radical change of mind, and that quite quickly.
I’m tempted to say nobody could be that stupid and reckless, but sadly we all know that’s not true.
“Depends on what happened during the war” is sort of like “depends on what happens if I play with matches while pumping gas”.
How about we just give Iran a nuclear weapon and tell them to take good care of it?
having their nuclear facilities destroyed, wouldn’t exactly boost progress in that direction.
From what I’ve read (in a variety of places) nobody who has looked at the situation believes that anything short of the kind of massive, nation-wide bombings we last saw during WW II would get all of their nuclear facilities. And even those would likely miss some. So unless someone is willing to step up to turning most of the country into a glassy lake, it won’t work.
If it had a chance of working, that might be a different discussion. But for better or worse, that isn’t the world we are living in.
War with Iran.
It’s just not necessary, and it’s stupid and harmful to talk about it like it’s just another option among many.
War isn’t just hell, it’s expensive hell.
IMO, “Would we actually do what was necessary to win?” is always a legitimate question when contemplating war, and I’m also dubious we would. Even though I think what’s necessary would fall short of reducing Iran to a glassy plain. Unfortunately, some kind of extended occupation would be necessary to make it stick, and we suck at extended occupations.
But I’m not sure how you get from the Senators’ letter to their wanting to start a war. Really, it was just basic civics: Don’t think you’re getting a real, legally binding commitment when you negociate a treaty the Senate isn’t going to ratify.
Do you want the Iranians to believe the contrary, even though it isn’t true?
This just in:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/iran-offers-to-mediate-talks-between-republicans-and-obama
There seems to be some outrage ginned up because of the Republicans horning in on Iran negotiations in a matter where treaty approval might be on the line, from quarters where no such outrage was expressed when e.g. Jim McDermott and John Bonior horned in a baker’s dozen of years ago.
It’s kind of a bipartisan asymmetry, if you will.
But I’m not sure how you get from the Senators’ letter to their wanting to start a war.
I don’t. I get it from your comment:
I sincerely hope that nobody in the Senate is sufficiently boneheaded for that thought to even cross their minds.
Really, it was just basic civics: Don’t think you’re getting a real, legally binding commitment when you negociate a treaty the Senate isn’t going to ratify.
Executive agreement.
Please go look it up before you make a reply.
Edward_ made a decent point on his FB post on this topic, which I condense down to:
The Senate’s ratification is not needed (nor is it requested) until such time as a treaty has reached the end of negotiation.
That time has not yet arrived.
I’m so hoping that Netanyahu finds a different line of work. If he does, the noise from Congress regarding Iran may be more mellow.
But I’m not sure how you get from the Senators’ letter to their wanting to start a war.
As noted originally, there are only 3 options:
– we continue as is
– we get an agreement
– we have a war.
The senators are pretty clear that the current situation (Iran doing enrichment, etc.) is unacceptable. They have now said that an agreement is unacceptable. What other alternative is there to a war?
What are they actually asking for? Unilateral surrender to American occupation without a shot being fired? That’s the only alternative to the first two that isn’t war — unless your imagination is richer than mine.
Jim McDermott and John Bonior get a pass because they were 100% correct.
“I don’t. I get it from your comment:
Well, whether a war would make Iran more likely to become a nuclear power, and sooner, depends on what happened during the war.”
““What”>http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2015/03/whither-iran.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e201bb08029ff2970d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e201bb08029ff2970d”>”What amazes me is that these guys apparently want a war (and in Syria, as well as with Iran) . . . run by an administration which they firmly believe is utterly incompetent at everything. Why would they believe that it would run a war any better? Or with better results than the last couple wars in the Middle East? Magic?”
Executive agreements aren’t legally binding for one second beyond the Executive wanting them to be. They might as well be termed “Executive Pinky Promises”.
Well, that link didn’t work. But, anyway, I wasn’t the one who suggested war.
“What other alternative is there to a war?”
“Kinetic Action”?
That time has not yet arrived.
A treaty is not required.
The POTUS may make executive agreements with other nations, which are legally binding under international law.
Since as of WWII, the vast majority of international agreements between the US and other countries have been in the form of executive agreements, with no Senate approval.
Good, bad, or indifferent, that’s the state of the law.
They might as well be termed “Executive Pinky Promises”.
What’s your basis for making this claim?
russell:
Agreed. POTUS may make such ungratified agreements with other nations provided that those agreements are within his power to keep under his authority as Chief Executive.
It’s widely known that IANAL, but there’s a fairly extensive writeup of executive agreements at findlaw, as well as a substantially more glib one at Wikipedia.
My interpretation may not line up with reality, possibly.
“The POTUS may make executive agreements with other nations, which are legally binding under international law.”
Legally binding under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. Which we didn’t ratify.
So, they might be legally binding under ‘international’ ‘law’, but they’re paper under US law.
POTUS may make such ungratified agreements with other nations provided that those agreements are within his power to keep under his authority as Chief Executive.
That’s my understanding as well.
Potsdam, Yalta, the agreement that ended the Vietnam War. The SOFAs and other agreements between the US and Iraq and Afghanistan in the more recent wars.
All executive agreements, IIUC.
In domestic law, executive agreements can override state law, but not federal law.
Treaties approved by 2/3 of the Senate may override both state law and existing federal law.
Under international law, no difference between the two. Both are considered legally binding.
They can on occasion function as treaties in the event that POTUS has acquired advance Congressional approval.
So, it’s the treaty process in reverse, sometimes.
But AFAICT POTUS cannot obligate the US to e.g. commit funds to another country under executive agreement without approval of Congress, and not be held to account.
I have to say that I was completely ignorant of executive agreements before today, so thanks for the education.
So, setting aside the Convention on Treaties, which isn’t law in the US because we didn’t ratify it, an Executive Pinky Promise. It’s binding insofar as the President already had the authority to do whatever he promised, for as long as he feels like doing it. And not one iota more binding than that.
Which is essentially what the Senators’ letter said: Until we ratify the agreement, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
traitors, every last one.
Traitors for objectively stating the facts? You are aware that the offense of “Treason” is constitutionally defined, and annoying the President doesn’t meet the definition, right?
“Until we ratify the agreement, it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”
Read here, Brett.
Someone help me out of my ignorance here.
As a member of the UN, if we are a party to an agreement which the UN Security Council agrees to (which looks like where this one is going), does that binds us? I know we can veto something before the Security Council if we don’t like it. But if it isn’t vetoed, what is its force in US law?
yes, traitors: blathering idiots working to the detriment of the nation in service of their party. string em up.
Brett, agreed that the Senators’ actions do not constitute treason. And they stop short, arguably, of violating the Logan Act. Albeit it barely.
And they stop short, arguably, of violating the Logan Act.
let a court decide.
and let the hangman wait outside the chamber door.
Yeah, I wouldn’t use the word traitor. Extremely stupid, arrogant, childish, making war more likely–lots of words I think are more accurate, especially if all used at once.
And realistically, I don’t know what the Republicans could push for except war. Tougher sanctions if they sabotage the current talks? Not gonna happen. Are the Republicans going to negotiate a tougher agreement later? Also highly unlikely. War of some sort is pretty much the logical implication of their position, and Netanyahu’s as well.
if Obama was 1/10th the tyrant “conservatives” like to claim he is, he’d have all those traitors locked up and sentenced already.
too bad that Obama only lives in their imaginations.
Don’t think you’re getting a real, legally binding commitment when you negociate a treaty the Senate isn’t going to ratify.
Do you want the Iranians to believe the contrary, even though it isn’t true?
Putting aside the question regarding executive agreements, the logic above strikes me as a bit circular. The problem is that the senators, if we take them at their word, will refuse to approve whatever we might negotiate with Iran, even though they don’t know what that might be.
The fact that they’re being up-front about it isn’t the actual problem. It’s what they’re being up-front about. It’s that the stated position is fncking stupid.
“They’re just being honest” isn’t really a defense. It’s doesn’t justify what they’re being honest about, which is their stupid refusal to even consider something they don’t know anything about yet.
Under domestic law, treaties have the force of US federal law, and are inferior only to the Constitution.
Under domestic law, executive agreements override state laws, but are inferior to federal law.
Under international law, there is no distinction. The rest of the world expects us to comply with what we agree to.
Brett would argue that we’re under no obligation whatsoever to honor executive agreements. If the POTUS makes a deal via executive agreement, he or she can, at a whim, decide to blow it off. Or, the next POTUS can. Or, Congress can do so, somehow.
Because ‘international law’ is in scare quotes, because we didn’t sign the Treaty of Vienna, so there!
I would suggest that that’s a cute idea, but it’s not dog that’s really gonna hunt in real life.
Go look at a list of the international agreements that we have entered into via executive agreement, either with Congressional sanction or not, and see if we are in a position to simply walk away from them every time the POTUS changes.
Obama is Commander in Chief, which gives him tremendous authority as regards military policy, and both we and Iran are signatories to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, which is in fact was ratified by the US Senate and so has the force of federal law.
He’s not negotiating from a weak place in this case.
The idea that a minority of the Senate of the US can publicly interfere with active negotiations being carried out by the POTUS and / or the Secretary of State, and can threaten to make sure than any agreement that is made gets ripped up ASAP, is, frankly, outrageous.
It’s ridiculous, and puts this nation and a lot of the rest of the world in a very dangerous position.
Cotton and his buddies need to be taken aside and have a few things explained to them.
One random thought:
If we were at war with Islam, as typified by the radical conservatives among the mullahs in Iran (which we are not, actually), and if those mullahs’ ill intentions towards the US included avoiding an agreement like this (which they do), would helping this enemy of ours in time of war constitute treason?
What they did is not treason (there is no war). But under their views (that there is a war) would it be?
Put another way, if the Democrats did something similar, what would they call it?
Is the Logan Act Constitutional?
In over 200 years, nobody has ever been convicted of violating the Logan act, which was enacted by the same Congress that enacted the Alien and Sedition acts. I would not put much weight on the Logan act.
“Brett would argue that we’re under no obligation whatsoever to honor executive agreements.”
No, I’d say that the President who enters into such an agreement is under a moral obligation to keep it, insofar as doing so is consistent with the responsibilities of his office. But that moral obligation can’t extend to a Legislature he failed to consult, or even opposed, in making the agreement.
Under current legal precedents, Executive policies, even those that are contrary to statutory law, benefit from the supremacy clause. Current legal precedent is VERY pro-Executive. (Not shocking, that, when every single federal judge was chosen by a President…)
So, insofar as a President chooses to uphold an executive agreement, he can impose compliance on the states, unless that involves a direct constitutional violation. But, if he doesn’t bother getting the Legislature involved, an executive agreement is not a law, does not bind future executives, and binds the current executive only in a moral and pragmatic, not legal, way.
Indeed, honoring past executive agreements will generally be prudent. But we shouldn’t pretend they have a legal status they don’t, and we shouldn’t deceive others on this score, either.
War of some sort is pretty much the logical implication of their position
Or the enhancement of their domestic political position and power.
But, if he doesn’t bother getting the Legislature involved, an executive agreement is not a law, does not bind future executives, and binds the current executive only in a moral and pragmatic, not legal, way.
…under domestic law.
But we shouldn’t pretend they have a legal status they don’t
What is your understanding of US obligations to comply with international law?
What is your understanding of how Senate approval affects that obligation one way or the other?
The only difference I see, one way or the other, is that Senate approval raises the legal status of the agreement to the level of federal law, the scope of which is purely domestic.
International law basically governs sovereigns, so ultimately everybody can go do whatever hell they want, Senate approval or not.
The “prudence” of honoring legal agreements between sovereign nations has bugger all to do with whether the Senate approves them or not.
If we conduct ourselves as a basically bad actor, making agreements with other nations and then abandoning them every couple of years when the executive changes, we’re going to have much larger problems than whether Iran has a nuke or not.
Should Obama come to an agreement with Iran, there are about 1,000 ways that the Senate can FUBAR it. If any money is involved, they can just shut it off, we can begin and end with that.
The profound stupidity of doing so ought to prevent them from even considering it.
The executive owns responsibility for foreign policy, and for negotiating with other nations. The Senate’s role, at maximum, is ratifying agreements, which makes them treaties, which raises their legal status domestically to the level of federal law.
Politically, it may be expedient for the POTUS to ask for Senate approval. Then again, politically it may not be. That’s his call, along with the Secretary of State.
But unless you want to exempt the US from any and all obligations under international law, making them subject to the whim of either the POTUS or the Senate, if Obama comes to terms with Iran, we’re obliged to observe them.
Which is the law of this country, not foreign laws our legislature rejected.
It’s an interesting question of whether having the Senate fail to ratify something like the Vienna Convention exempts us from complying with any and all international laws, whether codified or customary.
From the point of view of the rest of the world, the Senate can go pound sand. We are signatory to the Vienna Convention, and simply by virtue of existing as a nation state on planet Earth we’re obliged to comply with customary international law.
The cost and consequences of telling international partners to go piss up a rope because 47 Senators say so is not trivial.
The only thing that makes international law go, at all, is the mutual consent of the nations that participate. There isn’t some Big International Cop that is going to come and serve us a summons.
The Senators are basically pissing on that mechanism. I’m sure it gives them a great feeling of agency and accomplishment, but it’s unbelievably stupid.
“Prudence” covers a lot more ground than you think.
If we were at war with Islam
If we were, then it’s entirely possible that Iran, being 90% Shia (and therefore, by definition not truly fundamentalist), would be on the same side as us…
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
But Nigel, the folks who talk about a war with Islam are too dense to even be aware that there are different sects of Islam. Let alone that they, especially the fundamentalists in the various sects, are bitter enemies.
If we were at war with Islam
The thing is, we’re not. If we have the sense that god gave a box of rocks, we’ll keep it that way.
The Senators aren’t traitors, they’re just dangerous meddlesome PITAs.
What would the value be to this country and the world if we can persuade Iran to stand down from a nuclear weapons program?
They want to blow that up. Stupid, reckless boneheads.
Bellmore: We in the present are not bound by agreements made in the past, and have the right to renege, abjure, revoke, or repeal any such agreements.
Russell: Well yeah. But that is pretty stupid and means nothing, because such a statement flies in the face of our historical experience and political traditions, not to speak of the established mores of relations between sovereign nations. Frankly, it is an expression of pure unadulterated political nihilism.
So I beseech you out there…you in the peanut gallery. Who is the “conservative”, Russell or Bellmore?
Or rather, should we ask, “Who is engaging in pure sophistry, and who is not?”
May the blood of some patriot water your tree. Amen.
Stupid, reckless boneheads.
Absolutely.
Just pointing out that those who are beheading our aid workers and journalists are explicitly and religiously at war with the Shia (and any Sunni who do not share their ideology).
That is not a small point.
“It’s an interesting question of whether having the Senate fail to ratify something like the Vienna Convention exempts us from complying with any and all international laws, whether codified or customary.
From the point of view of the rest of the world, the Senate can go pound sand. We are signatory to the Vienna Convention, and simply by virtue of existing as a nation state on planet Earth we’re obliged to comply with customary international law.”
From the point of view of the Constitution, which every officer of our government swears an oath to uphold and defend, the rest of the world can go pound sand. Because the Constitution lays out how international agreements with the US become binding, and it’s not by Presidential signature, it’s by Senate ratification.
They are free to comply with such unbinding agreements to the extent their powers and duties permit it, but they are not, in the US, under US law, legally binding. That’s it, period.
We are a nation of laws, the Constitution is the highest law, and the Constitution gives no legal status to agreements that are simply signed by the President, but not agreed to by Congress. End of story.
End of story.
Except that it’s not, since the United States isn’t the world.
Keep telling everyone the sky is red. Who are they going to believe – their lying eyes or you?
Because the Constitution lays out how international agreements with the US become binding, and it’s not by Presidential signature, it’s by Senate ratification.
The Constitution lays out how agreements become binding *as domestic law*.
If the Senate ratifies an agreement, making it a treaty, then within the US it has the force of federal law. If the POTUS or anyone else fails to comply with its terms, they are breaking US federal law.
The US, as a nation, is also obliged to comply with international law. We can, of course, stick our fingers in our ears and chant “la la la I can’t hear you” when the topic comes up, but we are in fact so obliged.
International law takes the form both of codified law, such as the Vienna Treaty, which we have not ratified but to which we are a signatory, and also plain old customary law and usage.
Coming to a contractual agreement with another nation and subsequently deciding that you’d prefer to rip it up, absent a reason more substantive than “that was that other guy’s idea, we never liked it in the first place”, is likely to be a violation of international law.
There is no International Law Cop who is going to come and throw the US in jail, so we can surely do as we please. Taking the position that agreements entered into are worth no more than the paper they’re written on, however, undermines our status as a contractual partner in good faith.
To say the least.
As far as Obama’s Constitutional power to enter into binding agreements with other nations without the advice and consent of the Senate, there is in fact a substantial body of case law and precedent to support his position here.
Vanishingly few international agreements since WWII have been ratified as treaties, and non-treaty agreements have existed since the country started. Some have Congressional sanction other than format ratification, some purely at the initiative of the Executive.
All are binding under international law.
We can tell the world to go to hell, the world can respond in kind.
In the case at hand, where we’re in the process of trying to make an agreement with Iran to stand down from pursuing nuclear weapons, it is phenomenally, blindingly, beat-your-head-against-the-wall stupid for the Senators in question to publicly state that they will make sure that any agreement made is worthless.
It’s not treason, but it profoundly undermines the POTUS and the Department of State in their efforts to represent the nation.
We are a nation of laws, the Constitution is the highest law, and the Constitution gives no legal status to agreements that are simply signed by the President, but not agreed to by Congress. End of story.
The power of the executive to enter into agreements with other nations without Congressional approval or sanction is, and has been, settled as a matter of law. For decades if not centuries at this point.
Don’t believe me, you can go look it up. It’s not a matter of opinion.
Here, lemme help you out.
Here’s a nice quote from the summary at russell’s link:
If there’s no legislation required to comply with the terms of an executive agreement and the executive agreement does not violate the constitution, we have something superior to state law, which sounds to me like domestic law – here, in this country.
Agreed, and agreed.
We’ve had this kind of crap happen before, and most likely we’ll see it again. Which is not an endorsement. If Joe Kennedy can attempt to forge a peace agreement with Hitler outside the aegis of the State Department and escape imprisonment and death, these guys can certainly indulge in their bit of idiocy with few worries other than public opinion.
If Obama makes a really awful agreement with Iran, that’ll be his own downfall. But I don’t think we’re giving up anything that hasn’t already in effect been granted. Either Iran generates reactor-fuel grade uranium in the open, or it does so covertly. If it does so covertly, it also has the ability to eventually produce weapon-grade uranium. Iran is not going to magically cease pursuing nuclear capability just because we’re telling them not to.
That’s what we’re trying to put off. If Iran’s true goal is to achieve nuclear power capacity as a nation, then no one loses. If their true goal is to produce nuclear weapons, that goal gets kicked down the road a decade by mandated inspections. If we can get inspections in trade for legitimizing limited (read: a long way from weapons-grade) uranium enrichment, that sounds like a good trade to me.
That’s the way I see it, anyway. Iran’s uranium-enrichment program isn’t going to go away because we maintain they shouldn’t have it. They do have it. That genie isn’t going back into the bottle. Time to move on and see what can be salvaged from the situation.
None of this makes Iran our friends. Also: none of this makes Iran a nation with which we are at war.
There are any number of things the Senators can do to cut the legs out from any agreement the President makes.
If carrying out the agreement will involve spending money, they can refuse to allocate it.
If (as is almost certainly the case) we are promising to lift sanctions in return for agreements from Iran to not pursue nuclear weapons, they can refuse to lift the sanctions.
Etc etc.
Other than in Brett’s mind, there is no meaningful dispute that the executive can enter into agreements with other countries, without Congressional approval. The US currently participates in many thousands of such agreements.
There is also little dispute that such agreements are absolutely considered to be binding by the rest of the world, and that the US has always considered ourselves to be bound by them.
What is disturbing about the current case is the Senators’ promise to gut any agreement that Obama makes, while he is in the process of trying to make it.
In particular when the (a) the issues being discussed are of such import, and (b) when the alternative is basically war with Iran.
Do they want a war? What do they think it will accomplish?
This is worth reading as an executive summary of what we could and could not accomplish, and what it would cost.
In a nutshell, unless we want to overthrow the government and occupy Iran, we are at best only likely to delay the progress of an Iranian nuclear weapons program by four years.
If Israel acts alone, two years.
As far as occupying Iran, for reference Iran is about the size of Alaska. About four times the size of Iraq. Mountainous, and with 70 million people.
Could they be defeated? Probably.
What would it cost? Go do the math.
It is tremendously in our interest for Iran to not develop nuclear weapons, and it is tremendously in our interest for that to happen through diplomatic, rather than military, means.
It is also tremendously in our interest for the POTUS and the Secretary of State to be able to treat with other nations without half the Senate undermining their ability to do so by threatening to rip up anything they agree to.
The actions of the Senators was pure folly.
What Slart & russell said.
Oh, and while The Constitution lays out how agreements become binding *as domestic law, that doesn’t seem to mean that such ‘binding’ laws are actually enforced, either.
UN Convention on Torture, q.v.
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en
Too soon, I think.
We as a society are, if briefly, obsessed with not repeating prior mistakes. Sometimes we make new mistakes with that obsession, but we always wind up doing the same thing over again once the memory has faded. It hasn’t, yet.
Of course there’s another option: take off, and nuke the entire site from orbit. But I don’t think even Brett would go for that one.
Nigel, looking at the text on the Convention against Torture:
“…obliges each State party to take actions that will reinforce the prohibition against torture through legislative, administrative, judicial or other actions…”
Since the US has manifestly failed to live up to (signed! by Reagan! ratified!) its obligations of using ‘legislative, administrative, [and] judicial” means, I guess that “other actions” justifies citizen 2nd Amendment remedies.
Rep Duncan Hunter would certianly go for it.
russell: Do they want a war? What do they think it will accomplish?
Primarily, and overwhelmingly most importantly, they think it will get them safely reelected. And maybe help their party win the Presidency in 2016 (or at least 2020).
Little things like the good of the country, or even of those outside their social circle who actually fight and die in those wars, are of minimal importance to any of them, at least as far as one can judge from their behavior.
Certainly there is no indication that they would be willing to raise taxes to pay for their little war this time. Or amybe it is going to be another case of the natives greeting our invading troops with flowers…?
Winning is the thing.
What “winning” means is that the needs of the many are slave to the needs of the few.
Discuss.
You win.
Count, you are my long-lost psychotic (but more learned & eloquent) twin.
There’s probably a movie that deals with that.
Which one does Devito play?
Or does Jeremy Irons get both roles?
Oh, that was unkind.
Too many Irons in the operating room?
How can you have “movie” and “psychotic” in the same sentence without referring to Jack Nicholson?
Yeah, old school, I know. Forget it Count, it’s Chinatown.
My sister, my daughter, my sister …
Old school psychotic twins?
Have you seen my version of the Patty Duke show?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTqKcojrVY
What a crazy pair and what a wild duet doesn’t even come close.
“Too many Irons in the operating room?”
I’m one Iron short of a golf game, if that helps.
Whither Iran:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-set-up-their-own-breakaway-nation/2015/03/10/1618f6d4-c749-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html
The USA should set up two Embassies and/or consulates in every country with whom we maintain diplomatic relations — one Republican and the other Democratic — to reflect the bicameral nature of our national diplomatic psychosis and schizophrenia, since the Decider in Chief, of whichever party, seems to only speak for his Party on the foreign policy front.
That way, each political party could reach its own nuclear accords, or not, with each country. Democrats could have a treaty which forbids Iran to nuke Democrats and other innocents (Republicans could be freely nuked, since they threaten nuclear extinction first and have no treaty protecting them) here on the mainland, and Republicans could eschew any treaty whatsoever, leaving them open to whatever befalls them once they take out Iran.
Brett, of course, would maintain his own private foreign policy because two Irons in the operating are never sufficient.
I kid.
Constitution schmonstitution. good ol Tom Cotton thinks familial relationships should confer guilt, when it comes to Iran.
even Typepad couldn’t believe that.
The more I read of Senator Cotton, the more amazed I get.
Does anyone here happen to know if this is something new since he hit the Senate? Or did the good people of Arkansas actually know what kind of nut case they were electing?
The more I read of Senator Cotton, the more amazed I get.
Obviously, it was that librul Harvard education.
Some of the GOP defense of the Cotton letter is really amusing: “It’s just telling the Iranians the truth! How can you object to that?”
So I’ll just publish an open letter in the NYT, letting the world know that I posses, right here in my large set of filing cabinets, the ENTIRETY of the evidence of Sen. Cotton having sexual relations with farm animals.
He can’t object, it’s completely true.
Tom Cotton introduced the language about punishing the families of people guilty of violating sanctions against Iran in 2013, two years ago, when he was in the House.
Folks in AR who voted him in as Senator knew who he is and what he is about.
He’s there because they want him there.
The more I read about Tom Cotton, the more I say SSDD.
I think Art Immelman has found Tom Moore’s lapsometer and has it trained on the brains of the nation.
We either figure out how to turn it off, or we’re fecked.
Talk of lapsometers makes me want to retire to the swamps beside the golf course with three winsome women, the fixings of gin fizzes (the albumin in the egg whites popping the hair on my scalp like halyards letting go), and the collected works of Kierkegaard.
A quick pass over the cranium to see what’s up diagnostically.
You had me at Art Immelman.
Maybe Tom Cotton will appear on C-Span and begin presenting rearward for mounting by Iranian hardliners.
I knew the Count was, like me, a Walker Percy fan, but I didn’t realize you were, Russell. Good on ya.
hawsers, not halyards
meh, might as well have a war.
I’ve decided Percy’s metaphors are too good to waste on these unusual (in the history of this country, except for the 1854-1861 period) usual suspects, when the entire Zombie genre is available to us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7LLDRkeAbg
Lindsay Graham:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/lindsey-graham-has-just-crossed-the-line-as-president-i-would-use-the-military-against-congress/
I expect conservative militias from across the country to begin mobilizing for the trip to Washington D.C. to take up arms against Graham’s tyranny.
“I expect conservative militias from across the country to begin mobilizing for the trip to Washington D.C. to take up arms against Graham’s tyranny.”
It may take a while, they’re currently ALL busy fighting the rampant tyranny and violations of constitutional rights in Ferguson.