How to stop the Most Equal Comrade's explicit tilt toward Iran?

You'll derive great encouragement from a piece by Robert Sklarof at The Algemeiner on how Congress might block the Iran "deal." Momentum seems to be building among those who see it as a real possibility:

Support is building for the US House of Representatives to muster the courage to block implementation of the flawed “deal” with Iran, and the only way to do so is to enjoin the administration from dropping sanctions.

This was the message delivered in a just-published op-ed by Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey and former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge.

A bipartisan group of 105 congressmen wrote to US President Barack Obama asking that he freeze the Iran nuke deal, since “the Iranians have already violated critical provisions on multiple occasions just months into the agreement.”

Ferment among legislators has delayed emergence of a consensus view that would yield a concrete proposal as to how to follow through on this request.

There is no alternative. To save Western civilization, the House must enjoin Obama from implementing the Iranian nuke pact.

Sklarof thinks the most effective route is a lawsuit that would be filed by the House on the basis that the way the "deal" was "finalized" runs counter to the Corker-Cardin Act.

A prototype suit has in fact been crafted:

 . . . a model filing was formulated in November, based on causes- of-action:

* The pact has not been signed by anyone — including Iran — so it is unenforceable.

* It is a treaty rather than an executive agreement or political commitment.

* It undermines American support for Israel’s right to exist and survival, ignoring the unambiguous “sense” of Congress, as articulated in Corker-Cardin.

* It was improperly implemented through passage of the Corker-Cardin Bill, due to fundamental misrepresentations and withheld data.

* It violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

* Neither the pact nor Corker-Cardin contains a “severability” clause and, thus, if any component of either document is flawed, the entire pact cannot be portrayed as having been approved.

Concern that such a filing could yield a protracted battle that would ultimately have to reach the Supreme Court is misguided, for an injunction would stop Obama from releasing the funds in the interim, and the above bullet-points underscore the narrative that this out-of-control president must be restrained.

Because this deal is interwoven with Obama’s Islamophilic foreign policy, undermining his unholy alliance with Iran and Russia could finally unravel what has proven to be a series of failed “friendship” gambits with sworn enemies and disheartening distancing efforts with loyal friends. 

It's those friendship gambits and disheartening distancing efforts that have Tony Badran of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies disturbed, and that the first arena of difficulty therefrom is going to be the patty-cake among "stakeholders" over the Syrian multi-layered civil war:

The claim that the Saudis were damaging the supposed Syrian "peace process" [by executing radical Shiite cleric Nimr] sounds surreal on its face. But it is quite revealing, not just about how the White House defines success, but also about its overall policy in Syria.

The administration believes it has achieved a critical diplomatic feat by bringing Iran into the diplomatic talks over Syria and that this constitutes a major breakthrough in itself. "The United States has succeeded in leading the international effort to bring all sides together to try to bring about a political resolution inside of Syria," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a briefing after the Saudi-Iranian spat. The way the administration sees it, for a true discussion to take place, all so-called "stakeholders" in Syria must be gathered around the table in order to reach a settlement.

The administration's self-congratulation aside, it's worth exploring what this means in practice. By declaring Iran a legitimate "stakeholder," the White House is not only saying that Syria is a recognized Iranian sphere of influence, but it also is recognizing Iran's "stake" as legitimate. In fact, President Obama stated explicitly last month that the solution in Syria should be one that allows the Iranians to ensure "that their equities are respected."

This begs the question of what, exactly, is Iran's "stake" or "equities" in Syria? The answer is straightforward: Iran's interest is to maintain a logistical bridge to Hezbollah through which it could supply the group with missiles and arms, thereby enabling it to continue to threaten U.S. allies like Israel and destabilize the region. The White House's legitimization of Iran as a stakeholder in Syria risks licensing Iran to continue arming Hezbollah.

But this was hardly the only cost of President Obama's policy. The key for safeguarding Iranian interests in Syria is ensuring the continuity of the Syrian President Bashar Assad regime. And so, in order to obtain Iranian "buy-in," the administration abandoned what's supposed to be the main objective in Syria, which is the removal of Assad and his regime. Assad, the administration now concedes, gets to stay on for an indefinite period as part of an indeterminate "transitional period." In other words, when it comes to Syria, not only did Obama force Iran down his allies' throat -- he also fully endorsed its position.

Now, to top it off, the administration is attacking the Saudis for supposedly jeopardizing a process designed to safeguard Iran's unchanged objectives in Syria. As the White House sees it, the Saudis' only job is to bring the Syrian opposition to the table essentially to sign a surrender. What's more, as part of this process, Iran, which has underwritten and partaken in Assad's mass slaughter, gets a say in determining which opposition groups are listed as terrorists.

Of course, the SOTU is tonight. It will be interesting to see if the Most Equal Comrade does any explicit tilting toward Iran and away from longtime Mideast allies.

 Memo to Senator Toomey and his bunch: Keep your thinking caps on, and move forward at the first opportunity.