Will Obama sign bill to ban Iranian UN ambassador?

Iran has been out of the news lately — except for the appointment of Hamid Aboutalebi to the United Nations — who was a member of a militant group that held 52 Americans hostage when it seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. Both the House and Senate have passed legislation barring entry for the Iranian UN ambassador to the U.S. but the question is, will President Obama sign it?

As the Hill reports, the legislation sent to Obama amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which already allows the president to deny U.S. entry visas to U.N. representatives found to be engaging in spying against the United States, or who might pose a threat to U.S. national security. The bill would add language to that law saying visas can also be denied to any U.N. representatives who have engaged in terrorist acts against the country.

The legislation creates a politically difficult decision for the White House, which has not said yet whether Obama would sign it. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One on Thursday that the administration had told Tehran they did not find the Iranian nominee acceptable, but declined to say whether Obama would support the bill. “We’ve made clear and have communicated to the Iranians that the selection they’ve put forward is not viable, and we’re continuing to make that understood,” Carney said. “In terms of legislation, I just don’t have a view on it in terms of the President at this time.”

I suppose next comes a fuchsia line? Or perhaps chartreuse? You have gotta be kidding me. They decline to say whether they will support the bill? I don’t think the communications from Obama and this White House means anything to the Iranians anyway, who certainly recognize Obama’s flexibility.

Any true American leader would have immediately stated, “I am prepared to sign the legislation passed in the House and the Senate to reflect the message being sent from the American people to Iran”. Unfortunately, as it becomes apparent often, we do not have a true American leader, just an impostor, charlatan, and seemingly one who sides with Islamists, Muslim Brotherhood, and enables terrorist states who support them, be it Qatar or Iran.

In a sign of blatant ignorance the administration insists the nomination would not impact ongoing nuclear negotiations. “The talks continue; they continue to be workmanlike and productive,” Carney said Thursday. “And we’ve seen no impact on those discussions from some of these other issues.”

Even John Kerry’s State Department is in on the whole charade, as State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Thursday that officials have shared lawmakers’ concerns with Iran, but she declined to offer any further detail on the status of the nominee’s visa. “We certainly share the concerns expressed by members of Congress, and we’ve expressed those to the Iranians,” Psaki said. She echoed previous statements from the White House, calling the nomination “not viable.”

Man, that certainly has the mad mullahs and ayatollahs shaking, thanks Jen for those truly scary words.

Let’s flood the White House switchboard and ask the President a simple question, “whose side are you on?” This is not a difficult decision for an American president to make. Or is it?


  1. It is a difficult decision to make when you are in cahoots with the man/people in question. It ‘s just another opportunity to check off on the obamao admin’s agenda, continue the presence of a weak USA. He will not commit to an answer as long as he can get away with it, that’s why he is showing that they supposedly threw the ball back to the Iranians who could care less. But like with a lot of other ‘actions’ it’s just a way to show they ‘responded’ without really doing anything at all. Tyrant to tyrant, two peas in a pod.

  2. barry will make a wonderful speech to the people saying: I will not let anyone in the country who has previous ties with terrorism in the country. barry would then call kerry”Hello Kerry let him in” I can hear it now

  3. hmmm … this Bill, crafted and introduced by Senator Ted Cruz, and passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress, has not been signed by Obama yet?

    the evil gal pal val must be spitting tacks that she has been forced into this position … she WANTS her Iranian CRONY to be UN Ambassador!

    what will she do …. stall? ….FUME, but SUBMIT, and tell her subordinate to sign the #$%$#@! ?

  4. A serious question though: popular as this was – it passed Congress without a single nay vote, although someone may have missed the vote – did Congress even have the Constitutional authority to pass this bill, given that these powers have historically only been vested in the executive branch? I could see Obama vetoing such a bill, saying that Congress did not have the authority to debate and pass such a bill. Sometimes, one has to be a lone face for the COTUS even when it’s unpopular.

    For what it is worth, Aboutalebi’s visa application was quietly denied last Friday, over Iran’s objections.

    • I agree that the acceptance of ambassador’s credentials are the purview of the executive branch when the ambassadorship is to be at the “court” of the US President. However, this ambassadorship is to the UN. Therefore, his entry to our country is really a matter of immigration entry. This would make the passed legislation binding as I understand things.
      I would also hope that, given that both Houses passed the bill unanimously, if our Kenyan President vetoes it, our congressmen retain the cojones to override the veto!

  5. I highly doubt he will. He may think it would give the American people the right to ban him from America as the #1 most dangerous terrorist.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here