Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Obama blinked, Iran didn’t

    Obama blinked, Iran didn’t

    Iran gleeful at nuke deal, as Obama throws Netanyahu under bus.

    Well that “Framework” negotiation was fun.

    For the Iranians, who got a great deal at least as far as a Framework goes.

    As this WaPo editorial points out, the Obama administration gave up on key parameters:

    THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

    That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.

    In his speech after the announcement, Obama took care not only to repeat the false rhetorical device of the only choice being between this deal and war, he blamed that choice on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. David Horvitz at The Times of Israel writes, Defeatist Obama’s deal with the devil:

    Extolling the virtues of his deal with Iran on Thursday, President Barack Obama made a false and extremely nasty assertion: “It’s no secret,” he claimed, incorrectly, “that the Israeli prime minister and I don’t agree about whether the United States should move forward with a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.”

    It is indeed no secret that Obama and Netanyahu don’t agree on how to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. It is emphatically not the case, however, that Israel’s prime minister opposes “a peaceful resolution to the Iranian issue.” It is emphatically not the case, despite Obama’s insinuation, that Israel’s leader regards military intervention as the only means to thwart Iran.

    Netanyahu has not been saying no to diplomacy. His endlessly stated contention is not that war is the only alternative to the deal so delightedly hailed by Obama as “the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” Rather, in Netanyahu’s insistent opinion, what is needed is simply a different, far more potent deal.

    Why throw Netanyahu under the bus again? There are plenty of people, including Democrats in Congress, who don’t view this deal as the only non-war choice.

    Netanyahu issued the following statement after the announcement of the Framework deal:

    Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
    April 3, 2015

    I just came from a meeting of the Israeli cabinet. We discussed the proposed framework for a deal with Iran.

    The cabinet is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal.
    This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel.

    The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran’s advanced centrifuges.

    On the contrary. The deal would legitimize Iran’s illegal nuclear program. It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place.

    The deal would lift sanctions almost immediately and this at the very time that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and beyond the region.

    In a few years, the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months.

    The deal would greatly bolster Iran’s economy. It would give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East.

    Such a deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb.

    Such a deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

    And it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war.

    Now, some say that the only alternative to this bad deal is war.

    That’s not true.

    There is a third alternative – standing firm, increasing the pressure on Iran until a good deal is achieved.

    And finally let me say one more thing.

    Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction and openly and actively works towards that end.

    Just two days ago, in the midst of the negotiations in Lausanne, the commander of the Basij security forces in Iran said this: “The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.”

    Well, I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable.

    Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period.

    In addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

    Thank you.

    Meanwhile, the Mullah regime crowed at how they got what they wanted (see also tweets in yesterday’s post):

    Seems to me the Mullahs know something we don’t.

    And Iranians took to the streets to celebrate:

    There was a better deal to be had. The sanctions were hurting. Obama blinked, the Iranians didn’t.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    NeoConScum | April 4, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    Bibi…Crowded as all git’out under that bus, ain’t it?

    Now, man of strength and integrity, may I mention some “key words”? Okay, here goes: Bunker Busters gifted to you by President Bush in abundance. Fuel Air Explosives gifted from same. BOOM…KAAABOOOM…Buuu-Byeeee, Mullahs…!!

    jakee308 | April 5, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Obama didn’t “blink” he was and has been playing for their team.

    Until people stop rationalizing his treason away with claims of him being naive or stupid or a communist or socialist or narcissist, we’ll never tackle the fact that he’s a paid foreign agent for an enemy country.

    That’s funny.

    1) The former head of the Mossad Efraim Halevesy just wrote a column titled “Obama was right, Iran capitulated”.,7340,L-4644691,00.html

    In it, he lists 7 important accomplishments of the agreement and then wrote:

    ” And thus President Obama could say there is a historical dimension to the agreement that was reached. Anyone who has followed events in Iran in recent decades or has studied the matter has to admit truthfully that he never believed Iran would ever agree to discuss these issues, let alone agree to each of the clauses I have mentioned.”

    2) And former head of Israeli Military Intelligence, Amos Yadlin doesn’t think it’s such a bad deal. He writes

    ” Let’s not forget that Israel dubbed the interim deal reached in Geneva a “tragic agreement,” and eventually it turned out to be a good interim deal. When there was talk of its abrogation, Israel was opposed. And another thing must be said: Contrary to Israeli assessments, the Iranians have adhered to all the conditions of the interim agreement, in letter and spirit, down to the last detail. That’s something one should also keep in mind. If they implement the principles of the agreement presented yesterday in the same way, then for the next 15 years they will be frozen at a point of being one year away from a nuclear bomb, and I think this is not a negligible achievement.”

    3) And fifty-four bipartisan nuclear security experts from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to General Anthony Zinni signed the Iran Project’s statement of support for the Framework Agreement..

    Amongst those experts is Gary Samore who notes that there are some very important details to be worked out. But he concludes his observation asking Congress to give the negotiators time to do so.

    “None of these remaining issues are insurmountable. Given the progress to date and the interest of all sides in reaching a final agreement, it seems likely that a comprehensive agreement can be achieved. However, hard bargaining is ahead. To get the best deal, the U.S. negotiators should not be driven by the June 30 deadline to complete an agreement. The status quo under the interim agreement—which has frozen or capped most of Iran’s nuclear program while retaining most of the sanctions—gives the United States a strong bargaining position. Tehran needs a deal more than the Washington does. If a further extension of a few months beyond June 30 is necessary to get the details right and resolve the remaining issues to U.S. satisfaction, the American negotiators should be allowed more time. Accordingly, Congress would be wise to stop threatening precipitous sanctions legislation if an agreement is not reached by June 30. Perversely, such threats strengthen Iran’s hand by putting pressure on the U.S. negotiators to make concessions to avoid congressional action that would blow up the talks. Iran is counting on divisions between the administration and Congress (and between the United States and Israel) to get a better deal. Instead, the United States should present a common front and let time work on its side. ”

    Samore’s statement is particularly noteworthy because he is the president of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization that has taken a hard line against Iran and its nuclear program and has strongly opposed lifting sanctions prematurely.

    4) In Israel, the only major newspaper to come out against the deal was Sheldon Adelson’s paper, Israel Hayom.

    Adelson, as you may recall, said the President should drop a nuke in an Iranian desert. If Iran did not immediately give in to all our demands, he wanted us to follow it up with a nuke on Tehran.

    5) Even the Saudis approve of the emerging deal.

    But why should these amateur hacks when the Washington Post and the great William Jacobson tells us otherwise?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend