If you are unfamiliar with the fraud that was the UAC Humanitarian Crisis of 2014, what we outline here might not make sense. However, for those who do understand that prior fraud there are similarities to point toward.
The New York Post outlines “The Deal” with Iran, or more appropriately stated “the outline”; and points out the stark differences between what President Obama and Secretary Kerry are claiming against the claims of Iran.
Both can be reconciled if you accept the historical reality that everything the Obama administration does and says has to first pass through a domestic political prism.
Passing through that prism, the truth and reality separate. As Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber honestly admitted, ‘the truth becomes what they say it is’.
After looking at the totality of events that flowed since August of 2014 when New York Times author Thomas Friedman interviewed President Obama:
[…] On Iran, the president said the chance that American efforts to strike a deal on nuclear weapons is “a little less than 50-50,” in part because some Islamic leaders may fear such a pact would loosen their grip on power.
“That may prevent us from getting a deal done,” Mr. Obama said. “It is there to be had. Whether ultimately Iran can seize that opportunity — we will have to wait and see, but it is not for lack of trying on our part.” (full article link)
From that moment forward the entire construct of “a deal with Iran” took on a shift. The administration focused on talking about “compliance” efforts, the Iranian’s focused on talking about “the removal of sanctions”, and internally to their own domestic audience, toward “maintaining their program”.
Team Obama/Kerry seemingly focused exclusively on the aspect of verification and compliance; giving up on any hope of removing the Iranian “ability”.
We’ve noted that almost every aspect of the Obama “talking points” (for lack of a better description) have focused on deflecting criticism by using a narrative claiming inspectors can verify non weapon-centered nuclear capability.
The second thing noted is that the “deal” itself is a seemingly disingenuous squirrel distraction. The deal itself is “what they say it is”.
There is, in actuality, no deal.
Allow me to repeat…. There is no deal per se’; it’s a total fabrication, a ruse, a series of points for discussion in the media that doesn’t factually exist.
Just like the 2014 Unaccompanied Alien Children humanitarian crisis of 2014 that also didn’t factually exist. The “UAC Crisis” was, similarly, just an assembled series of talking points to gather support toward a larger goal of immigration conversation.
The Iran Outline is a conversational point for the progressive left on Iran in the same manner as the UAC Outline was a conversational point for the progressive left on immigration. There isn’t any actual ‘there’ there.
How did “actual talks” end up being just “political talking points”?
The answer is: (the always used) Political Prism.
An actual deal was fraught with too much consequential, and uncontrollable, controversy – which was finding even more unwelcome pushback from Democrats who also recognized the possibility of Iran actually having a nuclear program was far too toxic a consequence for them to hold ownership of.
Iran with Nukes would always been an outcome of Democrats. Period. There is no comfortably deniable distance inside that reality, and no spin which would turn the blame toward Republicans.
As a direct consequence last week:
♦ The White House Team constructed their escape plan, their political “talking points” on 3/31/15 (photo above). [Note following this meeting not a single media interview by the State Department team]
♦ Those White House points (released to the public on April 2nd) are exclusively based on domestic political needs and influenced by increasing domestic backlash. The White House needed, at least in appearance, to get back to the right side of history. However, they also need to save face and make it appear as something it’s not.
♦ Their goal was to A.) create something: Historic, Magnificent, Amazing, etc. Worthy of another Peace Prize – this time for John Kerry; and, B.) Gain a deniable angle for any adverse impact as a consequence of Iran and Nuclear Capability.
♦ An outline is then reached by the Secretary of State team with the Iranian team which does not align with the White House construct (talking points).
♦ The actual deal content doesn’t really need to line up with the talking points because A.) that’s not the most important aspect – Think “Tax” VS. “Mandate” in ObamaCare; and B.) they don’t really care- it’s a ruse.
♦ The White House talking points are used by President Obama in the Rose Garden. (link) Note these Talking Points” are NOT a “joint” statement as would normally be evident in an agreement between two nations. These are a pure construct of the White House.
♦ The Iranian team then points out those talking points don’t align in fact with the deal reached by the negotiation teams. Subsequently calls them “LIES” (link)
Politically the White House now has options:
Option #1. Gruber the electorate (requires an acquiescing media). Meaning, sell an evident fraud as something it is not (ie. Obamacare strategy). This would be tough to do with Congress – but if the White House can leverage total political (ie. Democrat) compliance, it’s possible.
Option #2. Claim the Iranians have changed approach. Blame them and quash the deal before June of 2015; positioning themselves to appear strong, and hiding the fraud that was not really a deal in the first place.
Here’s the article previously mentioned. You decide.
(Via New York Post) “Iran Agrees to Detailed Nuclear Outline,” The New York Times headline claimed on Friday. That found an echo in the Washington Post headline of the same day: “Iran agrees to nuclear restrictions in framework deal with world powers.”
But the first thing to know about the highly hyped “historic achievement” that President Obama is trying to sell is that there has been no agreement on any of the fundamental issues that led to international concern about Iran’s secret nuclear activities and led to six mandatory resolutions by the United Nations Security Council and 13 years of diplomatic seesaw.
All we have is a number of contradictory statements by various participants in the latest round of talks in Switzerland, which together amount to a diplomatic dog’s dinner.
First, we have a joint statement in English in 291 words by Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif and the European Union foreign policy point-woman Federica Mogherini, who led the so-called P5+1 group of nations including the US in the negotiations.
John Kerry and his team watch from Lausanne, Switzerland as President Obama makes his state address on the status of the Iran nuclear program talks on April 2nd.
Next we have the official Iranian text, in Persian, which runs into 512 words. The text put out by the French comes with 231 words. The prize for “spinner-in-chief” goes to US Secretary of State John Kerry who has put out a text in 1,318 words and acts as if we have a done deal.
It is not only in their length that the texts differ.
They amount to different, at times starkly contradictory, narratives. (read more)