When President Obama, or more aptly Team President Obama, feel they are losing the media edge they turn toward a familiar strategy. Call in Thomas Friedman, give him an interview, and the New York Times will publish the transcript as a commentary.

Interviewed Sat. by columnist @tomfriedman, Pres Obama says he understands PM Netanyahu's "deep-rooted concerns" about the Iran framework.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) April 5, 2015

In August of 2014 the rise of ISIS visibly beheading Americans was the political embarrassment the White House needed Friedman’s assistance to control.  In April of 2015 it’s the general embarrassment of a non-existent Iran Nuclear deal. A deal in name only.

Within the article President Obama expresses that if Iran were to fulfill its pledge to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” he’d be unhappy with Iran.

[…] I’m willing to do is to make the kinds of commitments that would give everybody in the neighborhood, including Iran, a clarity that if Israel were to be attacked by any state, that we would stand by them.

Of course, in actuality, when the considerations involve Nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t be a “them” to stand next to any longer – But Thomas Friedman skips right over that little uncomfortable truth.

Another interesting aspect that gets a large amount of attentive listening from Friedman pertains the U.S. and Israel relationship. In that part of the interview President Obama laments serious concerns about his anti-Semitism being exposed.

[…] There has to be the ability for me to disagree with a policy on settlements, for example, without being viewed as … opposing Israel. […] “It has been personally difficult for me to hear … expressions that somehow … this administration has not done everything it could to look out for Israel’s interest — and the suggestion that when we have very serious policy differences, that that’s not in the context of a deep and abiding friendship and concern and understanding of the threats that the Jewish people have faced historically and continue to face.” (more)

Of course non of this Obama nonsense is challenged by Friedman.

Friedman makes no attempt to share examples of the Obama anti-Israel policies and ask Obama to reconcile his actions against his words. This entire interview (article) is pure propaganda.

Read it and notice how 80% of the article itself is just transcribed commentary from President Obama himself.

New York Times – […] President Obama invited me to the Oval Office Saturday afternoon to lay out exactly how he was trying to balance these risks and opportunities in the framework accord reached with Iran last week in Switzerland. What struck me most was what I’d call an “Obama doctrine” embedded in the president’s remarks. It emerged when I asked if there was a common denominator to his decisions to break free from longstanding United States policies isolating Burma, Cuba and now Iran.

Obama said his view was that “engagement,” combined with meeting core strategic needs, could serve American interests vis-à-vis these three countries far better than endless sanctions and isolation. He added that America, with its overwhelming power, needs to have the self-confidence to take some calculated risks to open important new possibilities — like trying to forge a diplomatic deal with Iran that, while permitting it to keep some of its nuclear infrastructure, forestalls its ability to build a nuclear bomb for at least a decade, if not longer.

[…] The president gave voice, though — in a more emotional and personal way than I’ve ever heard — to his distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel, when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel’s strategic edge.

With huge amounts of conservative campaign money now flowing to candidates espousing pro-Israel views, which party is more supportive of Israel is becoming a wedge issue, an arms race, with Republican candidates competing over who can be the most unreservedly supportive of Israel in any disagreement with the United States, and ordinary, pro-Israel Democrats increasingly feeling sidelined.  (continue reading – with video embedded inside the article).