Over the weekend, as part of the administration’s full court press to support the construct of a deal with Iran, President Obama gave an interview to NPR. In the interview President Obama was asked about the deals’ critics and specifically Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin who shared that any agreement with Iran should be reversed by the next president.

President Obama responded by ridiculing Walker, and saying he should “bone up on foreign policy”:

(Via CBS) […]  “The president was asked in an NPR News interview about Walker’s recent comments promising to reject any Iran deal Mr. Obama reaches on his first day as president.

(more…)

….”It’s a forever agreement“, he says.

Of course it is. Something that doesn’t factually exist can be just about anything you determine it to be. If an elephant walks through your front yard, how many pancakes does it take to fill a canoe?

Only the Secretary of Cocker Spaniel Hair Care knows the answer !

(Via The Hill) The nuclear deal negotiated with Iran is a “forever agreement” that will last well beyond the next decade, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Monday from the White House briefing room.

Moniz, who played a key role in negotiating the nuclear pact in Switzerland, said the framework agreement provides for intrusive inspections that would ensure Iran is not racing to build a nuclear weapon. (more…)

The Obama/Kerry “deal with Iran” is a ruse, a fraud, a total gimmick. There is “no deal”; nor can any administration official point to an outline of a deal that holds the agreed upon parameters of both the coalition and Iran.

It is annoying in the extreme to see media pundits talk about “the deal” as if it actually exists. The only visible points Obama has for a deal was a written release from the White House containing discussion points that Iran has since dismissed as total lies and make believe.

No deal exists; no agreement exists; it’s all theoretical nonsense created for political consumption. With that in mind, Canada says it will not participate in the removal of sanctions: Canadian officials say they will only ease sanctions if Iran demilitarizes its nuclear program, noting Iran’s record isn’t trustworthy.

(more…)

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. (more…)

The construct of the fraud is becoming more obvious. We outlined it on day one. Yesterday the New York Post and NPR, yes even NPR, outlined the ruse also. American Thinker adds:

[…] Admitting that negotiations to reach the general “framework agreement” failed would render meaningless the June 30 deadline for reaching the detailed agreement. Without the “framework agreement” there is nothing to negotiate. How to save the June 30 deadline without having a March 31 deal — and without losing face?

Easy: agree that a framework agreement was agreed on – but do not sign it, and thus simply do not “agree on what they agreed on”!

Hence, “a senior U.S. official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the talks, says Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif let each other know in advance that their narratives would be different.” (more)

Today Netanyahu is interviewed by CNN and asked, repeatedly, (@07:00) “Do you trust the President”? (more…)

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”. (more…)

Briefing on AF-1, @Schultz44 says US understands Israeli concerns about Iran; Pres Obama would never sign a deal that was a threat to Israel

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) April 3, 2015

(more…)

The Washington Post is not buying the fraud either.  When President Obama loses the Post editorial staff you know something is fundamentally changed.

The Washington Post – 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. (more…)

We are beginning to assemble the trail of what has factually taken place within the backstory of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. The dots are all over the place, but essentially the construct looks very familiar.

♦ The White House Team constructed the political “talking points” approximately 2 days ago 3/31/15 (photo above).  [Note subsequent to this meeting not a single media interview by the State Department team]

♦ Those White House points are based on domestic political needs and influenced by increasing domestic backlash.  Goal = Historic, Magnificent, Amazing, etc.

♦ The State Dept. Team in Switzerland (Kerry et al) told to keep quiet as the White House talking points are constructed/finalized. (link) 4/1 and 4/2 absolute silence.

♦ A deal is 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 doesn’t really need to line up with the talking points because that’s not the most important aspect – Think “Tax” VS. “Mandate” in ObamaCare].

♦ The White House talking points are used by President Obama in the Rose Garden.  (link) [Note not a “joint” statement – 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: (more…)