The deal is what we say it is, until it isn’t what it’s not; and then it becomes something the Iranians say it is.
Gotcha.
To push their ridiculous Iran narrative, the White House puts this graphic out via Twitter.
Worth sharing: Here's how the #IranDeal would shut down Iran's pathway to a nuclear weapon → http://t.co/BWuabs0TNz pic.twitter.com/8aYQi2KEgq
— White House Archived (@ObamaWhiteHouse) April 8, 2015
A not so subtle and snarky swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu who spoke before the U.N. with this image: (more…)
(USA TODAY) The first thing one needs to know about the nuclear deal with Iran is that it is not, in fact, a deal. You might be confused about this point, given that so many news outlets refers to a “deal” that doesn’t exist.
In fairness, many do so simply for expediency’s sake. The various parties to the talks did come away with an agreement, but it was an agreement to haggle more about what a deal might look like. We don’t have a good word for such things, so people use “deal” as a placeholder.
But in any other realm of life, if you left a negotiation where things stand in Lausanne, Switzerland, you wouldn’t think you had a deal. The known disagreements are profound and the room for further disagreements vast. (more…)
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.
(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…)
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
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…)