Image 01 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.


“Obama blinked, Iran didn’t”


Obama is blinkered, Iran isn’t


Obama HATES the West and its values.

At least there is a going bi-partisan horror as this cock-up comes to light. That might bring us some hope.

Plus, the Russians are agin it, because it won’t give them the power to veto actions WHEN (not IF) Iran violates “whatever”.

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 12:03 pm

The whole Iran deal falls apart when the issue of what happens when and if (if!??) there are violations is considered.

Kerry said that the sanctions could snap back with any violation. Russia doesn’t want to agree to that. And then – Iran has a history of starting with small violations. It could be argued the violation isn’t big enough. Or, it’s only a violation of the verification terms, but we don’t know if they actually violated the substance.

And Iran will argue that the U.S. also violated the agreeement, because one of the terms is Congress lift U.S. sanctions, and that is not that likely to happen. For one thing, we’ve got other reasons for sanctions on Iran besides their nuclear program.

Obama may very well get the U.N. Security Council resolution sanctions, and the E.U sanctions, and the non-legislatively mandated sanctions, and then go to Congress and ask for the remaining sanctions to be lifted (with the President having the right to re-impose them) saying that if that doesn’t happen, Iran will cancel the deal, but the sanctions and the pressure on Iran will all be gone, and they’ll be responsible for Iran ramping up its nuclear program.

Or we may see problems before. Obama may not be able to agree with Putin on the terms of the resolution lifting the U.N. Security Council resolution sanctions.

Are they going to say: Putin is just as much interested in preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon as we – and the France and Britain and Germany – are, so we can rely on his having to agree to restore sanctions.

Uncle Samuel | April 3, 2015 at 12:15 pm

Valerie Obama made the exact deal s/he wanted to make.

There is no mistake – no bumbling – it is all intentional, all of it.

So tired of hearing naïve people say s/he is incompetent.

It is all intended toward the destruction of this great nation by those who hate her and all of us.

Same with UK, EU and all other nations by Islam’s hordes of hellishness and hatred.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 3, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    The bad deal isn’t valid if Congress says it isn’t.

    Obama is not very valid as a man or POTUS himself.

    There is a compelling legal case to declare this whole blasted evil regime a big mistake and charade.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 3, 2015 at 12:26 pm

      Obama has acknowledged that, and warned Congress about the alleged consequences of killing the deal.

      Should negotiations collapse because we, the United States, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence that they are not developing a nuclear weapon, it’s doubtful that we can even keep our current international sanctions in place….

      ….If Congress kills this deal — not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative — then it’s the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen.

      According to thsi logic, some countries important to the sanctions regime on Iran, would prefer to take their chances with the possibility Iranian nuclear bombs rather than keep on with the sanctions. I guess it was only Barack Obama who persuaded them to agree to sanctions in the first place.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        And he did.

        Now how does he think he did it?

        How does he think he persuaded Russia and China to go along with sanctions?

        It was by threatening military action against Iran! (which now they don’t really believe he would do.)

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | April 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          Actually, all that China had to agree to was other countries putting sanctions on Iran. China (and India) got some exemptions from the sanctions requirements, some of it temporary.

      The ‘compelling case’ would have to be made and enforced by McTurtle. Not happening.

      Nor will it be happening by Boehner – the idiot who enabled Obama being able to put ‘the world on fire.’

      This event is akin to Hitler not just marching troops into the Rhineland, but Neville Chamberlain providing their boots.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 3, 2015 at 2:21 pm

      The “world” has a way of making “getting” what you “want” into an albatross….

      Good Luck with your nuclear albatross Persia.

      The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
      Samuel Taylor Coleridge, 1772 – 1834

The fate of Israel has been decided by people who did not allow Israel to sit at their table. That is the obscenity that no centrifuge count can justify.

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 12:19 pm!

If Congress kills this deal, not based on expert analysis and without offering any reasonable alternative, then it is the United States that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse.

I don’t imagine the other mid east countries are all that thrilled about Iran getting nuclear capabilities. We are liable to end up with those countries, under the table, helping Israel do what is necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran. It just depends on whether the Saudi royals and the Sultan of Brueni and the rest love their current life and life style more than they hate Israel.

Now wouldn’t that be something.

I R A Darth Aggie | April 3, 2015 at 1:04 pm

Saying that Teh Won blinked implies that this isn’t the deal Teh Won wanted.

I think this is exactly what Teh Won wanted. His nominal allies also got what they wanted. Those allies will be Russia, China and Iran. Expect the House of Saud to buy a bomb from Pakistan.

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

CaliforniaJimbo | April 3, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Riyadh becomes a glowing ember when Iran gets the bomb so Isis can claim Mecca and medina.

Tel aviv and Jerusalem become glowing embers as soon as Iran gets the bomb.

King Putt blames it on the GOP?…

Let’s see King Putt’s red line with Israel when Bibi takes out the production facilities.

Either he is ignorant or spiteful. Wow.

LukeHandCool | April 3, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Peace in our kaboom.

Whew, an outline was agreed upon. Soon Kerry can get back to global warming as mankind’s greatest threat. I was sweating this one out.(and all God’s children said, “Ahem”.

Some legacy you’re leaving behind mr. obama !

Walker Evans | April 3, 2015 at 2:12 pm

And the Mullahs have this wondrous agreement, not only allowing a path to nuclear weapons but in fact paving it, due to their Head Negotiator … John Kerry! He went very far out of his way to bend over backward and kiss Iranian ass and gave them every damn thing they wanted.

How long do you suppose it will be before Bibi’s Boys make a visit to Centrifuge Land?

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 2:24 pm

Netanyahu has as much as warned that this would happen if Iran does not either commit itself to never getting a nuclear weapon, or indicate, both in word and in deed, that it is not in a state of belligerency with regard to Israel and doesn’t intends to get there.


He will Obama a chance to act before, and Obama will take it, particularly if the deal falls apart, and blame Republicans in Congress for choosing war.

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 2:30 pm

Obama is very worried that Israel may force his hand:

…It’s no secret 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. If, in fact, Prime Minister Netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, this is the best option. And I believe our nuclear experts can confirm that.

More importantly, I will be speaking with the Prime Minister today to make clear that there will be no daylight, there is no daylight, when it comes to our support for Israel’s security and our concerns about Iran’s destabilizing policies and threats toward Israel. That’s why I’ve directed my national security team to consult closely with the new Israeli government in the coming weeks and months about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel, and make clear our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s defense.

LukeHandCool | April 3, 2015 at 2:34 pm

Why do I feel like a baker forced to cater a giant Death to Israel ceremony?

Kerry thinks this nuke deal is his green light to run for President.
Hillary is busily spinning this garbage into faux political currency.
Barky is fundamentally transforming the country and the world.

There is a giant vacuum that the GOP may want to think about filling.

LukeHandCool | April 3, 2015 at 4:27 pm

“Peace in Our Mind.” — Obama & Kerry

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 5:48 pm

Iran blinked, France didn’t.

Fabius said France rejected the original draft as not “solid enough,” and the Iranian delegation threatened to leave the talks.

Sammy Finkelman | April 3, 2015 at 6:14 pm

Then Kerry started mediating between Iran and France, and patched things together long enough for this framework of an agreement.

Blinked! He winked , as brazen as a hooker on a street corner in a mini skirt.

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…!!

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?