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 NetanyahuApril 3, 2015I 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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY