Spin Machine Goes Full Cycle for Iran Deal
Obama and his minions sing the praises of the Iran deal.
The Barack Obama Lipstick-on-a-Pig Tour kicked into high gear this week, as he and his various minions set about praising the recently signed Iran nuclear deal. Using his standard false dichotomy shtick, Obama claimed the only options for preventing a nuclear Iran are his deal or war, thus attempting to frame the recent deal as the only palatable outcome.
Secretary of State John Kerry attempted an even greater sleight of hand, claiming the Iran deal was done in “the same way that Ronald Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union.” He conveniently forgets, however, that Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik talks in 1986 rather than give away his missile defense program to Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviets.
But UN Ambassador Samantha Power gets our nod for Absurdity of the Week. She claimed, “If Iran … abides by the commitments that it agreed to in this deal … then it will find the international community and the United States willing to provide a path out of isolation and toward greater engagement. We hope Iran’s government will chose that path.”
Apparently she didn’t get the memo from Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei: “Our policy regarding the arrogant U.S. government will not change. We don’t have any negotiations or deal with the U.S. on different issues in the world or the region. Whether [the deal is] ratified or not, we will not give up on our friends in the region.” Khamenei was referring of course to “friends” Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, the various Shiite militias that are the de facto Iraqi Army, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Translation: “Thanks for the deal. Death to America!”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing Winston Churchill, continued warning the world of what to expect in the future: “[The deal] may block or delay Iran’s path to one or two bombs for the next few years, assuming they don’t cheat, but [it] paves their way to many, many bombs after a decade or so because they become a threshold state with full international legitimacy.”
Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, notes correctly that the deal “maps Iran’s emergence as a regional power, with the full blessing — even support — of the United States and the international community.” Satloff also points out a crucial problem with the so-called “snap-back” sanctions provision of the deal: It grandfathers in any deals signed before the UN re-imposes sanctions.
Speaking of the UN, Obama couldn’t wait to take this deal to the UN Security Council, where it won unanimous approval on Monday. This allows Obama to frame a potential congressional rejection, however unlikely, as an act that would isolate the United States from its negotiating partners. In addition to the damage done to our national security by accepting this deal, Obama has thus laid the groundwork for a future president who will have to damage our international standing by withdrawing from the deal.
This is exactly why any binding deal with Iran should have followed the formal treaty process laid out in the Constitution. But Obama knew he wouldn’t have 67 senators supporting the final deal, considering how much he gave up for so little in return, so his plan has always been to race across the finish line before Congress could stop him.