37 thoughts on “The Iran “Deal””

1. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. … They literally know nothing.

   That’s Jenga.

2. That piece from The Weekly Standard repeatedly claims that Rhodes lied, but doesn’t back it up with specifics, it just complains that he’s good at his job of selling policy.

   1. I’m a skeptic about your reading of the article. Like climate change, it’s not that I don’t believe it, but rather the presumption that you understood it and developed a rational conclusion from the data.

      1. Your reply offers no evidence and doesn’t address my conclusions.

         It’s as if you’re a lawyer, sneering and smearing.

         1. Your reply offers no evidence and doesn’t address my conclusions.

            I responded accordingly then.

3. The linked Weekly Standard article talks about lies, but for some reason does not point out any. Why is that?

   Their foreign-policy guru is apparently proud of the number of lies they told

   Huh? According to the NYT article, “Rhodes bridled at the suggestion that there has been anything deceptive about the way that the agreement itself was sold.”

   1. Except the entire effort describe was one of deception.

4. Here’s the money quote from the linked David Samuels article:

   Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. “It’s the center of the arc,” Rhodes explained to me two days after the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was implemented. He then checked off the ways in which the administration’s foreign-policy aims and priorities converged on Iran. “We don’t have to kind of be in cycles of conflict if we can find other ways to resolve these issues,” he said. “We can do things that challenge the conventional thinking that, you know, ‘AIPAC doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the Israeli government doesn’t like this,’ or ‘the gulf countries don’t like it.’ It’s the possibility of improved relations with adversaries. It’s nonproliferation. So all these threads that the president’s been spinning — and I mean that not in the press sense — for almost a decade, they kind of all converged around Iran.”

   In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.

   What’s bizarre is that this is a fawning article about Ben Rhodes. He lies to us for our own good.

   1. Picking a particular starting point for a story for maximum effect isn’t a lie. As the writer notes, “the president’s statement was technically accurate.”

      The thrust of both articles seems to be “how dare Rhodes make his boss look good!”

      1. Now, why on earth do the other commenters here call you “Baghdad Jim”? I can’t fathom it!

      2. So Obama sexed up his fictional story about Iran?

      3. Knowingly telling falsehoods is a lie, Jim. If it had been known that Obama was willing to negotiate with the hard-liners, or perhaps more accurately compromise US national security unconditionally, then he would have had a harder time selling his eventual treaty to the US. You should really try to understand the context before posting.

         And Rhodes is telling this story for a reason. He’s on the meat market looking for a new job. I wouldn’t hire someone for a propaganda job who is willing to brag to a reporter about all the slick tricks he’s pulled for me.

5. because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

   Usually negotiations with a government amount to nothing if the government changes before a settlement is reached, so I have difficulty buying that the earlier negotiations were the most meaningful, other than it could be argued that a foundation and mutual respect was formed that was later built upon.

   1. What is this foundation of respect you write? Do you have some evidence of this? The violation of the deal? The chants of death to America? The threat to close off the Persisn Gulf from the US?

      1. Hey, I’m just desperately searching for some reason to justify the claim that those first negotiations with the previous administration in Iran were “the most meaningful” I don’t actually see any way that that claim is supported, and neither apparently do you.

         1. I’m sorry you cannot comprehend Andrew. I’ll try to explain, but I understand your limitation as I do. According to Ben Rhodes, the Administration claimed they were negotiating with Iran after a “a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program”. But that’s not true, when you understand that the Administration began negotiating prior to the claimed change. This means that Iran never needed to show openness or moderation; and in fact, they have not changed at all. Which is why, Andrew, I ask you again:

            What is this foundation of respect you write? Do you have some evidence of this? The violation of the deal? The chants of death to America? The threat to close off the Persisn Gulf from the US?

            You are making an assertion Andrew, back it up. Becareful not to use Ben Rhodes sockpuppets as sources.

            1. Perhaps you could clarify, what was the nature of these “meaningful” negotiations before the change in Government in Iran, I’ve seen nothing that warrants the claim that they were of any importance in terms of what was finally agreed.

            2. Andrew, the NYT wrote an article about Obama Administration’s negotiations with Iran in 2012 back in 2012. Perhaps you should read it. I did. I’ll provide a link to the article if you answer a few questions. In the meantime, I’ll assume you are ignorant of the article, and being ignorant, you can’t understand what the NYT’s meant by “meaningful negotiations” in 2012 that it wrote about in 2012.

            3. Leland, I thought it was obvious that with “I have difficulty buying that the earlier negotiations were the most meaningful, other than it could be argued that a foundation and mutual respect was formed that was later built upon” was no more than speculation on my part, I was and am unaware of the nature of these “meaningful negotiations” if you have a useful link, provide it, or just keep playing clever lawyer, it’s up to you.

            4. I thought it was obvious that the price was you to answer some questions. I think it is lazy of you to demand links and answers from others while not yourself providing links or answers. I’m not the socialist in this discussion. You want something, earn it.

            5. Leland, people provide links for their own benefit to support their own arguments. When they claim to have a link but refuse to provide it, it’s usually because they’ve lied or exaggerated how much support the link gives them.

               But nice attempt to lawyer your way out.

            6. I’m not impressed with your desire to remain ignorant, Andrew. Here’s a link, good luck educating yourself.

            7. Here’s a link,

               Did that, the only articles I found were ones that supported my May 6, 2016 At 6:51 PM comment – the “negotiations” in 2012 were negotiations over beginning the negotiations for a nuclear agreement.

6. It has become impossible to read about Obama without thinking of John Trenchard’s withering account of King Charles I of England:

   “…such a wild mixture of timidity and pride, and familiarity, that many of them hated him, more despised him, and yet none feared him… His private conversation was low and cheap; and when the crown was off, the King was never seen; his tongue never lay still, and his usual themes were far unworthy of royalty: He delighted in sifting metaphysical questions, and in discussing dark points in divinity, and in smutty and familiar jokes; and it was usual with him to fall upon men with rude language and ill breeding: His condescension to others was as full of meannesses, and the obscenities and fulsome style of his letters are below the lowest mechanick. It was impossible to know him and reverence him… And it was usual with him to give and take such language, as no gentleman would give or take… He was so ignorant of his character, and so fond of logick, that from a great king he descended to be a disputant on one side in a squabble of divines. His reputation abroad was as low as at home. He talked much of king- craft; but his maxims, which he was always uttering, were poor ones, and foreign princes derided him. In their treaties with one another, they either took no notice of this keeper of the balance of Europe, or always outwitted him. In his own negotiations with them, they over-reached and baffled him, even to wantonness; and treated his long letters and his learned labours with small regard…”

   And while it seems to me I’ve seen that quote used to describe the first Billary Administration, it seems to me to fit The Zero even more perfectly.

7. So we have lies

   What lies?

   specifically, the nukes Obama gave Iran

   What nukes? What color is the sky on the planet where Obama gave nukes to Iran?

   1. Really, Jim? Are you that literal? Iran is keeping its nuke program. That really does mean, “the nukes Obama gave Iran.” Blue is blue, except in your world of hair splitting, where blue means magenta.

   2. What lies?

      The ones described in the NYT article. Try to keep up.

8. Iran is keeping its nuke program.

   You’ve got some evidence that Iran is continuing with its nuclear weapons program?

   Link please.

   1. Do you have evidence they are not? Do you really, really, take Iran at it’s word? Did you believe North Korea when they said they wouldn’t make nukes?

      Sheesh, this is ridiculous.

   2. You know, this is just a stupid, stupid question. My only guess is that you probably salivate knowing that this will take the US down a peg or two. Of course, doing so will bring the world much closer to nuclear war, but hey, who cares?

      Here’s one link that should fill you in on Iran’s intent. It took me 3 seconds to find.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-idUSKCN0WA0UY

      Here’s a quote in case you won’t read it:

      U.S. and French officials said a missile test by Iran would violate U.N. Security Council resolution 2231, which calls on Iran not to conduct “any activity” related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

      1. It appears that Iran, Russia and China, which have veto power, made clear during negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal they did not agree with continuing the U.N. restrictions on Tehran’s missile program and arms trade have a different interpretation of what’s encompassed in the nuclear agreement to the US and France.

         It makes it, in terms of ambiguity, a poor agreement.

         I can’t say how that could happen, but my best guess is that it was deliberately left with that ambiguity so that the various government could sell the agreement to their domestic audiences, but still get that core agreement on the actual nuclear aspects of Iran’s program settled.

         1. “I can’t say how that could happen”

            Sure you can. Iran negotiated a deal with all good things and no bad things for them other than a “promise” to be nice and play fair. Iran, Russia, and China recognized this as pathetic going in. The only dupe is France – they’re used to being bribed to grudgingly go along with something, but they thought the US was negotiating with the actual intent of reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

9. “The only dupe is France – they’re used to being bribed to grudgingly go along with something, but they thought the US was negotiating with the actual intent of reducing Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”

   And they were, of course, fools. Obama had no intention of impeding the Iranian Nuke Program. This is evident when Iran started to violate the terms of the agreement immediately.

   What Obama wanted was yet another styrofoam Greek Temple:

   Make it look like he worked an historic agreement…but behind it….nothing.

   1. Obama thinks if the US quit being mean to Iran, then Iran would just go about its business and not worry about the US. If Iran doesn’t worry about the US, then it wouldn’t need a nuclear program. But most importantly, Obama wanted to “Make it look like he worked an historic agreement”.

      1. Prediction: Obama will be long gone when some future admin is left holding the bag “we were nuked on his watch” and reminding some that Obama got us here will fall on deaf ears.

         1. Just so.

            When Kim Jong-Un nukes one of his neighbors–when, not if–I predict that the inconvenient fact that Bill and Hillary were the ones who gave all that enriched uranium to Kim Jong-Il back in 1994, which is what allowed the Norks to start a nuclear weapons program in the first place, will be dropped down the Memory Hole to vanish forevermore. They will not be held accountable.

            1. Are you kidding? “Will be dropped”? That is future tense. It should have been the specific reason for scrapping the Iran Deal, but the DPRK deal has already dropped down the memory hole.

Comments are closed.