Fareed Zakaria, "A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option": Baa

New York Times Editorial, "A Promising Nuclear Deal With Iran": Baa

David Ignatius, "A better-than-expected nuclear deal with Iran": Baa


Yesterday, President Obama began his speech concerning the Lausanne negotiations over Iran's nuclear development program by stating:

"Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached a historic understanding with Iran, which, if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Note that Obama used the word "understanding," not "agreement." Why didn't Obama, an attorney, use the world "agreement"? The answer is simple. Were you ever a party to an "agreement" which was important to you or to your family? To take a loan? To buy a car? To buy a house? Did you sign something? Of course you did. And so did the other party to the agreement.

Of course, there is such a thing as an oral agreement, but Obama knows the basic rule of contacts: An agreement to agree is not binding.

Regarding Obama's "understanding" with Iran, we are not being presented with an "agreement" to review. Rather, we have been provided by the US State Department with a "fact sheet," which has not been signed by Iran. Moreover, Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif is already denying the accuracy of this "fact sheet":

"The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on."

Okay, so there was no "agreement" with Iran, but this has not prevented Obama's exuberant media minions from preventing this so-called "understanding" as such. In an editorial entitled "A Promising Nuclear Deal With Iran," The New York Times writes (my emphasis in red):

"The preliminary agreement between Iran and the major powers is a significant achievement that makes it more likely Iran will never be a nuclear threat. President Obama said it would 'cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.'"

Obama apologist Fareed Zakaria also tells us of an "agreement" in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option" (my emphasis in red):

"When making up their minds about the nuclear deal with Iran, people are properly focused on its details. But to figure out whether an agreement that limits and inspects Iran’s nuclear program is acceptable, one has to consider seriously the alternatives to it — and there are really only two."

Similarly Obama acolyte David Ignatius writes in a WaPo opinion piece entitled "A better-than-expected nuclear deal with Iran" (my emphasis in red):

"It’s not a perfect agreement and certainly not a permanent solution to the threat an aggressive Iran poses for Israel and other nations in the Middle East. But the framework delivered more than many skeptics had feared."

Not everyone, however, is delighted with this would-be "agreement." The Washington Post declares in an editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals":

"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."

Missing from the WaPo editorial is any mention of  the failure of Obama's "understanding" to limit Iranian development of ICBMs. Also missing is any explanation how Obama and friends might be able to monitor future "off-site" development of nuclear weapons, e.g., in North Korea. In addition, WaPo ignores the fact that there was no attempt by the United States and its P5+1 allies to rein in Iranian human rights violations, prevent further Iranian involvement in conflagrations involving neighboring countries, or halt Iranian threats of "annihilation" against Israel.

Bottom line: Notwithstanding the synchronized bleating of The New York Times, Zakaria and Ignatius, Iran duped Obama, and Obama duped the American public.