Obama parsing on Iran “deal”

Holding their fire does not mean holding Obama’s feet to the fire.

Obama to Congress: ‘Hold your fire’ on Iran sanctions

Kevin Liptak, CNN
Fri January 16, 2015

“My main message to Congress at this point is just hold your fire. Nobody around the world least of all the Iranians doubt my ability to get additional sanctions pass if these negotiations fail,” Obama added later.

On Iran, Obama turned a question on whether he’d veto additional sanctions on Iran back on his counterparts in Congress — including those in his own party.

“Why is it that we would have to take actions that would jeopardize the possibility of getting a nuclear deal over the next 60 or 90 days?” Obama asked.

Obama added later: “I am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are on immediate war footing should negotiations with Iran fail.”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/16/politics/cameron-obama-press-conference/

 

Go to the tape: (bold my emphasis)

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THE CHANCES THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET A DIPLOMATIC DEAL [are] PROBABLY LESS THAN 50/50.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, INCLUDING THOSE FOLKS IN MY OWN PARTY, IS WHY IS IT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT MIGHT JEOPARDIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING A DEAL OVER THE NEXT 60 TO 90 DAYS?

Let “might jeapordize the possibility of getting a deal” sink in.

The construction of an argument, Obama style:

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE RISKS ARE. I THINK DAVID SHARES MY ASSESSMENT HERE. UNDER THE INTERIM DEAL THAT BROUGHT IRAN TO THE TABLE, WE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO INITIATE NEW SANCTIONS. NOW YOU WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS: “THESE TECHNICALLY AREN’T NEW SANCTIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY LAWS PUTTING IN PLACE THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS”. — I ASSURE YOU THAT IS NOT HOW IRAN OR OUR PARTNERS WOULD INTERPRET IT. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THE ENTIRE NEGOTIATIONS COLLAPSE IS VERY HIGH. IF THAT HAPPENS, THERE IS NO CONSTRAINTS ON IRAN GOING BACK AND DOING WHAT THEY CAME TO DO BEFORE THEY CAME TO THE TABLE — DEVELOPING A HEAVY WATER REACTOR THAT ONCE BUILT [IS] EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO DISMANTLE, AND VERY DIFFICULT TO HIT MILITARILY.

So the original deal was to take future sanctions off the table (“all options on the table”?) just to get the ball rolling. But even that wasn’t bad enough, he and Kerry have been dismantling the ‘old’ sanctions. Now he protests the sanctions Congress has in mind.

The question is why would anyone ban more sanctions, let alone remove current ones, before getting any kind of deal? He said taking “new sanctions” off the table was the means to getting them to the table in the first place.

Then he keeps referring to the chance of undermining the “possibility” of a deal. So everything is based on a “possibility” Obama admits is less than a 50/50 chance. Is anyone making the odds on that? But long odds equal appeasement in Obama’s brain.

If the likelihood is not very good, why take anything off the table to start? What did you get for your concession? The same shoddy possibility of getting a deal. But in Iran’s mind it is another concession, more time along with enrichment ability. We get the same “chance”. Keeping score? He also takes credit for Congress’s original sanctions.

It’s a spiraling spider web. Rather than explanations he makes excuses. Tehran was probably sitting there watching saying, “just what we thought all along, and it sounds even better in a White House press conference.”

THAT’S NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY SAID WE LEAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT IF THIS DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION FAILS, THE RISKS AND LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS ENDS UP BEING A MILITARY CONFRONTATION IS HEIGHTENED. CONGRESS WILL HAVE TO OWN THAT AS WELL.

Because, either way, he is setting it up so Congress is on the hook for the failure that ensues. The golden rule is never take any responsibility for failures.

ref: http://www.c-span.org/video/?323842-1/news-conference-president-obama-british-prime-minister-david-cameron

RightRing | Bullright

ACA full-throttle, Iran sanctions not so fast… delay, delay

White House Dividing Pro-Israel Leaders on Nuclear Iran

White House calling for delay in action on new sanctions

BY: Adam Kredo | Free Beacon
November 4, 2013 1:59 pm

Pro-Israel leaders on Monday expressed alarm over what they characterized as the Obama administration’s efforts to sow division among Jewish leaders in order to advance a policy that they say would permit Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

Rifts emerged between the leaders of four top Jewish groups over the weekend following an “intense” meeting last week with National Security Adviser Susan Rice and other top officials at the White House, according to several insiders.

The Obama administration sought to enlist the pro-Israel leaders in their fight to delay Congress from passing a new round of Iran sanctions for at least two months as the West engages Tehran with nuclear talks.

Most of those present at the meeting quietly objected to such a delay. However, the administration’s allies soon began leaking information about a so-called “moratorium” on new sanctions efforts.

“Leaders of four major Jewish organizations have indicated to the Obama administration that they will have a 60-day moratorium during which they will refrain from conducting any public campaign urging Congress to strengthen U.S. sanctions against Iran,” the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported late Friday.

The Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman also confirmed reports of a communal “time out” on Saturday, prompting a pitched response from others present in the meeting.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) said in a rare public statement on Saturday that it would not back down from its push for new sanctions.

“AIPAC continues to support congressional action to adopt legislation to further strengthen sanctions, and there will absolutely be no pause, delay or moratorium in our efforts,” AIPAC president Michael Kassen said in the statement.

“Until Iran suspends its enrichment program, additional sanctions are vital for diplomacy to succeed,” said Kassen, who noted that “diplomatic talks have been made possible because of the strong sanctions passed by Congress and implemented by the administration.”

The American Jewish Committee also denied reports that they had agreed to advocate a delay of new sanctions.

The public dispute between typically united pro-Israel groups led some insiders to criticize the White House for “trying to divide the Jewish community” in an attempt to “undermine congressional support for a new round of sanctions,” according to one senior Senate aide involved in the sanctions debate.

“The message we heard from the White House is clear—we don’t care if Israel lives or dies, we just want to cut a deal,” a senior Jewish official involved in Iran sanctions efforts said on Monday. “Another way to read the AIPAC statement is: ‘Go F yourselves.’” [emphasis mine]

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) executive director David Brog said that the administration is “making a terrible mistake” by pushing to delay new sanctions.
“The Obama administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing increased sanctions on Iran,” Brog said to the Free Beacon. “The pro-Israel community should know better than to be a party to this blunder.” …/

More at: http://freebeacon.com/white-house-dividing-pro-israel-leaders-on-nuclear-iran/

Really, is it any wonder that there are these problems with Valerie Jarrett in the cockpit calling the shots in Obama’s ear? “Go __ yourselves” is a blunt, grammatically correct description. Obama sowing division? My Casablanca face is wearing thin.