Diary

Obama Punk'd Again by Iran: Does He WANT Them to Get The Bomb?

cookie_jar

Any 3-year-old knows the difference between a parent shouting “one, two…….” and never getting to “three” versus grandpa who doesn’t put up with bad behavior, but it seems the Obama administration got bested by a toddler.

Iran nuclear talks will continue “for the next couple of days,” a senior European diplomat said, effectively extending a Tuesday deadline set just a week ago.

“We are still working very hard to finalize this agreement,” European Union foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, told reporters outside the Vienna hotel where negotiators have held near round-the-clock sessions. “We continue to work on the text.”

Mogherini said she did not consider Tuesday a negotiating deadline, although that was the date set last week for expiration of the 2013 interim agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear program and provided limited sanctions relief while a permanent deal was sought.

Just a week ago, Obama threatened to “walk away” from nuclear talks with Iran.

“My hope is they can achieve an agreement,” Obama said.

But he added that, “I’ve said from the start, I will walk away from the negotiations if in fact it’s a bad deal.”

It is, in fact, a bad deal.  It has been a bad deal.  It was a bad deal in March, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a bad deal.  It was a bad deal six months before that, and it was a bad deal last July, when we were talking deadlines.

July turned into November, which turned into March, which turned into June 30, which turned into July, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s team still haven’t got to “three.”

We have to ask the question: who does it benefit for the talks to drag on, while Iran continues making more bomb-grade nuclear material?  Who does it benefit when Iran suddenly decides to back away from any inspections, never mind the unannounced “snap” inspections we’ve been calling for?

Obama said the inspections cannot just consist of “declarations” from Iran and “a few inspectors wandering around every once in a while.” He said there has to be a “serious, rigorous verification mechanism” to make sure Iran is complying with the terms of any deal.

Obama suggested that Iran was in fact backtracking from its initial commitments in a framework announced earlier this year. Amid concerns about Iran’s latest positions, a senior State Department official said the P5+1 negotiators, along with Iran, have decided to extend the deadline until July 7, “to allow more time for negotiations to reach a long-term solution.”

Guess what?  Iran hasn’t backed away from its backing away, and July 7 is here.

[mc_name name=’Sen. David Perdue (R-GA)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000612′ ], R-Ga., said: “It’s no surprise that yet again, President Obama and Iran’s negotiators have failed to meet the June 30 deadline for a deal on the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Every step of the way, Iran has refused to accept reasonable terms, and instead, is moving dangerously closer to a nuclear weapon.”

But this is all talk.  Words.  Even the pro-Obama Washington Post published House Majority Leader [mc_name name=’Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’M001165′ ]’s call for Obama to just walk away.

A bad deal would also take the Iranian regime at its word that it isn’t cheating on its nuclear commitments. International inspectors must have “anywhere, anytime” access to the Iranian sites they need to visit, including military and other sensitive facilities. The United States should not grant Iran veto power over international inspectors. The Iranian regime’s refusal to submit to intrusive inspections would be a telling indicator that it intends to continue its deception.

More words.

Like a 3-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar, while mom and dad count, Iran just smiles and continues munching on cookies—or in this case build a bomb.

After all the questioning “why not walk away?” there’s just one question remaining:  why would Obama want Iran to have a nuclear bomb?  Because that’s exactly what he’s doing.

(image source: Shutterstock)