November 24th, 2013

The Obama Doctrine bids us welcome our new ally Iran…

…and our new enemy, Israel.

I get tired sometimes of writing “this is no surprise” about what the Obama administration does. But: this is no surprise.

The word “historic,” which has been used in many articles about the deal with the Iranians, has no particular valence—no relation to good or bad or indifferent. It merely means something of significance to history. And when the Iranians are happy about something and hail it as a “new era,” and the Israelis are furious, condemning it as a “historic mistake,” you better believe it’s not of significance in a good way.

Unless, of course, you’re on Iran’s side. Which, sadly enough, it’s been clear for some time that the Obama administration is. That or the alternative, which is that Obama and company are naive dupes. It’s the old “knave or fool” dilemma, and I suppose there’s room (as there often is with this administration) for the answer to be “both.”

John Bolton doesn’t mince words:

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.

Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.

Bolton goes on to suggest that this agreement makes Israel’s position even more difficult than before, but its position was already extremely difficult to begin with. His entire piece is well worth reading.

I happened to catch a minute or so of Obama, and then Kerry, hailing and describing their agreement: what it does, what it doesn’t do. I noted that, although both have long been difficult to listen to (Kerry for well-nigh forty years), now both seem to have lost whatever shred of credibility that had still clung to them until now. In particular, Obama passed some turning point with his repeated “If you like your health plan…” pronouncements that showed unequivocally and forever more how cool and how sincere he can sound when he’s lying through his teeth. Once the American public has seen that, how can they ever believe him again?

I wonder how many people in this country are with him on this one. Oh, the far left is, and Valerie Jarrett. But even Congress seems unhappy, since they may vote for increased sanctions on Iran in some sort of probably unenforceable move:

But the announcement, after months of secret face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran, left many U.S. lawmakers deeply doubtful of the most significant agreement between Washington and Tehran in more than three decades of estrangement. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, said Sunday he would work with colleagues to have sanctions against Iran ready “should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement.”

Such distrust that Iran was negotiating in good faith ran across political parties that are otherwise deeply divided. And ready-to-go sanctions seemed to have rare bipartisan support across both of Congress’ chambers.

Why the difference between the president and Congress? Well, members of Congress still have to answer to the American people, whereas a second-term president does not. Would it not be ironic if one of the very few bipartisan bills passed in Congress were to be one where the parties united against Obama? It would be interesting to see whether Obama would veto it, or would just go around it in some administrative manner, if it were to be passed. And if he vetoed it, it would be interesting to see whether Congress would have the votes to override his veto. I doubt there are that many profiles in courage around.

[NOTE: Gabriel Malor at Ace's points out that the new agreement was praised by Syria, Iran, Russia, China, and the EU, which certainly should tell you something. I've been looking for some words of praise from Democratic politicians in this country who are on Obama's side, and all I've found so far from Obama's strongest allies are tepid declarations of hopeful first steps combined with concerns.]

43 Responses to “The Obama Doctrine bids us welcome our new ally Iran…”

  1. T Says:

    John Kerry on the Iranian agreement:

    “You can’t always start where you want to wind up.”

    Clearly that incrementalism is reserved for our enemies, not for redefining one-sixth of the American economy.

    Carter gave us Iran’s mullocracy; Obama will make them nuclear.

  2. Matt_SE Says:

    Israel, Saudi Arabia: “there goes the neighborhood.”

  3. FOAF Says:

    BO will get another Nobel Peace Prize for bringing together Jews and Arabs (Israel-Saudi alliance).

  4. Cappy Says:

    Won’t resort to Reductio ad Hitlerum. But a comparison to Paderewski and Moskicki is apt.

  5. Mike Says:

    Repeat after me:

    Obama hates America, and seeks to harm and destroy it.

    Of course that makes Iran our natural ally. All that was wanting was the treaty. Now we have it.

    Trying to “get” Obama, trying to “reason” with Obama, in print, over the airways, or on the corner, is impossible without understanding that one is reasoning with a person who hates America and seeks to destroy it.

    60m people made him President – twice.

    It is simply futile to even feign surprise at the latest of the nearly daily assaults on America, without understanding and accepting as position A those two facts – about the man, and about the 60m. Futile, and pointless, and even dangerous since there is no way to victory unless you first accept that you are in a fight for the life of America.

    Can we finally be done with “all that” criticism of Obama?

    There is criticism of Obama like there was criticism of Hitler by Churchill. I.e. There wasn’t.

    There was fighting him. Tooth and claw I think was Churchill’s preferred tactic.

  6. assemblerhead Says:

    I hope that Saudi Arabia and Israel can work together to “Fix” this.
    Its clear King Barry wants a nuclear lob contest to break out.
    ( i.e. World War III / M.A.D. doctrine style )
    With the US caught in the middle UNARMED!
    Maybe he thinks that nobody will notice Obamacare’s failure once the planet is sterilized?

  7. carl in atlanta Says:

    It really IS a mad house.

    (With apologies to Charlton Heston, yet again…)

  8. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    The Obama Doctrine hasn’t been released yet, nor will it be until Iran announces, through a successful test, that it has the bomb. The Obama Doctrine regarding Iran is summarized in one word; “containment”. Which SecDef Hagel clumsily let slip during his Senate confirmation hearings.

    The purpose of this agreement for the Iranians was to gain time, most notably for their missile technology. The purpose of this ‘agreement’ for the Obama administration is for political cover for when Iran gets the bomb and Obama has failed to stop them. They’ll have broken the agreement and be the bad guy but at that point, they’ll rhetorically ask, what difference does it now make?

    IMO, it’s doubtful that Iran will launch either a direct nuclear missile attack against either Israel or the US. Iran providing nukes to Hamas or Hezbollah is far more likely though at least initially, somewhat problematic as well. Iran is perhaps most likely to use its nukes as ‘protection’, to avoid retaliation, when it greatly upgrades its sponsorship of terrorist activity.

    If jihadist groups start using the ground to air missiles the Obama administration has provided terrorist groups access to, to bring down commercial jetliners in the US, what will Obama do? Would he risk a nuclear war over it or retreat and surrender more ground?

    With a ‘protective’ nuclear umbrella, Iran can threaten Europe who will certainly appease and, might also seize the Strait of Hormuz through which 1/3 of the world’s oil passes, instantly skyrocketing the world price of oil, which would be a mortal blow to the west’s economies.

    There is much tragedy ahead and all of it is due to the machinations of the hard left and the naive gullibility of liberals.

    When the sheep prevent the sheepdog and shepherd from defending them, they’re in for a world of hurt from the wolves they refuse to face and pretend don’t exist.

  9. Ymarsakar Says:

    Hussein here is treating Israel like Tea Party activists, while treating Iran like his professor gates + union buddies.

  10. NeoConScum Says:

    …and Israel is left to decide what is necessary for their survival. Virtually abandoned by Obama and his slathering footstool Kerry.

    Dear, DEAR American Jews: What say you??


    On January 20, 2009, the Greatest Friend of Israel was succeeded by their weakest, most tepid and scrawny. On January 20, 2013, Mr.Tepid was succeeded by his true self: Thoroughgoing Enemy and Saboteur of Israel.

    And Chuck-You Schumer will keep his precious, disgusting lips firmly affixed to The Boy King’s arse.

    A world turned upside down.

    Bibi: Your Call.

  11. FOAF Says:

    “Iran is perhaps most likely to use its nukes as ‘protection’, to avoid retaliation, when it greatly upgrades its sponsorship of terrorist activity.”

    Bingo. In the ’90s Iran sponsored the Hezzie bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina, and you can be damn sure the reason they haven’t repeated this often isn’t because they regretted it or felt bad about murdering innocent Jews. Just last year there was another murderous attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria. Look for a sharp increase in this kind of stuff while Obama looks the other way.

  12. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Left’s power is interesting, if nothing else.

    So long as you aren’t in the crosshairs at least.

  13. FOAF Says:

    “Dear, DEAR American Jews: What say you??”

    It’s enough to turn this boychik into an anti-Semite. It took me a lot longer to “change” than it should have but AT LEAST it happened before I ever had to consider voting for Obama. It’s embarrassing enough that I voted for Carter over Reagan but that’s nothing like the humiliation I would have felt had I voted for this profoundly anti-Israel – not to mention anti-American – character now inhabiting the White House.

    Any American Jew who considers himself or herself a supporter of Israel and voted for Obama was a sucker and a f*cking idiot. In other words about 70%. Sadly this includes many dear friends and relatives.

  14. Matt_SE Says:


    Not a Jew myself, but my understanding is that most American Jews see themselves as liberals first and Jews second.
    If forced to choose between the two, about 70-80% of them would choose liberalism. Their support for Israel is unreliable at best.
    Ironically, this was pointed out on Nov. 18 by Pope Francis:
    “God save us from the “hegemonic uniformity ” of the “one line of thought”, “fruit of the spirit of the world that negotiates everything”, even the faith. This was Pope Francis’ prayer during mass this morning at Casa Santa Marta, commenting on a passage from the Book of Maccabees, in which the leaders of the people do not want Israel to be isolated from other nations , and so abandon their traditions to negotiate with the king.
    And although the Pope was speaking of liberal Christians’ tendencies to “negotiate their faith”, it applies equally well (and originally) to Jews.

  15. neo-neocon Says:


    Schumer’s statement. Tepid and tentative.

  16. Lizzy Says:

    I suppose it’s good that Iran continues to be up front about its ambitions, continuing to act on its “right” to build nuclear arms and desire to wipe Israel off the map. There can be no claims that Obama was duped down the road.

    I do wonder what Obama would do differently if he were trying to bring the ever-turbulent Middle East to a boiling point, because I can’t see how allying with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, arming AQ-affiliated rebels in Syria, disclosing Israel’s secrets, and not responding the assassination of our Ambassador in Libya could be seen as anything other than acting against America’s best interests.

  17. Rachelle Says:

    The bright side I see to this is that maybe the dithering will end now that everyone, including Saudi Arabia and Israel, knows beyond any doubt that the United States under Obama is a skinny weakling that will do nothing to stop Iran.

    Bomb Iran. Bomb it now. Bomb it to rubble.

    And tell Obama to go play golf or hang curtains because he isn’t up to the big game of diplomacy and war and national survival.

  18. Steve Says:

    Obama is hailing this as a step forward. If it leads to a war, does he honestly think he will not be held responsible?

  19. Matt_SE Says:

    Just like a teenager, he does not see the consequences. They probably never enter his mind. But this just goes back to “fool or knave” again.
    Truth is, it doesn’t matter which. Whether someone is insane or “merely” evil, we don’t give them a gun.

  20. NeoConScum Says:

    FOAF… Thank you. Understand your remorse over your Jimmah Cahtah vote…Me too. Last Dem to get my vote before my full conversion to Irving Kristol’s evil cabal. (-:

    I’ve been in the entertainment industry for 40+years so, though a WASP Boy, have hordes of colleagues and friends of the Jewish persuasion(and one ex-wife). It is exactly as you say. Leaves me breathless.

  21. blert Says:

    We’ve got an ‘Eddie Haskell’ presidency… wherein idiotic solipsisms reign the day.

    Bibi is just going to have to do what must be done.

    His biggest concern has to be economic: what to do when the West cuts Israel off from its defense industries.

    It must be towards that end that Bibi is talking with Hollande. Now that Israel is a petro-power, everything is changing — fast.

    I’d expect the IDF to start cross-training in French machines ‘toot sweet.’

    That Barry — he’s pulled a turd out of his hat — again. (!)

    This should blow up no later than November, 2014.

    One can only hope that our CVN is withdrawn from the Persian Gulf — hostage station — before that time — and that our boys are largely out of Afghanistan.

    Of which to note: the Haqqani crew is really getting a trimming of late. I’d suspect a falling out with the ISI after these kind fellows murdered a corps commander just a few months back. What a coincidence.

    See the Long War Journal.

  22. Charles Says:

    Hee’s the way this nonsense goes down:

    Clinton has the chance to take out Obama and does not, Bush has to deal with the mess afterwards.

    Obama has the chance to stop Iran from going all nukes on Israel and the rest of the Mid-East (and maybe the US); Christie will have to deal with the aftermath.

    And the Press, as usual, did (and will) blame Bush and Christie for their failures.

  23. neo-neocon Says:


    I think you mean “had the chance to take out Osama.”

  24. blert Says:


    Christie is a Muslim sympathizer — big time.

    Try Walker. instead.

  25. southpaw Says:

    Maybe a different angle, and it’s only speculation about why – campaign contributions for the Democrat party is one answer. Whether they’re from offshore, or US corporations, both stand to gain from shipping something.
    It’s hard to prove, but when they talk of “we got nothing in return for lifting sanctions” – I’m skeptical. Hatred of America -I have no doubt that it’s one motivation, but this is a card he could have played at any time, and being the cynic I am, and the disgustingly self centered piece of trash that Obama is, my belief is he’s looking at the mid term blowout and needs to raise a lot of cash to fix a lot of elections.
    And he got something in return that benefits him.

  26. southpaw Says:

    Almost finished that thought. Some US Corporations stand to gain by shipping goods to Iran. Offshore contributions were funneled into his last campaign. It’s a win win for BO if he fills his coffers with money.

  27. parker Says:

    When Schumer doubts the wisdom of BHO’s Iranian narrative, BHO is standing on shaky ground. This will be interesting in that it will bring Israel closer to the Saudis who deeply fear a nuke armed Iran. Now, after this brief distraction, back to the cluster&*#% of Obamacare.

  28. blert Says:


    How in the world can Iranian funds balance the flight of Liberal Jewish funding?

    I don’t see it.

    This is not the same as Liberal Jews abandoning him… but merely keeping their purses shut.

    BTW, a lot of Liberal Jews are physicians… who’re going to have severe cash flow issues this coming year.

    Throwing millions out of their insurance programs destroys the intermediation of funds from those who’re not in immediate need to those who need BIG BUCKS right now.

    The needy will still be there — like clockwork — while the funding will be totally interrupted. just can’t be booted up in time. It’s going to miss its roll out by at least a YEAR. The officials are only now coming clean: they haven’t even started on the guts of the program!

    There is no coding for the subsidies!

    They still haven’t signed up remotely enough physicians to serve the market — most are de facto boycotting 0-care.

    So the quality of care is going to absolutely crater — with plenty of horror stories to emerge as the months pass.

    The MSM and the maladministration are still in fulsome denial.

  29. blert Says:

    0-care is a cross between Barbarossa and D-Day — if D-Day had been an abject failure! can’t even get out into the Channel — let alone hit the beaches.

    Lost on many: the Hub is an ESSENTIAL node in the entire enterprise. It can’t be passed off as a mere website with bugs.

    It’s THE CRITICAL node.

    BTW, the idea that Americans can ‘Shop’ on the exchanges is absurd: they’re so limited in number that the exchange is either a monopoly or an oligopoly!

    So there’s no shopping to do: it’s like a military cafeteria — scrambled eggs and hash for everyone is all that’s on the menu — forever.

    You’d better not have any allergies.

  30. southpaw Says:

    blert – maybe offshore money is not a big factor, but there are a lot of restrictions on exporting goods to Iran. Not all of them are America- first organizations. Recall that Clinton made some sweet deals for himself allowing the sale of sensitive telecom and satellite technology to China, that had significant military as well as civilian applications. It wasn’t for idealistic purposes but campaign donations.

  31. Charles Says:

    Neo; yes, I did mean Osama; perhaps that was an unconscience slip of tongue on my part.

    Blert; yep, Walker or Christie – at this point either one will do.

  32. M J R Says:

    Matt_SE, 5:26 pm — “Not a Jew myself, but my understanding is that most American Jews see themselves as liberals first and Jews second. If forced to choose between the two, about 70-80% of them would choose liberalism.”

    For a brief, good explication, Dennis Prager to the rescue:

  33. rickl Says:

    neo-neocon Says:
    November 24th, 2013 at 8:12 pm


    I think you mean “had the chance to take out Osama.”

    I liked it better the other way.

  34. FOAF Says:

    Obama, Osama – what difference, at this point, does it make?

  35. Harold Says:

    Obama is a bolshevik, anti-American, Jew hater. So none of this bizarre depressing stuff should really surprise.

    He should have been impeached and removed and not re-elected. But the low IQ/information voters couldn’t bear to oust the first mulatto president so they re-elected him.

    So I hope that there is a patriotic Colonel in the military somewhere preparing for Obama’s 2016 declaration that he is president for life.

  36. MissJean Says:

    It’s like paying a thug not to beat you up while you know damn well he’s using the money for ammo and tommyguns.

  37. Rose Says:

    I agree with both you Neo and of course ambassador John Bolton.Let’s keep in mind though Mullahs are a triumphalist bunch.One can safely dismiss their latest “victory” as wishful thinking on their part. Surely Israel will do her best to undo whatever accommodation between Obama/Kerry and the Ayatollahs.Ironically it is the mullahs who’ll help Israel do this.All she has to keep doing is amplify their weekly hate-filled antisemitic Friday prayer sermons.Here at home I wish you Mr. president find a way to direct conversations away from your scandalous Obamacare.Detente with IRI is one way to accomplish this.But please keep in mind Mr. president Mullahs’ doctrine of Taqiyya-Islamic art of dissimulation.The doctrine (BTW what is Obama doctrine Mr. President?) allows Muslims to lie to you in your face if it suits their end game in this instance manufacturing nuclear bomb(s) and wiping Israel off the map.

  38. Bob From Virginia Says:

    Some observations:
    1) Is the IAF up to canceling or delaying the Iranian bomb?
    2) Did anyone with a clear appreciation of Obama’s worthlessness in 2008 not see this coming in one form or another?
    3) Criticize congress? They are the ones calling Obama out on this latest insanity.
    4) He has more than three years to go unless the Dems desert him. Remember a couple years back when we predicted the Dems would desert Obama in order to secure re-election.
    5) Most Americans don’t gave a damn if the Iranians have the bomb or not because they think it cannot possibly affect the US just like events in Asia by the Japanese will never affect the US.
    6) America deserves whatever pain Obama gives it. Israel certainly does not. I am still waiting for cosmic justice to clean Obama’s and his supporters clock.

  39. Ymarsakar Says:

    Obama and the Left won’t stoop to the level of killing Americans. They’ll just outsource that to their Islamic allies. When Americans die from bombs and get tortured by Islamos, they’ll be like “oops, we didn’t do that”.

  40. Ymarsakar Says:

    Given that the Left considers Americans livestock, they won’t kill you with their own hands. They’ll hire it out, like aristocrats always do.

  41. sdferr Says:

    Caroline Glick takes a hard-eyed view of ObaZma’s aims.

  42. News and Commentary for November 26 | Palo Verde Republican Women Says:

    [...] “The word “historic,” which has been used in many articles about the deal with the Iranians, has no particular valence—no relation to good or bad or indifferent. It merely means something of significance to history. And when the Iranians are happy about something and hail it as a “new era,” and the Israelis are furious, condemning it as a “historic mistake,” you better believe it’s not of significance in a good way.” The Obama Doctrine bids us welcome our new ally Iran… [...]

  43. News and Commentary for November 26 | The Joke's On Us Says:

    [...] “The word “historic,” which has been used in many articles about the deal with the Iranians, has no particular valence—no relation to good or bad or indifferent. It merely means something of significance to history. And when the Iranians are happy about something and hail it as a “new era,” and the Israelis are furious, condemning it as a “historic mistake,” you better believe it’s not of significance in a good way.” The Obama Doctrine bids us welcome our new ally Iran… [...]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge