The Iran Deal Wasn’t About Nukes At All

The Iran Deal Wasn’t About Nukes At All

The Obama administration decided early on that the only way to get the United States out of the Middle East was to replace it with Russia and Iran.

Remember the Iran deal? Of course you do. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was one of the greatest diplomatic agreements of our time, a last-ditch effort to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb and thus avert inevitable military action by the United States and its allies. Hard negotiations provided a verifiable inspections plan that would keep Iran walking the straight and narrow for at least a decade, if not longer. The media, of course, served only as the impartial platform for analysis and debate.

Anyone who doubted this narrative or raised almost any objections to the deal was just a hater, maybe even a racist with a personal grudge against Barack Obama. (Also against the deal, of course: Jews with divided loyalties.) After all, the experts—non-partisan, of course—assured us that everything was in order.

This was all nonsense. What really happened was that the White House put out a set of talking points, not all of them true or accurate, to a trusted circle of journalists and advocacy groups. Those groups worked with experts in other groups, who then supported those talking points in media already friendly to the White House narrative. Asked for comment, the White House agreed with the experts it had primed, then fed more talking points back into the loop.

We no longer have to speculate about this. As anyone paying attention now knows, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—it’s so hard to type those words—couldn’t help but take a victory lap in front of The New York Times. Rhodes named names and organizations, crowing that the White House had created “an echo chamber” mainly composed of journalists who are “27 years old and…literally know nothing.”

ugghh...

What’s the Real Game Here?

The smug admissions by Rhodes and others that the “echo chamber” was real and did its job are grating. But to focus on Rhodes and Cirincione spiking the football is to miss a more important question: Why did everyone go to such lengths over a deal that was supposed to be so good?

Rhodes, of course, says it’s because everyone but the White House and its friends were too stupid to understand how smart the deal was. The real answer, however, is as unsettling as it is simple: selling the deal required subterfuge and misdirection because the Iran deal was never about nuclear weapons.

The White House and its supporters were set on two goals, one of them trivial, the other terrifying. The trivial objective was to give a failed presidency at least one foreign policy legacy item. That was to be expected, since the Obama administration, in permanent campaign mode since the day the president took office, has presided over the worst American foreign policy in the modern era.

The more stomach-churning objective is that the administration, as it turned out, really believed in its pledges to get America out of the Middle East, and decided early on that the only way to do this was to replace the United States in the region with a duumvirate of Russia and Iran. Here, the JCPOA was part of a huge gamble to transform the region, with nuclear weapons the secondary rather than primary issue. That’s why J Street and others were involved: they were far less concerned with notional Iranian nuclear weapons than they were with advancing President Obama’s Middle East legacy—without having to admit what it was.

Click link to read the remainder of what we talked about on here when this mess was announced.

And the scandals just keep on coming. I wondered why ME countries started acting without the US and we apparently now know why. This also m8ight explain why Irans been as aggressive as they have and why Russia is acting the same.

Obama really needs to be impeached.

In this, Rhodes and his minions are the living embodiment of the true motto of the Obama administration: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, or “What is permissible for the gods is not allowed for cattle.”

a reply to: Xcathdra

From your source

What really happened was that the White House put out a set of talking points, not all of them true or accurate, to a trusted circle of journalists and advocacy groups. Those groups worked with experts in other groups, who then supported those talking points in media already friendly to the White House narrative. Asked for comment, the White House agreed with the experts it had primed, then fed more talking points back into the loop.

To me that part right there tells me that DC has a script and talking heads in MSM that fill the news with what they want the narrative to say . It usually has the "fear" element to it .Viewing the history of MSM from 911 it becomes clear that the big bad boogy man weather in Afghanistan , Iraq , Iran ,Libya ,Syria ,Russia ,China or any new and improved bad guy is just a ruse and something else is going on . Just as it was and is in Ukraine .Just as it is with NATO and the threat of a Russian invasion in the Baltics right now .

Russia invaded Georgia but for some reason never kept it ...strange ....Russia invaded Ukraine but for some reason never kept it .....there is something going on all right ,but don't expect anything in the MSM to give us a clue as to what that might be ...

Why does the USA need to be in ME affairs anyway?

USA can supply its own oil now. So its doesn’t need the ME.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Why does the USA need to be in ME affairs anyway?

USA can supply its own oil now. So its doesn’t need the ME.

The rest of the Nato alliance needs oil and gas to.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: crazyewok
Why does the USA need to be in ME affairs anyway?

USA can supply its own oil now. So its doesn’t need the ME.

The rest of the Nato alliance needs oil and gas to.

Rather buy that oil off iran than the saudis.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Anyone that thought the Iran deal was about nuclear weapons, clearly was never paying attention to anything but the MSM and buying into the fear they were spreading.

a reply to: crazyewok

Actually.we need to be in that loop for geopolitical and economic reasons not related to what's actually happening in the ME.

Our purchasing power is out leverage and their oil is cheaper to produce than ours anyway.

a reply to: onequestion

Well id much rather create closer relations with Iran and cool it off with the saudis.

Iran has been slowly growing more moderate. They are changeing in a positive way even if slowly.

Saudi Arabia is still the medieval backward nation of terrorist supporters its always been and is getting worse.

The Iran deal is the US setting up Iran as another layer of power in the region. Right now the US backs Egypt. Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia as its proxies in the region. Egypt's internal problems and other issues in Africa mean it is pulling back. Syria. Iraq and those problems mean Turkey has enough on it plate, Israel is limited in what it can do for political reasons and the Saudi's just do not have the military punch as much as they have tried to prove otherwise.

The Iran deal means moderates taking over in the next decade. It has already started. It also means the end of Russian influence in the region and cutting China out. India has already signed a new trade deal and the development of a port. The US has no plans to leave the region having signed new defense deals and base explanations in the last few years.

Of course the source being the Federalist is a good sign that this is not even something that should be taken seriously.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Are you just learning this now? Well over a year ago the Israelis knew Iran had no offensive nuclear capability, yet they harped on about it forever. They simply lied in an attempt at political gain.

Just like Obama.

I can't say with certainty it is a failure. If his goal was to get Russia involved in a pointless quagmire... it sure seems like success to me.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: onequestion

Well id much rather create closer relations with Iran and cool it off with the saudis.

Iran has been slowly growing more moderate. They are changeing in a positive way even if slowly.

Saudi Arabia is still the medieval backward nation of terrorist supporters its always been and is getting worse.

Iran will only be moderate in outward appearance as long as Khamenei lives. Same with his chosen sucessor.

a reply to: SargonThrall

This is another spin/spin piece to re-frame the spin until tomorrow . MoA has a really good piece up that takes a look at no sneakers on the ground ,or I mean boots . no wait are they wearing sandals after all over in Libya .

No U.S. Troops in Libya? One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others Another excellent piece of journalism by Borzou Daragahi ... Buzzfeed, May 23 2016 No, U.S. Ground Troops Aren’t Headed To Libya Anytime Soon

Washington Post, May 12 2016 U.S. establishes Libyan outposts with eye toward offensive against Islamic State American Special Operations troops have been stationed at two outposts in eastern and western Libya since late 2015, tasked with lining up local partners in advance of a possible offensive against the Islamic State, U.S. officials said.

www.moonofalabama.org...

a reply to: SargonThrall

Uhm no... I posted the article for those that thought Obama was honest and had the best of intentions for the US.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Speaking of Spin it is not combat troops but special forces. Their deployment was never in doubt and is not counted in the same category of "boots on the ground".

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Christian Muppets need to give up on Iran. The sh*tty prophecy the Muppets are awaiting will not come to pass!

a reply to: Xcathdra

These last years must have been rough.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SargonThrall

Uhm no... I posted the article for those that thought Obama was honest and had the best of intentions for the US.

Avoiding yet another war wasn't in Americas best interest?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I suppose that the spin doctors of GW's term on WMD's and war on terror are some how not related to the neo-cons of Obama's group of spin doctors eh ? Seems that even the State Dept's briefings play the same game of spin .Like Hillary and Kerry pointed out that they were loosing the information war and so attacking RT and putting more money into the MSM spin machine was what was needed .

MSM is loosing and the spin needs to be changed with a scapegoat to place all the blame on ...Obama just happens to be their guy .....its pathetic at best and mind numbing at worst .

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SargonThrall

Uhm no... I posted the article for those that thought Obama was honest and had the best of intentions for the US.

Avoiding yet another war wasn't in Americas best interest?

Well Fox news is obviously getting boring. The chicken hawks want a nice war to watch while eating there TV dinners.

a reply to: Xcathdra

We're never leaving the Middle East, EVER.

Should have been a clue when Halliburton moved their corporate headquarters to Dubai.