“New York Times: Iran nuclear deal was based on a lie,” by Daniel Greenfield
May 8, 2016 13:32:03 #
The enemedia finally reports on what we knew all along. They never questioned the pact at the time. Never stated the obvious. But now it comes straight out of one of Obama’s closest advisor’s mouth.
In fact, Ben Rhodes’s passion seems to derive not from any investment in the technical specifics of sanctions or centrifuge arrays, or any particular optimism about the future course of Iranian politics and society. Those are matters for the negotiators and area specialists. Rather, it derived from his own sense of the urgency of radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely.
It was never about stopping Iran’s nuclear program but about “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East”.” In other words, abandoning our allies and empowering our enemies. Obama’s reign of terror will be keenly felt long after he is gone from the White House.
“New York Times: Iran Nuclear Deal was Based on a Lie,” By Daniel Greenfield, FPM, May 5, 2016:
You don’t say.
Among other things, the profile of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s go to guy on foreign policy (who knows nothing about it) contains the admission that the deal was based on a lie and that the real agenda was radically different from the one that Americans were told about.
For one thing the whole “moderate” Iranian government vs. the hardliners nonsense that we’re seeing in the media was a lie manufactured to sell the deal.
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an e******n and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program.
The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an e******n among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a d******e but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.
Obama’s CIA Director said it in black and white.
I ask him about a crucial component of the administration’s public narrative on Iran: whether it was ever a salient feature of the C.I.A.’s analysis when he ran the agency that the Iranian regime was meaningfully divided between “hard-line” and “moderate” camps.
“No,” Panetta answers. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.”
So it was a lie. It’s been plainly exposed in a high profile New York Times piece that just about everyone covering politics will have read. And they will go on repeating it. Because what we call journalists are really machines for rehashing talking points from their side. It’s all they do. They can’t do anything else.
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
And it’s not the “right-wing” calling reporters clueless. It’s the Obama guy pulling their strings.
Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Take it from the guy who tells them what to think.
In fact, Ben Rhodes’s passion seems to derive not from any investment in the technical specifics of sanctions or centrifuge arrays, or any particular optimism about the future course of Iranian politics and society. Those are matters for the negotiators and area specialists. Rather, it derived from his own sense of the urgency of radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely.
It was never about stopping Iran’s nuclear program but about “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East”.” In other words, abandoning our allies and empowering our enemies. Obama’s reign of terror will be keenly felt long after he is gone from the White House.
“New York Times: Iran Nuclear Deal was Based on a Lie,” By Daniel Greenfield, FPM, May 5, 2016:
You don’t say.
Among other things, the profile of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s go to guy on foreign policy (who knows nothing about it) contains the admission that the deal was based on a lie and that the real agenda was radically different from the one that Americans were told about.
For one thing the whole “moderate” Iranian government vs. the hardliners nonsense that we’re seeing in the media was a lie manufactured to sell the deal.
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an e******n and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program.
The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: “Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.” While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the “moderate” camp were chosen in an e******n among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a d******e but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making.
Obama’s CIA Director said it in black and white.
I ask him about a crucial component of the administration’s public narrative on Iran: whether it was ever a salient feature of the C.I.A.’s analysis when he ran the agency that the Iranian regime was meaningfully divided between “hard-line” and “moderate” camps.
“No,” Panetta answers. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.”
So it was a lie. It’s been plainly exposed in a high profile New York Times piece that just about everyone covering politics will have read. And they will go on repeating it. Because what we call journalists are really machines for rehashing talking points from their side. It’s all they do. They can’t do anything else.
In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
And it’s not the “right-wing” calling reporters clueless. It’s the Obama guy pulling their strings.
Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
Take it from the guy who tells them what to think.
May 8, 2016 13:32:55 #
continued:
So why did the Iran deal really happen?
In fact, Rhodes’s passion seems to derive not from any investment in the technical specifics of sanctions or centrifuge arrays, or any particular optimism about the future course of Iranian politics and society. Those are matters for the negotiators and area specialists. Rather, it derived from his own sense of the urgency of radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely.
There you go. It was never about “peace” or Iran abandoning its nuclear program. It was never about backing moderates. Rhodes admits that’s nonsense. It was the ongoing obsession of the administration with “reorienting” American foreign policy to make deals with the enemy in order to weaken us, strengthen them and prevent us and our allies from being able to check their aggression. They tried it with Sunni Islamists and failed. So they moved on to the Shiite Islamists of Iran.
Rhodes and Obama aren’t idealists. They just think America is evil.
So why did the Iran deal really happen?
In fact, Rhodes’s passion seems to derive not from any investment in the technical specifics of sanctions or centrifuge arrays, or any particular optimism about the future course of Iranian politics and society. Those are matters for the negotiators and area specialists. Rather, it derived from his own sense of the urgency of radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely.
There you go. It was never about “peace” or Iran abandoning its nuclear program. It was never about backing moderates. Rhodes admits that’s nonsense. It was the ongoing obsession of the administration with “reorienting” American foreign policy to make deals with the enemy in order to weaken us, strengthen them and prevent us and our allies from being able to check their aggression. They tried it with Sunni Islamists and failed. So they moved on to the Shiite Islamists of Iran.
Rhodes and Obama aren’t idealists. They just think America is evil.
May 8, 2016 14:55:36 #
May 8, 2016 15:12:00 #
Super Dave wrote:
My reply:
"Duhhhh"
"Duhhhh"
Dave, what I like about this article is the author Daniel Greenfield, a real liberal rectum!. I'm not sure I have ever liked anything he has written before, since most favor extreme gun control.
May 8, 2016 20:48:59 #
AL gouhti wrote:
I'm wondering who didn't know it was based on a lie?Dave, what I like about this article is the author Daniel Greenfield, a real liberal rectum!. I'm not sure I have ever liked anything he has written before, since most favor extreme gun control.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.