"A Historic Mistake"

by JASmius

Given that he's the one staring right down the proverbial barrel, I'd say Bibi knows whereof he speaks:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the agreement between world powers and Iran as a ‘historic mistake’ that doesn’t bind his country.

Indeed, considering that Israel isn't a party to it, and they're the "Czechoslovakia" in this particular geopolitical equation.

Israel has “the right and obligation” to defend itself and won’t allow Iran to develop the capability to build atomic weapons, Netanyahu said today at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

“What was achieved last night in Geneva is not historic; it is a historic mistake. Today, the world has become a much more dangerous place,” he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. “Israel is not bound by this agreement.”

Again, indeed.  If war with Iran wasn't inevitable before this - and it was - this makes it even moreso.  Either (A) Iran uses its nukes on Israel and the U.S. pre-emptively, or (B) Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities pre-emptively, which may or may not set back the mullahs progress towards the nuclear arsenal they probably already have, but is certain to trigger Iranian retaliation and perhaps a general Middle East war.

The whole point of diplomacy in an instance like this one is to make war less likely.  By this nuclear sell-out - in which his determination to surrender overrode even French objections - O has achieved the precise opposite.  Perhaps as an alternative route to the Final Crisis he needs to finish entrenching his dictatorship?

Count Pete Hoekstra as moving in that direction:

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra said late Saturday that Newsmax should "count me as a huge skeptic" of the deal in which Iran would receive $4.2 billion and limited sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

"This president hasn't developed the trust in his foreign policy judgment over the past five years," Hoekstra said in an exclusive Newsmax interview. "He's got a Middle East policy that is in tatters."

Depends on what his policy objectives were.  If his goal was to support our allies and advance U.S. national security interests, then yeah, this interim deal sucks; if his goal was to ensure Iranian nuclear capability and consign Israel and U.S. national security to the proverbial four winds, I'd say it's a rousing success.

"All we have to show for this agreement is that two of our staunchest allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are very skeptical of it. They're wondering where the United States is heading when they've got an agreement with Iran.

Ah, who needs allies?  America is so evil, it doesn't deserve allies.   So bleep Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Besides, the Saudis will now obtain nukes, and it's part of the Obama Doctrine to ensure that every last strain of jihadism possesses nuclear weapons.  But we don't have to worry because all that needs to be done to protect us forever is for O to go to Mecca and give another historic speech.

BTW, do they have golf courses in Mecca?

"They may or may not abide by the limitations on their nuclear program, but they're getting immediate relief of sanctions," Hoekstra said of Iran. "They'll continue to fight us in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan."

They won't abide by the so-called "limitations".  Why should they?  This el foldo "deal" is prima facie proof that O will never hold them to it; he's got every incentive to depict it as the twenty-first century Maginot Line, every bit as much as the mullahs have every incentive to disregard it, even when abiding by it would still get them everything they want at the cost of a modestly longer timetable.  It is the epitome of the worst of all possible worlds.

Or, IOW, the foreign policy counterpart to ObamaCare.  And thus another crown jewel in the presidential tiara.