'The Worst Of All Possible Outcomes'

by JASmius

Time for the daily "fallout" from The One's nuclear sellout to Tehran:

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden on Sunday criticized the Obama administration's deal with Iran saying it will only delay, not derail the country's nuclear program.

Actually, it won't even do that much, dude.

Hayden told CNN's State of the Union that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry "hit the pause button, rather than delete button."

"Practically the worst of all possible outcomes, because now what you have here is a nuclear capable state," Hayden said.

"I think frankly that is Iran's bottom line, so what we're negotiating on is how much time we're putting between their nuclear capability and a nuclear weapon, a nuclear reality," Hayden said.

"And my fear is, this interim agreement, which doesn't roll back much of anything at all, becomes a permanent agreement," Hayden said.

Don't be silly, General; the permanent agreement will be exponentially worse.  In fact, it will probably include the gift of the remaining American nuclear arsenal, at least absent whatever warheads O needs to protect his own dictatorial rule against internal uprisings.

Hayden said the agreement contradicts the U.S. alignment with Sunni Muslims and Israelis in the region, and that it will take "an awful lot of hand holding" to convince our allies this is the correct course of action.

General, what makes you think the Saudis and Gulf States are even listening to us anymore?  Or anybody else, for that matter?  They've scattered to the four winds, seeking whatever solutions they can scrounge up via their own devices, such as Riyadh procuring its own nuclear deterrent from Pakistan.  That was the whole point of the Obama Doctrine: to destroy American global influence, particularly in the Middle East.  And to think I urged The One to hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner after his Syria fiasco.  Maybe he's saving it for after Manhattan and/or D.C. gets nuked.

As for Israel, Bush Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has a theory:

The Obama administration feared an Israeli airstrike on Iran more than it feared Iran building a nuclear weapon, and that's why it pushed for a deal to reduce sanctions against Iran, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton writes in the Weekly Standard.

"Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran," Bolton writes. "Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem."

My respect for Ambassador Bolton knows no bounds - he'd make an outstanding Secretary of State in a Walker Administration - but I don't see the logic in his reasoning here.  The one and only reason that the Israelis have been weighing the merits of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is that the mullahs have repeatedly and publicly proclaimed their intention to "wipe Israel off the map"; if you believe that sanctions were retarding Tehran's progress towards nuclear breakout, this interim agreement guts them, making nuclear breakout a fait accompli.  Ergo, if the objective of the Obama Regime was to minimize the chance of Prime Minister Netanyahu acting unilaterally, he should not have agreed to this so-called deal.  The fact that he has makes pre-emptive Israeli military action as inevitable as Iranian nuclear attacks against Israel and the United States.  The only factor left to be determined is if the Jewish State has a chance at survival in a general Middle East war or if the mullahs will finish the "Final Solution" job Adolph Hitler started.  Either way, the last fraying cords holding back war have been severed - with a diplomatic axe.

In short, folks, we're dead; it's just a matter of how the execution will be carried out.