How, you ask? Why, by making Iran no longer an existential threat to Israel's existence. How, you ask? Why, by "keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons". Which, even if you buy the risible fiction of this "deal" that it will be fifteen years before the mullahs can resume their march towards Middle East and global Armageddon - and one would think the whole point of a "deal" would be to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons period - means that all this "deal" does is set off a race between the Iranians to build their nukes and the Israelis to develop the fifth-generation aircraft with which to take out the mullahs' nuclear infrastructure. It makes war between the two enemies inevitable, and incentivizes that conflict to occur sooner rather than later.
But of course, the mullahs aren't going to pay the slightest bit of attention to one jot or tittle of Obama's "deal," and will keep right on a-building - as they have been all along, including the past three months of the "deal"'s home stretch. And now, thanks to their friend and ally in the White House, they have over a hundred billion dollars more with which to do so, as well as develop and build more ICBMs and generally all-around expand their terror networks. Which means that Iran and Israel are on an even nearer-term collision course.
But he's banking on that war being his successor's problem Assuming, again, that he ever voluntarily relinquishes power.
You know how we can tell this battle is over, lost, and in the proverbial can? O is lying about the warmonger smears he was spewing at "deal" opponents just three days ago:
“Those who support the deal have tried to stay focused on what we believe are the logical conclusions and facts, the nature of the deal and what alternatives are available,” Obama said during a White House webcast where he answered questions from the Jewish community about the agreement. “At no point have I ever suggested, for example, that somebody is a warmonger, meaning they want war.” [emphasis added]
That's all he's been doing for the past several months. That's been the core of his mendatious argument in favor of his "deal": that the one and only alternative is "war," and so, ipso facto, if you opposed his "deal," you are, by definition, a "warmonger," and thus in league with the mullahs themselves, and actually worse, because the mullahs "proved" that wanted peace by agreeing to O's "deal". So why does he blatantly pretend that he hasn't been administering that smear with a fire hose when there is voluminous print and digital evidence to the contrary?
Because he knows that his audience of the moment will believe every word he says, because they're fellow leftwingnuts first and Jews second. And also because he has created a culture where everything, including facts are reality itself, are tribal constructs. If you are of the "right" tribe, everything you say is factual and correct and constitutes "reality," even if you flip-flop it back and forth five times in the space of three minutes and twelve seconds, like Hillary Clinton did in that Democrat primary debate back in late 2007. Yes, it might erode and even damage the interdimensional manifold of the fabric of space-time, but usually a quantum lock does not prove necessary, although I understand the DNC has one handy at every "Ready For Hillary!" event. Whereas if you are of the "wrong" tribe, everything you say is wrong and stupid and "extreme" and proof of the subhuman status the Regime has assigned to you, you have no rights, and you are allowed to continue living only by dint of The One's immense and beneficient generosity.
Distilled to its essence, Red Barry will always get away with it because his listeners can either nod their heads obediently, or they can cough and gag and sputter and guffaw and be dragged away to "racist prison".
As a postscript, I couldn't help but notice Allahpundit lapse into quasi-Gibbspeak....:
The latest argument being used to twist arms is that letting the GOP pass a resolution of disapproval over a filibuster and forcing Obama to veto it would undermine American credibility abroad because it would mean the president could no longer guarantee foreign powers when making deals with them that those deals will take effect in the United States. To which I say … yes, that’s the point of the Treaty Clause in Article II. If the president was supposed to have the power to singlehandedly ensure that the treaties he signs are implemented, there’d be nothing in there about the advice and consent of the Senate. In fact, the whole point of the Treaty Clause is to make sure that the president doesn’t try to negotiate any deals with foreign powers that he doesn’t have good reason to believe will appeal to two-thirds of the Senate. If he’s foolish enough to do so then he’s the one who’s undermined American credibility by brokering a deal that he has no reason to think will pass.
....before returning to the comfortable and familiar folds of JASmius Echo Syndrome:
But since O is the alpha and omega and only wingnuts care about stupid legal niceties like this anymore, somehow Congress is in the wrong here for demanding a say.
And they're not even going to get that.
Boy, it sure feels good to be "safer," doesn't it?
UPDATE: As to O's assertion that his "deal" will heal the U.S.-Israel rift that he himself created, interpret that as, "Yeah, I bleeped those warmongering kikes, but where else are they gonna go?"