Obama on the Iran deal: it will have my name on it, therefore you should trust me
If you were looking for a monument to supreme egotism, you would have to go far to beat Obama’s statement in this interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg:
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
I rack my brain to think of another president in our history—or another statesman or even another prominent politician—who would think to say “trust me, because my ego is riding on this.” What on earth does ego have to do with judgment?
In the calculus of what are the most important considerations about any Iran deal, the most important would be “our profound national-security interests” and those of the entire world. That’s what’s riding on it, that’s the reason to “lock it down” (odd phrase for negotiations). The state of Obama’s personal reputation ought to be so low on the list of things to think about that it shouldn’t even be on his radar screen at this point, much less ours.
And yet Obama features it quite prominently, and this is supposed to reassure us? That he would think that way is bad enough, but if he does, he should at least have the good judgment to keep quiet about it. Instead, Obama talks to us about it. His “me, me, me-ism” appears to be something so basic to his thought process that he doesn’t even realize how inappropriately egocentric it sounds.
Obama says he’s got a special personal interest in “locking this down.” But an agreement on nuclear weapons with Iran is not merely a question of applying oneself. Obama may think there’s no limits to his powers, but sizing up Iran and negotiating with a country which is essentially an aggressive, repressive, fanatical enemy isn’t just a matter of trying hard enough and thinking you’re the smartest guy in the room. Even if it were true that Obama wanted and even needed to negotiate a good deal for the US in order to protect his precious reputation, that doesn’t mean he has a clue how to get there from here, or that it’s even possible to do so.
More is revealed in the following passage from Goldberg’s article on his interview with Obama [emphasis mine]:
In the wake of what seemed to have been a near-meltdown in the relationship between the United States and Israel, Obama talked about what he called his love for the Jewish state; his frustrations with it when it fails to live up to both Jewish and universal values; and his hope that, one day soon, its leaders, including and especially its prime minister, will come to understand Israel’s stark choices as he understands Israel’s stark choices. And, just as he did with Saudi Arabia, Obama issued a warning to Israel: If it proves unwilling to live up to its values””in this case, he made specific mention of Netanyahu’s seemingly flawed understanding of the role Israel’s Arab citizens play in its democratic order””the consequences could be profound.
Does anyone on earth believe that Obama “loves” “the Jewish state”? If so, he certainly has a funny way of showing it (“you always hurt the one you love”). But the telling part is that he thinks he is an expert not just on what the US wants from Israel (that, at least, would make a certain amount of sense, since he is the US president and is supposed to represent us) but that he is an expert on Israel’s “stark choices.” He seems to think that he sees those choices more clearly than the Israeli leaders do, and that it is they who should come over to his way of thinking about their own country.
In addition, Obama says that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s understanding of “the role Israel’s Arab citizens play in its democratic order” is “flawed” (unlike Obama’s). Of course, this being Obama, he’s misstating what Netanyahu actually said. Here’s Obama [emphasis mine]:
…[G]oing into [the Israeli] election…there [was] discussion in which it appeared that Arab-Israeli citizens were somehow portrayed [by Netanyahu] as an invading force that might vote, and that this should be guarded against””this is contrary to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that all people regardless of race or religion are full participants in the democracy. When something like that happens, that has foreign-policy consequences, and precisely because we’re so close to Israel, for us to simply stand there and say nothing would have meant that this office, the Oval Office, lost credibility when it came to speaking out on these issues.
Here’s what Netanyahu actually said. The context was a discussion of turnout and who was behind left-wing “get out the vote” efforts [emphasis mine]:
Funding from foreign governments to get more Israeli Arabs to vote worked, which means all right-wing voters must make sure to go to the polls, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Tuesday.
“The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are going en masse to the polls. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses,” he said…
“We only have you,” a visibly tired Netanyahu pleaded. “Go to the polls, bring your friends and family, vote Mahal [Likud] to close the gap between us and Labor [Zionist Union].”
Netanyahu later clarified that “what’s wrong is not that Arab citizens are voting, but that massive funds from abroad from left-wing NGOs and foreign governments are bringing them en masse to the polls in an organized way, thus twisting the true will of all Israeli citizens who are voting, for the good of the Left.”
Left-wing Americans were instrumental in funding and organizing that get-out-the-vote effort, and some of the people helping the campaign against Netanyahu were people who had previously worked for Obama:
A coalition of U.S.-funded progressive groups has planned a massive get-out-the-vote effort to influence the Israeli elections, targeting communities that are most likely to vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-leaning Likud Party, according to a confidential strategy memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The U.S.-based 501(c)(3) group Ameinu sent out the fundraising proposal for the campaign to American donors on Dec. 17, 2014.
The $3 million initiative is described in the document as “a massive, non-partisan Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign targeting selected demographic and geographic segments of Israeli society.”
The targeted groups listed in the memo””young secular Israelis, low-income secular Jews, and Arab Israelis””are communities that traditionally oppose right-leaning parties such as Likud.
So Netanyahu was asking Likud voters to energize themselves and get their vote out in order to win despite the high turnout of Arab voters orchestrated by the left (including the American left) in order to defeat him. Obama knew that or should have known it, but he’s demagoguing in order to brand Netanyahu with his favorite charge, racism.
There’s more—much more—in the interview with which to disagree. Basic to Obama’s argument for his Iran deal is the idea that despite everything, Iran is a rational actor. I see no evidence, in either word or deed, that it is true. Obama argues that it is, however:
They [antisemitic European nations throughout history] may make irrational decisions with respect to discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the costs here [in the Iran negotiations] are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in, and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to strike an agreement on their nuclear program.
Let’s go through these ideas in order:
(1) Antisemitic European nations such as Nazi Germany not only made “irrational decisions with respect to discrimination” of Jews, but they did not do so only “at the margins, where the costs are low.” The costs were high. An enormous amount of the energy and resources that could have been directed towards the war effort itself were directed by the Nazis towards killing the Jews, even towards the end of the war when Germany faced severe shortages of resources of all kinds (including manpower).
(2) In order for Obama’s threats of sanctions or the military option to work to intimidate the Iranian leaders into compliance, the Iranian leaders would have to believe he actually meant it. They are smart people, and they are well aware that his record indicates that he is a paper tiger.
(3) Yes, the Iranian leaders are very interested in retaining power and in getting out of their economic rut. This does motivate them to agree with the US on a nuclear deal, just as Obama says it would. But it does not motivate them to comply with such a deal. It makes sense for them to agree with it, get sanctions lifted, improve economically as a result, and fail to cooperate either through deceit and/or defiance, saying to the west: So, what are you going to do about it? The answer would almost certainly be “nothing,” as has been revealed by the last few years.
(4) I didn’t read the entire interview, but I don’t think that Obama even addressed the fact that Iran’s anti-semitism is embedded in a larger apocalyptic religious vision of theirs that does not shrink from massive destruction and death. This is the basis for the reasoning of those who argue that Iran is not a rational actor like most countries. Obama cannot counter that argument, except as an article of faith—his own—that it is simply not so.
All the more reason to be against this bill.
Many people trusted Obama’s promises about the future benefits of Obamacare. That didn’t work out now did it?
I’m telling you, the Obama presidency is all about Barack.
He will make the Clintons look like pikers on the speaker/bribe circuit if this TTP bill passes. Apple, Cisco, GE, etc will line up to pay him back.
We can safely assume, about ANYTHING AT ALL that President Obama says, that he is:
(a) shamelessly lying through his teeth;
(b) talking about himself;
(c) both at once.
I truly see no reason to believe anything he says. We can discuss, if you like, what reason he might have for making nice-nice with American Jews (and/or Israelis), and what motivates him in that… but picking through his words, looking for kernels of truth, is a waste of time.
Daniel in Brookline:
I don’t think it’s a waste of time.
Not all the readers here are convinced of Obama’s egotism, or see the flaws in his thought process. The commenters represent only a very small fraction of the whole.
Shame on his voters.
Shame!
G6loq:
There’s a lot of shame to go around.
Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t seem to accept any share of it.
It’s easy to trust evil. Evil is going to do what evil does. So it’s easy to trust.
“I don’t think that Obama even addressed the fact that Iran’s anti-semitism is embedded in a larger apocalyptic religious vision ”
Why would you think that this intellectual midget would know anything at all about that? If it ain’t about him, he don’t know it.
It’s getting harder and harder to figure out why people voted for him in the first place, let alone still believe in him.
“…If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on it…
Psychoanalysis notwithstanding, does anyone in their right mind believe he’s ever going to take responsibility for it as a “personal” failure when they do get one? And use it? Does anyone believe any media outlet will go interview him and suggest it?
This is a man-child who has never taken responsibility for anything, no matter how minor the issue. And nobody has ever held him responsible for anything. If they manage to use a nuke on Israel, and a million bodies are piled up, and the Iranians proudly state that it was Obama who enabled them to do this, does anyone believe our media would blame him, or even ask him if he regretted anything he did? Seriously.
Besides the egotistical component, that was one of the most outrageous things he’s ever said.
His name is automatically not trusted.
My opinion of the boychild is not fit for polite company. A more loathsome gollum is hard to find outside of north korea.
“Lock it down” is the lingo of the boiler room… of the HARD SELL.
The con “Locks the (fish) down” and completes the con/ closes the sale.
Some idea of this is scripted into “Glengarry Glen Ross.”
At this point… the ayatollah is at ABC:
Always be closing…
aka
Ayatollah be conning….
The above (lingo) connection is why newbie convicts were known is “fish” in prison — as they were ‘newly locked-down.’
The lingo was brought into the prison system by con artists — and spread to the general prison population.
You’ll see the term ‘fish’ constantly used in the Rockford Files — and of course, that hit series was larded with con jobs.
Folks, we are all newly trapped ‘fish’ — being ‘locked-down’ by the “Long-Legged Mackdaddy.” (super pimp)
Long-Legged = Really gets around = biggest pimping grounds
In pimp culture, the more you roam the more you own, the bigger your hustle.
The ayatollah has entirely incorporated this street under-culture into both his casual slang and his ego.
He’s rather short on super-ego — in the Freudian sense.
Extended analysis such as neo’s of BO is always worthwhile for the object lesson it provides.
BO is all kinds of exemplary stupid.
I couldn’t bring myself to read the Goldberg interview, so thank you, Neo, for once again doing the heavy-lifting on yet another Obama abomination. It’s important to never, ever stop rebutting his words.
About Netanyahu — that he is a racist is now a meme that’s out there and will probably never die. I recently read an interview with the actress Natalie Portman, who was born in Israel and is still a staunch defender of the country, but she felt obliged to spout that lie about Netanyahu. Very depressing.
A tissue of lies, offered as rationalization for an ‘audience’ in denial of reality.
When Obama speaks of “locking this down” he’s referring to the political cover he’s constructing for himself. His future meme will be that he got an ‘iron-clad’ agreement out of Iran and that, his successor failed to hold the Iranians to it.
Also of course, that it’s Bush’s fault. That, had he never invaded Iraq, Iran never would have felt the ‘existential’ need for a ‘protective’ nuclear umbrella.
Obama directly speaks of the risk to his personal reputation as reassurance not to those opposed to him but to the LIVs. Apparently, with the help of the MSM, it’s a workable strategy.
Obama issuing another warning to Netanyahu is of course another veiled threat. Start cooperating or face the consequences, which will be disastrous for Israel. It’s a real threat. The consequences to which Obama refers are the increasing reduction of America’s economic and military aid and most importantly, the ending of America’s support for Israel in the U.N.
Obama can support harsh, punitive U.N. actions against Israel at any time and there’s nothing Congress can do about it.
Obama’s falsely portraying Netanyahu, as characterizing Arab-Israeli citizens, as an invading force, while contrasting it to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence… is an Alinskyite tactic. Take the truth; that most Arab-Israeli citizens are opposed to Israel’s existence but deny it and then, demand that Israel deny that reality by living up to its most noble aspirations, regardless of how suicidal.
Speaking of suicidal, Israel allowing a coalition of U.S.-funded progressive groups to assist and fund left-wing Israeli NGOs is an invitation to disaster. The simple truth is that Israel’s Left is as committed to Israel’s destruction, as is Iran.
Obama’s counter to the argument that Iran is not a rational actor is for the American public to place their faith in his assurance that it is simply not so. He knows that he only needs enough people to accept that assurance in order to “lock this down” and, with near 50% approval, he has it.
That by now, “Not all the readers here are convinced of Obama’s egotism, or see the flaws in his thought process” is proof positive that those people will not be convinced.
“It’s easy to trust evil.”
After 6 years of exposure, anyone who still trusts the man is in willful denial.
“Why would you think that this intellectual midget would know anything at all about that?”
It is IMO, a grave mistake to believe Obama to be an intellectual midget and that he is not fully conversant with Islam’s theological imperatives. He knows of that which he does, which is a definitive characteristic of evil; i.e. intentional malevolence.
Matthew at 4:41 pm,
They rationalize pride, in what they support, as proof of worthiness and, justify denial of reality, out of fear of being wrong because that would be proof of unworthiness.
starlord,
Obama is simply the most visible symbol, the MSM the organ of denial. All those on the left, to one degree or another are in denial of critical aspects of reality. The left’s tenets and liberal support are impossible without that denial of reality. Which is why they will eventually lose but given the world’s current state, before their ‘philosophy’ is tossed upon history’s ash heap, “there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth”.
neo: “……..I don’t think that Obama even addressed the fact that Iran’s anti-semitism is embedded in a larger apocalyptic religious vision of theirs that does not shrink from massive destruction and death. This is the basis for the reasoning of those who argue that Iran is not a rational actor like most countries. Obama cannot counter that argument, except as an article of faith–his own–that it is simply not so.”
I wonder how much his attitude about Iran is shaped by Valerie Jarrett. She is Iranian by birth, has relatives there, and seems to have a benign attitude about the Mullahs. Why that is seems hard to understand.
Their are many people in Iran that would like to be free of the Muslim theocracy, but they have no love for the U.S. Should the theocracy ever fall, I doubt that the new government would be all that friendly toward the U.S. and Israel, but might be somewhat less apocalyptic – possibly a bit more rational. The average Iranian has been fed a diet of anti U.S. and Israel propaganda to an extent that they have no idea how much of their economic angst and lack of freedom stems directly from the Mullahs actions and not those of the Great Satan.
Obama’s “deal” with Iran may well be the absolute worst thing he has done. And that includes a long list of awful things he has done.
Let’s see, Your Infantile Majesty…IF the Mullahs have a Bomb in a few years it has your “name on it”? Just as you’ve been honest, honorable and manly enough to step up and take responsibility for your many f*** ups? Or, at least a few of the many? Right?
Nope, you useless POS, as usual you’ll Blame George W. Bush. His dog Barney’s lawn poop is far more honorable than any cell on your scrawny body.
It is bad enough that Obama has a big ego and is narcissistic. The worst part of the interview is Obama’s obvious contempt for Netanyahu. That part of the interview unmasks Obama’s true allegiance to the Islamist agenda.
The fact that Obama and his leftist sympathizers intervened in the last Israeli election is bad enough and reeks of leftist imperialism which blends imperceptibly into Islamic Imperialism. He and the left view Israel as their colony to be used and manipulated as they desire. Obviously, Obama does not respect the will of the majority of Israelis.
Obama and the left must know that the Israeli Arabs vote for leftist/Islamist candidates. If that were not so they would not have spent so much time and money to stage a get out the vote drive for them which included busing them to the poling places. This knowledge makes Obama’s attitude towards Netanyahu’s counter vote drive for his own conservative base all the more reprehensible. According to Obama it is OK for the left to target voters of a specific ethnic group but it is unforgivable for Netanyahu to target another ethnic group which usually votes conservative in reaction to the lefts’ intervention.
It is not enough for the American left that they have interfered in the election of another sovereign nation but they have now gone the next step and are have demonized a politician of the victim nation who called them out in order to limit the damage to his own party by that foreign intervention. Obama and the left act as if they have more rights in Israel than do the Israelis themselves. They think they own Israel and thus have the right to rig Israeli elections. This is how an imperial power would behave in one of their colonies.
What NCS said. If President Obama takes responsibility for something bad that happened on his watch, it might well be a first for him.
parker Says:
May 23rd, 2015 at 5:11 pm
A more loathsome gollum is hard to find outside of north korea.…
Stay posted!
“God willing.” He sounds like a muzzie.
Frog:
That is also a common expression among Jews.
“Basic to Obama’s argument for his Iran deal is the idea that despite everything, Iran is a rational actor.”
Compared to Saddam’s Iraq, Iran is a rational actor, but one can be a rational actor with a radically different script.
Most of all, the notion of rational actor applied to Iran seems to be erroneously implying that it means self-restricting.
“(2) In order for Obama’s threats of sanctions or the military option to work to intimidate the Iranian leaders into compliance, the Iranian leaders would have to believe he actually meant it. They are smart people, and they are well aware that his record indicates that he is a paper tiger.”
This goes to why it’s important to set the record straight on Operation Iraqi Forward moving forward, not just looking back.
The cultural conception and political judgement of OIF is path setting.
If Presidents HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush were right to strictly enforce the terms of ceasefire, particularly the disarmament mandates, with Iraq, then President Obama has been wrong with Iran. And vice versa.
Oops. Fix: This goes to why it’s important to set the record straight on Operation Iraqi
ForwardFreedom moving forward, not just looking back.Frog: VERY common among Christians. Oh, and AA Members. ((-:
The elephant in the room is the GOP establishment that is doing precious little to oppose Obama. They are a big part of the problem.
They are a big part of the problem.
As such, they, are the problem ….
The worst thing in this disgusting speech from this unspeakably vile, evil and contemptible individual was not the overwhelming antisemitic arrogance of an unhinged egomaniac deigning to lecture Jews on what is good for them. It was the anti-Americanism from an American President who appallingly compared American antisemitism to that from Europe and Iran.
Yes there has been antisemitism in America, just ask Pat Buchanan. But I missed the part where millions of American Jews were herded into concentration camps and gassed. Or where America threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”. My grandfather immigrated here from the Russian Empire by himself at the age of 14 and thank G-d he did. It is dismal that so many of my fellow American Jews cannot, or refuse, to see through Obama. Denial has been a coping mechanism for antisemitism for centuries but it is not always an effective one.
I may have made a mistake above. Obama may have made that reference not in his speech but in the interview with his obsequious bootlicking toady Jeff Goldberg that was published in the Atlantic. Does not change the sense of what I said one iota.
Obamby addressed the Coast Guard Academy warning that climate change was the number one security threat to the US. Painful!
Arab media reaction. Amusing!
Hussein loyalists and believers are too busy proving the anti American propaganda true.
This is so wrong on so many levels. Chairman O’s word is not worth anything, so what good is any promise made?
This reminds me of the “Lifetime” warranties of the late night infomercials. When the product fails after days/weeks/months, you may be told: Sorry, It is past the lifetime of the product.