The Obama doctrine: After me, the flood

According to the framework deal drafted in Lausanne, Iran's breakout time (the amount of time needed to make a nuclear bomb) will increase from two to three months, as it stands today, to a year. The restrictions put in place by the deal, however, are only valid for 10 years, after which they expire. What will happen after that is anyone's guess. Let's ask Barack Obama.

In an interview with National Public Radio, the U.S. president spoke in English. Those who were listening heard him say clearly: "What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero." Did we hear that correctly-

If this is the case then the fear over the emerging permanent status deal is justified, because it merely postpones rather than prevents the nightmare scenario of Iran with nuclear capabilities that are military in nature. In other words, those demanding that nuclear research and development in Iran be curbed; those who want to dismantle the uranium enrichment facilities, like the one hidden underground at Fordo; and those still wondering why Iran needs to enrich uranium in the first place -- are all right. If you didn't want your kids listening to music, would you leave them alone in a room with a loaded CD player only set to "pause"? The reality on the ground, due to the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, is quite the same. What about inspections then? They aren't forever, and already on Tuesday Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif declared his country's refusal to have video cameras installed at the sites. That sounds promising indeed.

The White House, it was reported on Tuesday, sought to clarify what the president meant: that this nightmare scenario would be in play if a deal was not signed. But we heard the president very clearly. If there was no deal, why would the Iranians need to wait 13, 14 or 15 years to breakout to a nuclear bomb? Something here doesn't make sense.

Obama's NPR interview crystallized for us the precise magnitude of the problem with the deal: It doesn't prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb, it only delays it. Regardless, I get the impression that Obama also isn't sold on the deal he is trying to sell us. Obama is preparing a legacy for himself perhaps (a deal with Iran), but for his successor he is leaving behind something far less pleasant (a nuclear Iran). Because he is a young president (may he live until 120), it seems this legacy and inheritance will eventually clash. We, however, would happily forgo the pleasure of watching that unfold.

In the meantime, we still don't know for certain what the Iranians are truly hiding. Who can assure us they haven't concealed other secret uranium enrichment facilities, as they have done three times already in the past decade? No one, not even Obama, can truly provide this assurance. Iran is just as problematic as the deal.

President Obama also deems it unnecessary for the Iranians to recognize Israel's right to exist, as proposed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From Obama's point of view, the nature of the Iranian regime is the reason behind this entire deal in the first place. No problem. But in that case the American president should tell the Iranians: Don't recognize Israel, but as long as you don't recognize Israel, which is a member of the U.N. just like you, the deal won't have an expiration date. Sounds fair? Apparently not to Obama.

"After me, the flood," said France's King Louis XV once upon a time. For some reason, this quote played in my head as I watched Obama's interview yesterday.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו