Obama's bag of fibs
The book "Bag of Fibs" is a collection of stories that, despite being largely fabricated, have entered the lore of the Palmach, the paramilitary organization in pre-state Israel. They include a now-famous story about a public figure who was about to talk to new recruits. He had a list of arguments on why the Palmach was not doing more against Arab terrorists. Next to one argument he scribbled: "Weak argument, raise voice."
Someone must have sent a translation of this book to U.S. President Barack Obama. Senators from both parties believe his emerging nuclear deal is riddled with holes, just like many of those Palmach tall tales. The deal is like a strainer, with too many holes and too few Iranian guarantees to forgo the development of nuclear weapons.
And just like that Palmach-era politician, Obama has raised his voice to compensate for his ineffective argument. He wants to drive home the message that the deal he is so keen on signing will define his presidency, hoping this argument would convince Democratic senators to rally behind him and serve as cardboard props on his stage, despite their uneasiness over his far-reaching concessions. This reasoning is probably as lame as it gets.
The talks reached crunch time on Sunday night. Now, so it seems, both sides have stopped their arm twisting and joined forces for a new cause: convincing their own publics that they have managed to deceive their adversary. They now have a shared interest.
The various provisions of the deal will be scrutinized at length after it is submitted to Congress for review and spread worldwide. But for now there is one over-arching conclusion: Iran secured tangible gains whose overall impact is crystal clear. The American accomplishments, if you accept the negotiators' claims that there are any, are amorphous; only time will tell whether they grow into something corporeal.
The U.S., along with the West and Israel, got the short end of the stick owing to the shortcomings of the Obama administration. A different occupant in the White House -- either Republican or Democrat -- would have led different negotiations. We have reached this point not because Obama is incapable of getting the job done, but because his set of priorities -- shaped by his worldview -- is different than all of his predecessors.
Obama was naturally supportive of the Arab Spring. He was also predisposed to back the myth that toppling pro-American regimes would better serve humanity. That, and his assessment that the Middle East is no longer an invaluable asset for America, reinforced his determination to avoid conflict. As a consequence, we now have a deal that will let Iran rake in billions of dollars. With this deal in place, it is also very unlikely that we will see a restive populace topple the ayatollah regime. Some 15 years after the "American Century" ended, the U.S. is in need of a political blood transfusion to reinvigorate its leaders.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו