Obama on NPR: Sure, this Iran deal only delays the inevitable

You thought the nuclear deal with Iran was "historic" and would keep the Iranians from getting the bomb, right? OK, you didn't actually think that, but you thought the Obama Administration was at least willing to claim as much to put a happy face on such a horrendous pile of crap, didn't you? Turns out even Obama himself is now admitting the deal does no such thing. Even assuming Iran's complete cooperation with all the supposed terms, even assuming no cheating, even assuming they allow inspections when our side says they're warranted, even assuming no covert sites spinning centrifuges like crazy . . . and these are all very big assumptions, we're still looking at a nuclear Iran probably some time in the next decade.

---

Who says so? John Bolton? Tom Cotton? How about Barack Obama?

"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," Obama said. The stark admission -- after his energy secretary even claimed the deal was a "forever agreement" -- came as the president seeks to quiet a growing chorus questioning whether the deal he and world leaders have negotiated merely delays the certainty of a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama has insisted confidently that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on his watch, which ends in roughly 20 months, but has made no similar assurances about his successors. Although Obama acknowledged that Iran's breakout time could shrink, he said at least the world would have better insight into Iran's capabilities because of extensive inspections in the earlier years. "The option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished," Obama said.

Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran's breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.

---

---

So there you go, Israel. Enjoy the 13 years you've got left, and thank Barack Obama for every one of them. I guess we've now reached the point where, having worked out the framework, Obama figures he's done selling the deal and now he can start managing expectations. Oh, hey, sure, you didn't really think we could keep them from getting the bomb, did you? We just bought everyone some time. So here's a question: Why the time limit on the deal at all? If it's really so important to keep Iran from getting the bomb (and it is), why not make the restrictions permanent? The only reason I can think of is that Iran wouldn't agree to that, in which case we go back to the issue of what happens when you're so motivated to get a deal - any deal, no matter how terrible - that you'll sign a bad one rather than walk away, impose further sanctions and review your military options. For all his insistence that his critics are mindless simpletons, Obama is the simpleton. He keeps insisting that the "inevitable critics" prefer war to this dreg of a deal, as if there is nothing in between the two. What his inevitable critics want is to make Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions by making them pay a real price if they don't. The Obama approach is to remove all threats of military action, remove all economic sanctions, trust Iran to keep its word . . . and then sign a deal that even he doesn't claim keeps them from getting the bomb. And he asks: Is war preferable to that? Answer: Just about anything is preferable to that.

---