As ISIS fight rages, Iraq leader seeks help at Davos:

As ISIS fight rages, Iraq leader seeks help at Davos: 21JH. B2

He leader of Iraq expressed optimism in his country’s fight against Islamic extremists Friday but pleaded for more help from the international community and called for outside intervention to end the civil war in Syria. “The challenges are huge,” Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi told “CBS This Morning” co-host Charlie Rose at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I have to be blunt on this … we need help.” Al-Abadi agreed with comments from top U.S. officials that about half of the leadership of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, had been killed in the international coalition’s campaign.

“We have been surprised in some instances that Daesh fighters just flee,” al-Abadi told Rose, using another name for ISIS.

Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the head of U.S. Central Command, told the Wall Street Journal in an interview published Thursday that the U.S. and Iraq were planning for an assault by this summer to retake Mosul.

“It can be done,” al-Abadi told Rose. “I’m telling you, there may be a surprise there.” The prime minister praised Western powers for agreeing in London Thursday to let Iraq defer payment on certain arms sales. He noted later in the conversation with Rose that Iraq had a similar deal with Iran.”They have been very prompt in sending arms, sending munitions without even asking for payment first,” al-Abadi told Rose. “Of course, we pay later.”

“I cannot see a plan to save the Syrian people,” al-Abadi told Rose. “If this war continues in Syria, all it’s doing is damaging Syria, making more refugees, killing more civilians, then it must be stopped.”

source-alex sundby,. Cbs, haider al-abadi, gen lloyd austin, wsj,

White House Press Secretary Forced to Admit that Obama Lied!:

  1. White House Press Secretary Forced to Admit that Obama Lied!: I76.JH. B26

President Obama loves to say things that aren’t true. We know this. He often makes “facts” up out of thin air, only to have those “facts” be mindlessly repeated on the liberal airwaves. Eventually some hack at MSNBC or the Huffington Post will opine about how while Obama may have made “inartful” comments what he said was “basically” right… it’s maddening. For example, let’s take this little gem of a lie that he made up on the fly (I assume) during a speech he was giving in Philadelphia. There is no economic metric by which we are not better off than when I took office. And that is because of the extraordinary will and dedication of the American people, but also because all of you have done a terrific job. And I’m proud of you for that.” What I really love though, is when even the guys Obama pays to make his lies sound reasonable can’t come up with any way to defend him.

Which is exactly what happened to Josh Earnest after Obama’s Philly Flub.

Watch as CBS’ Mark Knoller puts the screws to Earnest by wondering if President Obama included our GROWING national debt as one of the “economic metrics” by which we were better off…

Can anyone even explain what Earnest’s first attempt at a response even means?

What the president has noted is that when you evaluate the deficit, and the deficit is actually fallen by two-thirds since he’s taken office, and the way that we measure that is actually the way that economists evaluate it. They don’t look at just the sum total. What they do is they evaluate the deficit as the percentage of the economy.”

Knoller couldn’t understand Earnest either, which is why he finally go straight for the throat when he asks, “Might you concede that the debt is not a metric that shows we are better off?”

Sadly, Earnest chooses to evade even that question by simply stating that yes… the debt has indeed increased.

I think you would concede, as I would, that the raw math shows that the debt had increased.”

I’m going to go ahead and count this as Earnest admitting that Obama lied for two reasons.

First, he admits that the debt has increased. Second, not even the President’s “yes-man” Earnest can say that the debt increasing is a “good thing.”

So, I say it counts!

Source-onan coca, cbs

Obama Administration Officials LINKED to Muslim Brotherhood Fail to Make List Benghazi Committee Chairman Wants to Interview:

Obama Administration Officials LINKED to Muslim Brotherhood Fail to Make List Benghazi Committee Chairman Wants to Interview: 48JH. B17

IF THIS DOESN’T SHAKE UP THINGS—THEN WE MIGHT AS WELL THROW IN THE TOWEL

It is important that when the House Select Committee on Benghazi does something good, it be acknowledged. Along those lines, Chairman Trey Gowdy should be commended for identifying 20 current and former members of the Obama administration that he plans to interview beginning in early April.
While the names on the list are those of powerful players within the administration, there is a common thread running through some conspicuous names who are
not on the list. That thread is a connection to both the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood, which was involved in the Benghazi attacks through its subgroups like Ansar al-Sharia, al-Qaeda, the Jamal Network, and the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, which was inexplicably contracted to provide security at the Special Mission Compound (SMC).

Names of individuals not on the list but who worked for either the State Department or the White House at the time of the Benghazi attacks and who are also connected to the Muslim Brotherhood include but are not limited to: 1.) Huma Abedin – Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who also remains a close personal aid to Clinton. Though she never left the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, there is a highly questionable arrangement involving Abedin’s time as a Special Government Employee (SGE) at the time of the attacks. Shoebat.com has reported on this extensively. At a minimum, Abedin had a serious conflict of interest at the time of the attacks; her immediately family is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, as Shoebat.com has reported on extensively. One of the members on this Committee, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland knows all about Abedin. He was one of the signatories on a June 13, 2012 letter to the State Department Inspector General that identified Abedin by name. The purpose of the letter was to express concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration at the State Department.

2.) Mehdi K. Alhassani – At the time of the Benghazi attacks, Alhassani was Special Assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff, National Security Council Staff, and Executive Office of the President. On September 14, 2012, he was one of the recipients of the now infamous ‘smoking gun’ email sent by Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, which instructed Susan Rice to point to the Innocence of Muslims video as the reason for the attacks in Benghazi. As Shoebat.com first reported, Alhassani has a history that includes time as President of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at George Washington University. He also partnered with Dr. Yahya Basha and Farah Pandith for a Muslim Brotherhood-friendly tour in 2006.

3.) Rashad Hussain – Very much connected to the global Muslim Brotherhood apparatus. Once tried to cover up his positive comments about convicted terrorist Sami al-Arian. As Obama’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Hussain knows all too well what the primary goal of the OIC is – to make any and all criticism or speech against Islam criminal. In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, riots all over the Middle East outside U.S. diplomatic institutions broke out, and OIC member states attempted to exploit these riots and protests to push that OIC objective. As Shoebat.com has revealed, evidence actually suggests that the Obama administration itself played a role in the production and marketing of that video.
In
a letter to the Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Gowdy listed all 20 names. Among the more prominent names are: Jay Carney, former White House Press Secretary; Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Tom Donilon, former National Security Advisor; Leon Panetta, former Secretary of Defense; Cheryl Mills, Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Denis McDonough, former Deputy National Security Advisor and current Chief of Staff to Barack Obama; Thomas Pickering, Chairman of the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB); Jake Sullivan, a Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton at the time of the attacks; Susan Rice, former UN Ambassador and current National Security Advisor; William Burns, Deputy Secretary of State; Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor who sent out the ‘smoking gun’ email the finally prompted the formation of the Select Committee; and David Petraeus, former CIA Director.

Note: As Shoebat.com reported, the extent to which lead counsel for the Committee, Lt. Gen. Dana K. Chipman has a personal relationship with Gen. Dempsey should be vetted. It is known that a relationship exists. Dempsey hosted Chipman’s retirement ceremony from the military. The host of these ceremonies is typically chosen by the retiree and is often based on things like mentorship, friendship, etc.
Abedin, Alhassani, or Hussain is the Committee’s Executive Director Philip Kiko. As Shoebat.com has reported, the lobbying firm that Kiko has worked for, the Smith-Free Group, lists the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) among its clients. One group in this consortium of groups – Muslim Advocates (MA) – is indeed connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, as Shoebat.com has demonstrated. While Kiko has not represented MA, he has represented other LCCR organizations. If the potential exists for MA to pressure LCCR to pressure Smith-Free not to interview people like Abedin, Alhassani and Hussain, Kiko should recuse himself.

To be fair, Gowdy makes it clear that the 20 witnesses should not be perceived as the only ones.

Indications are that after Gadhafi was removed from power, the U.S. was involved in facilitating weapons shipments out of Benghazi and on to the Syrian rebels. Again, this was a very pro-Muslim Brotherhood policy. In fact, Alhassani’s 2006 partner, Basha, sits on the Board of the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), which seeks to support those Muslim Brotherhood rebels in Syria and is led by Mouaz Moustafa, who also led the Libyan Emergency Task Force (LETF) until Gadhafi fell, as Shoebat.com reported.

SOURCE—walid shoebat, trey gowdy, eljah cummings, gen, dana chipman, den. Dempsey, whose listed above,philip liko, smith-free group

FBI Official: Islamic State Recruiting US Muslim Teens for Jihad:

FBI Official: Islamic State Recruiting US Muslim Teens for Jihad: 34JH. B4

How could this be? We are constantly being told (deceived about) how well assimilated American Muslims are, right? We are constantly being told (deceived) that the Islamic State is not Islamic, right? We are constantly being told (deceived) that going jihad is a cultural thing, a poverty thing, a “misunderstanding” thing, right? And yet hundreds, perhaps thousands, are going jihad.
So what possible connection could these jihad recruiters make with American Muslims?

Islam.

What is being done to stop jihad recruitment in the mosques? Nothing. “FBI official: ISIS is recruiting U.S. teens.”

When asked if there are ISIS cells in the U.S., (FBI’s counterterrorist division, Michael) Steinbach said “there are individuals that have been in communication with groups like ISIL who have a desire to conduct an attack” and those people are living in the U.S. right now, but he says the term “sleeper cells” is too simplistic, because the threat is much more complicated and diffuse. In the U.S., the FBI has seen children as young as 15 recruited by ISIS and Steinbach said he “can’t speak with 100% certainty that individuals of that age group have not gotten over there successfully.” In some cases, Steinbach said parents even encourage their children to be involved with terror groups. “There are individuals out there who are inspired by the message of terrorist groups and they encourage family members, including their children, to follow that path,” he said, adding in those cases, the FBI holds the parents responsible.

Source-pamela geller, jihad watch, pamela brown, wesley bruer, cnn, michael steinbach, fbi

Saudi Arabia And ISIS Both Want The Same Thing: World Domination:

Saudi Arabia And ISIS Both Want The Same Thing: World Domination: 21JH. B2

The brand of Islam that ISIS seeks to impose on the areas of Iraq and Syria that it has conquered has been practiced in Saudi Arabia for centuries.  Just like ISIS, Saudi Arabia also publicly flogs those that “insult Islam.”  Just like ISIS, Saudi Arabia also beheads those that commit serious violations of sharia law.  And it is no secret that the Saudis have been pouring billions upon billions of dollars into organizations that promote jihad all over the globe.  But because they have a quarter of the world’s oil reserves and they pretend to be our friends, we don’t say anything.  They may be more subtle than ISIS, but ultimately they have the same goal as ISIS.  When it is all said and done, the Saudis and ISIS both agree that Islam will ultimately rule the world one day.  The only disagreement is about how to get there.
Approximately one out of every seven people in the world is Muslim.  And the heart of the Muslim world can be found in Saudi Arabia.

And on average there is a beheading in Saudi Arabia every four days.

So where is the outrage? Is it only wrong when ISIS does it?

So precisely how did Jordan choose to respond? They hung two ISIS jihadists. One of them was a woman. And if Islam ever did rule the world, this is the kind of “justice” that would prevail everywhere. In the western world, we have been so trained to accept that the Saudis are our “friends” that we never really stop to consider their nightmarish violations of human rights.

For instance, did you know that there is no minimum age for marriage in Saudi Arabia?  Old men often marry extremely young girls with the full backing of the religious authorities…Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s top religious authority in the ultra-conservative Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam, has ruled it’s acceptable for men to marry girls so young the West would deem it nothing short of pedophilia and rape. Despite the Saudi justice ministry’s failed efforts to date to set 15 as a minimum age to marry a girl in the kingdom, Grand Mufti Abdulaziz declared there is nothing prohibiting Muslim men from marrying girls even younger.

As Grand Mufti, Abdulaziz is president of the Supreme Council of Ulema (Islamic scholars) and chairman of the Standing Committee for Scientific Research and Issuing Fatwas, which means he speaks authoritatively in Islamic teachings. So is pedophilia okay in Saudi Arabia just because they are our “friends”? Why is hardly anyone denouncing this?

And you can forget about “religious freedom” in Saudi Arabia. Not a single church exists in the country, and now there are reports that anyone caught smuggling in a Bible could be beheaded

Unconfirmed reports of a new decree imposing the death penalty on anyone caught smuggling Bibles into Saudi Arabia has many Christian ministries and support groups on edge. Foreign nationals living in Saudi Arabia are often detained for purely religious reasons, sometimes resulting in deportation.

But applying capital punishment, which in Saudi Arabia often means death by beheading, to Bible smugglers would signal a new level of persecution even for the Saudis. Very few nations on the face of the planet have such a level of tyranny. Instead of being our “friends,” we should be loudly condemning these blatant violations of basic human rights. Saudi Arabia is one of the most evil nations on the entire globe.  The fact that they have so much oil should not change anything. And you know what?  People are starting to raise some legitimate questions about where ISIS is getting their money.

Deciding who is funding Isis – and who should take the heat for its survival – depends upon the degree to which the world believes that the “Islamic State” is self-financing. Western governments have detailed the production of oil wells in Isis territory and the vast amounts of cash supposedly stolen from Mosul banks after Isis took over, but smuggling fuel and ransacking vaults can hardly sustain an Islamist “nation” which controls an area larger than the UK. However, throughout his public career in government, Salman has embraced radical Muslim clerics and has been tied to the funding of radical groups in Afghanistan, as well as an organization found to be plotting attacks against America, according to various reports and information provided by David Weinberg.

In 2001, an international raid of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, which Salman founded in 1993, unearthed evidence of terrorist plots against America, according to separate exposés written by Dore Gold, an Israeli diplomat, and Robert Baer, a former CIA officer. Salman is further accused by Baer of having “personally approved all important appointments and spending” at the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a controversial Saudi charity that was hit with sanctions following the attacks of September 11, 2001, for purportedly providing material support to al Qaeda. “Is Barack Obama Actually Trying To Help ISIS Take Over Syria?,” I discussed evidence that seems to indicate that the Obama administration may be attempting to use ISIS and other radical jihadist groups to try to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria.

And it is certainly odd that so many of the “moderate” groups that we fund and train over there end up joining forces with ISIS.  In fact, we just witnessed yet another example of this…Before it even begins, the U.S. training and equipping of Syrian opposition forces to fight the Sunni army ISIS appears to have become more difficult with the decision by a U.S.-backed Syrian rebel group to join an Islamist coalition closely associated with ISIS and the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra Front.

The Hazzm Movement, associated with the Free Syrian Army, is a secular Syrian insurgent group backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. It was one of the last of the non-jihadist opposition groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in northern Syria. Its leadership has decided to join the Islamist coalition of the Levant Front fighting around the key Syrian city of Aleppo, according to Arab news sources, including NOW Lebanon.

So if ISIS is really “the enemy,” then why do so many of the things that we do end up helping them? But in the end, it is very important that we keep one thing in mind. Whether it is the Saudis or whether it is ISIS or whether it is somebody else, virtually all adherents of radical Islam believe that Islam will ultimately rule the entire world. And at this point, approximately one out of every seven people on the planet already live under such tyranny to one degree or another.

Unless you actually want your children and your grandchildren to live under such a system, this should trouble you. Our forefathers intended for our nation to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” and we should be denouncing tyranny in all of its forms – even if it is not “politically correct” to do so.

Source-michael snyder, telegraph, david weinberg, iiro, dore gold, robert baer,

Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s Campaign:

  1. Economic Plan Is a Quandary for Hillary Clinton’s Campaign: 43JH. B12A

Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy. Mrs. Clinton has not had to wade into domestic policy since before she became secretary of state in 2009, and she has spent the past few months engaged in policy discussions with economists on the left and closer to the Democratic Party’s center who are grappling with the discontent set off by the gap between rich and poor. Sorting through the often divergent advice to develop an economic plan could affect the timing and planning of the official announcement of her campaign. she is expected to embrace several principles. They include standard Democratic initiatives like raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure, closing corporate tax loopholes and cutting taxes for the middle class. Other ideas are newer, such as providing incentives to corporations to increase profit-sharing with employees and changing labor laws to give workers more collective bargaining power.

Behind many of these proposals is a philosophy, endorsed by Mrs. Clinton’s closest economic advisers and often referred to as inclusive capitalism, that contends that a majority of Americans do not want to punish the rich; they just want to feel that they, too, have a chance to succeed. It also calls for corporations to put less emphasis on short-term profits that increase shareholder value and to invest more in employees, the environment and communities. “If you work hard, you play by the rules, you ought to be able to get ahead” — resonated with white, working-class voters, who overwhelmingly supported her over Barack Obama.

But in the years since, Mrs. Clinton has come under criticism for delivering speeches to Wall Street banks at more than $200,000 each, roughly four times the median annual household income in the United States, and for comments she made about her family’s financial situation, including a lament about being “dead broke” after leaving the White House. And she must convince a middle class that feels frustrated and left behind that she understands its struggles, even as she relies heavily on the financial industry and corporate interests to fund her candidacy.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she had “a record of bringing people together to solve big problems, while also putting a real premium on accountability.” Mrs. Clinton’s economic plan would be more populist and reliant on the government than the centrist approach of trade agreements, welfare reform and deficit reduction associated with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. “It’s not enough to address upward mobility without addressing inequality,” said Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration who is among those talking with Mrs. Clinton. “The challenge, though, is to address inequality without embracing a politics of envy.”

The debate is extending beyond the Democratic Party as Republicans wade into the issues. “If Americans are working harder than ever, earning less than they once did, our government and our leaders should step up, offer a plan, fix what’s wrong,” former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida said in a speech in Detroit last week as he laid the groundwork for his potential 2016 candidacy.

Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state when some major economic debates took hold on Capitol Hill, and as a result, her economic views are still not broadly known. Working-class women felt betrayed in 1996 when, as first lady, she supported Mr. Clinton’s overhaul of the welfare system, which gave states more power to remove people from welfare rolls and pledged to cut federal spending on assistance for the poor by nearly $55 billion over six years. She was more skeptical about the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mr. Clinton signed into law in 1993 and which has also been accused of hurting American workers. In 2001, she supported bankruptcy legislation that some Democrats — most notably Elizabeth Warren, now senator from Massachusetts — argued hurt working families and single mothers, and they accused her of doing the bidding of the financial industry. Mrs. Clinton has said she worked to improve the bill.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Mrs. Clinton angered some of her Wall Street donors when she came out early in support of the regulation of derivatives and other complicated financial products and called for eliminating the “carried interest” loophole that allowed some financiers to avoid paying millions in income taxes. She also said that as president, she would create a cabinet-level position to fight poverty.

proposed legislation similar to a New Deal-era program that would allow the government to help homeowners refinance their mortgages. She voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which led to the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the multibillion-dollar bailout for automakers.

Last month, Mrs. Clinton reiterated her support for the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. “Attacking financial reform is risky and wrong,” she wrote on Twitter. As she dives back into domestic policy, Mrs. Clinton faces an economy in which, even amid steady job growth, weekly earnings for low- and middle-income workers have remained virtually unchanged for 15 years.

Mr. Reich, who recently sent Mrs. Clinton a five-page memo laying out his ideas, said candidates in both parties needed to abandon the politically safe discussion of upward mobility for the poor and middle class that dominated the 1990s, and instead take on the stickier issue of income distribution.

Upward mobility, equal opportunity — those are safe phrases and safe aspirations,” he said in an interview. “I don’t want to minimize their importance, but they obscure the real issue.”

Mr. Reich is one of some 200 economists and academics who have offered Mrs. Clinton ideas and guidance as she settles on an economic doctrine. Several of Mr. Clinton’s former advisers, including Alan S. Blinder, Robert E. Rubin and Mr. Summers, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Alan B. Krueger, Peter R. Orszag, Teresa Ghilarducci.

Last month in Washington, a 17-person commission convened by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to Mrs. Clinton, presented a 166-page report on “inclusive prosperity,” which is among the numerous economic blueprints Mrs. Clinton has reviewed. For some, the solutions proposed by the committee, of which Mr. Summers was co-chairman, did not go far enough. Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has pushed the idea of a government fee on the sale or purchase of certain financial assets, which he believes could hold Wall Street accountable while funding social services. “Clinton people didn’t want to go near it,” Mr. Baker said.

Mrs. Clinton has not commented on the financial transaction tax or on profit-sharing. Mrs. Clinton frequently talks about the economic success of the Clinton administration, under which median family income, adjusted for inflation, increased to $56,080 in 1999 from $48,884 in 1993, compared with a decline to $51,017 in 2012 from $55,987 in 2000, according to census data. But she has acknowledged that a globalized economy calls for new ideas, and many are urging her to go beyond her comfort zone and address the deeper frustrations of those who have not shared in that economy’s benefits.

People want to answer the question, ‘Are we going to be O.K.?’ ” Mr. Goolsbee said. “And then the natural question is, ‘Whose fault was that, and let’s go find those people.’ ”

source—amy chozick, nick merrill, lawrence summers, alan krueger, alan blinder, robert rubin, joseph stiglitz, peter orszag, teresa ghilarducci, dean baker

Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy: Round Three: 2015- part 6 of 6

  1. THIS IS OBAMA’S SECRET IRAN STRATEGY—ITS A LONG ONE SO I’VE MADE IT INTO PARTS—IF THIS JUST DOESN’T TAKE THE CAKE—WHAT WILL?

  2. Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy:

    Round Three: 2015- part 6 of 6

    He traded permanent American concessions for Iranian gestures of temporary restraint.

    The most significant such gestures by Iran were to dilute its stockpiles of uranium enriched to 20 percent; to refrain from installing new centrifuges; and to place a hold on further construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. All three, however, can be easily reversed. By contrast, the Americans recognized the Iranian right to enrich and agreed to the principle that all restrictions on Iran’s program would be of a limited character and for a defined period of time. These two concessions are major, and because they are not just the policy of the United States government but now the collective position of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, they will likely never be reversed.

    In his negotiations with Iran, the president has traded major American concessions for Iranian gestures of temporary restraint. These concessions will likely never be reversed.

    Obama has repeatedly stated, most recently in his 2015 State of the Union address, that the interim agreement “halted” the Iranian nuclear program. Or, as he put it in his March 2014 interview, the “logic” of the JPOA was “to freeze the situation for a certain period of time to allow the negotiators to work.” But the agreement froze only American actions; it hardly stopped the Iranians from moving forward. Iranian nuclear scientists have continued to perfect their craft. They are learning how to operate old centrifuges with greater efficiency. And thanks to a loophole in the JPOA permitting work on “research and development,” they are also mastering the use of new, more effective centrifuges.

    Therefore, the Iranian nuclear program is poised to surge ahead. The moment the JPOA lapses—a date first scheduled for July 2014, then rescheduled to November 2014, then re-rescheduled to June 30 of this year, possibly to be re-re-rescheduled yet again—Iran will be in a stronger position than before the negotiations began. This fact gives Tehran considerable leverage over Washington during the next rounds.

    We can say with certainty that Obama has had no illusions about this asymmetry—that he conducted the negotiations with his eyes wide open—because the White House took pains to hide the truth from the American public. In 2013, instead of publishing the text of the JPOA, it issued a highly misleading fact sheet. Peppered with terms like “halt,” “roll back,” and “dismantle,” the document left the impression that the Iranians had agreed to destroy their nuclear program. The Iranian foreign minister, however, refused to play along. He protested—loudly and publicly. “The White House version both underplays the [American] concessions and overplays Iranian commitments,” Javad Zarif correctly told a television interviewer. “The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again.” He defied the interviewer to “find a . . . single word that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text.”

    President Rouhani went even further. In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, he emphasized not just that Iran had refused to destroy centrifuges within the terms of the JPOA, but that it would never destroy them “under any circumstances.” Currently Iran has approximately 9,000 centrifuges installed and spinning, and roughly 10,000 more installed but inactive. Until Rouhani made his statement, the Obama administration had led journalists to believe that the final agreement would force the Iranians to dismantle some 15,000 centrifuges.Rouhani disabused the world of those expectations.

    Khamenei’s hard line no doubt came as a surprise to Obama. When the president first approved the JPOA, he failed to recognize a key fact: his twin goals of liberating Iran from its international isolation and stripping the Islamic Republic of its nuclear capabilities were completely at odds with each other. From Obama’s perspective, he was offering Khamenei an irresistible deal: a strategic accommodation with the United States. Iran analysts had led the president to believe that Khamenei was desperate for just such an accommodation, and to achieve that prize he was searching only for a “face-saving” nuclear program—one that would give him a symbolic enrichment capability, nothing more. What soon became clear, however, was that Khamenei was betting that Obama would accommodate Iran even if it insisted on, and aggressively pursued, an industrial-scale program.

    Rather than leaving the table, he has paid Iran to keep negotiating—paid literally, in the form of sanctions relief, which provides Iran with $700,000,000 per month in revenue; and figuratively, with further concessions on the nuclear front.

    Over the last year, Obama has reportedly allowed Iran to retain, in one form or another, its facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Arak—sites that Iran built in flagrant violation of the NPT to which it is a signatory. This is the same Obama who declared at the outset of negotiations that the Iranians “don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. . . . And so the question ultimately is going to be, are they prepared to roll back some of the advancements that they’ve made.” The answer to his question, by now, is clear: the Iranians will not roll back anything.

    In an effort to bolster that initiative, Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington to address Congress on Iran. Netanyahu accepted the invitation without first consulting the White House, which reacted in a storm of indignation, describing the move as an egregious break in protocol and an insult to the president. Instead of trying to paper over the disagreement, Obama has done everything in his power to advertise it. In making his personal rift with Netanyahu the subject of intense public debate, the White House means to direct attention away from the strategic rift between them—and from the fact that the entire Israeli elite, regardless of political orientation, as well as much of the U.S. Congress, regards the president’s conciliatory approach to Iran as profoundly misguided.

    Meanwhile, the president is depicting his congressional critics as irresponsible warmongers. Obama, however, is intent on obscuring this option, and for a simple reason: an honest debate about it would force him to come clean with the American people and admit the depth of his commitment to the strategy whose grim results are multiplying by the day.

    As a matter of ideology as much as strategy, Obama believes that integrating Iran into the international diplomatic and economic system is a much more effective method of moderating its aggressive behavior than applying more pressure. Contrary to logic, and to all the accumulated evidence before and since the November 2013 interim agreement, he appears also to believe that his method is working. In his March 2014 interview, he argued that his approach was actually strengthening reformers and reformist trends in Tehran: “[I]f as a consequence of a deal on their nuclear program,” he said, “those voices and trends inside of Iran are strengthened, and their economy becomes more integrated into the international community, and there’s more travel and greater openness, even if that takes a decade or 15 years or 20 years, then that’s very much an outcome we should desire.”

    Perhaps the president is correct. Perhaps globalization will remove the roughness from the Islamic Republic just as ocean waves polish the jagged edges of shells. If so, however, it will happen on much the same, oceanic schedule. In the meantime, the seasoned thugs in Tehran whom the president has appointed as his strategic partners in a new world order grow stronger and bolder: ever closer to nuclear breakout capacity, ever more confident in their hegemonic objectives. On condition that they forgo their nuclear ambitions, the president has offered them “a path to break through [their] isolation” and become “a very successful regional power.” They, for their part, at minuscule and temporary inconvenience to themselves, have not only reaped the economic and diplomatic rewards pursuant to participation in the JPOA but also fully preserved those nuclear ambitions and the means of achieving them. Having bested the most powerful country on earth in their drive for success on their terms, they have good reason to be confident.

    Sources—ben rhodes, david sanger, nyt, leslie gelb, ehud barak, saud al-faisal, recep tayyip erdogan, jake sullivan, puneet talwar, susan rice, robert einhorn, denis mcdonough, the new yorker, david remnick, farred zakaria, javad zarif, lee smith, hudson inst.,