Three Ds

The Obama administration and its trained hamsters in the media are working overtime to emphasize "progress" in negotiations with Iran. This, from the Associated Press:

GENEVA (AP) — Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.

Officials said there were still obstacles to overcome before a March 31 deadline, and any deal will face harsh opposition in both countries. It also would be sure to further strain already-tense U.S. relations with Israel, whose leaders oppose any agreement that doesn't end Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to strongly criticize the deal in an address before Congress next week.

Still, a comprehensive pact could ease 35 years of U.S-Iranian enmity — and seems within reach for the first time in more than a decade of negotiations.

"We made progress," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Progress toward what, exactly?

In the 35-plus years since Iran invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held hostages for over 400 days, they have exhibited the three-Ds—duplicity, dishonesty, and deception. Time after time, the radical Islamic leaders of Iran have been duplicitous in their dealing with the west, dishonest about their intentions and their actions in a broad range of issues, and deceitful with the nuclear watchdog  IAEA as the Mullahs rush to become a nuclear power.

Barack Obama and his Team of 2s are willfully ignoring past history and disregarding the three-Ds in the hope of reaching an "historic" agreement. If an agreement is reached it will be historic, but for all the wrong reasons. It will set the stage for Iran's efforts to become a nuclear power. It will ultimately destabilize (even further) the Middle East, it will lead to broad nuclear proliferation in an already unstable region, and it just might lead to World War III. But the Team of 2s doesn't care. All that matter's is Obama's foreign policy legacy. Therefore, the Team of 2s needs to seed media reports with positive stories about the negotiations in order to blunt Bibi Netanyahu's upcoming criticism of the projected deal in his speech before Congress next week.

Even more troubling, there are reports that the reason the Obama administration has been particularly soft on the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is because they need the Russians—a member of the P5+1 negotiating team, if a deal with Iran is reached. If this is true, and I suspect it is, we can conclude that in order to get a bad deal with a duplicitous, dishonest and deceptive enemy, the Team of 2s is willing to sell the Ukraine—an ally—down the river. That gives them a 2-fer, because they have been perfectly willing to sell another ally—Israel—down the river as well.

Hmmm. Maybe the three-Ds is applicable to more than just Iran.

UPDATE:
----------------------
Rudy Giuliani is persona non gratia for those on the left. He had the temerity to suggest (using indelicate language to be sure) that Barack Obama views the United States somewhat differently than past presidents. But the fact that Rudy is in the media doghouse doesn't mean that his views should be dismissed on other issues, including Iran. In a recent speech, he said:

So let’s review the [proposed] agreement, because this is really what’s at stake here. And then one other thing that’s so important. Iran wants, it says, the peaceful use of nuclear power. Iran has 300 years of natural gas and oil reserves and they haven’t started fracking or hydraulic drilling yet. They may have 1000 years of reserves. I’m an expert on energy because that’s what my law firm does. Iran does not need a nuclear power plant for power. They got plenty of energy, plenty of energy to export to the rest of the world. There is no reason in the world for them to have the peaceful use of nuclear power. Maybe France needs it. Maybe countries without natural resources need it, but Iran doesn’t need it. So why have they been doing this? They’ve been doing this because they want to become a nuclear power. Not only that, they have written that, they have said that, they have described that. The president reformer who runs Iran, Rouhani, in ’03 and ’05 continued to enrich uranium while they had a standstill agreement with us. He did it secretly and bragged about it, and we’re negotiating with them. This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that? A moron. [applause] An agreement with Iran with regard to nuclear power should be very simple. Iran should not be allowed to have any form of nuclear power. [emphasis mine]

There's an old saying that seems appropro. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The problem with the Team of 2s is that they're fooled all the time, but because they think they're the smartest guys in the room, there's no room for shame.

UPDATE (2/25/15):
------------------------------------
As expected and previously predicted in this blog, the Obama administration is now in full-throated anti-Netanyahu mode as the date of the Israeli Prime Minister's speech to a joint session of congress approaches. The Wall Street Journal reports:

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama ’s national security adviser castigated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying the Israeli leader’s plan to address a joint session of Congress next week has been “destructive” to the relationship between the two countries.

The remarks by Susan Rice , by far the sharpest yet over the planned March 3 speech by Mr. Netanyahu, came in a television interview late Tuesday and underscored the extent of the rift that has opened between Mr. Netanyahu and the White House over the issue of the Obama administration’s push for an international accord on Iran’s nuclear program.

Mr. Netanyahu accepted an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), who offered it without consulting Democratic leaders or the White House. Mr. Netanyahu plans to speak against a possible deal with Iran.

Ms. Rice said during a Tuesday appearance on the Charlie Rose talk show that the invitation and speech represent an infusion of domestic partisan politics in what has traditionally been a bipartisan support for Israel and is problematic.

“On both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it’s destructive of the fabric of the relationship,” she said, adding that the relationship has “always been bipartisan, we need to keep it that way.”

So ... Susan Rice, a leading member of Obama's Team of 2s, suggests that listening to another viewpoint from an ally who is directly and existentially affected by Obama's decision on Iran is "destructive," and by implication, that the only way to achieve "bi-partisanship" is to agree blindly with this president. Recall that Barack Obama has disregarded Iran's many, many transgressions and lies over the past 30 years. He has looked the other way as Iran has sponsored Islamic terror on a global scale. He wants to make nice with the Mullahs.

But Bibi makes a speech in front of Congress and all hell brakes loose. If this tantrum wasn't so predictable it would be unbelievable. But this is the Obama presidency, so vicious attacks on those who question Obama's policies are standard operating procedure.

The Democrat Party should be ashamed of this temper tantrum, particularly because many members are reported to be very uncomfortable with (1) the projected Iranian deal and (2) Obama's evolving and accelerating anti-Israel positions. But like the Stepford wives, they march zombi-like behind this president. It's too late to hold Barack Obama to account. It's not too late to consider whether a political party that supports this level of viciousness against a long-time ally is worthy of leading this country anywhere at any time in the foreseeable future.

Disgusting.