As if Putin’s “unwanted excursion” into the Ukraine wasn’t enough for Obama to bungle, today he meets with Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu concerning Obama’s wishes that Israel give have of its country to the nomadic tribe known as the Palestinians, returning Israel to where it was before the 1967 War, and to attempt to assure Netanyahu that Obama’s “deal” with Iran, will not result in the nuclear annihilation of Israel.

Fox News reports that

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet Monday with the major topics expected to be a potential Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and international efforts to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

The leaders will meet on the sidelines of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington.

Ahead of the meeting, Obama had some tough words for the Israeli leader, saying that if Netanyhau “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Bloomberg News reported.

Before leaving for the United States, Netanyahu said the two leaders would discuss the Iranian issue and the diplomatic process for mapping out a peace agreement, but said he’d be “steadfast” in defending Israel.

“I will stand steadfast on the State of Israel’s vital interests, especially the security of Israel’s citizens,” he said.

Netanyahu has for years appealed to the U.S. and other allies to stop Iran’s purported efforts to build a nuclear weapon — arguing that achieving that goal is within the grasps of the neighboring, rival country.

Iran has agreed to a deal, opposed by Netanyahu, to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for some easing of international sanctions.

Republicans have led a congressional effort to enact more sanctions — against the wishes of the Obama administration — should Iran fail to fulfill its end of the deal.

APAIC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, had supported the sanctions but now opposes them.

The group recently backed efforts by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to halt the largely GOP Senate effort, saying the timing isn’t right for the upper chamber to vote on the sanctions. The bipartisan bill is co-sponsored by Menendez.

Netanyahu is also scheduled to meet this week with Secretary of State John Kerry and congressional leaders and deliver the APAIC keynote address Tuesday.

Obama is expected to ask Netanyahu to agree to a framework for the so-called “final status” peace agreement.

Kerry has set a goal of April 29 for getting the sides to agree on the final deal, after getting them back to the negotiating table this past summer. However, the Obama administration says such an agreement could take nine more months.

Back in November, when Obama’s “historic deal”,  it was met with less than thunderous applause.

John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06. He says that it is nothing but “abject surrender”.  He posted this article at the Weekly Standard:

This interim agreement is badly skewed from America’s perspective. Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its “right” to enrichment in any “final” agreement. Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a “comprehensive solution” will “involve a mutually defined enrichment program.” This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a “compromise” on Iran’s claimed “right” to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.

Second, Iran has gained legitimacy. This central banker of international terrorism and flagrant nuclear proliferator is once again part of the international club. Much as the Syria chemical-weapons agreement buttressed Bashar al-Assad, the mullahs have escaped the political deep freezer.

Third, Iran has broken the psychological momentum and effect of the international economic sanctions. While estimates differ on Iran’s precise gain, it is considerable ($7 billion is the lowest estimate), and presages much more. Tehran correctly assessed that a mere six-months’ easing of sanctions will make it extraordinarily hard for the West to reverse direction, even faced with systematic violations of Iran’s nuclear pledges. Major oil-importing countries (China, India, South Korea, and others) were already chafing under U.S. sanctions, sensing President Obama had no stomach either to impose sanctions on them, or pay the domestic political price of granting further waivers.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier warning that this was “the deal of the century” for Iran has unfortunately been vindicated. Given such an inadequate deal, what motivated Obama to agree? The inescapable conclusion is that, the mantra notwithstanding, the White House actually did prefer a bad deal to the diplomatic process grinding to a halt. This deal was a “hail Mary” to buy time. Why?

Buying time for its own sake makes sense in some negotiating contexts, but the sub silentio objective here was to jerry-rig yet another argument to wield against Israel and its fateful decision whether or not to strike Iran. Obama, fearing that strike more than an Iranian nuclear weapon, clearly needed greater international pressure on Jerusalem. And Jerusalem fully understands that Israel was the real target of the Geneva negotiations. How, therefore, should Israel react?

Most importantly, the deal leaves the basic strategic realities unchanged. Iran’s nuclear program was, from its inception, a weapons program, and it remains one today. Even modest constraints, easily and rapidly reversible, do not change that fundamental political and operational reality. And while some already-known aspects of Iran’s nuclear program are returned to enhanced scrutiny, the undeclared and likely unknown military work will continue to expand, thus recalling the drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp because of the better lighting.

…Undoubtedly, an Israeli strike during the interim deal would be greeted with outrage from all the expected circles. But that same outrage, or more, would also come further down the road. In short, measured against the expected reaction even in friendly capitals, there is never a “good” time for an Israeli strike, only bad and worse times. Accordingly, the Geneva deal does not change Israel’s strategic calculus even slightly, unless the Netanyahu government itself falls prey to the psychological warfare successfully waged so far by the ayatollahs. That we will know only as the days unfold.

Israel still must make the extremely difficult judgment whether it will stand by as Iran maneuvers effortlessly around a feckless and weak White House, bolstering its economic situation while still making progress on the nuclear front, perhaps less progress on some aspects of its nuclear work than before the deal, but more on others.

And what can critics of the Geneva deal, in Washington and other Western capitals, do? They can try to advance the sanctions legislation pending in the Senate over administration objections, for the political symbolism if nothing else. Unfortunately, they’re unlikely to succeed over the administration’s near-certain opposition. Tehran judges correctly that they have Obama obediently moving in their direction, with the European Union straining at the bit for still-more relaxation of the sanctions regimes.

Instead, those opposing Obama’s “Munich moment” in Geneva (to borrow a Kerry phrase from the Syrian crisis), should focus on the larger and more permanent strategic problem: A terrorist, nuclear Iran still threatens American interests and allies, and almost certainly means widespread nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. A nuclear Iran would also be essentially invulnerable, providing a refuge that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Afghan and Pakistani caves could only dream of.

So in truth, an Israeli military strike is the only way to avoid Tehran’s otherwise inevitable march to nuclear weapons, and the proliferation that will surely follow. Making the case for Israel’s exercise of its legitimate right of self-defense has therefore never been more politically important. Whether they are celebrating in Tehran or in Jerusalem a year from now may well depend on how the opponents of the deal in Washington conduct themselves.

Given the disastrous track record of Obama and Kerry’s “Smart Power!”, with the ongoing Middle East Bonfire known as “Arab Spring”, Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, and Obama’s undeserved and dangerous trust of the Rogue Nation of Iran, I don’t blame Prime Minister Netanyahu one bit.

I would not trust President Barack Hussein Obama on anything, much less Foreign Policy, any further than I can throw him.

United States President Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be more concerned about America’s Enemies than our Allies…and, more concerned about reaching out to Muslim Radicals than demanding the release of Christian American Pastor Saeed Abedina, who has been held captive by Iran since the summer of 2012.

Obama, Kerry, and the rest of his Liberal Dhimmi Cabal has shown where their loyalties unequivocally lie, with their braggadocio over this Chamberlain-esque “deal”. 

And, they are not with our allies nor the safety of the citizens of the United States.

Either due to naivete or simple over-reliance on the part of Obama and his Administration, in regards to their “superior intellect”, to quote Fred Thompson, as Admiral Josh Painter, in the great movie “The Hunt for Red October”…

This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.

Until He Comes,

KJ