I wonder if Dear Leader, in order to convince his liberal cohorts in the Senate to not push through the Iran sanctions addendum, will have to break down and admit to the truth regarding his Iran plans in order to get them to cooperate - ie, that since he has no intention of using force to thwart Iran's ambitions and therefore has no means to stop them since the sanctions regime is now for all intents and purposes toast - or, put another way, since he decided a long time ago on a policy of containment but is keeping it secret [aka lying about it] because he knows that neither Israel nor the American people will be much pleased by that decision, that in order to keep that secret secret the Senate can't be pushing through inconvenient bills that will in effect pull back the curtain on that secret [lie] - if they do, he'll have no choice but to veto it, which won't look too bloody good either, thank you very much.
When you think about it, since if one were to treat Obama's rhetoric on Iran as being serious his resistance to the bill would clearly make no sense, how else can he stop Democrats in the Senate from moving forward with it and thus revealing the unseriousness of his rhetoric other than by telling them the awful truth and bringing them in on the lie? I don't see what choice he has since the optics of a veto on this will not be good and so the veto in and of itself could be enough to unmask the charade - in order to get to the 'contained space' without looking weak and hopelessly compromised and without provoking Israel to unilateral action Obama needs an agreement in place regardless of whether or not it can be deemed legitimate according to any objective final analysis - the purpose of the agreement is not to stop Iran, it's to cover over the tracks of a move towards containment.
When you think about it, since if one were to treat Obama's rhetoric on Iran as being serious his resistance to the bill would clearly make no sense, how else can he stop Democrats in the Senate from moving forward with it and thus revealing the unseriousness of his rhetoric other than by telling them the awful truth and bringing them in on the lie? I don't see what choice he has since the optics of a veto on this will not be good and so the veto in and of itself could be enough to unmask the charade - in order to get to the 'contained space' without looking weak and hopelessly compromised and without provoking Israel to unilateral action Obama needs an agreement in place regardless of whether or not it can be deemed legitimate according to any objective final analysis - the purpose of the agreement is not to stop Iran, it's to cover over the tracks of a move towards containment.
