Obama is getting upset with people who disagree with him re Iran exhibiting the insufferable impudence of actually thinking they have a right to express this disagreement - don't know if this contempt also extends to left leaning or 'independent' pundits, some whom have even served in his administration, who share in the deep scepticism being directed at the non-agreement agreement to a framework of a framework - but right now the peevishness seems targeted mainly at conservatives. It's tempting to see this peevishness as just another manifestation of arrogance from Dear Leader, but rather I think it's probably yet one more in an endless line of political ploys - ie the Republican response is so unhinged and over the top and unprecedented that it must be... and then let people fill in the blanks with 'they're racists'. Obama wants to shame Democrats in the senate who might be thinking of joining the ranks of those racists by signing onto the sanctions bill so that he can drag this thing out to June where it seems he must still think he can get a deal that he can at least sell as legitimate regardless of whether or not it actually is - or in June we'll get an announcement of more talks and another deadline months down the road - or Iran will walk away having gotten essentially what they want and knowing that eventually Obama will beg them to come back by offering still more concessions - what we definitely will not have come the end of June is a viable deal that stops Iran from becoming a nuclear power. As Kissinger expertly pointed in his WSJ article even if all the steps in the 'fact sheet' on the non-agreement agreement come true - something which is impossible for a variety of reasons, many of which Kissinger lays bare - but even if an absolute best case scenario plays out you're still left with Iran becoming a nuclear power approximately 12 years down the road - and since that will also be the opinion of the Saudis Obama will essentially have set in motion a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous and unstable neighborhood in the world.
Again, there's only two ways to stop Iran from nuking up - through crippling sanctions you force them to dismantle their militarized nuclear infrastructure - or we do it for them. That's it. Any deal that doesn't explicitly spell that reality out will be a sham. Since Obama is pursuing a deal that very clearly does not acknowledge that reality, what that tells the Iranians is that force is not on the table, walking away from the table is not on the table, and therefore 'negotiations' for them merely become about: one, a means to undermine the sanctions regime; two, a way to undermine American strategic interests because the talks are not linked to Iran's behavior in the region - Iran is using the the talks to strategically tie one hand behind Uncles Sam's back; and three, as a means to keep Israel on the sidelines since if Israel is indeed serious about a unilateral military option the assumption is they would never do so while negotiations are ongoing - although I think that's a flawed assumption since if Israel is serious about a unilateral strike against Iran that would mean that they judge a nuked up Iran as such a primary existential threat that the imperative of stopping such a thing would trump all other considerations - ie Obama's negotiations might delay but not stop them making a move, if they are indeed serious about a unilateral strike.
Again, there's only two ways to stop Iran from nuking up - through crippling sanctions you force them to dismantle their militarized nuclear infrastructure - or we do it for them. That's it. Any deal that doesn't explicitly spell that reality out will be a sham. Since Obama is pursuing a deal that very clearly does not acknowledge that reality, what that tells the Iranians is that force is not on the table, walking away from the table is not on the table, and therefore 'negotiations' for them merely become about: one, a means to undermine the sanctions regime; two, a way to undermine American strategic interests because the talks are not linked to Iran's behavior in the region - Iran is using the the talks to strategically tie one hand behind Uncles Sam's back; and three, as a means to keep Israel on the sidelines since if Israel is indeed serious about a unilateral military option the assumption is they would never do so while negotiations are ongoing - although I think that's a flawed assumption since if Israel is serious about a unilateral strike against Iran that would mean that they judge a nuked up Iran as such a primary existential threat that the imperative of stopping such a thing would trump all other considerations - ie Obama's negotiations might delay but not stop them making a move, if they are indeed serious about a unilateral strike.
