Wait a second - a blink already? US orders its air carriers to obey China's air defense zone rules? This puts Japan and South Korea, who have given opposite instructions, in difficult position, no? Is this classic Obama foreign policy again at work: a token show of strength [the B-52s] that covers up the inevitable embrace of weakness and resignation and retreat? They say they're doing it for the sake of clarity - clarity of what? China gets what it wants? And if clarity is their goal, does that mean no more US military flights through disputed zone without first complying with China's rules? I'm not liking the sounds of this at all. Soon Japan is gonna start to know what it feels like to be Israel when Obama's looking out for your interests. As Mark Steyn wrote in his column today:

Some years ago, I heard that great scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis, caution that America risked being seen as harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend. The Obama administration seems to have raised the thought to the level of doctrine.

"... it does often seem that for the average liberal it's not the case that the Obama presidency has been a near perfect manifestation of imperfection, of gross incompetence being guided by abject foolishness and the sentimental arrogance of a hollow and misplaced idealism... but rather it is that the brilliance of the man has been undone by the irrational constraints of democracy and consensual representation that have kept him from doing what he thought right regardless of what the lowly represented might think of his intentions... you almost start to admire the prodigious and unshakeable reach of their denial, the self sustaining ignorance of their delusion... I do swear that if you were to give these people a choice between democracy as the Founders imagined it and a monarchy with Obama as regent many would choose the latter, some without even having to think about it... but hell, who knows, maybe in a sense they're right... after all, pretty damn hard to defend an institution that gave us Bush and then, adding insult to injury, the empty and enfeebling grandeur of Dear Leader's court..."  

"... the selfie is the perfect artistic expression of the modern age... absolute in its superficiality and yet in its self obsession somehow proud of that shallowness, as if it were testament to an inherent, incontestable good... brave new world indeed..."

"... everything I needed to know about the decline of America I witnessed in a binge viewing of The Shield... urban decay... economic corruption... cultural dissolution... the diseased dysfunction of identity politics feeding off the carcass of an ignorant, indolent citizenry... government agencies incapable of managing, for a variety of reasons, many self imposed, the wave of shit washing over them and often left with nothing to do but feebly add their lot of garbage to the filthy stream... yeah, it's all there... almost as if the point of the show was to say the end is coming and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it... entertaining television, though..."  

Some are going a bit silly in praising Obama for sending two B-52s out to take a giant shit on China's new air security zone - sorry, he did the right thing, sure,  but this was a no brainer - you had to do this, hanging Japan out to dry by not doing it would have been utterly inexcusable and would have risked inviting the rapid incubation of some pretty lethal toxins. This could still very easily go wobbly but, yes, Obama got this one right - but it's pretty gratuitous to congratulate someone for doing the obvious, where the only other choice was a complete dereliction of duty - a person gets up in the  morning and brushes their teeth ya don't give 'em a standing ovation.

The curious thing here is that a while ago I speculated that Obama having established himself as a weak foreign policy president who either distrusts, is wary of, or outright dislikes the conventional aspects of American power, I speculated that China might view this weakness as an opportunity to be exploited and thereby be tempted into doing something ill advised - I wonder if that's what we're seeing here - because China now risks looking weak and foolish themselves - they only have two options seems to me: back down, with various equivocations etc etc; or attempt to goad Japan into doing something intemperate that turns up the heat and will require from Obama a much, much more difficult and perilous decision which he then possibly mishandles. You know China will be loathe to back down [their version of Twitter is already full of contempt for the cowardly politburo's refusal to I guess take on a couple of B-52s] - so... like I said, this thing could still go quite wobbly.

[or do we assume that China would certainly realize that US had no choice but to push back on this provocation and that therefore this is just the first move in a series of gambits? The B-52s were the right play by Dear Leader - but you can't stop there. The point needs to be driven home because otherwise China will play the long game of prodding and plying until resistance falls and they assume the thing they want, daring you to deny them it - I'd fly daily patrols through the disputed zone from now until whenever - hell, I'd establish a little Marine base on the Senkakus - but then I'm a bit crazy that way] 

People do love to jump to conclusions and embrace broad assumptions in defense of their preferred ideological sympathies - and so it seems the debate over the Iran deal tends to break down into neocons attacking naive give peace a chance liberals and vice versa - but I don't care for either of that lot. I don't agree that Obama is naive, at least not in terms of narrow and immediate outcomes [long term, all idealists are naive since that is the only way to maintain a faith in the delusional illogic of their claims] - misguided, yes, but I don't see naive [although I don't completely rule it out] - he wants America's military profile reduced, constrained, he doesn't want it viewed as a mighty and necessary force for good because that implies the fighting of wars, which liberals like him regard as something intrinsically evil, a legacy of white hegemony across the globe, and because it's damn near impossible to both fund a bloated welfare state and maintain the most dominant military force that has ever existed - therefore the Iran deal works for Obama regardless of whether or not it actually works - in other words it works if it keeps both Israel and the US military on the sidelines; all other considerations are ignored, glossed over, marginalized, rationalized away or rose color glassed into obscurity. As for the necons [a term which some liberals loosely use to describe anyone who doesn't gag at the mere thought of an engaged military] - well, I don't have much use for them either.

I certainly don't long for war or myopically believe an armed adventure against Iran would be simple or straightforward or unstained by ugly entanglements and disturbing consequences - but let's look at the cold logic of the situation: if you want to stop proliferation, especially amongst roguish nations, and most especially amongst roguish nations who when nuked up have the potential to set all kinds of disquieting dynamics in motion, then the only way to do that is to apply pressure through economic penalties and the credible, utterly believable threat of a military option should those penalties fail to convince. You do not negotiate an end to proliferation against a foe committed to acquiring a nuclear capability because there are no reasonable trade offs to be negotiated - you have to force the end you want. It's like getting armed assailants to leave your home - you don't say to them they can stay under certain circumstances or they can stand around on your front yard waving guns about under certain circumstances or they can come back next week under certain circumstances - no, you want them gone and gone for good and the only way to do that is if they're struck by a light from heaven and magically decide to give up all the armed assailing - or you force them out with the understanding that if they return they're dead. I suppose you can negotiate the means by which you intend to force them out - but they're not going to give up something they really want because of you offering them something of less value as far as they're concerned - unless of course they have to.

This is why a negotiated nuke deal with North Korea was impossible - hard to make economic penalties bite against a dictatorship where the people it oppresses have few freedoms and are used to privation - but more importantly, there could never be any serious military pressure applied because of China's vehement opposition and probably as well reluctance by South Korea to open that box of snakes. And then consider also that as bad as a nuked up N Korea is, still its military is contained, not going anywhere - there's no regional impact to the threat, it does not have armed tentacles spreading out and stirring up trouble and it does not have any amenable allies that can be used to threaten our interests. I do think it is a mistake that we are not shooting down their attempts to perfect ballistic missile technology - I do think we should make it clear to China that the next attempt by Lil' Kim to launch something long and dark will be Aegised all to hell - but, neither Bush nor Obama thought that a good idea so there ya go.

Iran is different, though, isn't it. Their activities are not contained, they threaten American interests and allies, nuked up they threaten putting in motion chains of events that could prove quite destabilizing and full of peril - on the positive side though, compared to North Korea, their population is vulnerable to manipulation viz sanctions and not only is Iran not protected by an ally that makes the military option undoable, several of their neighbors have made it very clear they'd be more than fine if it came to that. Just one problem: any clear thinking person has known all along, and more importantly Iran has probably know all along that Obama had no intention of pursuing the military option if it became necessary and that meant that eventually in order to extricate himself from a tricky mess and to keep Israel on a leash he'd have no choice but to enter into flawed negotiations. I think you can look at everything Obama has said and done foreign policy wise and come quite naturally to that conclusion - but for instance just look at the way he resisted adopting tough sanctions: if you're committed to the military option then you want to embrace sanctions as soon as possible because you want to give them as much time as possible to work since you know if they don't work you gotta pull the trigger and no sane person looks forward to pulling that trigger - Obama wasn't in a hurry because he never had any intention of pulling that trigger. Other than saying the military option was on the table Obama did absolutely nothing to convince anyone that that was true.

And now we're supposed to believe if the Iranians abuse the deal [actually, this abuse has already started] that Obama can manage the wherewithal to reinstitute the sanctions regime in order to bring them back in line? C'mon, people - that would be hard to do in the best of circumstances, especially if Iran plays the game with great cunning, which of course they will - but remember, Russia and China were part of this deal and liked it because they knew it was a sham and knew when that sham started to fall apart America would look weak and its relationships with key allies would be corrupted - a weakened America and not a nuke free Iran is the vested interest here of Russia and China and that is why all the bravado from Kerry and Obama about the sanctions relief being reversible is pure bull shit.

I could be wrong - doubt very much I am.

Obama essentially admits that he was lying when he promised he would not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and that all options were on the table to prevent such a thing - and in doing so also admits what any objective observer already fully knows, that he is not fit to be president of the United States:

"We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of violence, and tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing for our security," Obama said in San Francisco. "We cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world's problems".

No one has ever said, no sane person anyway, that we long for war - but there was never any hope of stopping Iran's nuclear intentions, or any other nation who now takes up that mantle, without the credible threat of violence - that's what it means to be America - and you are not fit to lead America if you are ideologically or as a matter of personality predisposed to deny or dread or live in fear of that bitter reality - at the very least you should give the voters a choice on whether or not they wish to have such a person leading them and not wholly dissemble through two elections about who you are and what you intend.

The truly absurd thing about this statement is that it totally undermines the deal he is trying to defend - what now is the motivation for Iran to adhere to the agreement if it is indeed their goal to become a nuclear power? I mean, clear thinking people already understood this - but Obama has now announced it for all to hear and done so in defence of the thing he has rendered null and void by defending it. Absurd. 

I've heard some people saying that new report claiming that Obama administration has been negotiating a deal since before Rouhani came on the scene is not a concern - ah, sorry, but that's very wrong - the whole reason we're supposed to buy into this agreement is because a putative 'liberal' is now president of Iran, it's because of that that this is labeled a great opportunity that cannot be squandered - if negotiations have been going on since before Rouhani came along then that proves my point: this has nothing to do with denying Iran the bomb and everything to do with getting Obama out from under the burden of the military option. There was only one way short of a military intercession to keep Iran from getting the bomb: tough sanctions combined with a committed, believable threat to use force if the sanctions didn't work - as soon as you enter into 'negotiations' about an alternative to force the Iranians know right away that force is no longer on the table - I mean, I think you can infer that from the get go given everything Obama has said and done foreign policy-wise since becoming president - but a desperate turn to negotiations that do not imply the ending of Iran's nuclear operations combined with Obama's behaviour in Syria means that Iran has known for quite some time they have Obama over a barrel and the only problem now was keeping Israel on the sidelines.

Think about it - if Obama never intended to use the military option then once you get to a certain point in development of nuke fuel cycle you only have two options - sit on the sanctions until which time Israel acts or Iran tests a device - both bad if you're Obama - or enter into an agreement that everyone knows is an illusion but at least constrains Israel and allows Obama to say when Iran tests a device "well, I negotiated a good deal in good faith and they betrayed that trust - don't blame me for their dishonesty" - I've essentially always believed that to be the truth of what's going on here but news that they were in talks before Rouhani came on the scene now confirms it for me.

[John Bolton agrees with me that this agreement is all about saving face for Obama viz the use of force and keeping Israel in a box - and he raises the big question now on the table - faced with the now unavoidable reality that Obama has stabbed them in the back and decided Iran with the bomb is better than all the options available to him to stop such a thing, what now does Israel do? Bolton thinks the logic of the situation drives them towards acting if they feel their actions could make a difference - that has always been the big question impossible to answer from the outside looking in: does Israel see a way it can tolerate a nuked up Iran, and if not how confident are they that by themselves they can manage a successful military strike? Another question also arises given recent unconfirmed reports: are the Saudis worried enough about a nuked up Iran and pissed off enough at Obama to actually contemplate helping the hated Zionists? If true, how would such a fragile and tentative alliance impact Israel's calculations, not just on the military feasibility side, but just as importantly as regards the deep and unpredictable political fallout from an attack by them?]

[another curiosity to consider: recently Netanyahu has stated unequivocally that he will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability - now, clearly Obama has no problem making America look weak by announcing red lines and then refusing to honor them - but looking weak is not an option for Israel - not an option for America either really, unless of course you're liberal and then it's almost an imperative - so, since it's hard to believe Bibi would draw a red line and then back away from it thereby looking weak, what does one make of his claim? That Israel has already decided in the affirmative viz military strikes? Or how 'bout that indeed rumors of an alliance with the Saudis are true and plans have already been drawn up on how to confront Iran?] 

So, Putin calls the deal a win for everyone - interesting thing to say since if the deal is actually any good from a West/Israel point of view Iran could only see it as a win if it is indeed their goal to reach a detente with America by abandoning its nuke program - which pretty sharply conflicts with Rouhani hailing the deal as the international community acknowledging Iran's right to enrich and develop nuclear technology - so, clear as mud all that. Obama and Kerry call it an historic deal that rolls back Iran's nuke ambitions - which again goes against what Iran is saying about the deal - and Netanyahu chimes in by calling it an historic deal alright, historically bad. So he's not impressed.

Obviously it's gonna take a few days of people going through it and nailing down to the nitty gritty before one can say something definitive about it - from what I've read on surface does seem a bit tougher than what I was expecting but still not tough enough to convince me this is anything other than a charade designed to hem in Israel and take the military option off the table - if Iran was serious about abandoning its nuclear ambitions America would have been able to ask for concessions that clearly establish that seriousness - I don't see that here - what I'm seeing at the moment is the only power in the world capable of stopping roguish nations from developing nuclear weapons declaring to all interested parties they're no longer in that business, so have at it - but, let's be fair and wait for the details to get fully hashed out.

With a nuke deal with Iran now seemingly imminent and uber skeptics like myself viewing these antics like Plato's cave dweller gazing at shadows - what would incline me towards a more favorable take on these charades? Like Israel, I'd want to see work on the Plutonium reactor shutdown and all enrichment stopped - and although Israel wants the destruction of centrifuges to begin immediately I'm not sure I need to see that step just yet since to be reasonable Iran would have to hold something back viz further negotiations. If I see these things, I might be moved to give the deal a reluctant benefit of the doubt for a brief period of let's say six months - guess much would also depend on what kind of verification protocols were put in place, especially with reports floating about regarding secret processing facilities - verification is one of those tough things to consider for a person on the outside looking in because you just can't know how good or reliable US or Israeli intelligence is concerning what's actually going on in Iran. That being said, pretty sure a complete end to enrichment and the plutonium reactor going bye bye would be my minimum requirements for treating the deal as something possibly legitimate - maybe also the handing over of the 20% enriched uranium they now have.

[what are odds you see something like this? Slim to none - as I've said before, way I see it Obama needs an agreement that will hold regardless of whether or not it does what it intends so he's not forced into an embrace of the military option or left enduring the humiliation of backing away from his promises thereof - and the only way that happens is if Iran is actually serious about abandoning its nuclear ambitions in order to achieve a detente with America, which I judge highly unlikely - or if there's enough wiggle room and ambiguity in the agreement that Iran feels they're gonna get to have their cake and eat it too - understand, if both Obama and Iran's goal here is to keep Israel in check until, as with North Korea, it's too late to do anything about what Iran's real intentions are, then any deal that doesn't securely slam the door on enrichment will be 'bad' from Israel's point of view]