Okay, so now it’s 20 years.
President Obama informed Israel Tuesday via a TV interview: “Sanctions won’t do it, a military solution is temporary – the deal that we’re negotiating potentially takes a nuclear weapon off the table for 20 years.”
If you’re keeping score at home, you may remember that the president had previously acknowledged to the world that it was legitimate to believe that Iran “in year 13, 14, 15,” of the deal would “have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
And once the breakout time is zero, well then, a nuclear weapon is not just on the table, it might be on its way to Tel Aviv! And eventually, of course, to America.
And let’s not forget the contention by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz that the Iraq deal was a “forever agreement.”
I mean 15 years seems like forever, but it’s not.
Think about what the president is saying. This was supposed to be a for never deal. The Iranian nuclear program was supposed to be shut down. Even if we accept Obama’s creative new timeline extension, what comfort is that to anyone with a life expectancy of under 20 years – or to anyone who cares about someone expected to live that long?
In other words, WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Bill Hemmer of Fox News brings up an excellent point this morning, asking Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) whether acknowledging a military strike won’t end the Iranian program is “smart pool?” That is, if the a military strike is supposedly an option, if it is really something Obama is considering, and if it actually is the stick he’s using to beat the Iranians into an agreement, why would he telegraph that it’s essentially a futile measure?
Because as Corker correctly responds, everybody, including the Iranians, has always known that the “military option” was never an option for Obama, which is why he is winding up with such a lousy deal.