What are Obama and Kerry Smoking?

What are Obama and Kerry Smoking?

© David Burton 2015

The Iran Nuclear Agreement

     In reading and listening to reports of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry desperately pushing for U.S. adoption of the proposed agreement with Iran, one cannot but wonder if they haven’t lost touch with rationality. Their statements and pronouncements verge on delusion. In what follows, I take a biased look at whether or not what they say stands up to test of rationality, common sense and historical precedent.

     “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry . . . expressed doubt that Iran really wants to annihilate Israel, arguing that while Tehran has ‘a fundamental ideological confrontation’ with the Jewish state, it has not implemented ‘active steps’ to ‘wipe it off the map.’ (Ref. 1)

     Please explain to me what planet has Kerry been living on for the past 3 decades? Hasn’t Kerry seen the signs that read “Death to Israel”? Doesn’t he read the intelligence community briefings that label Iran as the primary sponsor of global terrorism? And hasn’t Kerry been briefed on the fact that the primary source of arms, money and training for Hezbollah and Hamas is Iran? Hezbollah and Hamas are the two terrorist groups that deny Israel’s right to exist and have rained down thousands of rockets and mortars on the State of Israel; Hezbollah and Hamas are the two terrorist groups that have instigated devastating wars with Israel from Gaza and Lebanon in the hope of wiping Israel off the map.

     Kerry rationalizes his statements by saying “that while ‘they have a fundamental ideological confrontation with Israel at this particular moment’ that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘that translates into active steps’ and pointed out that Iran has not ordered Hezbollah to use its arsenal of 80,000 missiles in Lebanon against Israel.” (Ref. 1) Kerry conveniently ignores the fact that it is Iran that has provided Hezbollah with the 80,000 missiles that are to be used against Israel. What other use would Hezbollah have for 80,000 missiles? – these missiles certainly don’t help the refugees warehoused by UNRWA in refugee camps in Lebanon.

     Kerry has said that Congressional rejection of the deal would be “the ultimate screwing” of Iran. To the majority of Americans, that may sound like a good thing.[2] What Kerry failed to say was that he didn’t want to screw one of the greatest threats to America but he didn’t mind screwing one of America’s most reliable allies – Israel.

     “Kerry ‘doesn’t know’ if Iran is serious about eliminating Israel and that considering that issue is ‘a waste of time.’ That may be true for Kerry and the rest of the Obama administration, but for Israelis, it’s hard to imagine what would be a better use of time.” (Ref. 2)

     In another unbelievable statement made by the American Secretary of State, “Kerry said that the proposed nuclear deal with Iran is as ‘pro-Israel’ as it gets.” (Ref. 1) Apparently Kerry is delusional enough to believe that he knows what is pro-Israel rather than the people of Israel and Israel’s Prime minister. Or maybe Kerry has not been listening to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu because of orders Kerry is receiving from on high.

     In addition to ignoring the very real threat to Israel’s very existence, Kerry had the chutzpah to make the stupid claim that “should Congress vote against the Iranian nuclear deal signed last month in Vienna, Israel could find itself more isolated in the international arena and ‘more blamed.’“ (Ref. 1) In other words, Kerry is saying that Congress is not an independent branch of the U.S. government, but is under the control of a foreign government, Israel. According to Kerry, should Congress reject the Iran agreement, the rejection would not signify the will of Congress and the American people, but would be Israel’s fault.

     As a further indication of the irrational rhetoric emanating from the White House and Foggy Bottom, “Kerry’s argument confirms the extent to which the Obama administration has become ‘Iran’s lawyer’ [Emphasis mine] – defending Iran’s behavior, adopting its perspective on negotiations, and above all negotiating as if America needed a deal more than the regime.
     “{Kerry} warned that the “moderate” regime [sic] of Hassan Rouhani would fall if the deal were rejected, and be replaced by a more hard-line one (though it is difficult to point to any way in which Rouhani’s administration is less extremist and violent than its predecessors, except in its language on the global stage).
     “In layman’s terms, this is called ‘negotiating against yourself’ . . .” (Ref. 3)

     Living in a fantasy land and ignoring 36 years of Iranian threat, lies, and deceptions, “Kerry dismissed concerns – concerns once cited by Obama himself [Emphasis mine] – that Iran’s breakout time to a nuclear weapon will shrink to near-zero after the deal expires in 10 or 15 years. The Secretary of State also cited Iran’s commitment to the Additional Protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as proof that Iran would never build a nuclear weapon.
     “He did not mention that the Additional Protocol is voluntary, and that according to the text of the deal, it must be approved by the Iranian parliament first.” [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 3)

     Both the President and his Secretary of State have expressed the belief that Iran can be trusted to cooperate with international inspectors - sans inspectors from the United States - and fully and expeditiously comply with all inspection requests. Just what is their basis for this daydream? Are they both hallucinating? Just this past February, a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-connected nuclear watchdog body, found that Iran was not cooperating with an investigation into that nation’s atomic activities, while only a year earlier, Iran had agreed to provide the IAEA with information about its nuclear program.

     President Obama also ranted and raved about the disastrous consequences of Congress rejecting the proposed Iran agreement.

     Running true to his schizophrenic form, President Obama, took two conflicting positions on the Congressional debate over the Iran nuclear agreement. First, he told Congress: “I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement.” Then, within seconds of that welcoming statement, Obama turned around and said, “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.” What is one to believe? “Let’s have an open discussion?” or “Do it my way, or else?” I, and likely everyone else, knows what Obama really means – “By the imperial powers granted me, it’s my way or the highway!

     President Barack Obama warned the 22 Jewish leaders he invited to the White House “that if Congress strikes down the Iranian nuclear deal, …’Hizballah rockets will rain down on Tell Aviv’ – not on New York - and that Iran would… ‘arm and land proxies on Israel’s borders.’ “ (Ref. 4)

     In case the president hadn’t heard, Hezbollah has already rained down rockets on Tel Aviv in 2007 during the last Israel-Lebanon war - and those rockets came from Iran. Obama might also be interested in learning that Iran has already armed and landed proxies on Israel’s borders – those proxies are called Hamas and Hezbollah. Releasing $150 billion in unfrozen assets to Iran with which to arm and train these terrorist organizations is almost guaranteed to increase the terrorist threat to Israel.

     “Both these menaces have been fully active for years, and never related to any kind of nuclear diplomacy.
     “For nine years, from the 2006 Lebanese war and up to the July 2014 Gaza operation, missiles and rockets supplied by Iran have repeatedly rained down on Israeli population centers.
     “As time went by, the missiles became more precise and sophisticated. Terrorist attacks staged by Hizballah at Tehran’s behest are not unknown either.
     “Therefore, Obama’s warning . . . does not stand up to the test of logic or reliable intelligence.”
(Ref. 4)

     President Obama’s statements simply don’t hold water and fly in the face of facts that are obvious to any rational individual.

     Continuing his frantic efforts to garner support for the Iranian nuclear agreement, President Obama gave a speech at American University touting the Iran nuclear deal. The President claimed that every country in the world, except Israel, supports the deal. He conveniently ignored the fact that every Arab country in the Mid-east, excepting the Iran-dependent Assad regime in Syria, has expressed serious misgivings about the proposed pact.

     In attacking the opponents of the Iran deal, the President stated, "The same mindset, in many cases offered by the same people - who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong - led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States, than anything we have done before or since." (Ref. 5)

     "Here's the President of the United States, the greatest country on earth, the leader of the free world, apologizing for American foreign policy over the years," (Ref. 5)

     While it's a fact that Israel is the only country that the Iranian regime has recently and repeatedly threatened, what will happen if Obama is wrong about Iran? Obama has been wrong previously on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya. What if Obama is wrong? For him, it's another speech that maybe didn't go so well. For Israel, it's a matter of its very existence! If Iran goes nuclear, then all help from America will be of absolutely no use to Israel.[5]

     The American people need “to listen to the Iranian regime when they say ‘death to America,’ talk about wiping out Israel and deny the Holocaust ‘while preparing the next one.’“ (Ref. 5)

     President Obama claims that “This is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated” (Ref. 6) “In reality, the Iran deal undermines previous U.S. nonproliferation policy by rewarding decades of covert and illegal nuclear activities by Iran, including those involving weapons.” (Ref. 6)

     Further, the president blithely claims that the agreement “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” The probable truth is that such a belief betrays an unreasonable degree of optimism that Iran will follow the letter of the deal and will not change its mind in the next 15 years. The proposed deal only slows down Iran’s drive toward a nuclear weapon, and a majority of the deal’s restrictive provisions expire after 15 years. This means Iran will gradually be able to increase its nuclear material stockpile and advance its enrichment technologies. Billions of dollars of unfrozen assets, along with access to advanced technologies, will make Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon much easier.[6] The claims put forth by the President appear to be nothing but wishful thinking and the result of walking around with blinders on.

     The president has claimed that “the deal ‘contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.’“ (Ref. 6)

     What the President doesn’t admit is that the inspections regime is based on the assumption that Iran will comply entirely with the deal. Based upon past experience, that is unlikely. Also, American inspectors will not be a part of inspection teams coming to Iran. America will have to trust the United Nations to perform the inspections. How effective have U.N. inspectors been in previous dealings with Iran and North Korea. How effective has the U.N. been in its peace-keeping efforts? How effective has the U.N. been in any of its endeavors?

     “‘If Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will,’ asserts the president, ignoring decades of U.S. experience with assessing other countries’ nuclear programs wrongly.
     “{the President is ignoring the irrefutable fact that} Iran has a history of cheating and lying about its nuclear program, and there is no reason to now believe that it will suddenly change its habits of concealing its nuclear activities.” (Ref. 6)

     In an attempt to create panic in the hope that such panic will lead to an endorsement of the Iran nuclear pact, the President is shouting that “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East.” (Ref. 6) This is a blatant falsehood!

     Both the chairman of the joint chiefs and the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations have stated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail.[6]

     Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), “also made clear that there is an alternative path forward—opposing this deal, increasing the pressure, and returning to the negotiating table.
     “‘Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be,’ he said.” (Ref. 7)

     Increasing the aggressive rhetoric against Israel and its Prime Minister, President Obama charged that, “Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's ‘interference’ in US affairs is without precedent among foreign leaders.” (Ref. 8)

     This is from the same president who was so outraged when Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu made a speech to the US Congress at the invitation of Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner that “a furious Obama White House threatened ‘there would be a price’ to pay for Bibi’s visit to Washington.” (Ref. 9)

     The paranoid reaction to any opposition to the President extends to even political leaders in the president’s own political party. “Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer announced . . . that he opposes the nuclear deal and immediately received a wave of vitriol, including political threats from former White House aides.” (Ref. 8)

     The odor of rank anti-Semitism has even crept into the President’s and his administration’s manic attacks of opponents of the Iran deal. One Jewish publication printed an editorial “calling out Obama and the Democratic Party for their use of anti-Jewish rhetoric in an effort to whip up public support for the Iran deal.
     “In the article titled ‘Crossing a Line to Sell a Deal,’ {the publication} pointed out that Obama has used terms associated with anti-Semitic accusations throughout the debate on the Iran deal.
     " ‘What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it,’ read the editorial. ‘Accusing Senator Schumer {who is Jewish } of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple.’
     “The editorial took on a harsher tone and continued: ‘Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the US electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.’
     “. . . this use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is ‘a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives.’
     "‘Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about 'money' and 'lobbying' and 'foreign interests' who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card,’ the editorial read. ‘It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.’
     “. . . ‘Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it’ . . . . “ (Ref. 8)

     Just who has been interfering in another nation’s affairs? Following Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invited speech to congress in February 2015, “the Obama presidential election team . . . set up camp in Tel Aviv with the mission to defeat Netanyahu in {Israel’s} upcoming election.” (Ref. 9) Now that’s what I call interfering in another nation’s affairs!

     The “Anyone but Bibi” mission was headed by Jeremy Bird, Obama’s National Field Director in his successful presidential campaigns. Under Bird, a group called “Victory 15” was set up and recruited young activists from Israel’s 2013 social protest movement with the objective of defeating Netanyahu in the March Israeli elections – an effort that proved to be unsuccessful. It was reported that funding was provided by John Kerry’s State Department.[9]

     “Obama’s excuse for not meeting with Netanyahu in Washington was that he couldn't be seen interfering in the Israeli election process. But the White House and the State Department {were} exposed as seriously interfering in Israeli politics with the Obama team, financed by the Obama Administration, working to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu and his party in Israel’s . . . election.” (Ref. 9)

     According to Fox News (Ref. 10) a U.S. Senate investigatory committee launched a bipartisan probe into “an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants” which supported the “Just Not Bibi” movement.

     Did president Obama meddle in Israeli affairs? Israelis certainly believe he did! According to a poll sponsored by The Jerusalem Post in February {2015}, twice as many Israelis {said} the president directly interfered in the country’s election than say he did not. 62 percent of respondents believe{d} Obama was meddling in that country’s political process. [11]

     The statements coming from President Obama and his secretary of state are fear-mongering, false, and lacking in factual basis. Their arguments fly in the face of common sense, logic and historical precedents. It’s one thing to fight for and urge passage of the Iran nuclear agreement, but it is quite another thing to do so in such low-handed and irresponsible fashion. One can legitimately question the rationality of the administration in marching down this path. Just what are President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry smoking?


  1. Kerry casts doubt on Iran’s desire to annihilate Israel, Stuart Winer, The Times of Israel, 5 August 2015.
  2. Snapshots, A CAMERA Blog, CAMERA, 5 August 2015.
    5 August 2015.
  4. Obama warns of dangers to Israel if Iran deal blocked, Jeffrey Heller, Reuters, 5 August 2015.
  5. Ex-Israeli Amb: 'Biggest Applause for Obama's Iran Speech Are From Tehran', Joel B. Pollak, Fox News Insider,
    5 August 2015.
  6. 8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal, Michaela Dodge, The Daily Signal , 5 August 2015.
  7. Key Democratic Leaders Announce Opposition to Iran Deal, AIPAC, 8 August 2015.
  8. Netanyahu's 'interference' in US affairs is 'unprecedented' for a foreign leader: Obama, i24news, 9 August 2015.
  9. Obama's shocking interference into Israel's election process, Barry Shaw, The Jerusalem Post, 3 February 2015.
  10. Source: Senate panel probing ?possible Obama administration ties to anti-Netanyahu effort, Steven Edwards,
    Fox News, 15 March 2015.
  11. Favoritism: Six in ten Israelis think Obama meddled in their elections, Noah Rothman, Hot Air, 20 March 2015.


  17 August 2015 {Article 233; Govt_62}    
Go back to the top of the page