It’s a simple question. If Obama is negotiating a “bad” deal, what is the goal post for “good deal”? The NeoCons either do not answer the question or state “no enrichment.” In essence, the only “good” deal is where Iran folds and gives up in negotiations. Something the Bush administration concluded would never happen:
In public, Israeli officials complain about what Yuval Steinitz, the minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, called the United States’ general approach to the negotiations, which is to give up on the idea of dismantling all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability. In fact, even the George W. Bush administration had given up on that idea, conceding that there was no way to reach a deal without Iran retaining at least a face-saving amount of enrichment capability.
The NeoCons need to be pushed to define their definition of a “good” deal. Odds are, they won’t answer because their fundamental criticism is they want no deal. If they respond with no “enrichment”, they need to be confront with the assessment from prior administrations that Iran would never agree, hence their deal is no deal. The press still is failing to push back on this point and letting them peanut chuck at a possible deal we have yet to even learn of the terms.
On another note, James Baker is striking back at the NeoCons: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/james-baker-blasts-benjamin-netanyahu-116338.html
