The Obama Administration Will Never Walk Away from the Negotiating Table with Iran

Today on NRO

CHARLES C.W. COOKE: Why do states treat ordinary citizens as gun criminals? Gun Madness at the State Line.

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: Jack Lew puts the Democratic party first. The Canard of 'Economic Patriotism'.

TAYLOR DINERMAN: Israel's Iron Dome system shows that the best defense is not always a good offense. How Israel Learned to Love Missile Defense.

JAMES LILEKS: Venice had a good run, and it's still beautiful. Death of Venice.

SLIDESHOW: Here Comes Global Warming!

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

July 17, 2014

The Obama Administration Will Never Walk Away from the Negotiating Table with Iran

On Monday, the word was that the West's negotiations with Iran weren't going well: "The mood of the talks has gone from optimistic weeks ago, as Iran made concessions on items such as the future of its Arak nuclear reactor, to pessimistic in recent days as it becomes clear a giant gap remains on the crucial question of how much capacity Iran will retain to enrich uranium for what it insists is a peaceful nuclear program."

Yet as the deadline approached, President Obama and his team have decided things are going well enough to extend the deadline . . .

President Obama said Wednesday that there had been "real progress in several areas" in negotiations with Iran over its disputed nuclear program, and he hinted that he might extend the talks beyond the deadline on Sunday in order to reach a final agreement.

"We have a credible way forward," Mr. Obama told reporters during a short briefing at the White House, although he said there were some "significant gaps" between the two sides and more work to do before a deal could be struck.

"Over the next few days, we'll continue consulting with Congress, and our team will continue discussions with Iran and our partners as we determine whether additional time is necessary to extend our negotiations," Mr. Obama said.

If you're always willing to extend the deadline, then it's not really a deadline, is it? On paper, we're watching negotiations between two parties with diametrically opposed interests -- we want the Iranians to have as little of a nuclear program as possible; they want one as big (and easily switched to military applications) as possible. But in practice, we've got two parties with the same interest: the Obama administration wants negotiations to continue so they can claim their approach is working, and the Iranians want negotiations to continue so that their program keeps advancing and those centrifuges keep spinning. So both sides want the talks to go on indefinitely. At this point, we're negotiating about the conditions for continuing negotiations.

What would it take for President Obama, John Kerry, and the rest of his administration to conclude, "These guys aren't serious about a deal, they're stalling for time, and we're playing into their hands by continuing these negotiations"?

It seems that as long as the Iranians don't reach across the table and behead the other negotiators, this administration is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I've gotten spam offers that seem more reliable than the Iranians' promises.

This is not like negotiating with Don Corleone.

Eli Lake points out one more aspect of the negotiations where time is not on our side:

As U.S. and allied negotiators try to hammer out a nuclear deal with Iran this week in Vienna, they will have less economic leverage on their Iranian counterparts than they had a year ago.

That is the conclusion of a new study from Roubini Global Economics and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, two groups that have analyzed Iran's economy -- and the international sanctions imposed on the country's banks, oil exports and leading regime figures.

Their report concludes that in the last year as the United States and other Western countries have begun to ease some of the sanctions on Iran as an inducement to negotiate an end to the country's nuclear weapons program, the Iranian economy has begun to recover.

. . . the economic sanctions that President Obama has credited with forcing Iran to begin these negotiations have appeared to lose their bite, according to the study that is scheduled to be released Monday.

The lies of this administration will hurt all of us, but perhaps none are more damaging than the lies they tell themselves about how well their policies are working.

Are Young Democrats Not That Liberal on Economic Issues?

Here's Thomas B. Edsall in the NYT. Hmm:

Back in April, Pew researchers wrote that "huge generation gaps have opened up in our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious affiliation, and our technology use." These trends, Pew noted, point "toward a future marked by the most striking social, racial, and economic shifts the country has seen in a century."

I asked Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Center, what he made of these results. He emailed me his thoughts: "There is a libertarian streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti-government era when government doesn't work. They are very liberal on interpersonal racial dimension, but reject classic liberal notions about ways of achieving social progress for minorities."

According to Pew, the older group believes, 73-20, that "government should do more to solve problems." Only 44 percent of the younger group agrees -- and of younger respondents, 50 percent believe that "government is trying to do too much."

Eighty-three percent of the older group of Democratic voters believes that "circumstances" are to blame for poverty; only 9 percent blame "a lack of effort." The younger group of pro-Democratic voters is split, with 47 percent blaming circumstances and 42 percent blaming lack of effort. An overwhelming majority of the older cohort, 83-12, believes that "government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means more debt," while a majority of the younger Democratic respondents, 56-39, believes "government cannot afford to do much more."

A 56 percent majority of the younger group of Democrats believes that "Wall Street helps the American economy more than it hurts," with just 36 percent believing that Wall Street hurts the economy. Older Democrats have almost exactly the opposite view. 56 percent believe that Wall Street hurts the economy; 36 percent believe it helps.

Asked by Pew to choose between two statements -- "Racial discrimination is the main reason why many blacks can't get ahead" and "Blacks who can't get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition" -- the older Democratic cohort blamed discrimination, by an 80 to 10 margin. In contrast, only 19 percent of the younger group of Democrats blamed discrimination, with 68 percent saying that blacks "are mostly responsible for their own condition."

Some 91 percent of the older group said the "U.S. needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights," and just 6 percent said the "U.S. has made the changes needed to give blacks equal rights." 67 percent of the younger group said the United States has done enough for blacks, and 28 percent said that the country needs to do more to give blacks equal rights.

In 2016, the GOP Nominee Gets to Be the Candidate of Change

Patrick Ruffini puts it simply: "2016 message: Obama has managed things poorly. Hillary would be more of the same."

Allow me to put out a theory . . . I'm not even sure how convinced of this I am. It might be happy talk.

The 2012 results have had just about everybody on the right banging their heads against the wall. Some folks are convinced this is it; America's advancing into a steep decline. Too many voters are tuned-out, easily distracted sheep. Takers, not makers.

What if it was a perfect storm of the uncontrollable variables working in Obama's direction?

In 2012, Americans who wanted to believe that Obama was getting things turned around had just enough evidence to persuade themselves that better days were around the corner. People who wanted to believe he would be a great leader had some faith he was getting the hang of things. The right track/wrong direction numbers, deeply negative since early 2009, had improved somewhat -- about 40 percent right track, 55 percent wrong direction. Obama's job approval on Election Day 2012 was slightly positive -- 50.1 percent approving, 47.1 percent disapproving.

Today only 26 percent think the country is headed in the right direction, 63.5 percent say it's on the wrong track. Today 41.9 percent approve of the job Obama's doing and 53.1 percent disapprove.

What if one of the biggest factors in the GOP 2012 defeat was a particularly charismatic opponent, running with all of the advantages of incumbency, and a particularly un-charismatic candidate on our side? What if Obama lucked out with just enough good news on the economic front to get people to think the next four years would be worse? Haven't we been watching that favorable set of circumstances erode before our eyes?

In 2012, no one knew the Department of Veterans Affairs was letting veterans die waiting for care. The Middle East's blaze of hatred didn't seem out of control (although Benghazi was a warning shot). Health-insurance premiums hadn't been hiked yet. The number of children coming across the border was manageable. Russia hadn't rolled into Crimea and knocked on the door of Ukraine yet. No IRS scandal yet. No convenient deleted e-mails and thrown-out hard drives. No boasting of a presidential lack of interest in photo-ops in between presidential photo-ops.

Speaking at a progressive conference Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden came perilously close to admitting that the Obama presidency had failed: "Look folks, this is within our power to change. Everybody says because we tried in '08 and it didn't happen, it's not possible. Wrong. We've gone through these periods before . . . But folks, this is totally within our power. Change. Change for the better is absolutely possible and I believe it's close to inevitable, if you're the drivers of it."

Maybe 2016 won't be such a struggle as we fear.

ADDENDA: Terrific:

Republican candidate for governor Ken Block is making no apologies for his response to a question, posed to him during a Rhode Island Public Radio debate Tuesday, about which elected official in Rhode Island he most admires.

His answer in the closing moments of the GOP candidates' debate: "I can't think of one.''

I hope this Block-head is ready to get himself elected all by himself. Read about one of his opponents, Cranston Mayor Allen Fung, or the state senate minority leader Dennis Algiere, and see if you can find anything to admire. The house minority leader, Brian Newberry, is a successful attorney, Little League and soccer coach, and he retweets me a lot.

Well, that's admirable to me.

To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com

Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.