But Iran can't even pretend that they agree with our version of the proto-deal we signed.
Good grief. Secretary Kerry said this is the best deal we can get! What is the deal that all sides agree on, pray tell? (Although to be fair, I can totally believe this is the best deal Kerry can get.)
Kerry may be so inept that he can't even manage to get Iran to pretend not to have a nuclear program.
UPDATE: Iran is resisting our efforts to get inspections:
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say for Iran on the deal, on Thursday ruled out any "extraordinary supervision measures" over nuclear activities and said military sites could not be inspected.
I suspect that when Iran "caves" on elements of this issue, it will be on terms they figure they can evade. And we will portray that "retreat" as a stunning diplomatic triumph.
UPDATE: Yes, we obviously don't have an actual "deal." Yet the price we pay for it could be high.
And this is just stupid:
Some Obama critics lament what they see as the naiveté of that notion. But as it turns out, the nuclear deal is putting some die-hard enemies on the same page in opposition to the pact: foreign-policy conservatives in Tehran and Washington.
Both Iranians who still only see “the Great Satan” when the subject is the United States, and Americans who believe nothing short of “regime change” is a viable Iran policy, reject the agreement as nothing but a gift to the other side by weak officials desperate for an accord.
Ah. We who oppose the "deal" are hand-in-glove with the mullahs who oppose the deal.
Of course, the difference is that those here who oppose the deal see it as enabling Iran to get nuclear weapons and money to carry out their hostile and aggressive foreign policy; while Iranian opponents see the deal as failing to let Iran get nuclear weapons or cash fast enough.
The author is wrong for making the linkage. And a jerk.
