On that Iran deal...

On that Iran deal...   As my mother-in-law would say, the more I read about it, the worser it looks.  And the more like yet another politically motivated disaster emanating from That One...

See no evil.  Jonathan Spyer.  An excerpt from this sober (and sobering) piece:

The newly announced deal appears to be the outcome of a long, unseen, bilateral negotiation between the US and Iran, which in recent weeks as it neared fruition began to involve the other members of the ‘P-5+1’ countries. That is, the deal is a US production. The Iranian incentive for accepting it is obvious. So the element of interest is in understanding the US motivation for agreeing to an arrangement which so signally fails to address the core concerns regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions.

What has become increasingly clear, and is now unmistakable, is that the present US Administration is simply unconvinced of the arguments made by its key regional allies to the effect that Iranian regional ambitions represent a dangerous destabilizing force in the Mid-East region.

This blindspot of the Administration is strange. The evidence is plain to see. Iran is an active participant in the Syrian civil war. It dominates Lebanon through Hizballah. It is closely allied with the government in Iraq. It is engaged in subversion in Bahrain, north Yemen, Kuwait and eastern Saudi Arabia. It actively sponsors Palestinian terror groups engaged in violence against Israel – most importantly Islamic Jihad and Hamas, but also elements within Fatah.

 Trust but verify: missing in 2013.  Austin Bay.  Another experienced and knowledgeable voice weighs in.  His conclusion:

There are no assurances in this deal. Inspectors will have access to several key Iranian nuclear sites, but numerous experts have found major loopholes in the new agreement. In fact, the new agreement is really an agreement to talk again in six months. The Iranian dictatorship, in exchange for a relaxation in economic sanctions (worth an estimated six to seven billion dollars) has merely promised to restrain its nuclear weapons program for six months.

Is six months Obama's new nuclear red line? If it is, the mullahs are betting it is as firm as his last one, the one prohibiting Assad's use of nerve gas on defenseless civilians.

 Iran: the White House is lying.  Lying about the deal being done (it's not), and lying about what it says.  Why am I not surprised?  And I am sad to note that my first inclination is to believe the Iranians, as opposed to That One.

An Iranian insider's view of the Geneva deal.  Sohrab Ahrami, in The Wall Street Journal.  My short summary: we were played...

Matt Welch isn't happy with the hyperbole, and doesn't think the deal is all that bad...