RUTHFULLY YOURS

In the six months since last November’s U.S. presidential election, there has been a near ‎avalanche of innuendo-filled stories, based primarily on leaks from ‎‎”government or intelligence officials,” suggesting (while providing no actual ‎evidence) there may have been nefarious activity involving Trump campaign ‎officials or supporters and the Russian government and people connected to it, to influence the election. 

One popular MSNBC cable TV host has given more ‎than half her airtime to weaving tales of how the two sides may have colluded, ‎proving mainly that a loyal left-wing audience can put up with repetition of material ‎utterly absent of substance for a long time, as long as it bashes the right ‎individual and political party. The conspiracy theory is that Donald Trump was bought by ‎the Russians, who got him elected and now he is doing their bidding. The fact that ‎the Trump administration has not behaved toward Russia or its proxies in a ‎fashion consistent with this conspiracy theory has done ‎little to quiet the true believers of the collusion litany. Neither is there any evidence ‎of Russians blocking Clinton voters from showing up in Wisconsin, Michigan, ‎Pennsylvania, or Florida, or providing troops to keep Hillary Clinton from making ‎campaign appearances in some of these states. ‎

In the last few weeks, there has been a counterpunch of sorts from Trump ‎supporters, alleging that former President Barack Obama’s officials in the Justice Department and intelligence ‎services launched a surveillance operation during the campaign to potentially ‎derail the Trump campaign, and after the election, to keep the Russian story alive ‎through leaks to eager journalists, to delegitimize his presidential victory and his ‎ability to govern. ‎

At this point, based on what is known as opposed to what is ‎believed or hoped for by partisans, it is highly likely that both themes are probably exaggerated, ‎and maybe even totally false, though the leaks from Obama loyalists still in ‎government seem to provide some support for the charge that there has been an ‎organized campaign to damage his successor.‎

In the meantime, a blockbuster story in Politico provides much new information on how far the Obama ‎team was willing to go to get a nuclear deal with Iran done, and then to please the ‎mullahs in any number of ways after the agreement was reached, to demonstrate ‎U.S. allegiance to their needs and demands. In any case, no journalist sympathetic ‎to the Obama narrative on the Iran deal would dare call it collusion. ‎

The Politico article revealed for the first time the extent of the trade the Obama ‎administration was willing to make with Iran to obtain the release of five American ‎prisoners. The U.S. announced the release of seven Iranians, ‎described by the administration as civilians, none involved with terrorism. In fact, ‎several were regarded by Obama’s Justice Department as clear national security ‎threats, involved in weapons procurement. The administration also dropped ‎charges and arrest warrants against 14 other Iranians, all of them fugitives, ‎several of them also involved in weapons procurement for Iran’s nuclear program, ‎‎. ‎

‎”Through action in some cases and inaction in others, ‎the White House derailed its own much-touted National ‎Counterproliferation Initiative at a time when it was ‎making unprecedented headway in thwarting Iran’s ‎proliferation networks,” the report said. “In addition, the Politico ‎investigation found that Justice and State department ‎officials denied or delayed requests from prosecutors ‎and agents to lure some key Iranian fugitives to friendly ‎countries so they could be arrested. Similarly, Justice ‎and State, at times in consultation with the White ‎House, slowed down efforts to extradite some suspects ‎already in custody overseas, according to current and ‎former officials and others involved in the counter‎proliferation effort.”‎

When critics of the Iran deal argued that despite the agreement, Iran was ‎continuing to develop and procure long-range missiles and spread havoc through ‎its expansionist aggression in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen and support of ‎terrorism, Obama officials always chimed in that the deal only dealt with ‎eliminating the nuclear threat, and not any other issues. Of course, the deal ‎eliminated nothing. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was reduced, but not ‎eliminated (similar to Syria’s supply of poison gases after Obama wimped out on ‎enforcing his own red line), and Iran’s centrifuges, many of them now an enhanced ‎variety, continued to operate. In any case, every time a report surfaced about Iran ‎violating some term of the deal, the president’s team, led by then-Secretary of ‎State John Kerry, was quick to provide a legal brief on their behalf.‎

Last week, an Iranian dissident group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, ‎which initially broke the story of the existence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program ‎in 2002, chargedthat the country was operating a weaponization program for a ‎nuclear bomb at the Parchin facility, ‎which the Obama administration agreed did not need to be inspected by International Atomic Energy Agency ‎personnel. ‎

‎”Parchin is the location where the IAEA long suspected Iran ‎was conducting test explosions for nuclear detonators. In ‎October 2014, Iran finally admitted to using Parchin to test ‎exploding bridge wires, but implausibly claimed they were not ‎for weapons development,” the report said. “Equally incredibly, the IAEA ‎concluded a secret side deal with Iran that allowed it to ‎collect its own samples at Parchin — in which the IAEA in fact ‎did find evidence of enriched uranium. But despite that and ‎more evidence, the JCPOA [the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, i.e., the nuclear deal] was concluded and sanctions ‎against Parchin Chemical Industries were lifted.”‎

The accusation that Trump colluded with Russia and President Vladimir Putin to ‎help him get elected (via carefully timed WikiLeaks releases) at least provides a ‎tangible reward for the alleged partnership: an election victory. What explains the ‎Obama obsession in pursuit of an agreement with Iran and the lies about what was ‎in the agreement and side deals? The answer appears to fall into one of two ‎categories, or perhaps both, neither of which would be easy to swallow for an ‎Obama partisan. The Obama team made no secret of the fact that the Iran deal ‎was to be its foreign policy and second-term version of  President Obama’s health care law, the milestone ‎domestic policy “achievement” of the first term. The history of the creation, ‎passage, and political fallout from Obamacare is an instructive lesson for an analysis ‎of the Iran deal. The bill was to be passed, one way or another, even if only with ‎votes by Democrats. Problems with the new program could be addressed later, ‎finessed by administrative rules if necessary. ‎

Once the P5+1 talks on Iran became public and a deal was near, nothing was ‎going to prevent it. The achievement was that a deal was made, and details were less ‎important. The parade of late concessions by the Americans in the negotiations ‎should have been no surprise. Selling the agreement to Democrats in Congress ‎turned into a loyalty issue. In other words, the Iran deal was built to solidify the ‎Obama legacy. As president, Obama made no secret of his high regard for his time ‎in office and achievements. Now he could sell this new achievement. ‎

There is, however, one more unsettling possibility. When one studies the Iran deal, ‎and what it achieved for each side, it is obvious that it is one of the most one-‎sided agreements in American diplomatic history. In exchange for lengthening ‎Iran’s breakout period to a bomb by a few months for a few years, Iran had ‎all its frozen funds released, won an end to most international sanctions, ‎received a flood of foreign business interests ready to trade, obtained a fairly ‎modest inspections regime, and got a pass on every other noxious activity by the ‎regime, from provocations abroad, support for terrorism and missile development to ‎weapons purchases and sales. The administration even argued that this collection ‎of benefits would enable Iran to achieve its rightful place as part of the new ‎balance of power in the Middle East (now that the U.S. was headed out the door). ‎

Why would an American president give away so much for so little, unless he ‎believed that the rewards for Iran were needed and deserved? A simpleton might ‎say it looked as if the president was playing for the other team. Either that, or egotistical ‎legacy building. In any case, Mount Rushmore will not be calling anytime soon.