The administration is reeling from the still-unfolding story about its missteps and deceptions over the Benghazi attacks, in which four American officials died. Although intelligence reports from the first day indicating a planned military attack and were backed up by both drone footage and corroborating statements from Libyan authorities, the administration insisted for weeks that it was a spontaneous protest inspired by a cheap internet trailer. Compounding the offense, President Obama has referred to these horrendous 9-11 attacks as “bumps in the road” and the deaths as “not optimal.”
Enter The New York Times, which has now reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to face-to-face talks on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration almost immediately issued adamant denials that any agreement had been reached, and The New York Times quickly edited its report to put the administration’s efforts in a better light.
Still, what better way to deflect attention from the Benghazi fiasco-of-their-own-making than to pose the possibility of a deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions? The Times article stated (emphasis added):
It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.
Is there a serious mind in the audience who believes that the Iranian regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will honor any agreement it reaches with the United States? Has it to date?