On the other, he surrendered to congressional anti-Iranian hardliners without a whimper of protest.
Lausanne is dead. Chances for concluding fair and equitable final terms with Iran by June 30 are virtually nil.
Business as usual triumphed. US neocons, Israel, its Lobby and other Iran-haters won.
Obama agreed to sign the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015 (INAA) when passed by both houses - likely by a veto-proof margin.
On Tuesday, it cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously. Republicans and most Democrats are in lockstep.
It gives Congress final say on any nuclear deal reached with Iran. It effectively undermines whatever may be consummated.
It assures months of talks were wasted. Perhaps Obama never wanted a deal in the first place.
Maybe he just pretended to want one - while privately plotting betrayal.
He's as hardline as neocons infesting his administration. Their notion of a deal with Iran is unconditional surrender.
US-led opposition to Iran's known peaceful nuclear program has always been red herring cover for regime change - replacing sovereign Iranian independence with stooge government Washington controls.
Unnamed White House officials lied saying they got last minute congressional concessions. They got nothing meaningful.
Ben Cardin is Democrat Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member. "Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime," he said.
In other words, no sanctions relief will be forthcoming without unconditional Iranian surrender to Washington, Israel and its Lobby.
Everything agreed on is null and void unless Congress says otherwise. INAA legislation requires the White House send Congress the final text of any deal reached as soon as concluded - along with classified material.
It gives Congress 30 days to decide up or down whether to lift sanctions - 60 days without a final deal by July 9. It has final say - contrary to framework terms.
Final INAA provisions aren't concluded. Congressional hardliners want tougher measures added.
It remains to be seen how much worse INAA may get. It's already a deal-killer.
Israel hailed it. Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Obama "fold(ed)" in the face of congressional pressure.
He called it "an achievement for Israeli policy. We are certainly blessed this morning."
AIPAC issued a press release praising unanimous Senate Foreign Relations Committee INAA adoption."It means more pressure and another hurdle in the way of a bad agreement, so the administration and negotiators will work harder to fill the gaps to reshape the deal into a better, more reasonable one that can win Congress approval."
Saying it
"believes that it is imperative for Congress to assert its historic foreign policy role."Fact: Congress only has advise and consent authority over treaties. It has no legal foreign policy say other than what's constitutionally authorized.
"Congress should review any agreement to ensure it meets US objectives and object if it fails to do so."
"Serious concerns have been raised over the framework understanding."
"A final deal, with its immense national security implications, must be subjected to the constitutional system of checks and balances..."
"AIPAC urges the full Senate to adopt this legislation and the House to take action on congressional review legislation."
Fact: It has no legitimate say over Iran nuclear framework or final terms unless granted by the White House.
Fact: The whole world knows Iran's nuclear program is peaceful.
Fact: It has no military component. US and Israeli intelligence say so.
Fact: Iran threatens no other country - not now, earlier or going forward. No security issues whatever exist related to its legitimate nuclear program or foreign policy.
Iran insists all sanctions be lifted immediately once final terms are consummated. Otherwise, it won't accept them.
On April 15, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi called on P5+1 nations (mainly Washington) to stop making unreasonable demands on Iran - if they're serious about consummating a final fair and equitable agreement.
Doing so requires they "show more cooperation and a better understanding of the realities," he said.
Supreme Leader Ali Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said any deal reached must lift all sanctions immediately - "on the same day of any agreement."
President Hassan Rohani stressed the same thing - indicating Iran will never relinquish its right to develop and use peaceful nuclear power.
Foreign officials and IAEA monitors
said Khamenei."shouldn't be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection,"
He added he's neither in favor or against Lausanne terms "since nothing has happened yet, and no binding issue has occurred between the two sides."
Longstanding US anti-Iranian sentiment persists. Obama conspired with Congress, Israel and its Lobby to maintain business as usual.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.
"Their notion of a deal with Iran is unconditional surrender."
"US-led opposition to Iran's known peaceful nuclear program has always been red herring cover for regime change - replacing sovereign Iranian independence with stooge government Washington controls."
And...
"AIPAC issued a press release praising unanimous Senate Foreign Relations Committee INAA adoption...
'believes that it is imperative for Congress to assert its historic foreign policy role.' (What exactly is that 'historic foreign policy'? Where is it documented? Do they mean the Isolationist policy?)
'Congress should review any agreement to ensure it meets US objectives and object if it fails to do so.' (Are US objectives necessarily correct for the entire world? Does neither the Russian Federation Duma nor the Chinese People Congress have any say? Nor any other countries?)
'A final deal, with its immense national security implications, must be subjected to the constitutional system of checks and balances...' (Whose fucking constitution? Not mine... is all other coutries constitutions irrelevant? And the US government is doing their damnedest to avoid any constitutional restrictions... Waco? ATF?).
Hello? Whose constitution? The US Government has walked all over the US constitution ever since the so-called and cleverly-named 'Patriotic Act'.
The above comments simply assert American exceptionalism, as the 'only indispensible nation'. Self-asserted, with a total lack of justifications, nor objectivity, nor any acceptance of international standards.
Do I have to remind US citizens that their glorious 'indispensble' government is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, that decries targetting of civilian infrastructure? That bombing civilian bridges, road intersections, railway junctions, power generation is thoroughly illegal?
Of course, that's a concept that only applies to losers of wars. Winners get to write their own history. Via pet MSM, who are owned by the plutocrats that in turn finance 'democracy'.
Yee-hay! As long as it looks good on television, the opiate of the masses! Beer and circusses, and morals be damned, as long as it doesn't come back to me! Only then is it not fair! Like 9/11... oh! What? Is destruction and mass-murder only something that belongs to our own western governments?
The concept of terrorism is nothing new (Guy Fawkes?), but it's become essentially a defintion of anyone who violently disagrees with western governmental bastardry. Western governments are allowed to smash the little governments, killing hundreds of thousands of people, ignoring international standards of behaviour, but heck, if you have an enormous miltary machine, surely it is wrong not to use it? Apparently, this passes as morals in the US of A. Essentially, might is right.
Here's a thing. Democracy is a two-way street. If you vote for a government, or even if you don't, but allow the popular masses to define your morals and ethics for you, via 'democratic principles', then you are responsible for what your government does in your name. You, in the western world, all of you (including myself) are responsible for mass-murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, etc.
When will you accept that responsibility? Certainly our magnificant democratic leaders won't. They consider themselves invulnerable.