When the Obama administration has a self-serving story it wants to sell to the American public, it often trots out Susan Rice, the president’s national security adviser and generally dependable lockstep lieutenant. Yes, that Susan Rice — the Obama mouthpiece who infamously claimed on a handful of TV talk shows that the deadly Benghazi attack was prompted by an amateurish YouTube video. The same Susan Rice who stunningly declared that accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl served his country with “honor and distinction.”
So, here now comes Ms. Rice with her latest attempt at a spin-to-win media appearance — this one in defense of President Obama’s Iran deal that’s drawing so much bipartisan fire. However, the Obama surrogate may have stepped in it while talking to Wolf Blitzer and his CNN viewers about the tens of billions of dollars Iran is slated to receive as a result of sanctions being lifted.
Breitbart News reports that Rice admitted the Islamic regime in Iran may well spend some of the freed-up cash on beefing up its military and supporting terrorist operations in the Middle East. Rice, though, used the euphemism “bad behavior” instead of terrorism; just as her boss, Obama, has refused to utter the phrase “Islamic terrorism.”
“National Security Adviser Susan Rice said ‘we should expect’ that some of the money Iran gets under sanctions relief as a result of the nuclear deal ‘would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region’ on Wednesday’s ‘Situation Room’ on CNN,” says Breitbart.
Experts have estimated that some $100-150 billion in Iranian assets have been frozen in the international banking system and are expected to be thawed under the terms of the deal for which the Obama administration continues to take a protracted victory lap. In her interview with CNN, Rice essentially said “so what” about the potential use of those funds to help Iran militarily:
…yes, it is real, it is possible, and, in fact, we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now. But the goal here, Wolf, was never, and was not designed to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in region.
Did you catch that? Did you see that one of President Obama’s top advisers said the lengthy, difficult negotiations with one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were never intended “to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in the region?”
When considering how this admission fits into the big-picture scenario the Obama administration is trying to paint regarding the potential dangers of Iran getting its hands on those billions in unfrozen assets, one must take into account what John Kerry just said. Does what Rice told CNN square with what the secretary of state told the international press on Tuesday?
As CNS News has reported, Kerry “played down concerns that Iran will use the windfall from sanctions relief under the nuclear agreement to boost sponsorship for terrorists, suggesting that groups like Hezbollah do not benefit all that much from Iranian financial support in the first place.”
The CNS article also notes that many in Congress, as well as a number of America’s Mideast allies, have expressed serious concern regarding the potential for Iran to strengthen its conventional military and traditional terror ties; but “[t]he White House firmly opposed efforts by Republican lawmakers to link Iran’s support for terrorism to the nuclear negotiations which have now been finalized.”
A vocal opponent of Obama’s Iran deal, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, says it is naive and foolish to believe Iran will use the unfrozen funds just to improve its hobbled economy.
Business Insider reports: “Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK), one of the most rabid opponents of the deal, characterized it as a ‘signing bonus’ that Iran’s leaders could use to fund overseas terrorism and other attacks on U.S. interests.”
Congress has an opportunity to debate the deal and give it an up or down vote. If lawmakers pass legislation blocking the pact, Obama has threatened a veto.
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth