"My point wasn't whether [Khamenei] would chant ["Death to America!"] but whether Iranians would chant "in unison" behind him. Answer: probably not." - David Ignatius Ignatius wrote these words in an email to me in April. Needless to say, one week ago millions of Iranians were on the streets of Iran chanting "Death to America!" on al-Quds Days, immediately prior to the announcement of Iran's nuclear deal with the P5+1. Nice call, David! In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "After the nuclear deal, how to contain Iran’s meddling in the Middle East," Ignatius tries to explain how the US should go about seeking to curtail Iranian "meddling" in the Middle East. Ignatius writes: "The GOP noise machine blasting the deal obscures the real question ahead, which is how to contain Iran’s meddling in the region. The right strategy is to present Tehran with a sharp choice: Either join serious negotiations to end the regional wars in Syria and Yemen, or face the prospect of much stiffer, U.S.-led resistance. . . . . What will convince the hard-liners that it’s time to talk? Pressure, pressure, pressure . . . and then diplomacy. This crucial process will be much easier with the nuclear file closed." "Meddling in the region"? In fact, we are talking about Iranian efforts to achieve hegemony throughout the Middle East, yet another item, in addition to the American hostage issue, that was ignored by Kerry and friends in Vienna. "Pressure, pressure, pressure . . . and then diplomacy"? This flies in the face of the strategy employed by Obama in Vienna, which was "concessions, concessions, concessions . . . and then surrender." Regarding concessions, we now have Ben Rhodes claiming, "We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime, anywhere [inspections]" - he was dissembling, but why should that matter today? In addition we have Wendy Sherman informing us that the American hostages in Iran are "detainees" (Obama obviously knows he has a problem involving his abandonment of the hostages, as evidenced by his temper tantrum following the news conference question by Major Garrett), and we also have Sherman spuriously claiming "That phrase, ‘anytime, anywhere,’ is something that became popular rhetoric." Bottom line: This is an administration which, according to WaPo’s liberal columnist Dana Milbank, believes that America no longer has "the clout to enforce its will," and unbeknownst to Ignatius, Obama is not capable of confronting Iran or even its proxy regime in Syria. Will Israel act unilaterally to eliminate Iran's nuclear facilities? It may have to. Note that Obama telephoned Netanyahu after announcement of the nuclear deal and offered to boost American military aid to Israel. Netanyahu refused. Why? Because acceptance of such aid would have been tantamount to agreement not to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The question remains whether Netanyahu has the cojones to undertake such a strike. Netanyahu is clearly no Begin, who ordered the attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in June 1981, but he is now under domestic pressure, given that many in Israel are blaming him for the catastrophic terms of the agreement with Iran. Stay tuned . . .