Within a few minutes of the Iran nuke revelation Mark Knoller had a "senior US official" spinning it as some kind of "victory." It wasn't the most credible spin ever offered by an administration - and making it into an unblinking party line didn't help - but it wasn't "Honduras is a coup" deplorable or anything like that. It's undeniably dumb - Iran not only forced Obama to tip his hand but did it in a way that strengthened their negotiating position - but at least it was kind of sort of in the ballpark:

Paul Ingram, executive director of the British-American Security Information Council in London, an independent research and advocacy organization, said the timing of Iran's revelation -- in between United Nations General Assembly sessions and and the key meeting between Iran and key Western powers -- is deliberate on Iran's part. "It is not at all surprising that Iran would want this news to come out now," Ingram said. "It strengthens their hand." The fact that Iran has proactively informed the world helps Iran diplomatically in conducting nuclear negotiations, Ingram said, adding that to characterize this second facility as a covert operation is misleading. The Iranians have yet to start production at Qom and are revealing it before that happens.

So "US victory" isn't really a tenable argument. But it's what you're supposed to do and it's what they did. So points for that.

As it turns out, though, spinning diplomatic setbacks as victories doesn't only mean you're being inane. In this White House it also means you're off message:

Reid: "Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can't get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn't you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?." Obama flustered by the question: "I'm not interested in victory, I'm interested in solving the problem"

That's quite the nuance-infused take on the international scene, and it's certainly justified when countries can come together for mutual benefit. International relations obviously doesn't have to be a zero sum game. Except - weirdly - when it is a zero sum game. Like when one country wants to build a nuclear bomb and another country wants them not to, that's a situation where you'll have a winner and a loser. Best case scenario for pretending otherwise: you look moronic. Worst case scenario: the other side actually believes you and hardens their posture accordingly.

I guess the actual worst case is that Obama's not pretending. But that's just silly. Video via Gateway Pundit:

This is more or less the same stunt he pulled when he couldn't make up his mind on "victory in Afghanistan." So at least he's consistently inconsistent.

References and previously after the jump...