Updated – Denis McDonough is known within the DC circuit as “the fixer”.
A ‘fixer’ is the term given to a person who walks into a crisis and spearheads the clean up.   McDonough’s the guy who formulated the U-tube video strategy for the Benghazi distractions; his appearance and influence are visible in all crisis situations.   His reward for the Benghazi fix was his appointment to the Chief of Staff position.
The Benghazi crisis threatened to derail a re-election bid.  The current crisis is Obama’s dismal credibility as the Obamacare fraud unravels and begins to destroy his presidency.
Last night, prior to POTUS going on Television to explain the Iranian nuclear deal, the White House released the following picture:

Pete Souza [official photographer] shows Obama meeting in the Oval Office Saturday with Denis McDonough (green fleece) and Deputy National Security Advisors Tony Blinken (blue blazer) and Ben Rhodes (jeans), to discuss ongoing negotiations with Iran. [*note click to enlarge]

The White House controls all of  the images around the president with extreme prejudice.  To the exclusion of all other photographers being allowed access to customary presidential events.
This has led to media complaints highlighted recently.

Everything, every optic, is highly scripted, painstakingly thought out, and 100% strategic in it’s release.
However, for the sake of this post – the focus is on the ‘intent’ behind the photography.  Which is not as subtle, or as innocent, as one might think.
The White House, and the radicals now associated with all the aspects of the presidency, use photographs as political tools to send messages to allies and others who know how to interpret them.
Most of the time, heck, actually, almost all of the time, the nuances within the messaging are missed by all but a few – very few.
EXAMPLE – On the night of the Benghazi attack only ONE picture was ever released  surrounding the events.   Only ONE picture showing POTUS on 9/11/12, and that picture was not released until AFTER the election.
We discussed THAT PICTURE here.

Just like the photograph preceding the Iranian announcement / speech last night – the Benghazi picture had a message embedded.

The picture released in advance of the POTUS announcement last night also has a very specific and intentional message embedded.

Can you spot what it is?

*clue – key in on the “fixer”. The answer will be placed on this post at midnight.

Update:    A “New Balance”

As in “a new balance of power” amid the Middle East.   If you look deep into the structure you’ll note there are two pictures, both released surrounding this Iranian optic.   One I highlighted here, another available at the link.   The media were given the one highlighted, the other was just uploaded to the White House account as an fyi.
The McDonough picture was taken at 3:00pm exactly (grandfather clock).  The next was taken at 3:15pm and shows the result of the first.
In the second pic no McDonough, he has left the room – his job done “New Balance Struck” – and optic delivered –  and in the 2nd pic teh One is on a speaker phone call with (?) probably John Kerry coordinating presser(s).
We know this is an international call from the scrambled satellite phone being used.  It’s on speaker (handset laying on desk) because multiple party construction was taking place.
In Pic #2 Ben Rhodes is note taking for speech preparation – with advisor Blinkin copying details (talking points from the conference call).     Subsequently over the next 7 hours the Iranian speech was constructed, approved, reviewed, nuanced, approved, and final adjustments made *after* the feedback from the test reaction balloon (early leaks) to the media.
Remember Secretary Kerry’s presser was just before 5am (euro time), immediately following the Obama Speech, after keeping the euroweanies up all night following the story crumbs…   Dear Leader spoke just before the Kerry presser, as was planned.
Immediately following Kerry’s presser/delivery of talking points  in Europe. He donned makeup for a late night/early morning previously arranged propaganda interview with Democrat talker George Stephanopolous.     George then delivered the interview to the U.S. audience on his ABC show Sunday.
Pravda would be proud.
All of this activity is based on the ideology you can find discussed in this Samantha Power interview:

In another interview five years later, Power stated that we in the United States brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because of our relationship with Israel, and she noted that that relationship:

…has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics…

In the eyes of activists like Power, we are chained to a genocidal power by aligning with Israel. So, how do large chunks of Obama’s foreign policy fall into the hands of dangerous Leftists like Samantha Power? Stanley Kurtz explains the Obama-Power history well:

It seems reasonable to conclude from his long-term relationship with Power that Obama shares her interest in making humanitarian military interventions more common. Yet the president has said little about this, and the obvious policy implications of his ties with Power are rarely drawn. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick describes the beginnings of the Power-Obama relationship thus: “Obama did not strike Power as a liberal interventionist or a Kissingerian realist or any other kind of ideological ‘ist’ except maybe a ‘consequentialist.’ In foreign policy, Obama said, he was for what worked.”
Here we have the classic protective presentation of Obama. The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist.
There is a germ of truth to the pragmatism claim. Obama doesn’t seem to have a single overarching strategic perspective. Instead he “pragmatically” juggles competing sensibilities on foreign policy, ranging from multiculturalist non-interventionism, to postcolonial exhortation, to humanitarian interventionism, to a political desire to keep foreign-policy problems sufficiently in check to allow a focus on domestic transformation.

That’s right, Barack Obama is willing to sub-contract his foreign policy to fellow leftists like Power in order to concentrate on his stealth socialist domestic agenda. In his brilliant book, Radical-In-Chief, Kurtz illuminates the way Obama’s foreign policy takes a back seat to a transformational, radical domestic agenda:

Obama’s stance toward foreign policy and cultural issues combines quick and easy progressive changes with a still stronger desire to hold political conflict at bay. The point is to keep side issues stable enough to permit Obama to focus on structural changes to the economy.
[…]
For Obama, slow-motion economic transformation (in a socialist direction) is the key to every other change.
Rather than disproving the claim that Obama is a socialist, these [issues] reveal a president clever enough to preserve his political capital for the structural changes that matter most.  (link)