A QUESTION FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

I have a question for the New York Times.

On Wednesday, the Times ran a lead editorial titled “Israel\’s Unworkable Demands on Iran”, in which it attacked Israel\’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for criticizing the “deal” cooked up by President Obama and Secretary Of State Kerry – a “deal” which, in Mr. Netanyahu\’s view, would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons.  In it, The Times told us, among other things, that:

There are important details to be worked out before a final agreement is expected to be concluded by June 30. Even so, the framework is surprisingly comprehensive and offers the best potential for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Iran\’s leaders would not accept a deal in which they did not maintain some elements of a nuclear program tailored for energy and medical purposes – not weapons. Ultimately, Mr. Obama had to make many judgment calls in getting a deal that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Well, today The Times has a one-column (i.e. the least conspicuous use of space available) lead story about that “deal”  Here is its heading and subheads…

LEADER OF IRAN

CHALLENGES U.S.

ON PACT DETAILS

   ___________

DOUBT ON NUCLEAR DEAL

    _______________

Discord Over Sanctions

 and Inspector Access

    to Military Sites

…and its first paragraph:

Tehran – Iran\’s Supreme Leader on Thursday challenged two of the United States\’ bedrock principles in the nuclear negotiations, declaring that all economic sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any final agreement was signed, and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors.

In other words, Iran is telling us that Obama and Kerry\’s “deal” gives it both the infusion of money, and the uninspected geography, to build nuclear weapons.

My question to The Times:  How come you don\’t have a lead editorial about that?

Don\’t you owe your readers an editorial saying something like “y\’know, we may have been wrong to tout the Obama/Kerry deal, since, according to Iran\’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah khamenei, the deal doesn\’t even exist – which, therefore, makes Obama and Kerry look ridiculous, and khamenei either an outright liar or someone who outmaneuvered Obama and Kerry eight ways from Sunday…either of which tells us that there is no reason whatsoever to believe this “deal”, no matter how good or bad it is, will be held to?

Just asking.  And, believe me, not expecting a response.