In the previous blog, I showed you how the Washington Post evaluates the “deal” cooked up by President Obama and John Kerry. The Post\’s take is that what there is of it is not a good deal, a lot has yet to be settled (thus leaving the potential that it can be an even worse deal), and President Obama has foolishly boxed himself in by proclaiming it is the best that can be obtained.
Well, the New York Times feels a lot differently about this. To the Times editorial board, the deal is a good one, and it is those impossible bastards in Israel who are mucking things up.
That\’s right. Israel, which Iran has specifically, overtly, publicly committed itself to wiping off the face of the earth points out that this is a bad deal because it leaves Iran with the nuclear capabilities to do so…and the problem is not Iran, but Israel.
Think I\’m kidding? Think I can\’t possibly be reading this right? Well, here are a few excerpts from the Times\’ editorial – in rust, with my comments in blue.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has gone into overdrive against a nuclear agreement with Iran. Wrong already. He is does not say there should be no deal, he says there should be a better one. On Monday, his government made new demands that it claimed would ensure a better deal than the preliminary one that Iran, President Obama and other leaders of major powers announced last week. Wow, your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. Great start, guys. The new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all. Wrong again. It is absurd to claim that the only alternative to a lousy deal is no deal at all. What about using significant sanctions to force Iran into a better deal? Does that occur to the Times editorial board?
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. You think “the best potential” is leaving Iran with its nuclear structure intact and relying on its honesty – i.e. its promise to allow inspectors to see what is really going on there, which it has repeatedly lied about in the past? You must be on drugs.
As outlined on Monday by Yuval Steinitz, Israel\’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, the Israelis are now insisting that Iran end all research and development on advanced centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium; reduce the number of operating centrifuges at its Natanz plant beyond what was agreed to in the framework; and close its underground enrichment facility at Fordo. Also, Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses. YES. That is EXACTLY what the deal should be…with wiggle room to back off somewhat in each area, so that Iran can save face and claim it got something too.
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. Translation: In order to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, we allow it to retain the means to develop a nuclear weapon. That\’s like destroying the village to save it.
The alternative is no deal, and Iran simply moves forward on its nuclear program without any limits.
As opposed to a ridiculous deal which gives them the same opportunity, except without sanctions…so it can move along more easily and expeditiously.
This is the “thinking”, such as it is, over at the New York Times. Compare it to the Washington Post and see the difference between sense and nonsense. Between serious evaluation and prejudice based on love of Obama and disdain for Israel.
The difference could not be clearer.
