"Five years after the United Nations Security Council ordered it to halt, Iran is still enriching uranium and refusing to come clean about its nuclear program. Tehran is clearly hoping the world will either forget or acquiesce. That would be very dangerous."
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's mullahs would be "very dangerous"? You don't say. But wait, there's more. The editorial concludes:
"We’re not sure any mix of sanctions and inducements can work. We are sure that less pressure will guarantee that Iran will keep pushing its nuclear program ahead. The United States and its allies should go back to the Security Council and argue for even tougher punishments — it has been 15 months since the last round of sanctions. That is the only chance of getting Tehran’s attention."
It's been 15 months since the last round of sanctions? Really? Peculiar, but this is the same editorial board that told us two and a half years ago in an editorial entitled "Mr. Obama and Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09mon1.html):
"President Obama has set a constructive new tone for trying to engage Iran. He told an Arabic-language TV network: 'If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.' And he showed refreshing humility after the Bush administration’s arrogance: 'Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes.'”
Queries: Could it be that Bush was right all along concerning Iran? And where has Obama been for the past 15 months?
No comments:
Post a Comment