New York Times Op-ed, "Envisioning a Deal With Iran": Baloney!

"Baloney"? Isn't this a little harsh? Actually, given my inclination to employ a more colorful adjective, this is the outcome of my struggle to remain "diplomatic" this morning.

In a New York Times contributor op-ed entitled "Envisioning a Deal With Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/sunday/envisioning-a-deal-with-iran.html?ref=opinion), former career diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers argue that the US should seek to use diplomacy to avoid conflict with Iran. Referring to the tripartite technique used by Nixon to engage China ("What do they want, what do we want and what do we both want?"), Pickering and Luers explain how this same methodology can be used to reach agreement with Iran:

"Iran wants recognition of its revolution; an accepted role in its region; a nuclear program; the departure of the United States from the Middle East; and the lifting of sanctions. The United States wants Iran not to have nuclear weapons; security for Israel; a democratic evolution of Arab countries; the end of terrorism; and world access to the region’s oil and gas. Both Iran and the United States want stability in the region — particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan; the end of terrorism from Al Qaeda and the Taliban; the reincorporation of Iran into the international community; and no war."

What does Iran want? Pickering and Luers fail to mention that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the face of the map."

Iran "wants stability in the region"? I suppose that is why Iran has been terrorizing its Baha'i, Kurdish and Sunni minorities. I suppose that is why Iran provided equipment and training to murder American soldiers in Iraq. I suppose that is why Iran is engaged in an ongoing proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. I suppose that is why Iran lays claim to Bahrain. I suppose that is why Iran bankrolls Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Assad regime in Syria. I suppose that is why Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in distant Buenos Aires and continues to finance terror throughout the world.

Regarding their credibility, Luers, Pickering and Dr. James Walsh authored a March 20, 2008 article in The New York Review of Books entitled, "A Solution for the US–Iran Nuclear Standoff" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21112), which began by stating:

"The recent National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Tehran stopped its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003, together with the significant drop in Iranian activity in Iraq, has created favorable conditions for the US to hold direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program."

As recently acknowledged by US Defense Secretary Panetta (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=249800), Iran is now one year away from building a nuclear bomb.

More interesting than Pickering and Luer's op-ed is the question why The New York Times, the unofficial mouthpiece of the Obama administration, continues to publish this twaddle, disseminated in the past by contributor op-eds penned by the Leveretts (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-letter-to-andrew-rosenthal-yet.html).