Follow by Email

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Ari Shavit, "How Bush Let Iran Go Nuclear": A Must Read for Thomas Friedman

Perhaps you recall that in his Sunday New York Times op-ed entitled "Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About" (, would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman wrote:

"I can think of no better time for a good book about Israel — the real Israel, not the fantasy, do-no-wrong Israel peddled by its most besotted supporters or the do-no-right colonial monster portrayed by its most savage critics. Ari Shavit, the popular Haaretz columnist, has come out with just such a book this week, entitled 'My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel.'

Shavit is one of a handful of experts whom I’ve relied upon to understand Israel ever since I reported there in the 1980s. What do all my Israeli analytical sources have in common? They all share a way of thinking about Israel — which is expressed with deep insight, compassion and originality in Shavit’s must-read book — that to understand Israel today requires keeping several truths in tension in your head at the same time."

Hmm. Friedman, who was enlisted by Obama to market the president's bogus agreement with Khamenei to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons development program (see his anti-Semitic diatribes: and, relies upon Shavit for his understanding of Israel.

Well, today, in a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "How Bush Let Iran Go Nuclear" (, Haaretz columnist Shavit reveals several unpleasant truths. Explaining that Bush, not Obama, was primarily responsible for the current crisis involving Iran, Shavit writes:

"AMERICAN and Iranian negotiators yesterday began a second round of talks in Geneva, seeking a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

If such an agreement were signed, it would represent an Iranian victory — and an American defeat. The Iranians would be able to maintain their nuclear program and continue to enrich uranium, while the Americans and their allies would loosen the economic siege on Iran and allow Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the economic oxygen needed to sustain his autocratic regime.

Yes, Iran’s race to the bomb would be slowed down — but an accord would guarantee that it would eventually cross the finish line. The Geneva mind-set resembles a Munich mind-set: It would create the illusion of peace-in-our-time while paving the way to a nuclear-Iran-in-our-time."

Shavit's conclusion:

"The Geneva agreement being negotiated is an illusion. The so-called moderate president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, is an illusion, too. So is the hope that Iran’s supreme leader can be appeased. Because America missed the opportunity for assertive diplomacy, all the options now left on the table are dire ones.

Rather than pursuing a dangerous interim agreement, the West must insist that all the centrifuges in Iran stop spinning while a final agreement is negotiated. President Obama was right to demand a settlement freeze in the West Bank in 2009. Now he must demand a total centrifuge freeze in Iran."

Shavit, Friedman's Middle East mentor, is correct. Friedman is wrong.

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "U.S. optimistic about a nuclear deal with Iran" (, David Ignatius, Obama's second-string (after Friedman) foreign affairs cheerleader columnist, writes of Obama's pact with Khamenei:

"The agreement, if it can be pinned down, would be a significant diplomatic achievement for President Obama. From his first year in office, he made engaging Iran a priority; he signaled in secret letters to Tehran his interest in better relations and also assembled an international coalition for sanctions that would push Iran to limit its nuclear program.

. . . .

Details of the package remain tightly held, but one U.S. official said it would probably include a formula that has been stated often publicly by Obama, that the U.S. 'respects Iran’s right to access a civilian nuclear program.' The specific nature of that civilian program, and the level of uranium enrichment that could be conducted in the future, would be negotiated over the next six months as part of a final, comprehensive deal."

"A significant diplomatic achievement for President Obama"? yeah, right.

The level of future uranium enrichment by Iran "would be negotiated over the next six months as part of a final, comprehensive deal"? Good luck.

As stated by Shavit, this is a "Munich mind-set," and it was clear all along that this was Obama's plan.

God help us.

No comments:

Post a Comment