New York Times Editorial, "Not the Time to Squeeze Iran": More Distortion and Hate-Mongering From the Times

Read the latest New York Times editorial entitled "Not the Time to Squeeze Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/opinion/not-the-time-to-squeeze-iran.html?hpw&rref=opinion). Now read it again. What's missing? Answer: There is not even a single mention of the fact that the agreement which John Kerry tried to sign in Geneva last week, purportedly constraining Iran's nuclear weapons development program, did not address continued construction of Iran's Arak IR-40 Heavy Water Reactor, designed to produce sufficient plutonium for two atomic bombs each year. It is no wonder France could not brook this obscenity.

Today, even Obama's henchman, David Ignatius, acknowledges in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The stakes of an Iranian deal" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-the-stakes-of-an-iranian-deal/2013/11/15/4fad18fa-4d54-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html?hpid=z3):

"Let’s give Netanyahu and Fabius credit for playing the 'bad diplomat' role to gain maximum leverage. They’ve created a dynamic in which Tehran will have to give more than it’s getting (especially in stopping progress on its heavy-water reactor at Arak, as Fabius rightly insisted). If Tehran can’t make these concessions, the world will see that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani can’t or won’t deliver the deal that would lift sanctions and give Iran a voice in regional security issues, such as Syria."

This Times editorial, intended to bolster the president at a time when he is being flayed by Congress for this sham deal, blithely ignores the Arak reactor and concludes:

"Iran has already taken steps in that direction. On Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that since Mr. Rouhani took office in June, the country had virtually halted its previously rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment capacity.

President Obama deserves more time to work out a negotiated settlement with Iran and the other major powers. If the deals falls through, or if inspections by the United Nations unearth cheating, Congress can always impose more sanctions then. But if talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price."

By all means let's place our faith in Hassan Rouhani. This is the same Rouhani who in a pre-election interview bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

This is the same Rouhani who executed 82 people after being elected as president in June (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/spate-of-iran-executions-after-rouhani-election-alarms-un.html).

This is the same Rouhani who appointed mass murderer Mostafa Pourmohammadi as his minister of justice (see: http://iranian.com/posts/view/post/19076).

Since June, Iran has "virtually halted its previously rapid expansion of its uranium enrichment capacity"? Of course, it never occurs to the Times that this is because the sanctions program has virtually bankrupted Iran and has prevented them from further funding of its nuclear weapons development program. Unfreeze Iranian funds held in foreign banks? Let's see what happens next. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the Islamic Republic is continuing to enrich uranium to 20 percent purity, just short of the concentration needed for a nuclear weapon. (see: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/31/332255/iran-continues-20-enrichment/).

"[I]f talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price"? By all means, let's blame Obama's bugaboo and nemesis, Bejamin Netanyahu, for the failure to sign an agreement in Geneva. This is very much in keeping with Thomas Friedman's recent "America First" op-ed  (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/11/thomas-friedman-what-about-us-is-thomas.html), which smacked of anti-Semitism. But in fact, if Iran succeeds in building its first atomic weapon, it is Israel that will undoubtedly "pay the price," and it is less than remarkable that almost two-thirds of Israelis "oppose the nuclear agreement being discussed with Iran" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/majority-israelis-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal-093208801.html).

The New York Times? It is no more than a shameless mouthpiece for a failed Obama administration.