Follow by Email

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

New York Times Editorial, "Keep Negotiating on Iran’s Nukes": Obama Spins His Wheels, Khamenei Spins His Centrifuges

The P5+1 will not reach agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program by the July 20 self-imposed deadline set by the negotiations. Surprise, surprise, surprise! What next?

In an editorial entitled "Keep Negotiating on Iran’s Nukes" (, The New York Times takes the position that the US and its so-called partners must continue the negotiations with Iran for an additional six months. According to the editorial:

"None of that has impressed the hard-liners in Tehran and Washington who are determined to sabotage any deal. Some in Congress are demanding conditions that would tie President Obama’s hands and make it impossible to lift sanctions on Iran, essential to any agreement.

. . . .

There are risks in any deal. But there are many more if there is no deal, Iran’s program resumes unchecked and an opportunity to work with Iran on other regional challenges slips away."

Unbeknownst to the Times, there is only one person in Iran who makes all of the decisions, i.e. Supreme Leader Khamenei, and what "hard-liners" or purported moderates might have to say is of no consequence. Moreover, Khamenei has made his position clear: Iran needs 190,000 operating centrifuges (see:

There are more risks if there is no deal? Fine, gradually reimpose the sanctions and compel Iran to take the negotiations over the next six months seriously. Unfortunately, however, Obama already dismantled much of the sanctions regime, and it would be almost impossible, in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition, to put the genie back into the bottle.

"Work with Iran on other regional challenges"? Oh really? The editorial board of the Times honestly believes that Tehran is going to issue orders to Nasrallah for the removal of Hezbollah forces in Syria? It's simply not going to happen.

You see, Obama is already known throughout the Middle East and beyond as a quivering 98-pound weakling, who is unable to make good on any of his threats.

By the way, The Washington Post also favors continuation of the negotiations with Iran, but their editorial entitled "Nuclear talks with Iran should be given more time" ( gives vent to significant skepticism:

"[Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad ] Zarif’s maneuvering, however, supports two sobering conclusions. One is that the Iranian regime is not feeling as much economic pressure as it was a year ago and no longer sees the removal of sanctions as urgent. The other is that Tehran is positioning itself in such a way that it will be unable to make the concessions that should be required for a long-term settlement without a major climb-down and accompanying loss of face.

. . . .

[The Obama administration] should begin seriously preparing for the moment when time runs out — and when, as seems likely now, Iran refuses to yield."

When "Iran refuses to yield"? Actually, it's when Khamenei refuses to yield, and Obama, who is busy running down the clock on his second term as president, will almost certainly seek any way humanly possible to pass the mess over to Hillary in 2017.


  1. I don't think Hilary will be President.
    Somehow I don't see it.

  2. I cannot understand for the life of me why Obama kow-tows to the extent he does towards the Mad Mullahs. Is it because they are brown-skinned? Is it because they are Muslim? Or is it simply because he cannot say "no" to his former boss Valerie Jarrett?

    That this will force Israel to all-out attack Iran in order to save herself is simply criminal -- criminal that is on the part of Obama that he takes the situation with Iran so capriciously. Books will be written about this eventually in a lot of detail...

  3. Daniel, is it possible that Obama is an antisemite? His 20 year tenure with Wright would suggest so. His notorious Cairo speech (for which he received the Nobel PEACE prize - yes, the world is a funny place) would suggest so, etc.