Follow by Email

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Fareed Zakaria, "Netanyahu enters never-never land": Bullshit!

Plagiarist and Obama acolyte, Fareed Zakaria, is again busy massaging the president's ego. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Netanyahu enters never-never land," Zakaria would have us believe that the demands Netanyahu would place on Iran to end its nuclear weapons development program are not attainable. Positing that Iran "has survived 36 years of Western sanctions through low oil prices and high oil prices" and observing the popularity of the nuclear program even among leaders of Iran's Green Movement, Zakaria concludes that Israel's prime minister is living in never-never land. Zakaria, who has his own solution to Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations, writes:

"Netanyahu worries that with this deal, 10 years from now Iran might restart some elements of its programs.

. . . .

[T]he mullahs have calculated — correctly — that the benefits of breakout are not worth the costs. The key to any agreement with Iran is to keep the costs of breakout high and the benefits low. This is the most realistic path to keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state — not Peter Pan dreams."

Of course, Zakaria is distorting Netanyahu's position. Netanyahu is not worried that "10 years from now Iran might restart some elements of its programs." Rather, Netanyahu is concerned that 10 years from now, Iran will be free, pursuant to the course being charted by Obama, to build a nuclear weapons arsenal without any constraints whatsoever.


  • Does Zakaria concern himself with horrific persecution of minorities and human rights abominations in Iran (have a look at this one - no pun intended)? Not a chance.

  • Does Zakaria concern himself with Iranian support of terrorism across the globe, including the bombing a Jewish community center in distant Argentina? Nope.

  • Does Zakaria concern himself with Iran's aggressive activities in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen? Nada.



Most remarkable, however, is Zakaria's argument that "The key to any agreement with Iran is to keep the costs of breakout high and the benefits low." If this is indeed the case, why not make the costs of Iranian human rights abuses, regional aggression, support of terrorism, and construction of a nuclear weapons infrastructure, "high and the benefits low" now? It won't work now, but it will work in the future? Bullshit!

[If you wish to read contrary opinions, have a look at Charles Krauthammer's "Netanyahu’s Churchillian warning" and George Will's "Obama is conceding too much to Iran."]

No comments:

Post a Comment