Follow by Email

Saturday, August 1, 2015

New York Times Editorial, "Republican Hypocrisy on Iran": The Slimiest Editorial in the History of the Times



Have a read through the New York Times editorial "Republican Hypocrisy on Iran." Is there even a single mention of the two secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran that govern inspection of Iranian military sites suspected of being used for atomic weapons development? Heck no! And in this regard, also have a look at a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Iran’s Closed Covenants," which correctly observes:

"If the U.S. isn’t privy to Iran’s dealings with the IAEA, it’s because Secretary of State John Kerry and other negotiators conceded the point to Iran at the 11th hour. He might have done so figuring that punting to the IAEA gave him the chance to seal the deal without having to know exactly what’s in it. To adapt Nancy Pelosi’s phrase, if you pass the deal you still won’t know what’s in it. So much for President Obama’s assurances that the deal isn’t based on trust but on 'unprecedented verification.'

All of this is vital because Iran hasn’t answered the IAEA’s questions regarding the so-called Possible Military Dimensions of its nuclear program. The IAEA has also been seeking access to Iran’s military site at Parchin, which inspectors haven’t visited for a decade and where Iran is suspected of carrying out experiments and tests on weaponizing a nuclear device.

. . . .

U.S. diplomats are often involved in secret diplomacy, but we can think of no instance in U.S. history where the results of so consequential an agreement were closed to public inspection. No U.S. secrets are at stake, yet the Administration insists on briefing Congress on the Iran-IAEA deal only in closed session."

In addition, there are the persistent "rumors" that pursuant to these side deals, Iran itself will be responsible for supplying the IAEA with soil samples from Parchin. Incredibly, John Kerry and Ernest Muniz claim not to have read the side agreements. Have you read the side agreements, President Obama?

The Times editorial would have us know:

"Negotiating with enemies is an essential component of statecraft and can be a crucial alternative to war. Even when America was at the height of its powers, its leaders — including Republicans — knew that any successful deal would involve some compromise with the other side, not complete capitulation. Yet that is exactly what the Republicans are demanding of Iran today as they lay plans to repudiate Mr. Obama’s hard-won accord in pursuit of some mythical 'better' deal."

Again, we have the nonsensical notion that the only alternative to Obama's deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei is war and that no better deal is possible. However, as reported by Josh Rogin in a Bloomberg article entitled "Top French Official Contradicts Kerry on Iran Deal":

"Jacques Audibert, is now the senior diplomatic adviser to President Francois Hollande. Before that, as the director general for political affairs in the Foreign Ministry from 2009 to 2014, he led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group. Earlier this month, he met with Democrat Loretta Sanchez and Republican Mike Turner, both top members of the House Armed Services Committee, to discuss the Iran deal. The U.S. ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, was also in the room.

According to both lawmakers, Audibert expressed support for the deal overall, but also directly disputed Kerry’s claim that a Congressional rejection of the Iran deal would result in the worst of all worlds, the collapse of sanctions and Iran racing to the bomb without restrictions.

'He basically said, if Congress votes this down, there will be some saber-rattling and some chaos for a year or two, but in the end nothing will change and Iran will come back to the table to negotiate again and that would be to our advantage,' Sanchez told me in an interview. 'He thought if the Congress voted it down, that we could get a better deal.'"

But why should the Times even consider the opinion of the man who "led the French diplomatic team in the discussions with Iran and the P5+1 group"?

Needless to say, the Times castigates Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the Obama administration's bugaboo, for his opposition to the deal:

"What should be a thoughtful debate has been turned into a vicious battle against Mr. Obama, involving not just the Republicans but Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu."

You see, Netanyahu shouldn't be worried by a deal that provides Iran, which regularly calls for the eradication of Israel, with the right to build a nuclear arsenal within a maximum of 15 years if it doesn't cheat, which of course it will (it has been cheating all along). And then there is also the "small" matter that Israelis from the left, right and center, including the head of the opposition party, Isaac Herzog, oppose the deal by an enormous margin. As reported by The Jerusalem Post, 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel;" 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability;" and 47 percent "support an Israeli military strike on Iran if it would be necessary to prevent the Islamic state from getting nuclear weapons."

Backing for the deal? The Times editorial informs us:

"[A] preponderance of responsible opinion — the five major powers, the United Nations Security Council, most American nuclear experts and scores of leading American diplomats — have endorsed the pact as the best way to ensure that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon."

Got it: Israelis are irresponsible when it comes to their opinion of a deal with existential consequences for them. There is also the fact that a majority of Americans want Congress to reject Obama's deal, but what do they possibly know? The fact that they twice elected Obama as president is now entirely irrelevant.

What about America's "responsible" partners from the P5+1? No mention by the Times editorial that China will now be selling 150 J-10 fighter jets to Iran or that Russia will now be selling 100 refueling aircraft to Iran, allowing the mullahs to attack any other country in the Middle East, including, of course, Israel. And I suppose that a 60-member German trade delegation, which visited Iran earlier this month, also had the security of Israel in mind.

Yup, this is the slimiest, most partisan editorial ever published by The New York Times.

1 comment:

  1. NYT editors following their orders to make Israel a partisan issue in the USA, part of this WH's bullying of congressional Democrats on Iran, mostly targeting Chuck Schumer, who likely still reads the NYT.

    Such a partisan divide is exactly what Michael Oren fears:

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?326803-1/book-discussion-ally

    June 26, 2015

    Book Discussion on Ally

    "Michael Oren talked about his book, Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide, about his years as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S."

    Michael Oren at Politics and Prose D.C. bookstore was the best hour of tv in primetime last night.
    Maybe the schism between Obama and Netanyahu IS best symbolized by how each treated a sculpture of Winston Churchill in 2009.

    k

    ReplyDelete