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

Tweet

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.

Roger Cohen, "One Congressman’s Iran": Shame on Sander Levin!

Tweet

Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who decided to support Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, should be concerned when he receives the blessing of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "One Congressman’s Iran," Cohen begins:

"Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said something important this week: 'In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe.'"

Levin dug deeply into the nuclear deal with Iran? Heck no! He couldn't even bother waiting to learn what appears in the secret side agreements between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, never seen by John Kerry or Ernest Moniz, which lay out the terms for IAEA inspections of Iranian military sites, such as Parchin, where nuclear detonator tests were conducted. And those terms are not pretty: Iran itself will be relied upon to supply requested soil samples to the IAEA.

Cohen continues:

"Levin’s reflection led him to the sober, accurate conclusion that the agreement is 'the best way to achieve' the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon, an outcome that will make Israel, the Middle East and the world 'far more secure.' Not the ideal way, the perfect way, or a foolproof way, but, in the real world of ineradicable Iranian nuclear know-how, the best way attainable. That is also the view of other parties to the deal — the not insignificant or unserious powers of Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany."

Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany all wish to "make Israel, the Middle East and the world 'far more secure'"? I suppose that is why China will now be selling 150 J-10 fighter jets to Iran and 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.

I suppose that a 60-member German trade delegation, which visited Iran earlier this month, was also concerned with the security of Israel.

France? 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.'"

Shame on you, Sander Levin! You might be a friend of Obama, and true blue to the Democratic Party, but you are no friend of Israel at a time when the Jewish State is again being threatened with extinction by a country being handed a nuclear arsenal within 15 years at most!

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin Gives the Lie to Obama's "Snapback" Mechanism

"In return for Iran's actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place."

- President Obama, Weekly Presidential Address, April 4, 2015

Ah yes, when Iran violates its agreement with the P5+1, the sanctions regime will snap back into place. But wait! Yesterday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin informed Bloomberg News:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

Do you think this will stop Obama from signing a deal with Khamenei. Heck no! He already got away with "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them." Why shouldn't he get away with this cock-and-bull story, too?

Meanwhile as reported Wednesday by David Sanger of The New York Times in an article entitled "Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability":

"Now, as [Obama]gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White House on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence: Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.

'We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,' one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message."

Is there a way out of this ugly mess concocted by Obama and his playmates? Not that I know.

Obama Agrees to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif's Ploy to Avoid Congressional Approval of Nuclear Weapons Deal

You will recall how, in August 2013, Obama demanded Congressional approval of a military strike against Bashar al-Assad to effect his "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Obama didn't need that approval, and in fact, didn't want that approval.

Obama does, however, want to reach a deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations), and he's now hell-bent on avoiding Congressional approval of any such deal. As reported by Iran's PressTV:

"US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has said that the United Nations Security Council would endorse any final nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 group.

'We would anticipate that, if we're able to reach a joint comprehensive Plan of Action between the P5+1 and Iran, an endorsement vote would be held by the UN Security Council,' Psaki told reporters on Friday."

Obama's determination to take the deal to the UN instead of Congress is in keeping with the demand of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. As reported in a Bloomberg article entitled "Iran Wants UN Security Council to Ban Future U.S. Sanctions" by Sangwon Yoon:

"Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says he’s counting on the United Nations Security Council to prevent U.S. lawmakers from overturning any deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

An agreement reached by the U.S. and five other global powers with Iran would be approved in a UN Security Council resolution, making it 'an international agreement and binding for all states,' Zarif said in an interview in the Iranian weekly magazine Seda. 'The current and future governments of Iran and the U.S. will be bound by its provisions.'

Zarif’s assertion has added fresh fuel to the dispute between President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers over his authority to commit to a deal with Iran, while contributing to confusion over what role the UN might play."

This is the same Zarif who one week earlier called for the annihilation of the "Netanyahu regime."

Can it get any worse?

Thomas Friedman, "A Pump War?": Not Really

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Pump War?," Thomas Friedman writes:

"Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war underway pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?

. . . .

Think about this: four oil producers — Libya, Iraq, Nigeria and Syria — are in turmoil today, and Iran is hobbled by sanctions. Ten years ago, such news would have sent oil prices soaring. But today, the opposite is happening. Global crude oil prices have been falling for weeks, now resting around $88 — after a long stretch at $105 to $110 a barrel."

So, oil prices are down by some 18 percent. Great, but Iranian oil exports are also growing significantly this year.

As reported in a June 12, 2014 Bloomberg article entitled "Growing Iran Oil Exports Challenge U.S. Nuclear Sanctions" by Indira A.R. Lakshmanan and Anthony DiPaola:

"Iran’s oil exports have risen this year, according to Bloomberg calculations, a trend that threatens to violate U.S. sanctions on the Islamic Republic’s main source of revenue.

Shipments of Iranian crude oil and condensate have increased about 28 percent on average this year, according to an analysis of customs data from importing nations and figures from the International Energy Agency in Paris. If crude sales are up by the end of July, that would break an international accord to hold Iran’s oil exports at the same level in the first half of this year that they were at in the previous six months."

See also what Clifford Krauss writes in an August 12, 2014 New York Times article entitled "With Natural Gas Byproduct, Iran Sidesteps Sanctions":

"Iran is finding a way around Western sanctions to export increasing amounts of an ultralight oil to China and other Asian markets, expanding the value of its trade by potentially billions of dollars a year.

The exports come during a slight thaw in Iran’s relations with the West as negotiations over its nuclear program continue, and energy experts say it is counting on the United States and Europe to tolerate an increasing export stream.

According to Iranian customs data, the country in recent months has exported 525,000 barrels a day of the ultralight oil, known as condensates, over two times more than it did a year ago. In the last three months, the sales have generated as much as $1.5 billion in extra trade — a rate of about $6 billion a year — based on Iranian trade figures and market prices, analysts said."

Iran is being "hobbled by sanctions" on its oil exports? No, not after Obama, in search of a deal to slow Iran's nuclear weapons development program, sought to appease Khamenei by easing trade sanctions pursuant to the November 2013 Geneva interim agreement.

Meanwhile, as reported today in a Times of Israel article entitled "Israel fumes at ‘post-sanctions’ Iran conference in London" by Raphael Ahren:

"An international conference to promote business ties between Europe and Iran is set to begin Wednesday in London, arousing the ire of local pro-Israel groups and senior government officials in Jerusalem.

The '1st Europe-Iran forum' seeks to prepare the ground for 'post-sanctions investment and trade,' according to its official website. Speakers at the conference, which has been endorsed by the office of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, include former foreign ministers from the United Kingdom and France, one British MP, and a senior official currently serving in the British Foreign Office."

A "global oil war" is underway against Iran? Apparently, the UK and France also don't know anything about it.

Obama to Jeffrey Goldberg: Russia Is America's "Partner": Practiced in the Art of Self-Deception

In an interview last Thursday with Jeffrey Goldberg (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out), President Obama attempted to explain how economic sanctions against Iran, which were partially dismantled in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table, could be reinstated:

"OBAMA: Well, partly because 95 percent of it never got turned off. And we will be in a stronger position to say to our partners, including the Russians, the Chinese and others, who have thus far stuck with us on sanctions, that it is Iran that walked away; it wasn’t the U.S., it wasn’t Congress, it wasn’t our new sanctions that jettisoned the deal. And we will then have the diplomatic high ground to tighten the screws even further. If, on the other hand, it is perceived that we were not serious about negotiations, then that ironically is the quickest path to sanctions unraveling, if in fact Iran is insincere."

Yup, notwithstanding all that is happening in the Ukraine, Putin remains Obama's "partner," eager and willing to help the American president out of his predicaments.

And then there was that other fib that Obama told concerning Assad's adherence to the agreement brokered by Putin for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal:

"OBAMA: Let’s be very clear about what happened. I threatened kinetic strikes on Syria unless they got rid of their chemical weapons. When I made that threat, Syria denied even having chemical weapons. In the span of 10 days to two weeks, you had their patrons, the Iranians and the Russians, force or persuade Assad to come clean on his chemical weapons, inventory them for the international community, and commit to a timeline to get rid of them.

And the process has moved more slowly than we would like, but it has actually moved, and we’ve now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest. That would not have happened had the Iranians said, 'Obama’s bluffing, he’s not actually really willing to take a strike.' If the Russians had said, 'Ehh, don’t worry about it, all those submarines that are floating around your coastline, that’s all just for show.' Of course they took it seriously! That’s why they engaged in the policy they did."

"We’ve now seen 15 to 20 percent of those chemical weapons on their way out of Syria with a very concrete schedule to get rid of the rest"? In fact, only some four percent of Syria's chemical weapons have been shipped out for destruction (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/30/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBREA0S19720140130).

So we learn that Obama is proving adept at "improving" the numbers regarding the destruction of Assad's chemical weapons in much the same manner as his administration is "doctoring" the disastrous Obamacare sign-up numbers.

The first invertebrate ever to ever occupy the Oval Office is indeed a true master of self-deception. After all, how could anything that this narcissist undertakes, or fails to undertake, possibly lead to disaster?

The Washington Post today declares in the opening sentence of an editorial entitled "President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z6):

"FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality."

They're right.

Frank Bruni, "College’s Identity Crisis": Ah Yes, the Benefits of a College Education

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "College’s Identity Crisis" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/opinion/sunday/bruni-colleges-identity-crisis.html), Frank Bruni observes:

"And already, the higher learning that too many young Americans partake of leaves a lot to be desired. Time magazine rightly began its recent cover story on the college experience in the United States by reporting the results of a chilling survey last year of recent graduates. It showed that 62 percent of them didn’t know, for example, that Congressional terms are two years in the House of Representatives and six years in the Senate."

Ah yes, the value of a college education . . .

I wonder if that statistic correlates in any way with a rise in student-loan defaults. As recently reported by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-30/student-loan-defaults-rise-in-u-s-as-borrowers-struggle-1-.html):

"About one in seven borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans, showing how former students are buckling under higher-education costs in a weak economy.

The default rate, for the first three years that students are required to make payments, was 14.7 percent, up from 13.4 percent the year before, the U.S. Education Department said today. Based on a related measure, defaults are at the highest level since 1995."

How can this be? Why is no one interested in hiring someone who doesn't know that Congressional terms are two years in the House of Representatives and six years in the Senate? Surely there must be something else they know after spending almost $60,000 per year for four years.

The demand for underwater basket weavers is drying up?

What has this world come to?

New York Times Editorial, "The Syrian Pact": Will Pradva Purchase the Morally Bankrupt New York Times?

Did you listen to Obama's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/full-transcript-president-obamas-exclusive-interview-with-george-stephanopoulos/), during which Obama responded to claims of of confusion and incompetence surrounding his foreign policy? Note the president's stuttering interchange regarding Syria:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Senator Corker, Foreign Relations Committee, said– you’re not comfortable as Commander-In-Chief, it’s like watching a person who’s caged. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, “Words like ad-hoc, improvised, unsteady come to mind. This is probably the most undisciplined stretch of foreign policy in your presidency.” What do you make of that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

Well– you know, I– I– I think that– folks here in Washington– like to grade on style. And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and– linear– they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.

Well, Obama managed to roll out something that was lumpy, undisciplined and also disastrous, and after listening to his explanation, I found myself asking, is America's president delusional or just deceitful? Perhaps, as Obama's talk show host David Letterman recently observed (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/letterman_on_obamas_red_line_for_syria_the_guy_has_learned_how_to_bullshit.html):

"So, it's taken him five years, but finally the guy has learned how to bullshit."

How reassuring.

Today, after reading an editorial by The New York Times entitled "The Syrian Pact" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?_r=0), I find myself also asking, Is this newspaper's editorial board delusional or just deceitful? Or perhaps it can also be observed with respect to the Times, "It's taken them 162 years, but finally these guys and girls have also learned how to bullshit."

Let's have a look at this latest steaming horse apple cooked up by their editorial board:

"The United States-Russian agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is remarkably ambitious and offers a better chance of deterring this threat than the limited military strikes that President Obama was considering.

Even so, the task of cataloging, securing and destroying President Bashar al-Assad’s poison gas cache — which Washington and Moscow have estimated at 1,000 tons — is daunting. It will require vigilance and commitment by the United Nations, with success ultimately dependent on the cooperation of Mr. Assad, whose forces are responsible for most of the 100,000 deaths in the brutal civil war, including what the United States says were more than 1,400 deaths in a chemical attack in August."

The agreement is "remarkably ambitious," and the task is "daunting"? Oh really? As was previously reported by the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all):

"'This situation has no precedent,' said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 'They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.'"

Or stated otherwise, implementation of this "agreement" is not "doable." The Times editorial continues:

"The agreement avoids imminent American military action, but Mr. Assad will be responsible for providing security for United Nations inspectors, as well as access to sites and information. If he fails to dismantle his program, the Security Council resolution would authorize punitive measures. President Obama has said that American military action is still on the table."

Hmm, a mass murderer is now responsible for implementation of a "pact," which is counter to his own interests, but he can nevertheless be expected to abide by its terms. After all, if he doesn't comply, he is being faced with . . . ? Oh, that's right, he is not being faced with anything tangible or substantive.

The Times editorial states regarding Putin's diplomatic coup:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has undoubtedly elevated his stature in the Middle East with this diplomatic move. But he is now on the hook as he never was before to make sure that Mr. Assad does not use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."

Putin is "on the hook"? Yeah, right. If Assad again uses chemical weapons, Putin will again pin the blame on the rebels. "It will be cynical and reprehensible if [Putin] continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms"? And I suppose this former KGB official is not already "cynical and reprehensible"?

As acknowledged by Jeffrey Goldberg in a Bloomberg article entitled "New Syria Agreement Is a Big Victory. For Assad." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-15/everyone-wins-with-new-syria-agreement-except-syrians-.html):

"By partnering with Russia and the West on the disarmament process, a process that is meant to last into 2014 (and most likely won’t be finished for years, even if it is carried out in good faith, which is a big 'if'), Assad has made himself indispensable. A post-Assad regime wouldn’t necessarily be party to this agreement, and might not even go through the motions. Syria, post-Assad, might very well be more fractured and chaotic than it is now, which is to say, even less of an environment in which United Nations weapons inspectors could safely go about their work. The U.S. now needs Assad in place for the duration. He’s the guy, after all, whose lieutenants know where the chemical weapons are.

This agreement represents a victory for Putin for fairly obvious reasons: He is the leader of a second-tier power who has nevertheless made himself into the new power player of the Middle East (he’s heading off to Iran now for discussions on its nuclear program). He has shown up an American president, and he will be considered, by the perpetually naive at least, to be something akin to a peacemaker, when, in fact, he’s a bloody-minded autocrat."

In case you didn't know, Goldberg is one of Obama's best media friends. Yup, this is all one big disaster.

Next we are told by the Times:
 

"President Obama deserves credit for putting a focus on upholding an international ban on chemical weapons and for setting aside military action at this time in favor of a diplomatic deal. The Syria crisis should demonstrate to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, that Mr. Obama, who has held out the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, is serious about a negotiated solution. Mr. Obama’s disclosure that he had indirectly exchanged messages with Mr. Rouhani was encouraging."

Obama's wavering, amorphous policy vis-a-vis Assad, which will one day be written up in "Profiles in Cowardice," will encourage Iran to reach a peaceful negotiation regarding its nuclear weapons program? Cut the crap! Iran has learned that "As President of the United States, Obama does bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

The editorial concludes:

"There are many uncertainties ahead, including what the administration will do to support the Syrian opposition. Now that Russia and the United States have reached a deal, there’s reason to hope this cooperation will help advance an overall peace settlement for Syria."

Which brings us back to the title of this New York Times editorial: "The Syrian Pact." A "pact"? Like the "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" or a pact with the devil? In any event, there is no reason whatsoever to hope that Assad, a mass murderer, will abide by its terms.

Make no mistake about it: The New York Times long ago lost its credibility, and for the sake of good order, it should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration. The Times is morally bankrupt and failing financially, but maybe, after its publication of Putin's propaganda opinion piece (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/vladimir-putin-plea-for-caution-from.html), Pravda might be willing to buy a controlling interest and keep it afloat for a few more years.

Another Failed Round of "Negotiations" Between Iran and the P5+1

As reported by Bloomberg in an article entitled "Iran Nuclear Talks Fail With No Resumption Date Given" (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-07/iran-nuclear-talks-fail-with-no-resumption-date-given.html):

"Iran and world powers failed to reach an accord on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in talks that ended last night, dragging out a decade-long dispute that threatens to escalate with new sanctions or military threats against Iran."

JG Caesarea's response: Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Jeffrey Goldberg, "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’": Will This Impact Hagel?

In a Bloomberg article entitled "Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’" (http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4067977173951690762#editor/target=post;postID=8860285838652858161), Jeffrey Goldberg writes today:

"In the weeks after the UN vote [in November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians], Obama said privately and repeatedly, 'Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.' With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads."

For the moment, let's ignore Israel's plans to build 3,000 new housing units in the E1 area between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim and just focus on Obama's "repeated" declarations that "Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are" prior to Israeli elections. Can you imagine the outrage if Netanyahu had declared prior to US elections in November that current US policy involving Iran and the rest of the Middle East is not in its own best interests? Or US economic policy is not in its own best interests? Or Obamacare is not in America's own best interests?

Obama knows what's in Israel's best interests? The reality is that Obama knows next to nothing about Israel or the Middle East apart from what his virulent anti-Israel confidants told him in the past; e.g., the Reverend Wright and Rashid Khalidi.

The planned E1 housing units? I favor a two-state solution along the 1967 lines with appropriate land swaps; however, in order to arrive at such a solution, there needs to be a counterparty willing to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The Hamas charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis, and rejects any negotiated settlement with Israel. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Moreover, the planned E1 housing project must be placed in context. The housing would be situated in an area which, as agreed in prior Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, would ultimately remain part of Israel in exchange for territories to be ceded by Israel. Let's also not forget that Israeli settlements are situated on territory comprising less than two percent of the West Bank.

Regarding isolation of Israel, putting "daylight" between the US and Israel has been the cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy since his 2009 inauguration. Although Obama, as president, visited Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, he refused to step foot in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Although Obama has made a point of highlighting his strong friendship with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, Obama has avoided complaining about Ankara's global leadership in the imprisonment of journalists (see: http://www.cpj.org/europe/turkey/) and about its oppression of its Kurdish minority, and he has also reneged on his commitment to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Similarly, Obama has avoided any reference to a myriad of Saudi human rights abuses, e.g., the beheading of a Sri Lankan maid on Sunday (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/01/20131146361222980.html).

Egypt? Let's see if Obama even a mumbles a word concerning Egyptian President's Morsi's 2010 declaration that Egyptians should "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred" for Jews and Zionists and that "these bloodsuckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/world/middleeast/egypts-leader-morsi-made-anti-jewish-slurs.html?_r=0).

Worse still, consider Obama's conduct regarding Syria. Senator John Kerry, who was repeatedly sent by Obama to meet with mass murderer Bashar al-Assad and who labeled Assad his "dear friend," is now being appointed Secretary of State. Obama has been all but mum regarding the death of 60,000 innocent civilians in Syria's ongoing civil war, yet he remains obsessed with Netanyahu.

In fact, Obama's contempt for and obsession with Netanyahu, as best evidenced by his open microphone gaffe in a conversation with Sarkozy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2011/11/sarkozy-obama-and-netanyahu-obama-never.html), has contributed mightily to Israel's isolation.

How might Jeffrey Goldberg's revelation affect Obama's nomination of Hagel as Secretary of Defense? Objecting to Hagel's nomination, The Washington Post went on record as saying that Hagel's positions place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html). Well, we are now seeing that Chuck Hagel's positions place him very much in line with those of a second term Obama, who, no longer facing re-election, has the "flexibility" to remove his veil and let his true thoughts be known.

Senate approval of Chuck Hagel now boils down to the decision of Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Will Schumer vote according to his conscience or along party lines? If I had to bet, I know where I would place my money.