Thomas Friedman, "What Bibi Didn’t Say": Ignoring Obama's Sunset Clause

It turns out that Thomas Friedman, a dyed-in-the-wool Obama lackey, has serious reservations concerning the deal that the P5+1 is offering Khamenei. Following Netanyahu's speech to Congress, Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What Bibi Didn’t Say," writes:

"The U.S. position — shared by China, Russia, Germany, Britain and France — is: Given that Iran has already mastered the techniques to make a bomb and managed to import all the components to do so, despite sanctions, it is impossible to eliminate Iran’s bomb-making capabilities. What is possible is to demand that Iran roll back its enrichment and other technologies so that if Iran decided one day to make a bomb, it would take it a year — more than enough time for the U.S. and its allies to destroy it.

I think such a deal would be in America’s interest if — if — it includes Iran agreeing to constant, intrusive and unannounced inspections of, and limits on, all bomb-making capacities and if, even after the specified 10 years, there are more-than-the-usual inspections.

. . . .

I still don’t know if I will support this Iran deal"

"If - if . . . and if"? What if the moon was made of green cheese? In fact, the deal being championed by Obama does not call for "more-than-the-usual inspections" after 10 years. Rather, all restrictions upon Iran would be removed, and Khamenei and friends would be free to build their nuclear arsenal without interference.

Moreover, does Friedman really believe that China and Russia would agree to attack Iran if Iran suddenly decided to build its first nuclear weapon? Does Friedman believe that Obama, who decided to ignore his own "red line" involving the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, would be capable of an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?

Go ahead, Tom! You can say it! Obama's conciliatory offer to a maniacal Iran stinks to high heaven!

Dana Milbank, "Congress declares war at Netanyahu’s request": Foisting the Canard That the US Is Being Forced to Fight Israel's Wars

Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before Congress, Dana Milbank, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Congress declares war at Netanyahu’s request," concludes:

"But he quickly turned his fire on Obama, saying the deal his administration was negotiating would 'all but guarantee' that Iran gets nuclear weapons. The prime minister demanded more favorable terms. 'If Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,' he counseled. 'They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.'"

And if Bibi is wrong? No problem for him: The Israeli leader will have committed the United States to war with Iran."

Netanyahu will have committed the US to war with Iran? I don't think so. How about simply reimposing strict sanctions, which might force Khamenei to abandon his nuclear weapons ambitions with the stroke of Obama's pen?

But I think it should also be noted that Milbank is foisting the anti-Semitic canard that Netanyahu wants the US to fight Israel's wars. In fact, should there be a war, Israel will be facing the combined arsenals of Hamas from Gaza (more than 10,000 rockets), Hezbollah from Lebanon (some 70,000 missiles of all varieties), Assad from Syria (advanced Scuds), and Khamenei from Iran (medium and long-range ballistic missiles). If there is fighting to do, particularly ground fighting in Gaza and Lebanon, it will be done by Israel and not by US forces.

Gholamali Khoshroo, "Netanyahu’s Nuclear Deceptions": What About Parchin?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Netanyahu’s Nuclear Deceptions," Gholamali Khoshroo, Iran's ambassador to the UN, declares:

"Despite extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, no evidence has ever been presented to contradict the clear commitment by Iran’s leaders that they would under no circumstances engage in manufacturing, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons."

So why is Iran forbidding the IAEA from inspecting the Parchin military base outside Tehran?

And why on Monday did the director general of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, declare:

"The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Nice try, Gholamali!

Washington Post Editorial, "Obama needs real answers to Netanyahu’s arguments": Actually, the First Invertebrate to Occupy the Oval Office Needs a Spine

Whereas The New York Times is berating Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for a speech before Congress that offered "nothing new," The Washington Post is taking a radically different position. Although it agrees that Netanyahu's speech broke no new ground, WaPo begins an editorial entitled "Obama needs real answers to Netanyahu’s arguments" by saying:

"THE CONCERNS about a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran raised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to Congress on Tuesday are not — as the White House was quick to point out — new. They had, for example, been spelled out in Senate hearings, as an editorial we published last month recounted. Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to repeat this case before a joint meeting of Congress in defiance of the White House and leading Demcrats risked turning what should be a substantive debate into a partisan scrimmage.

Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide."

The Washington Post editorial concludes:

"For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it."

Reconsider it? How could the US possibly believe that reimposing a strict sanctions regime upon Iran could convince Khamenei to abstain from terrorism and tyranny at home and abroad ?

After all, Iran long ago learned from Obama's "red line" relating to the use of chemical weapons in Syria that Obama doesn't mean anything he says.

The first invertebrate to ever occupy the Oval Office does not need real answers. Instead, he needs a spine.