E.J. Dionne Jr., "How to read the Iran debate": Wearing His Naivete on His Sleeve

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How to read the Iran debate," E.J. Dionne Jr. writes:

"I also see the possibility — not a probability, but a chance — that an agreement could open up Iran and strengthen those inside pushing for more freedom. Lest you think this is foolish, consider that both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher thought that betting on Mikhail Gorbachev could lead to change in the Soviet Union. ('I like Mr. Gorbachev,' Thatcher said. 'We can do business together.') Many of their traditional supporters thought they were dangerously wrong, possibly naive. But they were right.

Moreover, I don’t think that we should give Saudi Arabia or other Sunni states a veto over our foreign policy, and I do think that, in the long run, Israel will be safer, not in greater danger, if we can contain Iran in this way. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphatically disagrees, but I suspect that if the United States gets the deal it wants, many American supporters of Israel will take issue with him."

Dionne would compare Khamenei with Gorbachev? I don't know anyone in the West who is saying, "I like Khamenei" and "We can do business together."

"If the United States gets the deal it wants"? The US already has not gotten the deal it wants. As The Washington Post recently declared in an editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals":

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

Moreover, given that Iran strenuously disputes the claims of the US State Department fact sheet describing the so-called Lausanne "understanding," we can expect further concessions from Obama and friends in order to reach a final agreement by the end of June.

Yes, Dionne wears his naivete on his sleeve.

Obama's Hell Week: Observe the Difference Between The New York Times and The Washington Post

Note the difference this morning between the responses of the columnists of The New York Times and those of The Washington Post to the Benghazi assault, the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, and the Department of Justice’s secret monitoring of Associated Press journalists.

At The Times, I'm led to wonder if Gail Collins and Charles Blow are on psychotropics. Without delving into any substance whatsoever, Collins makes light of it all and informs us "this too shall pass" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/gail-collins-on-plus-side-is-she-on.html). Blow, on the other hand, would characterize Obama's headaches as "procedural" and "perceptual" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/charles-blow-scandalous-vs-scandal-lust.html).

On the other hand, at WaPo, an entirely different picture emerges from both left, right and middle-of-the-road. E.J. Dionne Jr. would have us know (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-the-false-god-of-narrative/2013/05/15/2837314a-bd92-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"[W]hat spells trouble for our country is our apparent eagerness to avoid debate about discrete problems by sacrificing the particulars and the facts to the idol of political narrative. It’s a false god."

Dana Milbank tells us (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-eric-holders-abdication/2013/05/15/61a42d12-bdaf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"As the nation’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder is privy to all kinds of sensitive information. But he seems to be proud of how little he knows.

. . . .

But when the Justice Department undermines the Constitution, recusal is no excuse."

Michael Gerson says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-governments-heavy-hand-felt-in-irs-ap-scandals/2013/05/15/408446c8-bda3-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Now comes the added blow of scandal. In each recent case, government used power in ways that were insular, highly politicized and intimidating. And however individual responsibility is eventually assigned, these attributes are not aberrations in the Obama era. The administration tends to view its actions as above scrutiny and its opponents as beneath contempt."

David Ignatius states (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-in-irs-and-ap-scandals-a-dysfunctional-government/2013/05/15/137ba9de-bd92-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z3):

"The crippling problem in Washington these days isn’t any organized conspiracy against conservatives, journalists or anyone else. Rather, it’s a federal establishment that’s increasingly paralyzed because of poor management and political second-guessing.

What should frighten the public is not the federal government’s monstrous power but its impotence."

Tell me, is it remotely possible that the columnists of The Times and The Washington Post are writing about the same set of facts?

E.J. Dionne Jr., "Obama Hopes Israel Trip Amounts to a Fresh Start": Ignoring Women's Rights and Honor Killings in the Palestinian Authority

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama hopes Israel trip amounts to a fresh start" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-obama-hopes-israel-trip-amounts-to-a-fresh-start/2013/03/20/327ca73e-918c-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html?hpid=z3), E.J. Dionne Jr. writes:

"All of which brings us back to two states. The formula is tired, worn and frustrating. It is also inescapable. It’s the best solution for those who believe in a thriving, democratic Jewish state. It’s the best solution for those who believe in a thriving, democratic Palestinian state. And two thriving states offer the only long-term hope for peace."

Well, I believe in a two-state solution, but "a thriving, democratic Palestinian state" is not in the cards, owing to brutal discrimination against women throughout Gaza and the Palestinian Authority.

As reported by the Palestinian Ma'an News Agency in a December 2012 article entitled "Abbas aide: No plans to outlaw 'honor killing'" (http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=550792):

"President Mahmoud Abbas has no plans to amend laws that reduce sentences for suspects who claim an 'honor' defense for murdering women, his legal adviser says.

'Why change it? This would cause serious problems,' Hassan al-Ouri told Ma'an, adding that such a reform would 'not benefit women.'

In May 2011, the president pledged to amend the law to guarantee maximum penalties for 'honor killing' in response to protests over the killing of university student Aya Baradiya in Hebron.

The decision was announced in a phone call to a primetime show on state TV, drawing tears among crowds of mourners shown in a live link-up from the Ramallah studio to Baradiya’s hometown.

Abbas suspended Article 340, which offers a pardon for murder if the perpetrator committed the crime on finding his wife in bed with another man.

The reform was cosmetic: Article 340 had never been used in Palestinian courts since it was legislated in 1960.

'So why did we change the law? To garner public opinion,' al-Ouri said in an interview in the presidential compound in Ramallah.

'I, personally, was against the amendment because the crimes that happen in the street have no relevance to Article 340,' the legal adviser added.

Al-Ouri says the president will not change the go-to clauses for lawyers seeking leniency for clients who claim they committed murder to defend family 'honor.'

Articles 97 to 100 of the Jordanian Penal Code, in force in the West Bank, still offer reduced sentences for any act of battery or murder committed in a 'state of rage.'"

There can be no prosperity in Palestine so long as women continue to be oppressed by both Fatah and Hamas, and Dionne is blithely ignorant of the ugly realities in this corner of the world.

Do you think Obama will broach the issue of women's rights with Palestinian Authority President Abbas when they meet this week? Not a chance.

The welcome Obama should expect in the Palestinian Authority? As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/International/Hundreds-in-Ramallah-protest-Obamas-planned-visit-307134):

"Hundreds of Palestinians gathered in the center of Ramallah on Wednesday to protest against US President Barack Obama’s planned visit to the city.

Palestinian activists vowed to step up their protests against Obama on Thursday and Friday.

The Palestinian Authority security forces plan to impose a curfew on large parts of Ramallah during Obama’s visit to the city. On the instruction of the PA leadership, schools will be closed in the city on Thursday and many streets blocked.

The protest was organized by the radical Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which seeks the establishment of an Islamic caliphate.

. . . .

Declaring Obama persona non grata, the demonstrators in Ramallah chanted: 'O malicious Obama, defender of the state of the Jews,' 'We hereby declare, America is the mother of terror,' 'This nation shall not be humiliated or succumb to the Americans' and 'O Obama go back, Palestine is not for sale.'"

I fear for Obama's safety in both the Palestinian Authority and Jordan and pray that adequate precautions are being taken to protect the president.

Meanwhile, in a less than subtle message to Obama on the second day of his visit to Israel, four rockets were fired this morning at southern Israel from Gaza.

E.J. Dionne Jr., "Obama’s winning strategy on foreign policy": Love Is Blind

Get a whiff of E.J. Dionne Jr.'s Washington Post opinion piece, entitled "Obama’s winning strategy on foreign policy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-winning-strategy-on-foreign-policy/2012/05/02/gIQAKEeywT_story.html?hpid=z2), written in response to Obama's visit on Tuesday with US troops in Afghanistan:

"We expect some hypocrisy in politics, but it was still jaw-dropping to behold Republicans accusing President Obama of politicizing the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

. . . .

He focused on how to get a moderately satisfactory result in Afghanistan — which is probably the very best that the United States can do now.

. . . .

On foreign policy, Obama has kept his 2008 promise to turn history’s page."

The US has spent half a trillion dollars over the course of a decade on a senseless ground war in Afghanistan, and by pledging to withdraw American troops by 2014, Obama has managed "to turn history’s page?" Impressive.

But now read what those "neocons" over at the editorial board of The New York Times have to say about Obama's speech from Afghanistan ("Missed Chance," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/opinion/missed-chance.html):

"President Obama gave his first speech on Afghanistan in nearly a year, speaking from Bagram Air Base on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing. The White House set it up as a big moment, but the president squandered the chance to fully explain his exit strategy from a war Americans are desperate to see brought to an end.

. . . .

[W]e are increasingly concerned that Mr. Obama does not have a clear policy to ensure that the country does not implode once the Americans are gone.

. . . .

[T]he timing of Mr. Obama’s visit on the anniversary of the Bin Laden kill was contrived . . .

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s political message, and motivation, for this trip was undeniable.

. . . .

Mr. Obama’s strongest argument for staying in Afghanistan for another two years is that it is the main base for continuing that fight and that, by 2014, the United States will be able to withdraw without seeing it turn once again into a haven for Al Qaeda. He didn’t make the case Tuesday night."

Those damned Republicans at The New York Times up to their political tricks again!

Perhaps E.J. Dionne Jr. should read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:

"But love is blind and lovers cannot see
The pretty follies that themselves commit;
For if they could, Cupid himself would blush
To see me thus transformed to a boy."

"Transformed to a boy"? How about in E.J.'s case to a blustering buffoon?