New York Times Editorial, "Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran": Setting a New Benchmark for Depravity

In an editorial entitled "Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran," The New York Times begins by declaring (my emphasis in red):

"Twice recently, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has acted boldly in support of his biggest political gamble, pursuit of a nuclear agreement with the major powers. In a speech last Sunday on Iran’s troubled economy, he argued that Iran will never enjoy sustained growth if it is isolated from the rest of the world. Three weeks earlier, he made clear that he would confront Iran’s hard-liners in his efforts to clinch a deal in which Iran would agree never to produce a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of crippling international sanctions.

But Mr. Rouhani is not the only leader trying to keep a potential agreement from being savaged by domestic opponents. President Obama has a similar problem in Congress, where Senators Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, are expected to introduce legislation that could torpedo any deal by imposing new sanctions on Iran, including tighter controls on its battered oil industry."

Whoa! The Times would truly compare senators Menendez and Kirk with Iran's hardliners at a time when Iran continues to incarcerate Baha'is, hang homosexuals and oppress women? And then there was that recent tweet from Khamenei calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Or in other words, in the aftermath of the recent terrorist and anti-Semitic attacks in Paris, the editorial board of the Times sees fit to ask the US to find common ground with the Khamenei regime. Why? Because as was noted by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

Needless to say, there is no mention by the Times how "good cop" Rouhani has overseen a spike of executions in Iran. As reported in an October 14, 2014 Washington Times article entitled "Iran executions surge amid U.S. nuclear talks" by Guy Taylor:

"Iran’s abuse of human rights, including the hangings of hundreds of dubiously convicted citizens — in several cases minors — has soared over the past year, even as the Obama administration has yielded to Tehran’s demand for an extension in precarious international talks over the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear program.

. . . .

During the 14 months since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office, Iranian authorities have carried out at least 936 executions, according to data compiled by the Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

. . . .

An advance copy provided to The Washington Times notes the executions of at least 22 women since Mr. Rouhani took office and highlights more than a dozen cases of people younger than 18 accused of crimes and hanged. One case involved Iraj Nassiri, whom the report says was 'less than 15' when Iranian authorities accused him of 'premeditated murder.'"  

Likewise, there is no mention by the Times of how Rouhani, in a pre-election interview, bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

A pity the author of this Times editorial is able to spew this sewage under a veil of anonymity. 

Dianne Feinstein's Opposition to the New Iran Sanctions Bill: Anti-Semitism?

Yesterday, expressing opposition to the new Iran sanctions bill co-authored by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), 80-year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)declared:

"While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war."

Excuse me, but where does the new sanctions bill call for war? Rather, it calls for the imposition of heightened economic sanctions should agreement with Iran not be reached for the curtailment of its nuclear weapons development program. As recently observed by Senator Menendez in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A diplomatic insurance policy against Iran" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-diplomatic-insurance-policy-against-iran/2014/01/09/f50ec8dc-77b8-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html):

"The proposed legislation is a clarifying action. It allows all sides to negotiate in certainties and provides one year of space for the parties to continue talking. It spells out precisely the consequences should the agreement fail. This should motivate Iranians to negotiate honestly and seriously.

At the same time, these prospective sanctions play a positive and reinforcing role in negotiations. The big winner is the administration. Its ability to pursue a diplomatic path is enhanced by being able to communicate this position in its negotiations with Iran.

This is hardly a march to war, as some critics have suggested. The legislation explicitly does not authorize the use of force, though it does restate the language of a resolution, passed 99 to 0 by the Senate, supporting the United States’ commitment to Israel, should Israel be forced to defend itself against Iran.

The American public supports diplomacy. So do I.

The American public doesn’t trust the Iranian regime. Neither do I."

Regarding Feinstein's allusion to the age-old racist canard that "the Jews control the government," one can only wonder what has happened to her thought process.

In unrelated news, Feinstein recently discovered "a drone right there at the window looking out at me” (see: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/senator-dianne-feinstein-encounter-with-drone-technology-privacy-surveillance-102233.html#ixzz2qWsvhXYZ). Yes, darling Dianne, it's time to consider retirement.