New York Times Editorial, "Asking for Trouble on Iran": How Do You "Demonize" a Country That Stones to Death Women and Hangs Gay Men?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Asking for Trouble on Iran," The New York Times would have us know (my emphasis in red):

"As with other foreign policy issues, the Trump administration’s approach to Iran has been full of mixed messages. Yet amid the confusion, there has been an ominous tendency to demonize Iran and misrepresent the threat it presents. This could lead to an unnecessary and risky confrontation."

Query: How is it possible to "demonize" a country that stones to death women for alleged adultery and hangs gay men? A country that savagely discriminates against Baha'is, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Christians? A country that executes poets for "moharabeh," i.e. enmity to God? A country that leads the world in per capita executions?

The editorial continues (again, my emphasis in red):

"The administration’s various and conflicting responses to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are a case in point. The deal, one of the Obama administration’s major triumphs, requires Iran to curb its nuclear activities in return for a lifting of economic sanctions. During the campaign, President Trump called it 'one of the worst deals I’ve ever seen' and promised to tear it up or renegotiate it if he won the election. Last week, however, a letter from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, signaled Mr. Trump’s intention to stick to the deal.

The letter certified that Iran was complying with the agreement, negotiated by five world powers in addition to the United States and Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the agreement with on-site inspectors and advanced technology, reached the same conclusion in its most recent report."

"[O]ne of the Obama administration's major triumphs"? Extending, by way of an unsigned agreement, Iran's nuclear breakout time from three months to one year, while conceding to Iran the right to advance its ballistic missile capabilities, is a major triumph?

More to the point, notwithstanding the assurances of John Kerry and friends that Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles had been 100 percent eliminated, we now know that this was not the case. How naive must you be to believe that Iran, Assad's abettor in crime, is scrupulously honoring the unsigned nuclear deal?

With triumphs like these, who needs failures?

By the way, this is the conclusion reached by a June 28, 2014 New York Times editorial entitled "They Said It Couldn’t Be Done," subtitled "The Fate of Syria’s Chemical Weapons":

"President Obama’s critics excoriated the deal, but they have been proved wrong. The chemical weapons are now out of the hands of a brutal dictator — and all without firing a shot."

Yeah, right.

Ron Prosor, "The U.N.’s War on Israel": Or Why Obama Wants the UN to Approve a Nuclear Deal With Iran

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "The U.N.’s War on Israel," Israeli Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor writes of the UN General Assembly:

"in the 2014-15 session alone, the General Assembly adopted about 20 resolutions critical of Israel, while the human rights situations in Iran, Syria and North Korea merited just one condemnation apiece. Day after day, member states turn a blind eye to the most deplorable crimes.

Iran? Just one hostile resolution for a nation that, on average, executes citizens at a rate of two a day for 'crimes' that include homosexuality, apostasy and the vague offense of being an 'enemy of God.'

North Korea? Just one negative resolution even though it has imprisoned more than 200,000 citizens, throws children into forced labor camps and subjects its population to food shortages and famine as a result of government policies.

Syria? Again, just one resolution for a government that has pursued a war against its own people that has caused the deaths of at least 220,000 men, women and children — many by torture, starvation, chemical weapons and barrel bombs dropped on markets and schools."

Turning his attention to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Prosor continues:

"The council addresses the human rights abuses of all countries in the world under a program known as Agenda Item 4. That is, all countries but one. Israel is the only nation that is singled out for criticism by virtue of a special program, known as Agenda Item 7. A result, according to the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, is that more than 50 percent of all condemnatory resolutions are directed at the Jewish state."

I guess this explains why President Obama wants the UN Security Council to approve any deal between the P5+1 and Iran, instead of Congress.

Roger Cohen, "Iran Matters Most": More Hokum From the Man Who Claims Iran Is Not Totalitarian

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Iran Matters Most," Roger (Iran is "not totalitarian") calls upon the US to conclude a nuclear accord with Iran. Cohen begins:

"Do the Iran deal. Defeat the barbaric marauders of Islamic State. In the fragmenting mayhem of the Middle East, these must be the American and Western priorities."

The "barbaric marauders" of Islamic State? And what about the Islamic Republic of Iran, which stones to death women accused of adultery, hangs homosexuals, and imprisons and tortures Kurds, Baha'is, Sunni Muslims, Christians and anyone brave enough to voice opposition to the regime?

The one is any better than the other? I don't think so.

Jackson Diehl, "Obama’s next earthquake": As Part of His Legacy, Is Obama Seeking to Break Israel?

I have always believed that Obama is a radical in moderate's clothing. A moderate doesn't "hang around" with the likes of Rashid Khalidi, the Reverend Wright, and former Weatherman Bill Ayers. How the American electorate chose to ignore this "baggage," which would sink any other candidate, is a testimony to David Axelrod's public relations wizardry. Now, as we edge toward the end of Obama's second term, he is beginning to cast away some of his "moderate" disguise, particularly as he undertakes measures to ensure the enfeeblement of Israel.

Regarding Iran, Obama doesn't care if Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responds to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America." Obama doesn't care if Khamenei continues to call for the annihilation of Israel. And Obama doesn't care if Iran has effectively achieved suzerainty over large swaths of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. After all, Obama has dedicated what is left of his presidency to establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, as a "very successful regional power."

And even as Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, describes Obama's Middle East policy as one of "willful ignorance," Obama persists in capitulating to all of Khamenei's terms in order to reach a Swiss cheese-like arrangement in Lausanne, purportedly reining in Iran's nuclear development program.

As reported today by The New York Times in an article entitled "Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal" by David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordonmarch, Iran is now backing away from a requirement to ship their atomic fuel to Russia, two days away from the deadline for an interim agreement. Obviously, Khamenei knows that Obama is desperate to do this deal and that he will find some new means to appease him, so as to avoid new Congressional sanctions.

But making Iran into a regional power appears to be only one of the measures being pursued by Obama in order to bring Israel to its knees. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s next earthquake," Jackson Diehl today tells us:

"Now Obama is contemplating going forward with a [UN] resolution that was drafted last year by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Mideast negotiations team at the State Department. The language was drawn up in response to efforts by the Palestinians and France to win support for Security Council resolutions following the collapse of Kerry’s attempt to get Israeli and Palestinian assent to a 'framework agreement.'

. . . .

Why go forward with a text that both sides would spurn? Obama’s hope would be that his initiative could win unanimous support from the Security Council and thus set the terms of reference for a future settlement, presumably under different Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He could eventually become the grandfather of Middle East peace; at a minimum, diplomats who now talk of the 'Clinton parameters' from 2000 would henceforth speak of the 'Obama framework.'

There would be other effects, of course, among them an unprecedented breach in U.S.-Israeli relations and a vast acceleration of the global movement to boycott and sanction the Jewish state in the likely event it resisted the U.N. terms. But judging from Obama’s demeanor in assailing Netanyahu last week, the president might welcome that legacy, too."

With the entire Middle East embroiled in chaos, America's Narcissist-in-Chief, convinced of his own omniscience, wishes to add the "Obama framework" to this seething cauldron? Isn't there someone in his inner circle capable of telling him that he has already done enough damage in the region, bringing American credibility and deterrent power to a unfathomable nadir?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Method to Obama’s Middle East Mess," Ross Douthat claims that Obama is shifting from a "Pax Americana Model" in the Middle East to an "offshore balancing system":

"In an offshore balancing system, our clients are fewer, and our commitments are reduced. Regional powers bear the primary responsibility for dealing with crises on the ground, our military strategy is oriented toward policing the sea lanes and the skies, and direct intervention is contemplated only when the balance of power is dramatically upset."

However, if sea lanes remain important pursuant to this offshore balancing system, the Strait of Hormuz, adjoining Iran and controlling shipment of much of the world's oil, is now under Khamenei's control. Moreover, with Shiite Houthi rebels under the patronage of Iran gaining control of Yemen, the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, controlling access to the Suez Canal from the Arabian Sea, could also fall under Iran's thumb.

Yes, Obama has made a muddle of the world, and it remains to be seen if future American presidents will be able to repair the damage. Israel? It is already counting the days until Obama leaves office.

Maureen Dowd, "Ready For 45?": Care to Correct Your Cockamamie Opinion Piece, Mo?

J Street is pro-Israel?

Although The New York Times is studiously attempting not to make waves over Hillary's erased server, the reality is that we are looking at Watergate redux (the Times was also behind the curve regarding Nixon's erased tapes). Hillary is road kill, and if the Democrats nominate Elizabeth Warren in her stead, we will also be looking at a remake of the 1972 election in which only Massachusetts went for McGovern. Of course, a 2016 Republican presidential candidate still needs to be chosen, and it remains to be seen how much damage they can do to themselves in the interim.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Ready For 45?," Maureen Dowd considers a Jeb Bush 2016 candidacy. More specifically, she relates to Jeb's confusion as to how to deal with James ("fuck the Jews") Baker's recent J Street speech:

"At first Jeb Bush tried to distance himself from Baker distantly. He had his spokeswoman, Kristy Campbell, send an email to reporters the day after Baker — one of his foreign policy advisers and his dad’s best friend, campaign manager and secretary of state — gave President Obama some bipartisan backup on Israel. Speaking to the liberal Israel advocacy group, J Street, Baker faulted the 'diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship' surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu. Baker’s criticism of the abrasive Israeli leader he once banned from the State Department sparked a furor among Republicans who want a loyalty oath on support for the Jewish state.

. . . .

Is Jeb aware that he tendentiously mischaracterized J Street as having 'anti-Israeli sentiments?' Opposing Netanyahu’s policies toward the Palestinians does not disqualify it as a pro-Israeli organization. On the contrary, many polls show that its views reflect the majority of American Jewish opinion."

Many polls show that the views of J Street "reflect the majority of American Jewish opinion"? Oh really? Dowd fails to provide any evidence of the veracity of this claim. Apparently, she is referring to a November 2014 poll carried out for J Street in which 800 American Jews were asked:

"Now, imagine that the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, China, Russia, and Iran reach a final agreement, which restricts Iran's enrichment of uranium to levels that are suitable for civilian energy purposes only, and places full-time international inspectors at Iranian nuclear facilities to make sure that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Under this agreement, the United States and our allies will reduce sanctions on Iran as Iran meets the compliance benchmarks of the agreement. Would you support or oppose this agreement?"

The problem here is that the question was not grounded in reality, as noted by multiple commentators. Obama's pending deal with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei won't place "full-time international inspectors at Iranian nuclear facilities to make sure that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons." Heck, if an army of full-time IAEA inspectors were to be given free access to all Iranian nuclear and military facilities, making certain that no atomic bomb was in the works, now and in perpetuity, I would also favor such an agreement. However, in fact, Iran continues to refuse to allow IAEA inspectors anywhere near its top-secret Parchin military base outside of Tehran. Moreover, the proposed deal provides that the mullahs will be free within a decade to build nuclear weapons pursuant a "sunset clause."

But more to the point, does J Street have "anti-Israeli sentiments"? Dowd fails to observe that in April 2014, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations voted not to admit J Street. She also takes no note of a March 2014 Haaretz opinion piece entitled "J Street’s hypocrisy must be exposed" by Alan Dershowitz, who endorsed Obama in 2012. Describing J Street as an "American organization that calls itself pro-Israel and pro peace but that always seems to be taking positions that are anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian," the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard went on to say:

"J Street only wants people to hear views to the anti-Israel hard left of its position. It categorically refuses to allow its members to hear views that are more centrist and more pro-Israel, such as my own.

. . . .

J Street survives, and even expands, largely as the result of speaking out of two sides of its mouth. It seeks to attract centrist members by advocating the two-state solution, an aggressive stance towards peace negotiations and criticisms of Israel’s settlement policies. These are positions I fully support, and if they were J Street’s only positions, I would have joined that organization many years ago. But in an effort to expand leftward, particularly hard leftward, it has taken positions that undercut Israel’s security and that virtually no Israeli center-leftists support. It placed its imprimatur behind the despicable and mendacious Goldstone Report by bringing Richard Goldstone to Capitol Hill and introducing him to members of Congress.

. . . .

J Street’s position on Iran has been extremely troubling. It opposes the United States threatening military action, even as a last resort.

. . . .

J Street has also spoken out of both sides of its mouth on the issue of whether the Palestinian leadership should recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

. . . .

Moreover, J Street has accepted funding from sources—such as George Soros—who are openly anti-Israel, and have kept this fact secret so as not to alienate its centrist supporters."

Before claiming that Jeb mischaracterized J Street as having "anti-Israeli sentiments," Dowd should have spoken with Professor Dershowitz, who is "a bit" more knowledgeable on this topic than she is.

All of which is not to say that Dowd is completely lost at sea in this op-ed. Dowd also writes:

"U.S. Middle East policy is so muddled that, after occupying and blowing up Iraq, we are working with Shiite Iran to push back Sunni insurgents in Iraq and working with Sunnis and their Saudi Arabian allies in Yemen against a Shiite militia that has Iranian support."

As I noted in a recent blog entry entry entitled "Obama's Schizophrenic Middle East Policy in Yemen and Iraq," this is indeed the case.

Washington Post Editorial, "A reward for Iran’s noncompliance": "Father, Forgive Them, For They Know Not What They Do"

"Natanz/Netanya," Oil on canvas 130 x 190 cm © Ardyn Halter

Do you remember what I stated about Parchin, the secret Iranian military base outside of Tehran? On February 26, I wrote (my emphasis in red):

"Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "An Emerging Nuclear Deal With Iran," The New York Times claimed that "Iran’s major nuclear installations are already monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency and watched by the United States." Iran, however, is refusing access to the Parchin military base outside Tehran. I informed Andrew Rosenthal of The Times of this "error" by email, but he didn't bother responding.

Today, Robert Einhorn, serves up more nonsense in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Deterring an Iranian Nuclear Breakout," also intended to persuade us to accept Obama's pending deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei. Einhorn, who, according the op-ed, is "a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution" and "served on the U.S. delegation to the Iran nuclear negotiations from 2009 to 2013," writes:

"Fortunately, even if an agreement cannot eliminate Iran’s capability to enrich uranium to weapons grade, it can prevent Iran from exercising that capability. It can do so by deterring Iran’s leaders from making the decision to break out of the agreement and produce nuclear weapons. To deter such a decision, a deal should meet three requirements.

First, it should have rigorous monitoring measures to convince Iran that any attempt to violate and break out of the agreement at either declared or covert sites would be detected very quickly. This would require intrusive verification provisions that go beyond the measures contained in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s additional protocol, including frequent access to centrifuge production facilities, detailed reporting of nuclear-related procurement and robust inspection procedures."

Ah, yes, "the rigorous monitoring measures." However, as reported by the IAEA last Thursday, the agency "remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile." And meanwhile, Iran continues to bar the IAEA from inspecting the Parchin military base outside of Iran."

Well, it seems that somebody has woken up to the problem involving Parchin. In an editorial entitled "A reward for Iran’s noncompliance," The Washington Post writes:

"Twice, in 2007 and in 2013, Iran agreed with the IAEA on a “work plan” to clear up the military research issues. In both instances, it then stonewalled inspectors, refusing to answer questions or permit access to sites. After the agency sought access in 2011 to a military complex called Parchin, where warhead detonation tests may have been carried out, satellite surveillance revealed that Iran had demolished buildings and excavated ground in an apparent cover-up operation.

. . . .

An appropriate response to this blatant violation of agreements would be to insist that Iran complete the IAEA work plan before any long-term accord is signed or any further sanctions lifted. Inspectors need their questions answered so that they will be able to determine later whether Iran has violated the controls on its nuclear research expected to be part of a deal. Furthermore, it is vital to establish that Tehran will deliver on its commitments and that it will be held accountable if it does not."

Obama, however, has dedicated his second term as president to making Iran a "successful regional power." It doesn't bother him that Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are now overrunning Yemen, despite his declaration in September 2014, "This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years."

For those of you who are brave enough to risk losing your breakfast, have a look at a Vox article entitled "These Obama administration quotes about Yemen are almost too cringe-worthy to read" by Zack Beauchamp. An example of the quotes listed by Beauchamp:

"The truth is, you can dwell on Yemen, or you can recognize that we're one agreement away from a game-changing, legacy-setting nuclear accord on Iran that tackles what everyone agrees is the biggest threat to the region."

— A senior State Department official to Politico's Michael Crowley, March 26.

Yes, it's time for Congress to intervene. Obama and his obsequious cronies have all been infected with a lethal strain of narcissistic dementia.

David Brooks, "The Field Is Flat": Can Hillary Bring in the Black Vote?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Field Is Flat," David Brooks would have us know of a "series of trends that may cancel out the Democratic gains with immigrants, singles and the like" in America's 2016 presidential election. Brooks explains:

• "People tend to get more Republican as they get older, and they vote at higher rates."

• "Democrats continue to lose support among the white working class."

• "Democrats are now doing worse among college-educated voters."

• "And, most significant, there are signs that Hispanic voters, at least in Sun Belt states, are getting more Republican as they move up the educational ladder."

Actually, the mechanics of the 2016 presidential election are a heck of a lot simpler than David thinks. As reported in an August 28, 2013 Washington Post article entitled "The wide racial gap in Obama’s presidential elections, in 2 charts" by Peyton M. Craighill and Sean Sullivan:

"Ninety-three percent of black voters supported President Obama in 2012, exit poll data show. By comparison, just 39 percent of white voters supported a second term for the president. The 54-point racial gap (nearly identical to the 52-point gap in Obama's first election in 2008) was the widest since 1984, when blacks were 55 points more likely than whites to back Democratic nominee Walter Mondale.

. . . .

Obama's 2012 victory was due in no small part to both strong support and strong turnout from minority voters. No other Democratic president in history had won with as large a deficit among white voters.

Blacks made history in 2012, voting at a higher rate than whites for the first time ever, Census Bureau data show. Sixty-six percent of eligible black voters cast ballots, compared to 64 percent of eligible white voters."

Or in other words, it all boils down to whether Hillary will be able to attract an overwhelming majority of African American voters in 2016, and whether they will turn out in the same numbers for her as they did for Obama. If she fails to gain this kind of support, she loses the election to her Republican opponent.

It's that simple.

[Those who read this blog know that I requested a correction of would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman's last Times opinion piece, and lo and behold:

"Correction: March 27, 2015

Thomas L. Friedman’s column on Wednesday incorrectly described the Taliban as an Arab movement. Most of its members are Pashtuns, not Arabs."

Will wonders never cease!]

New York Times Editorial, "A Dangerous Escalation in Iraq": Obama Seeks to Induce Iran to Sign a Nuclear Deal

The Tuesday deadline for signing an interim nuclear arrangement between the P5+1 and Iran is fast approaching, and not surprisingly, Obama agreed to US bombing of the Iraqi city of Tikrit, which is held by ISIS, in support of an Iranian-led assault. Today, a New York Times editorial entitled "A Dangerous Escalation in Iraq" puzzles over why Obama ordered the attack:

"By ordering the bombing of the Iraqi city of Tikrit, President Obama has escalated America’s involvement in the fight against the Islamic State without providing a shred of evidence showing how it could advance American interests, or what happens once the bombs stop falling.

The strikes are part of a campaign that from the outset has been waged without the authorization from Congress required by the Constitution. Mr. Obama is pursuing the operation at the request of Iraqi officials, who said air power was needed to break a stalemate."

Stop! In fact, the bombing was ordered by Obama to induce Khamenei to sign off on the nuclear agreement. No authorization from Congress? Congress opposes the nuclear deal with Iran, and Congress, for all Obama cares, can go to hell.

The editorial continues:

"These strikes could further destabilize Iraq if the United States is seen to be siding with Shiite militias — which make up the bulk of the ground forces battling ISIS in Tikrit — over Iraq’s minority Sunnis. Yet in a sign of just how unpredictable the dynamics of the region are, some of the militias see the United States as the greater evil and are so angered by the airstrikes that they have already announced they are pulling out of the fight."

Stop! These strikes could "further destabilize" only Iraq? How about the Middle East? In fact, the entire Sunni Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE, have never been more furious with Obama for assisting Iran in its efforts to achieve regional hegemony. But then again, Obama did place us on notice that he wishes to see Iran emerge as a "successful regional power":

"They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it. Because if they do, there's incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of — inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody. That would be good for the United States, that would be good for the region, and most of all, it would be good for the Iranian people."

Or stated otherwise, Obama is seeking a trade-off: If Iran signs the nuclear agreement, he will not stand in the way of its Middle East ambitions. However, there is a difference between standing on the sidelines and actively providing air support to what is unquestionably an Iranian-led attack upon Tikrit.

The Times editorial acknowledges:

"Until now, America has left the battle in the hands of a force of about 30,000 Iraqis led by Iran and composed mainly of Iran-backed militias; they are facing a far smaller group of ISIS jihadists. The Iraqi government and its army have been largely sidelined, having lost credibility when the army failed to stop the ISIS onslaught last year.

. . . .

Before ordering the airstrikes, Mr. Obama reportedly insisted that the Shiite militias move aside so the Iraqi Army could play a larger role, and on Thursday Iraqi special forces were reported to be advancing on Tikrit. Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, who had been advising forces around Tikrit, reportedly left the area on Sunday."

Stop! Indeed, it's all a show, including Suleimani's "disappearance." But Obama has failed to fool anyone, particularly the Saudis and Egyptians.

The editorial concludes:

"Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the senior leader of the Shiite world, can have an important function in making the case for a more inclusive government. So can Iran, whose fitness for rejoining the international community will be judged by its willingness to cooperate on security in the region."

Stop! Iran has no desire to foster security in the region, as evidenced by its support of Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are overrunning a country which had been used by the US to launch drone strikes against ISIS and al-Qaeda, and the direct involvement of Iran's military in Syria in support of mass murderer Bashar al-Assad. Yes, the Times, which is in bed with Obama regarding the nuclear pact with Khamenei, is truly wearing its naivete on its sleeve.

John Bolton, "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran": Sorry, Obama Has Already Surrendered

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran," former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton explains that whatever nuclear "privileges" are granted to Iran pursuant to its pending agreement with the P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will demand the same. (In my blog entry yesterday entitled "Thomas Friedman, "Look Before Leaping": Obama Gets Tough With the White House Florist," I suggested that Jordan and the UAE would also seek to begin building their own bombs.) Convinced that Iran will not forgo its nuclear weapons program regardless of the threat or implementation of international sanctions, Bolton concludes:

"The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East."

War, or even the threat of war, is frightening. I've lived through enough of them. On the other hand, the failure to stop Iran in its tracks is reminiscent of Chamberlain's 1938 "peace for our time" Munich Agreement. Chamberlain could have said no to Hitler and saved the lives of more than 60 million people, but he didn't. Such is human nature.

Yes, Obama's pact with Khamenei is certain to bring about a Middle East nuclear arms race. Moreover, given the regimes involved, these weapons will be used - that's a promise.

Could a bomb hit the US? Absolutely. Obama's agreement does not prevent Iran from developing ICBMs.  But as John Kerry acknowledged yesterday:

"What happens if, as our critics propose, we just walk away from a plan that the rest of the world were to deem to be reasonable? That could happen. Well, the talks would collapse. Iran would have the ability to go right back spinning its centrifuges and enriching to the degree they want, if they want, if that's what they choose. And the sanctions will not hold, because those other people who deem the plan to be reasonable will walk away and say, 'You do your thing, we’ll do ours.'"

Or in other words, American foreign policy is now being dictated by Russia, China and European corporations hungry for renewed trade with Iran, i.e. Obama has already surrendered.

Obama's Schizophrenic Middle East Policy in Yemen and Iraq

If you currently go to the homepages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, you will see lead news articles informing us:

1. With the support of Obama, the Saudi air force is attacking Houthi rebels, backed by Iran, in Yemen. As reported by WaPo in an article entitled "Saudi Arabia launches air attacks in Yemen," by Ali al-Mujahed and Karen DeYoung: "the White House announced late Wednesday that President Obama had authorized U.S. forces­ to provide logistical and intelligence support to the operation."
2. The US air force is attacking the Iraqi city of Tikrit, which is held by ISIS, in support of an Iranian-led assault. A New York Times article entitled "Opening New Iraq Front, U.S. Strikes ISIS in Tikrit" by Rod Nordland and Peter Bakermarch acknowledges: "For more than three weeks, the Americans had stayed on the sideline of the battle for Tikrit, wary of being in the position of aiding an essentially Iranian-led operation."

Maybe some enterprising reporter would care to ask Josh Earnest about this anomaly.

Thomas Friedman, "Look Before Leaping": Obama Gets Tough With the White House Florist

In case you didn't notice, after six years as president of the United States, Obama is finally taking no nonsense. On Tuesday, the White House florist was reportedly "escorted from the building." But wait, there's more! "Senior White House officials" are also letting us know that Israel has been spying on Iran's nuclear talks with the US. Why should it matter that the alleged spying (the information in question was freely handed over to Israel by France, a participant in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran) and was also the product of Israeli espionage involving Iran? Moreover, why should we care that the alleged Israeli spying was discovered by American "intercepts" of official Israeli communications, i.e. US spying upon Israel? And what difference does it make that Israel shared the information in question with Obama's most feared enemy . . . Congress? Netanyahu is not going to prevent Obama from giving nuclear weapons to Iran's mullahs within a decade or less! Israel must be taught that this pussy has claws!

But what about the nuclear deal that Obama is preparing to sign with Khamenei? When Obama acolyte and would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman publicly expresses his doubts about the wisdom of this agreement, beware! In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Look Before Leaping," Friedman writes regarding the negative aspects of such a pact:

"Not enough attention is being paid to the regional implications — particularly what happens if we strengthen Iran at a time when large parts of the Sunni Arab world are in meltdown.

. . . .

The challenge to this argument, explains Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East specialist at the Carnegie Endowment, is that while the Obama team wants to believe this deal could be 'transformational,' Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, 'sees it as transactional' — Iran plugs its nose, does the deal, regains its strength and doubles-down on its longstanding revolutionary principles.

. . . .

[If sanctions are lifted,] Iran would have billions of dollars more to spend on cyberwarfare, long-range ballistic missiles and projecting power across the Arab world, where its proxies already dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus and Sana."

Friedman fails to mention that any such agreement with Iran will ignite a Middle East nuclear arms race. If Obama allows Iran to build it first atomic bombs within a decade pursuant to the proposed agreement's "sunset clause," Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE will all immediately begin their own nuclear weapons development programs. In addition, these weapons, in a region known for its instability, will - I promise you - be used.

On the "plus side," Friedman tells us:

"[T]he ending of sanctions could open Iran to the world and bring in enough fresh air — Iran has been deliberately isolated since 1979 by its ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard Corps — to gradually move Iran from being a revolutionary state to a normal one, and one less inclined to threaten Israel.

. . . .

Patching up the U.S.-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Arab Taliban[*] in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria.

. . . .

For 10 years, it was America that was overstretched across Iraq and Afghanistan. Now it will be Iran’s turn."

An agreement "could" transform Iran "from being a revolutionary state to a normal one"? Isn't that a gamble lacking any rational basis?

Patching up the U.S.-Iran relationship "could" counterbalance ISIS, "now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria"? Friedman forgets to mention that a tyrannical Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, also now effectively controls significant chunks of Iraq and Syria.

And now it will be "Iran's turn" to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan? I opposed involvement of American ground forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but does this mean that the US should acquiesce to Iran extending its hegemony to both these nations?

Perhaps Obama is only capable of getting tough with flower arrangers.

[*I sent the following email to Andrew Rosenthal of the Times:

"In his most recent Times op-ed entitled "Look Before Leaping," Thomas Friedman writes (my emphasis in red):

'Patching up the U.S.-Iran relationship could enable America to better manage and balance the Sunni Arab Taliban in Afghanistan, and counterbalance the Sunni jihadists, like those in the Islamic State, or ISIS, now controlling chunks of Iraq and Syria.'

The Taliban is not 'Arab' (Afghanistan is not an Arab country, although there is a very small Arab minority). In fact, the word "Taliban" means 'students' in Pashto.'

Let's see if Rosenthal responds.

Thank you, "k," for pointing out this error.]

David Brooks, "How to Fight Anti-Semitism": It Begins by Saying "No" to Obama's Deal With Iran

Are there three different kinds of anti-Semitism?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," David Brooks differentiates between the anti-Semitism of the Middle East, Europe and the United States. According to Brooks, the anti-Semitism of the Middle East is "is a form of derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people." On the other hand, Brooks would have us know that in Europe, anti-Semitism "looks like a response to alienation" and is "particularly high where unemployment is rampant." Finally, concerning the United States, Brooks says that anti-Semitism "remains an astonishingly non-anti-Semitic place," and in this regard, Brooks declares:

"In the Obama administration, there are people who know that the Iranians are anti-Semitic, but they don’t know what to do with that fact and put this mental derangement on a distant shelf. They negotiate with the Iranian leaders, as if anti-Semitism was some odd quirk, instead of what it is, a core element of their mental architecture."

Brooks, however, fails to ask how a supposedly intellectual American president can ignore this so-called "mental architecture" and seek to provide Iran's mullahs with an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

Brooks also fails to consider an op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” by fellow Times columinist Thomas Friedman, in which Tom Terrific declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Similarly, Brooks ignores the conduct of fellow Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. As was reported in an article entitled "Nick Kristof’s Piggishness," written by Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon:

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as 'the 2 most pig like lobbies' in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as 'pigs.'" 

I would delicately suggest to Brooks that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly in the media, can be just as sinister as the strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far "closer to home" than Brooks believes.

Thomas Friedman, "Bibi Will Make History": And Tom Will Continue to Write Crapola

“First, no matter what’ve you’ve heard, if you like your doctor -- or health care plan -- you can keep it.”

- President Obama

Before turning to the latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bibi Will Make History" penned by would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman, allow me to let you in on several little-known facts: Politicians lie. Moreover, politicians lie to serve their own interests. Obama, Hillary and Netanyahu have all been known to bend the truth.

Now, also consider how one of Israel's most "hawkish" prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was able to make peace with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. And give some thought to how Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and not someone from Israel's center-left, evacuated Gaza. Like it or not, only Israeli politicians from the right, given their backing, have proven strong enough to make such far-reaching concessions.

Now, let's have a look at Friedman's cockamamie opinion piece . . .

Railing at Netanyahu for declaring that if reelected, there would be no Palestinian state, Friedman writes:

"Now, if there are not going to be two states for two peoples in the area between the Jordan River and Mediterranean, then there is going to be only one state — and that one state will either be a Jewish democracy that systematically denies the voting rights of about one-third of its people or it will be a democracy and systematically erodes the Jewish character of Israel."

Needless to say, Friedman makes no mention of the fact that it is Mahmoud Abbas, now in the eleventh year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority, who has stood in the way of West Bank elections for fear of his Hamas rivals.

Friedman also makes no mention of the fact that Abbas is in no hurry to attain Palestinian statehood. Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Finally, Friedman fails to consider that there is a middle ground between the absence of statehood and Israeli annexation of the West Bank - something that is simply not going to happen.

I favor a two-state solution and wish the Palestinians peace and prosperity, but before they are given statehood, there should be ironclad guarantees that rockets and missiles will not be fired at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa from the West Bank. Can the Palestinians offer such guarantees as chaos runs rampant throughout the Muslim Middle East? Not likely.

But more to the point, if such ironclad guarantees were to be offered, I would not be surprised if Netanyahu, who is more intimately acquainted with the demographics of the West Bank than Tom Terrific, would again change his position regarding a two-state solution. Such is the nature of politicians.

[It happened sooner than expected: In an interview with NBC, Netanyahu today declared: "I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution." What a surprise ! . . . not.]

Washington Post Editorial, "Who loses as Netanyahu wins?": The Answer Is Obama

After The New York Times threw a hissy fit over the results of Israel's democratic elections on Tuesday, The Washington Post is providing its own assessment of the Likud victory. In an editorial entitled "Who loses as Netanyahu wins?," WaPo concludes:

"Israelis remain strongly pro-American. But Mr. Netanyahu has proved that it is possible for an Israeli leader to campaign against the U.S. president and still win reelection. That doesn’t bode well for either U.S.-Israeli relations or for Mr. Obama’s ability to achieve his goals in the Middle East."

Sorry, girls and boys, but you've got the story all wrong. Netanyahu did not campaign against Obama, who wants to provide the mullahs with unrestricted access to an arsenal of atomic bombs within a decade. Rather, Netanyahu was campaigning against threats of annihilation from Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Netanyahu's election doesn't "bode well" for "Obama’s ability to achieve his goals in the Middle East"? Excuse me, but what are those goals? Obama declared that he wishes to allow Iran, which stones to death women and hangs homosexuals, to become a "very successful regional power." Shouldn't there be someone brave enough to say "no" to America's president, who is only now beginning to show his true radical colors?

And as long as we're on the topic of Obama's Middle East goals, perhaps someone could explain to me his goals regarding Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Kurdistan. It's not clear to me . . . or anyone else for that matter.

Regarding Netanyahu's assertion that if reelected, there would be no Palestinian state, it should be pointed out that Mahmoud Abbas is also in no hurry to attain Palestinian statehood. Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas since that time, and this logic, premised upon survival and the suppression of his Hamas rivals, still guides Abbas, who is in the eleventh year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Sure, I favor a two-state solution and wish the Palestinians peace and prosperity, but before they are given statehood, there should be ironclad guarantees that rockets and missiles will not be fired at Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa from the West Bank.

For me and many other Israelis, it's simply a matter of survival.

Thomas Friedman, "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day": Sorry, Tom, Obama Decided the Election in Favor of Bibi

Definition of "Schadenfreude"

"A feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people."

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It should come as no surprise that would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is devastated by Netanyahu's victory in Israel's parliamentary elections. What a shame! . . . not. Writing about Israel, Iran and Iraq in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day," Friedman begins by commenting upon Netanyahu's success:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party pretty well trounced the Labor Party leader, Isaac Herzog, in the race to form Israel’s next government. Netanyahu clearly made an impressive 11th-hour surge since the pre-election polls of last week. It is hard to know what is more depressing: that Netanyahu went for the gutter in the last few days in order to salvage his campaign — renouncing his own commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians and race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls — or the fact that this seemed to work.

To be sure, Netanyahu could reverse himself tomorrow. As the Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea wrote: Netanyahu’s promises are like something 'written on ice on a very hot day.' But the fact is a good half of Israel identifies with the paranoid, everyone-is-against-us, and religious-nationalist tropes Netanyahu deployed in this campaign. That, along with the fact that some 350,000 settlers are now living in the West Bank, makes it hard to see how a viable two-state solution is possible anymore no matter who would have won."

Well, it should come as no surprise that Friedman is mistaken on all counts.

Israeli polls are notoriously inaccurate, and I am dubious whether Netanyahu's Likud Party went from a four parliamentary seat deficit to a six seat advantage over Herzog's Labor Party owing to anything Bibi said over the past several days.

But more to the point, I am not religious, I don't live in the West Bank, I believe in a two-state solution (if ever the Palestinians will accept this), and I detest the lifestyle and shenanigans of Bibi; however, I voted yesterday for the Likud for the first time in my life, albeit with a clothespin over my nose. Why? Simple. I believe that there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe, and I am convinced that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. When Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei tells me that he wishes to annihilate Israel, I believe him. On the other hand, I don't think that everyone is against us. Canada is not against Israel. The Czech Republic is not against Israel. Obama, on the other hand, is against Israel, as evidenced by the fact that he is willing to give Iran the unrestricted right to manufacture an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

If someone wishes to argue that Obama is not against Israel, I suggest that they ask The Los Angeles Times to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Rashid Khalidi. It's just not going to happen. I have always argued that Obama is a radical in moderate clothing, but with less than two years remaining of his second term, the disguise is slipping away.

So why vote this time for the Likud instead of Labor? Because Israel's back is up against the wall, and I have serious doubts whether Herzog has the gumption to stand up to Obama concerning Iran. Was I alone yesterday, voting for the Likud for reasons of survival? Not a chance, as I learned after speaking with friends at the polling station. It turns out that none other than Obama decided the election in favor of Bibi.

Maureen Dowd, "An Open Letter to hdr22@clintonemail.com": Headed for Junk Mail

Searching for an epic op-ed to enliven an otherwise saturnine Sunday? Go to Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "An Open Letter to hdr22@clintonemail.com," in which Dowd takes aim at Hillary's queen-sized derrière. Dowd begins:

"SINCE open letters to secretive and duplicitous regimes are in fashion, we would like to post an Open Letter to the Leaders of the Clinton Republic of Chappaqua:

It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola."

A few paragraphs down, Dowd continues:

"Instead of raising us up by behaving like exemplary, sterling people, you bring us down to your own level, a place of blurred lines and fungible ethics and sleazy associates. Your family’s foundation gobbles tens of millions from Saudi Arabia and other repressive regimes, whose unspoken message is: 'We’re going to give you money to go improve the world. Now leave us alone to go persecute women.'"

But does it matter? Will a viable senator or governor summon the courage to challenge Hillary in the Democratic primaries? Will this latest email scandal prevent any Democrat from casting his/her ballot for a person with no achievements as First Lady, senator or secretary of state? Not a chance.

You see, Dowd's missive is headed for junk mail, inasmuch as the specter of the Clintons' return to the White House is of America's own making.

Roger Cohen, "The Other Iran Letter": Now Read a Real Open Letter Written From Prison by the Iranian Poet Hashem Shaabani

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Other Iran Letter," Roger Cohen pens an "open letter to the leaders of the United States of America." Well, anyone who reads this blog knows what I think of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, and rather than relate to Cohen's drivel, I prefer to provide you with a portion of a real open letter written from an Iranian prison in 2013 by the poet Hashem Shaabani:

"In February 11/2011 when I was at home and after my return of the Sheakh Ansari minor school (I am a teacher and I was teaching Arabic language in different minor school and high school) the Iranian intelligence services arrested me and after a long interrogation they accused me of the founder of the popular Resistance movement for liberation of Ahwaz and as I mentioned above I used this nicknames just to express my feeling toward the misery and the unspeakable oppression of my people and these nicknames have nothing to do with outside but the interrogators of mine refused my claims and let me to confess on myself under the severe and unbearable tortures physically and psychologically. Under the ongoing tortures I have lost my control on my real conscious and my mind engulfed with hallucination that made me to confess and accept the imposed charges that extracted of myself and the friends of mine by harsh tortures in the solitary confinement. After a long term in the solitary confinement the intelligence service transferred me to the Karoon prison. My first trial along with my friends was on May 21/2012 in the revolutionary court of Ahwaz in which I understood the reality and strongly rejected the charges of having link with organizations outside of the country and I said to the judge that the external organization that you are claiming about it ,is nobody just me Hashem Shabbani. In fact I confessed on myself due to the severe tortures and the intelligence security extracted the confessions from me and my friends according to their will. Finally after passing three sessions of my trial in court I have got aware of the fake scenario that fabricated by the intelligence service by extracting baseless confessions and using them against us. I have got shocked when I read the verified death penalty sentences that issued against me and four of my friends along with 20 years in exile for my friend Rahman Assakre."

Hashem Shaabani was hanged to death on January 27, 2014 after "moderate" Iranian President Hassan Rouhani approved the sentence.

New York Times Editorial, "Turkey’s Drift From NATO": Is Erdogan Still Obama's Best Overseas Friend?

In an editorial entitled "Turkey’s Drift From NATO," The New York Times has finally gotten around to warning us of developments in Turkey. The editorial states:

"On crucial issues — from fighting the Islamic State to fielding integrated defense systems, which share information and operate together, to standing firm against Russian aggression in Ukraine — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government either are not cooperating fully or are acting in outright defiance of NATO’s priorities and interests. Add the fact that Turkey under Mr. Erdogan has become increasingly authoritarian, and it becomes apparent that the country is drifting away from an alliance whose treaty says it is 'founded on the principles of democracy' as much as defense."

The Times editorial forgets to mention the newly established alliance between Hamas and Turkey.

Do you remember how Obama named Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as one of his best overseas friends in 2012? Well, it would seem that Erdogan has now been replaced on Obama's friends list by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, upon whom America's president is so desperate to bestow a nuclear weapons arsenal within a decade, in order to ensure his "legacy."

David Brooks, "Hillary Clinton’s Big Test": Compare With Charles Krauthammer's "Early Onset Clinton Fatigue"

Observing the multitude of "confrontations" faced by Hillary Clinton over the years, David Brooks asks in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton’s Big Test," how Hillary Clinton will respond to future "political stress." Brooks writes:

"If she goes strong, she will fight fire with fire. If she is hit, she’ll hit back. She’ll treat information as a source of power to be hoarded and controlled. She’ll strap on armor each morning and go into each day strictly disciplined — ready to prove that this woman is tough enough to be president.

If she goes large, she’ll resist the urge to fight scorn with scorn. Temperamentally, she’ll have to rise above the bitterness, as Reagan, F.D.R. and Lincoln did. She and her staff will recall that the primary mission is not to win the news cycle by hitting back at whatever loon is hitting her. It’s to craft a government agenda that can win the steady support of 61 senators. It’s to win a governing majority."

"Craft a government agenda"? Which agenda? Does anyone know what Hillary stands for today - other than herself?

Brooks bunches Hillary's email controversy together with "Whitewater, Travelgate, health care reform, cattle futures, Monica Lewinsky, [and] Benghazi." That's a helluva lot of baggage. But more to the point, is it fair to link the current email scandal with past "peccadilloes"?

Today, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Early Onset Clinton Fatigue," Charles Krauthammer also weighs in on Hillary, but focuses on the email imbroglio. Krauthammer writes:

"Everyone knows she kept the e-mail private for purposes of concealment and, above all, control. For other State Department employees, their e-mails belong to the government. The records officers decide to return to you what’s personal. For Hillary Clinton, she decides.

The point of regulations is to ensure government transparency. The point of owning the server is to ensure opacity. Because she holds the e-mails, all document requests by Congress, by subpoena, by Freedom of Information Act inquiries have ultimately to go through her lawyers, who will stonewall until the end of time — or Election Day 2016, whichever comes first."

Once again, what is Hillary's agenda? A nation of law and equality or the fostering of personal aggrandizement?

The answer is plain for all to see.

New York Times Editorial, "Republican Idiocy on Iran": Tom Cotton's "Disgraceful and Irresponsible" Letter

Obama's efforts to sign a nuclear deal with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei are being derailed by Congress, and America's president is responding with extreme petulance. After all, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes let us know that such an agreement had become the raison d'être of the Obama administration in its second term:

"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."

In an editorial entitled "Republican Idiocy on Iran," The New York Times voices Obama's dismay and brands Senator Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran, which was signed by 47 Republican senators, as "disgraceful and irresponsible." The Times goes on to label Cotton as "a junior senator with no foreign policy credentials." However, The Times fails to observe that Obama was also a "junior senator with no foreign policy credentials," who, upon becoming president, foisted upon the US his personal view of the world, which had been shaped by the likes of Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. (A pity we are still being denied access to the tape of Obama at a 2003 farewell party for Khalidi, which is locked away in a safe at The Los Angeles Times.)


The New York Times editorial proceeds to ceremoniously declare:

"Instead of trying to be leaders and statesmen, the Republicans in Congress seem to think their role is outside the American government, divorced from constitutional principles, tradition and the security interests of the American people."

The "security interests of the American people" are being served by providing fanatical mullahs, who stone to death women accused of adultery and hang homosexuals, with the unconditional right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade and to manufacture ICBMs today with no constraints whatsoever? Yeah, right.

The Times editorial continues:

"Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them."

The "Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them"? Oh really? And what happened to America's global stature when Obama backed away from the "red line" he set involving the use of chemical weapons by Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad against civilians?

The editorial continues:

"But perhaps President Obama described this bizarre reality best. 'It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,' he said. 'It’s an unusual coalition.'"

This is the same argument made by David Ignatius earlier this week in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible." 
(Note the similarity between the title of Ignatius's opinion piece, which uses the words "dangerous and irresponsible," and the language of the Times editorial, which label's Cotton's letter "disgraceful and irresponsible." Yesterday, John Kerry also branded the letter as "irresponsible."Just another instance of great minds thinking alike and happening upon the same sound bites? I don't think so.)
Ignatius also warned that Cotton's letter would serve the interest of Iranian hard-liners:

"To this assertion of the impermanence of an agreement, Khamenei and other hard-liners might well respond with an Iranian version of 'Amen.' Indeed, they could use the Senate GOP letter as a rationale for abandoning aspects of the deal they find too constraining. That would force the United States to consider military action. The casus belli, bizarrely, might begin with an argument made by Senate Republicans."

As I wrote in response to Ignatius, there is only one person calling the shots in Iran and that's Khamenei. Everyone else in Iran is subservient to him. Iranian "moderates"? Who are they? Iranian President Hassan Rouhani? As reported in December 2014 in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Execution rate accelerates in Iran under Rouhani" by Hagai Lap:

"The rise in the number of trials and death sentences during the rule of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, runs counter to the expectations of improved human rights in Iran following the rule of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number of death trials have risen by 16% in comparison with last year of Ahmadinejad's presidency, which is the highest in 15 years."

And let's not forget Rouhani's pre-election interview in which he boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

The Times concludes:

"The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring."

Spare me! One need only observe what transpired in North Korea. But why should Obama, whose worldview was shaped by Ayers, Khalidi and Wright, think otherwise? And why should the Times question the opinions of this sage, who is so desperate to pave the way to a nuclear nightmare?