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.

Obama and the End of Days: The Secret Add-On Agreement With Iran

Tweet

My prior blog entry examined the issue, who is the bigger liar, Hillary or Donald. It now turns out that Obama puts them both in his little pocket.

In a Times of Israel article entitled "As secret accord is revealed, Israel complains: Iran deal ‘intensified’ nuke problem" by Raphael Ahren and AP, we learn of a newly leaked, secret add-on agreement supplementing Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran. According to this addendum, after 11 years Iran is permitted to spin enriched uranium using advanced centrifuges. This would reduce nuclear weapons break out time to less than six months.

In addition, the addendum permits Iran to engage in large-scale nuclear testing prior to the expiration of the agreement.

Why did Obama feel the need to prevent Congress from seeing this codicil? I wonder ...

Yes, the world gets uglier with every passing day.

Is Iran in Compliance With Obama's Unsigned Nuclear Deal? No Way, Jose!

Tweet

To great fanfare, sanctions against Iran will be lifted after the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that Khamenei and friends have upheld their part of the unsigned nuclear deal with the P5+1. Is Iran actually in compliance? Not a chance.

VOA News informed us on Thursday, "Iran has poured concrete into the core of the Arak nuclear reactor, making it nearly impossible to produce weapons-grade plutonium at the facility." However, on Tuesday, as reported by Thomas Erdbrinkjan in a New York Times article entitled "Iranian Official Denies That Nuclear Reactor Was Sealed":

"An Iranian nuclear official on Tuesday denied a report that technicians had removed the core of the country’s only heavy-water reactor and poured concrete into the cavity, a final step toward the completion of the historic nuclear agreement in July and the lifting of sanctions on Iran.

The official, Ali Asghar Zarean, Iran’s deputy nuclear chief, told state television that a report about the Arak reactor by the semiofficial Fars News Agency on Monday was baseless. He said Iran planned to sign an agreement next week with China to modify the reactor, which is capable of producing the plutonium needed to build an atomic weapon."

So wherein lies the truth? Perhaps the IAEA would care to provide us with some pictures? Not likely.

Moreover, as reported by DEBKAfile in article entitled "Progress of sanctions relief will quicken Iran’s power struggle, spur clash with Saudi Arabia":

"[The] deal provided for the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at the Natanz center to be reduced from 19,500 to 5,050. Our sources report that 9,000 are still in operation.

. . . .

There is no confirmation that the number of centrifuges operating at the underground facility of Fordo was cut down to one thousand, as agreed."

Yup, we are witnessing a replay of Neville Chamberlain's 1938 declaration of "Peace for our time." The silver lining in the story is that in order for Iran to balance its budget, the price of a barrel of oil must be $130, whereas the current price is below $30, and with more Iranian oil on the market, the worldwide glut only stands to increase.