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?