New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran": The Times Forgets, "No Deal Is Better Than a Bad Deal"

Who cares if "Iran's foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament on Tuesday that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers"? It's more important for The New York Times to safeguard Obama from Netanyahu's opposition to the president's legacy-generating nuclear framework "deal" with Iran, and in an editorial entitled "Israel’s Unworkable Demands on Iran," The New York Times  comes out swinging, albeit in punch-drunk fashion. The editorial begins by informing us:

"There are important details to be worked out before a final agreement is expected to be concluded by June 30. Even so, the framework is surprisingly comprehensive and offers the best potential for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

The "framework is surprisingly comprehensive"? According to whose "fact sheet"? That prepared by the US, Iran or France? Inspection, sanctions and disposition of Iranian stocks of enriched uranium are all in dispute. Worse still, the "framework" - according to all parties - does not seek to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Rather, the "framework" would allow Iran to begin building its nuclear arsenal within 15 years, and this time frame will certainly be negotiated downward by Iran when it again meets with the P5+1 to forge a final agreement. None other than Obama has acknowledged that pursuant to the current framework, "in Year 13, 14, 15, they [would] have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

The editorial continues:

"Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections 'anywhere, anytime' by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses."

My goodness, how unreasonable those pesky Israelis are proving themselves! Can you imagine anyone demanding "anywhere, anytime" inspections from those wholesome, trusty Iranians, who have repeatedly proven that they have nothing to hide . . . other than, for example, the Fordow nuclear development facility that was built into a mountain. (Of course, if you seek to conduct nuclear research for medical purposes, the research facility should always be built into a bomb-proof mountain.) But wait! Didn't US deputy national security adviser for strategic communication Ben Rhodes just inform us that there would be anywhere, anytime 24/7 inspections - something which is hotly disputed by Iran?

The Times goes on to say:

"While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site."

Ah yes, a "commission." Excuse me, friends, but are we talking about a UN "commission"? And how much time would it take for an Iran-friendly UN commission to adjudicate an IAEA request to inspect a suspicious site? Until today, the IAEA has been denied access to the Parchin military base.

The Times would have us know that Netanyahu's "new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all." But as we have been repeatedly told by the Obama administration, "No deal is better than a bad deal."

This is a bad "deal."