New York Times Editorial, "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs": Who Wrote This Twaddle?

What I would give to know who wrote today's New York Times editorial entitled "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs"! The editorial begins:

"Saudi Arabia is so angry at the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers that it is threatening to develop its own nuclear capability — one more indication of the deep differences between the United States and the Persian Gulf Arab states over the deal, which the major powers and Iran aim to complete by June 30. President Obama had hoped to bridge that gap with a show of American-Arab unity at this week’s summit meeting at Camp David. The summit meeting fell well short of his ambitions, an unfortunate outcome for both sides.

. . . .

The most overt evidence of the unsettled ties between the United States and its longstanding Arab allies was a decision by King Salman of Saudi Arabia to stay home, after the White House announced he would be at the meeting. Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, also a no-show, chose to attend a horse show in Britain."

A pity Obama is not inviting Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu to Camp David to bridge their differences. Netanyahu would come, but Obama has no intention of inviting his bête noire, who might educate the president concerning the realities of the Middle East.

The Times editorial continues:

"It is hard to see how threatening and snubbing a president who is offering crucial assistance to the Saudi-led war in Yemen and who still has two years left in office advances Arab interests. Even so, Mr. Obama could have done a better job of calming Arab insecurities long before he invited the gulf leaders to Camp David.

The Sunni Arabs have two main worries. One is that the nuclear agreement with Iran would leave Iran with a limited capability to produce nuclear fuel for energy and medical purposes, instead of ending it outright. They also worry that Iran’s re-entry into the international community after decades of isolation would mean that Washington’s loyalties would henceforth be divided and that America could no longer be counted on to defend them."

It is "hard to see" why Sunni Gulf State leaders are snubbing the president? For the love of heaven, Obama is giving Iran the right to manufacture a nuclear arsenal after 10 years, if Khamenei doesn't cheat before the expiration of the agreement - which he will. Then, too, Obama is giving Iran a signing bonus of $50 billion of freed bank deposits, which will quickly find its way into the hands of the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Yes, I know: the editorial claims that the funds will be used for "accumulated domestic needs." Indeed, this might be a cogent argument were it not for the fact that Iran is a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, and persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims, as its leaders await the return of the Mahdi. Attribute rational conduct to Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? I don't think so.

Remarkably, the editorial does not address Obama's nonsensical claim that if Iran cheats, sanctions will "snap back" into place. On Wednesday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin gave the lie to this outlandish attempt to sell the deal with Khamenei by declaring:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

The editorial concludes:

"A verifiable nuclear deal that limits Iran’s abilities has the best chance of keeping Iran from a nuclear weapon. The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities, which could set off a new arms race and inflame the region even more."

A "verifiable nuclear deal" of the kind that was also negotiated by Wendy Sherman with North Korea in the past? Good luck!

Moreover, as previously observed, the deal is not intended to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. Rather, it is intended to delay by ten years the fabrication of such a weapon. "The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities"? True. The solution lies in a credible effort by the US to stand up to Tehran and deny them any possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not occurring, and the Arabs, who better understand Iran than Obama, know this.

[Regarding Obama's credibility involving his "unique" interpretation of events in the Middle East, see also "Obama Claims Chlorine 'Historically Has Not Been Listed as a Chemical Weapon': Liar!."]