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.