NY Times: Now That We’ve Surrendered To Iran, Perhaps Other Issues Can Now Be Discussed

The Editorial Board of the “Paper Of Record” is super pumped by the Iran deal, and figures that now that it is signed, perhaps we can work with Iran on other issues. They love this deal. Really love it. Because Obama made the surrender, er, the deal, happen. Interestingly, they inadvertently start off with one of the reasons that it is really, really bad

The Morning After the Iran Deal

If the historic nuclear accord with Iran gets through Congress and is not derailed by hard-liners in Iran, then what?

Apart from preventing Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the agreement is already altering the region’s political dynamics, creating severe tension between the United States and its allies in the Middle East. And yet it may create space to deal more effectively with broader issues like the wars in Syria and Yemen.

Of course, Obama had already been creating severe tension between the US and our allies, not just in the Middle East, but across the world. The question is, how does Obama deal more effectively with the “broader issues” when he has ducked them time and time again in the Middle East, and ducked them during all the years he has been reaching out to Iran? The editorial rather fails to explain

However, here’s the EB’s real point, coming in paragraph four

In theory, Iran’s decision to submit to strict limits on its nuclear activities provides a chance for cooperation on other issues. By lifting crippling international economic sanctions in return for the nuclear restraints, the deal could strengthen the hand of the moderates in Iran. But if the economic benefits don’t flow quickly enough, hopes for an end to economic hardship could be dashed, discrediting the moderates and boosting the hard-liners.

In other words, they want those sanctions lifted too-sweet, all for these supposed “moderates”, who, let’s face it, do not exist within the Iranian government. Remember, Obama utterly blew off the Iranian “Green Revolution”, which was by these moderates. The hard-liners run the country, and lifting the sanctions will help them. Not any of these fictional moderates in government.

In the negotiations, Mr. Obama was right to keep the focus on restraining the nuclear program. Now that the deal is done, Mr. Obama plans to encourage Iran, which has an abysmal human rights record and is exerting influence through proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere, to take a more constructive path, though there are no guarantees that Iran will be less disruptive in the future. On issues of human rights, terrorism and ballistic missiles, sanctions under United States law will remain in place indefinitely to keep pressure on Iran. The administration needs to be vigilant about exercising that leverage.

Any sanctions that are lifted will help Iran, as they will mean a huge influx of cash to the repressive regime in Iran, which will be spent on terrorism, weapons, and spreading their influence throughout the Middle East.

Still, with the breakthrough on the nuclear program, it would be a mistake not to test Tehran’s professed interest in working on other issues. On Friday, Iran announced that Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif would soon visit unspecified countries in the Gulf region to pursue a “new opportunity for regional and international cooperation.” Secretary of State John Kerry is in talks with the Russians, Saudis, Iranians and others about a political solution to end the war in Syria.

Iran’s professed interest is in controlling, or at least “sponsoring” (like with Syria) other countries. They want to be The dominant country in the region. And wipe Israel out. Iran’s interests run counter to the interests of the US and our allies. We now have nothing to offer Iran but more concessions. We’ve ceded all power in the region, and would continue to negotiate from a position of weakness.

The editorial goes on to note just how bad our relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other ME nations have become. Unsurprisingly, they have no solutions, just like they offer no solutions for how to deal with Iran, other than removing sanctions really, really fast. Hank puts it nicely in the comments

It didn’t work for Neville Chamberlain so one can predict what will happen next. I hope there is a Winston Churchill in the wings.

What, you mean we can’t have peace in our time?

Meanwhile, Americans are still stuck in jails in Iran, and the current POTUS is apparently doing not a damned thing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “NY Times: Now That We’ve Surrendered To Iran, Perhaps Other Issues Can Now Be Discussed”

  1. Liam Thomas says:

    Quite a number of folks thought the supreme court was going to strike down ACA this last session.

    In Response the HHS Secretary was summoned to the hill to testify about what they Administration was willing to do IF the law was struck down.

    “Is the president going to be willing and flexible to work with Congress to fix this mess and negotiate with Congress?” Ryan asked Burwell.

    “To solve that problem, the critical decisions are going to sit with the Congress,” Burwell told the chairman.

    As I have stated before this president does nothing. His agenda consists of Saul Alinsky tactics of never being pinned down on what he would say or do…..And this has caused a HUGE divide in America politics….the worst I have seen in my lifetime which goes all the way back to Eisenhower.

    Get things done? No it aint happening. Not with a president who does not have an agenda nor with a president or democratic side of the isle that is willing to put their signatures on anything……..

    WHY? Because they put their signatures on dodd/frank and ACA and in 2010 were massacred at the polls.

    In 2014 they sat idly by while the president willy nilly ruled by fiat and they sat on their hands and did nothing at all. Period………and they were massacred once again.

    Now that the GOP is in charge they are going to have to achieve some legilative milestones or they will get massacred in 2016 and guess what……the democrats are now the party of NO and the GOP is getting nothing done…….

    Because of such radical left and right elements in both parties now that any common ground is considered TREASON by both sides.

    What an FF’ed up government we have working for us today.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Seems reasonable. Obama pushed Iran’s nuclear crisis out at least 15 years. What else might Iran concede? Perhaps the West can get more cooperation from them without invading!

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Obama should forever be known as a liar, fool, coward, and traitor.

    And there is nothing “verifiable” about his Iran deal. That is by design. The Iranians demanded, and Obama agreed, that the only people capable of verifying Iran’s compliance — U.S. inspectors — would never be allowed to look.

    This “deal” is a joke, and the joke’s on us. Obama handed the crazy mullahs over a hundred billion dollars, guaranteed them they could develop their nuclear weapons undeterred, and guaranteed them we’d defend them against attacks from Israel. And we didn’t even get a few hostages back in return for this complete and total capitulation.

    Meanwhile, they’re celebrating the “deal” in the streets of Iran, while simultaneously shouting “Death to America.”

    Heckuva job, Barry!

  4. Jeffery says:

    How well had the world’s anti-Iran policies served to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

    They’re now being forced to give up their centrifuges and their stockpile of fissionable material. In fact, under the sanctions regime they had continued their development program. Now it is suspended.

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    They’re now being forced to give up their centrifuges and their stockpile of fissionable material. In fact, under the sanctions regime they had continued their development program. Now it is suspended.

    Seriously. Clinton and Bush negotiated with N. Korea to end their weapons desires and we see what that got us. N. Korea is shipping Iran Missiles.

    There is no reason what so ever to believe this regime will give up anything. They will simply keep right on keeping on with what they are doing until they have a bomb….in 2 years with missile technology from N. Korea to strike Israel for sure and Saudia Arabia.

    N. Korea now has long range missiles that could strike the USA and detonate an EMP burst over the country wiping us out……

    they dont because we have a missile defense shield that is somewhat reliable….If they fire one missile our 10 interceptors are bound to hit it 1 out of 10 times.

    I fully believe that No one wants to nuke the USA but how about an emp pulse over the country wiping out our entire grid for 10 years.

    do we respond by nuking the offending country? Perhaps we emp them back….N. Korea already is in the dark ages…..Iran is not much better…….who has the most to lose?

    Iran will cheat, and cheat and cheat just like N. Korea did……this is only a ploy by the Iranians to lift sanctions and get the oil flowing again. Anyone who believes otherwise has been watching a different country for the last 50 years.

  6. jay says:

    Sounds like the NYT got the memo about the talking points.

    In the press conference announcing the deal, Obama went to great lengths to say that some people have criticized this deal because it only stops Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while doing nothing to stop their sponsorship of terrorism. But, he explained patient, we can’t do everything all at once. Stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a huge step.

    Which would be a very pointed and sensible rebuttal, except for the tiny fact that absolutely no one is saying that the problem with this deal is that it doesn’t address terrorism. The criticism is that it does little or nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The argument has never been, It doesn’t solve all the problems in the world all at once. The argument has always been, It doesn’t solve anything.

    But who knows, maybe as a talking point this will work. Lots of people don’t pay close attention to the details. So they’ll hear that the Israelis and the Republicans in Congress oppose the deal. Then they’ll hear Obama say that, hey, true it doesn’t solve every problem in the world, but it’s an important step forward, and that criticism is all politically motivated. Maybe a fair percentage will buy that story.

Pirate's Cove