This morning, the New York Times is trumpeting the acceptance by Iran of "limits" in its nuclear program. From the headline and report, one would think a major breakthrough had been achieved. Here is the beginning of the report itself:
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said the country could accept a freeze on its capacity to produce nuclear fuel at current levels for several years, provided it could eventually produce fuel unhindered.
Someone should tell the Times that this is called failure and not success, although I am sure that the editors and reporters at the Times already know this fact. Remember, the entire negotiation with Iran is taking place because Iran has in place a program that is moving it rapidly towards the ability to construct nuclear weapons. Freezing that capacity at its current level means locking in Iran's ability to produce nuclear bombs. Get it? Iran just "agreed" that it would proceed to move towards nuclear armaments but only at its current rate (which has been estimated to leave Iran either months or at most a year away from having nukes.)
I have to assume that the positive tone of the Times article is the result of that paper trying to make things look more successful for president Obama. After all, nearly six years of negotiations by Obama with Iran have brought no stop and not even any slowing of the nuclear arms push by Iran. Obama's policies in this regard have been a total failure. The Times may make its political allies happy by taking this phony tone, but the American people need to understand the truth. If there is some sort of agreement in line with what the Iranians are outlining, the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for the foreseeable future.
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said the country could accept a freeze on its capacity to produce nuclear fuel at current levels for several years, provided it could eventually produce fuel unhindered.
Someone should tell the Times that this is called failure and not success, although I am sure that the editors and reporters at the Times already know this fact. Remember, the entire negotiation with Iran is taking place because Iran has in place a program that is moving it rapidly towards the ability to construct nuclear weapons. Freezing that capacity at its current level means locking in Iran's ability to produce nuclear bombs. Get it? Iran just "agreed" that it would proceed to move towards nuclear armaments but only at its current rate (which has been estimated to leave Iran either months or at most a year away from having nukes.)
I have to assume that the positive tone of the Times article is the result of that paper trying to make things look more successful for president Obama. After all, nearly six years of negotiations by Obama with Iran have brought no stop and not even any slowing of the nuclear arms push by Iran. Obama's policies in this regard have been a total failure. The Times may make its political allies happy by taking this phony tone, but the American people need to understand the truth. If there is some sort of agreement in line with what the Iranians are outlining, the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for the foreseeable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment