The Iranians never had a deal with the US, they had a deal with the Obama administration which now does not exist. It was always a chimera as Tom Cotton and others tried to warn them of at the time.
Iran may not be violating the letter of the flawed deal with Obama but they are most certainly in violation of a number of UN resolutions plus they are caught, once again, in blatant lies.
Either Obama was, even after 7 years as President, hopelessly naive or he was unconcerned about actual American security concerns as he rushed to negotiate any deal he could get with the Iranians. Either way he was a very bad President in foreign affairs.
9
When it comes to the ignorance of Foreign Affairs nobody could top George W. Bush. He lost the Afghanistan War. He lost the Iraq War. And he was supported by all those elite pinheads at his old alma mater Yale.
5
It took two years of negotiations to broker the Iran deal after four decades of intransigence. Do you really think we could have gotten more? What would we do, impose more sanctions and starve a generation like we did in Iraq? Wage another war? What's your bright idea for dealing with the situation?
5
Never trust them. Take out their ambitions and their mullahs with force, if need be. The common man in Iran may well welcome back a Shah.
1
Remember how Ben Rhodes and the Obama regime lied about "Iranian moderates" were the driving force in negotiating the Iran deal? ( * link below from the NYT)
Now the far left is trying to argue that the nuclear deal and the ICBM treaty are not linked! Again you can check for yourself (** link below)
* The NYT interview with Ben Rhodes notes that the whole "moderate Iran leadership" was a lie used to sell the deal to stupid journalists
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-be...
The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.
** the NYT notes that the ICBM treaty and the Iran deal on nuclear weapons are linked
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/politics/trump-europe-iran-deal.html
The Europeans are most comfortable with enforcing new limits on Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile development and testing. Missiles are not covered by the nuclear accord, but rather by a United Nations resolution, whose wording was negotiated by then-Secretary of State John Kerry just as the nuclear accord was coming together in Vienna in July 2015.
4
"Work at the facility is most likely intended as 'a hedge" should the nuclear agreement collapse" Well, well, well, look at that. It would seem the Iranians are quite prescient. And this was before trump. Imagine how the rest of the world trusts us now.
2
You, NYT, are at it again. Having placed the leaks handed you to help inspire war on Iraq, you are being useful once more to building a case for an even more stupid and unnecessary war.
At a minimum, you could report this with an element of uncertainty as to whether it's true or not.
7
Imagine, a government agency painting a facility the same color! Great research! Bomb'm back to the Stone Age.
1
I find this article coming out of the NYT odd. Knowing trump it would not be at all surprising if he uses it to assemble HIS military. This article feels like giving him the excuse he needs. Odd coming from NYT.
5
“All of us are truly excited about the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the changes it will bring to our companies, industries and countries. History, however, tells us that major economic disruptions come with social and political challenges that demand new ways of thinking, organizing and working together. Carl-Henric Svanberg, Chairman, BP, United Kingdom
American commentators in this column supporting strong American response seems to clearly at sea of the tremendous upheaval shaking the entire world. No new ways of thinking, organizing and working together is visible.
The punitive actions whether it's N. Korea or Iran will not be positive in world convulsed by fourth industrial revolution.
Profound shifts happening is leaving no business model untouched and no society unshaken. It's more significant, and its ramifications more profound, than in any prior period of human history.
During this period of great technological convulsions, it's amazing that Americans of twenty first century have great faith in the kind of 19th Century Victorian Gun Boat diplomacy In international politics, the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of power – implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.!!
3
Most commentators supporting US have chosen to be blind of the inevitability of the nations pursuing active nuclear arms program.
"The precarious foundations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The rest of the world will not forever forgo nuclear weapons if the United States insists on forever retaining nuclear weapons" as NYT succinctly put it elsewhere.
The very heart of the NPT is a grand bargain, whereby the non nuclear weapons states agreed never to acquire nuclear arsenals, in exchange for the nuclear weapon states agreeing eventually to get rid of theirs.
NPT final statement, signed and agreed to by Washington, pledged "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals."
But the Americans never had any intention to abide by its signed and sealed commitment and quietly reneged it But Bush Nuclear Posture Review clear shows an intent to maintain a colossal nuclear arsenal forever. No date for any "unequivocal undertaking" on abolition.
NYT write very elegantly concludes "If anything seems preordained about the political landscape of the future, it is that humanity will eventually have to choose between a world of dozens of nuclear weapon states or a world of zero nuclear weapon states. A world with a few "nuclear haves" and a great many "nuclear have-nots" cannot forever endure".
Of course it's too much to expect our frontier mentality friends to understand this.
Wow - so you mean, with Bolton, Pompeo, Bibi, AIPAC, PNAC and the Saudis frothing at the mouth to start a war with Iran the Iranians are taking precautions?
No-one could have seen that one coming, could they?
8
good morning NYT, my friends, l ask this question to NYT lots of times but no body give me any answer, the question in why WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ISRAEL NUKE AND ROCKETS , Israel does not permit even talk about this but the whole world knows that they have it, oh l am sorry l forgot Israel is a modern country and Netanyahu and Trump's son-in-law are business partners, so how we can ask N.Korea or Iran or India and others stop and distroy their rocket and their Nuke program, oh again l forget they are second class people , and even BIBI is the the biggest thife in Israel, it is what it is nothing change rich is getting richer and poor gets poorer
6
And this was all taking place during ... the Obama Administration. I wonder if any of those pallets of Swiss Francs and Euros that Obama shipped to Iran helped to pay for this.
3
Did you miss that part about secrecy and dead of night? This was discovered during Obama. It probably began when Bush shipped all those pallets of money to Iraq. You remember Iraq, that glorious democracy in the Middle East.
1
Obviously this goes back to pre-Obama Administration. the latter opened the door to inspection, which the new administration is dangerously closing !
1
Where is John Bolton when we need him? And we need him right now! He could get on a plane and bomb that advances missile technology base. Voilà! Problème résolu! And if he does that we will forgive his no-show in Viet Nam.
3
How dare we criticize iran for their long-range missile program or even their nuclear program
What has Iran done to us ? Who has Iran occupied? Who has Iran attacked ? Or Hizzbollah for that matter? The answer is no one.
These entities are only protecting themselves from the sophisticated hi tech Israel war machine That has invaded occupied and attacked sovereign nations you have to be stupid not to defend yourself from and obviously Bellicose state like Israel. Sadly and stupidly we (US)are doing Israel’s bidding to keep its neighbors down so it could be the only power in the Middle East and throw their weight around at will. A balance of power is the only way to maintain peace is to leave Iran alone unless you hold Israel to the same standard. It’s amazing how Trump worries about money so much yet he spends freely billions and billions of dollars on Israel who has one of the best economies in the world that’s welfare to the rich
it’s amazing how Trump worries about money so much yet he freely spends billions and billions of dollars on Israel who has one of the best economies in the world -that’s welfare to the rich. Let Israel pay us for all our efforts
2
Due to the US led arms boycot Iran doesn't have an air force. The Shah's US provided planes have long ago been grounded due to a lack of spare parts.
As a replacement Iran has a missile program. Why should they give that up when their Saudi adversaries are buying massive amounts of weapons?
3
The US has missiles and nuclear weapons which can devastate any location on the planet and yet we are disturbed when other nations aspire to the same capabilities. This situation where the US is the presumptive master of the entire planet is unreasonable, unsustainable and will ultimately lead to its downfall. Obama envisioned a country respectfully working with other nations for the betterment of all humans and he was viewed as weak. Now in the name of strength and making the US great again we are actively destroying it. The ancient Greeks called this hubris and it has never ended well.
4
I'm constantly shocked at how effectively the racist Trump/Republican propaganda machine has tarred and feathered President Obama. It's as if the Iran nuclear deal was Obama's unilateral appeasement effort.
Let's put this in perspective with some facts:
1) The deal was signed by China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK in addition to the US. To this day, only Trump was unhappy with the deal and has pulled out.
2) It's not like Donald Trump has a track record for study, reading, or listening to experts. His pullout of the Iran deal reflects opinions he heard on Fox News and from kooks like Bolton, which feed into his obvious desire to erase President Obama from the history books.
3) Why would President Obama have sought the Iran deal in the first place? Does anyone think it's possible a man known for his intense studiousness might have understood the $1 trillion and growing bill American taxpayers paid for the Iraq war? And, for what? Did we benefit from destroying Iraq? There's no evidence. Did the Iraqi people? Not now. Maybe in another generation. Did the Middle East benefit? Not when you consider that ISIS and instability arose from the defeated Iraqi army.
Has everyone forgotten what we have paid for the 2nd Iraq war in terms of tax dollars diverted from things like schools, infrastructure, health care—the things that used to make America really great. Now the Liar-in-Chief is going to make America great again by what—starting a war with Iran? God help us all.
2
Come on Max Fisher, this stinks of "Remember the Maine," the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and yellowcake. The worst part about it is that Trump is the most incompetent of the lot. You can imagine how disterous this war would turn out, even worse than W's debacle which still resonates to this day.
3
Iran took its billions, and is spreading havoc throughout the Middle East, with Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen in distress as a result of their actions. They have been developing ballistic missiles. And, their own young population seeking democratic reforms are protesting. I think Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern neighbors understand the threat much better than European capitals who are only concerned with export opportunities.
3
And what is the United States doing: pounding for war?
Sometimes I think Washington has lost its brains completely.
3
Iran has an active space program.
Iran is entitled to build mid and long range rockets.
And ohh yes, the buildings are painted blue.
It does not matter if Iran builds rockets or has an elaborate ice cone production plant in the making, the US has decided to go to war with Iran and is looking for a way to sell it to the public.
This is the same overture of lies and unproven allegations we have seen with the US about Iraq just because the US looks for a reason to go to war and if there is none, like with Iraq, then the US will fake a reason like the one that Netanyahu faked a few weeks ago.
In part, these lies are even run by the same war criminals we have seen with the Iraq war and Libya like Bolton.
So any discussion about a potential rocket facility, regardless of whether this a rocket facility or whether this is a military or a civilian rocket program is irrelevant.
All that we see at the moment is a trigger happy US government that wants war against Iran at all costs, no matter how many lies they will have to devise to get an OK by their voters and politicians.
Just look at how Bush started the Iraq war and you will see the same process at work.
The only real difference this time is that the US will not only act as a proxy for Israel but as a proxy for Saudi Arabia at the same and that is the only novelty here.
The US acting on behalf of two states that are exclusive enemies.
Makes you wonder, what these states paid for the favour?
7
If Israel can have nuclear weapons, so can Iran. Iran needs to defend itself, Israel already attacked Iran ans the US is warmongering... What else can Iran do but prepare to defend itself.
7
Defend itself in Syria? Wake up.
1
Defend itself from the United States which installed a dictatorship there from 1954-1979.
4
"Such a program would not violate the international deal intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, or any other formal agreement. Still, if completed, it could threaten Europe and potentially the United States."
That is one of the reasons the deal was so bad.
8
The deal did what it was designed to do and continues to do. Stop the progress towards building nuclear weapons. All the US has done by withdrawing is further alienate itself from the rest of the world. Iran has a right to protect itself and has not violated the agreement. All America has achieved, is to prove that it cannot be trusted.
1
"and is often conducted under cover of night."
REally? TEsting a ROCKET engine under the cover of night in a desert it will make it MORE visible.
4
It’s like what happened when Hitler was appeased- he wanted more. The Iranians took the money, laughed at how stupid we were for giving it to them, then funneled the money into building weapons that can carry the nukes that the Iran deal would let them build within 10 years of signing it. This is a state that sponsors terrorism all over the Middle East and has been for decades. And Obama gave them billions of dollars and thought they would magically change their entire mindset? The Iran deal resulted in Syria and Yemen. Millions have died. And it would have resulted in an advanced missile program that could be used to nuke America the second the deal ended. I’m no fan of Trump’s rhetoric. But the man has undoubtedly been a foreign policy success. This weapons factory proves that Iran can not be trusted
16
When the nuclear deal was agreed, Iran got back its own money, which had been seized and held by the US due to sanctions.
It was not a gift from Obama to Iran.
The Syrian war started 8 years ago, 6 years before the nuclear deal with Iran.
The war in Yemen was started by Saudi Arabia, when they attacked the country in March 2015. Before that, it was a small civil war.
8
Let's not exaggerate. Iran is not a major industrial power like Germany. Its military budget is a fraction of Israel or Saudi Arabia. Its airforce is outdated (from Shah's era), its economy is very weak.
As a result they have specialised on cheap home-made missile technology which is their only defence or leverage.
The west can use a military option (likely to be costly and long and fail) or restore full diplomatic and commercial relations and try to bring Iran into the world economic system.
6
Please stop gaslighting. I'm not a huge fan of Iran, but Iran is nothing like 1930s Germany. Iran is being contained and will continue to be contained. All the US has achieved is to alienate itself and proved to the rest of the world that it cannot be trusted.
You can thank George Bush for the mess in the Middle East. Place blame where blame belongs.
2
A key piece of Mr. Obama's legacy. For shame!
7
I have to say. This is just too convenient. Its too soon for this propaganda campaign. Color me cynical. Donald throws out a thoughtful nuclear deal that was working. A deal that while imperfect , was a diplomatic win. It made the region more safe.
And now this. Its like Judith Miller redux. So. No. Not buying it. Its Fonzi jumping the shark. Its the run-up to costly war from actors we cannot trust. We cannot trust Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, etc. Did we learn nothing from the yellow cake and phony Dick-Cheney ‘mushroom cloud’ of Iraq? its been almost 2 decades and we are still in that war. So. No. We don’t need a war with Iran.
25
I don't care what Iran does or doesn't do. Time for the USA to stop policing the world and focus on its own problems of which there are a few.
15
What an Iran deal we had! Who would ever enter a deal with a rogue nation that allows them to build advanced weapons that can strike our nation and destabilize the Middle East?
6
It is at the peril of America’s future that we continue down this path of endless war. Ours is the nation which has demonstrated the callousness to actually detonate nuclear bombs on civilian targets. Global military hegemony by threat of nuclear annihilation is too high a price to pay for “freedom.”
7
Here we go again! Neocons are pushing WMDs again to draw us into an even more destructive and regionally destabilizing conflict! Our children have paid with enough blood while our nation’s schools, Infrastructure, and healthcare are at third world conditions! Enough is enough! End the wars for oil!
7
There is no absolute proof of the secret facility doing long range missile research, or test firings. But notice how some supporters of the Iran deal refuse to even consider the possibility that Iran is developing weapons of destruction, to aim well past targets in the Middle East. Regardless of satellite photos taken over a period of time, looking for changes.
Stubborn support for the theocratic regime in Iran goes beyond naivety. It actually fancies that Iran will try destroy Israel, as one commenter below suggests. However, if somebody roots for the opposite, would that comment past muster and get in? Doubt it.
6
Israel, who helped this president get into office with dark psyops — benefits from a fragmented Middle East. Israel wants this war. Israel doesn’t want the region to be at peace. That is the threat to Israel as seen by the hardened right wing. So no. The Iran deal was by every account working.
5
Amen.
2
Let them have the missiles and the bomb. After-all the Saudis have them too even tough they are stored in Pakistan at the moment.
6
I truly wonder if the Times editorial board, which has thundered furiously against Trump's withdrawal from Obama's appeasement effort, reads its own newspaper. Obama, looking to get a deal done under any circumstance, basically gave the Iranians an economic lifeline, allowed them to continue ballistic missile development and maintain their terrorist networks globally. In exchange, the Iranians said they would wait ten years before building a bomb. That the Times news sections report this news is laudable: that the Times editorial board does not see how disastrous this agreement was is laughable.
13
The Iranians cannot be developing missile technology. The JCPOA, specifically prohibited the Iranians from doing any such thing. SecState Kerry and then POTUS Obama said so... Oh, my, how poor John and Barack, they must be absolutely mortified that the Iranians would like to them; especially after all that both did for them.
5
If they are not developing them, then they are stupid. No one in todays world can actually say they have any actual freedom as a nation and not be armed to the teeth. Country without the abilty to retaliate is open to been subjugated at any time.
3
The article says the missle programme does not violate the Omaba deal.
That is incorrect. The Iran nuclear deal did not have any provisions to contain any aspect of the missile program.
It was solely focused on preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
The negotiators were at pains to keep the deal, complex as it was, focused on the nuclear issue, in order to get it signed.
Including other areas like missile development and other things that Trump casually throws in as part of his ‘demands’ would have made the negotiations collapse.
Very few people realize how much effort was put in by both sides, America & Iran, not to mention 5 other countries - Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia, to get the deal done.
This deal was an unprecedented achievement upon which Trump has impishly thrown cold water.
1
Technology advances may need field tests, but with all the underground facilities that Iran has developed, missile technology advances and designs are not going to be detectable. Simulations and command control centers can be developed ahead of any field test and no one has any doubt that N. Korea and Iran have shared their technologies.
1
And another thought ...
If indeed Iran is setting the stage for or is actually developing ICBMs, as the scientific analysis seems to suggest, it would only infer that Iran is intent of also developing Nuclear Weapons...since the main purpose of an ICBM is to deliver a Nuclear Warhead...
5
The Iran regime is a threat to the region and to its own people. If they become a nuclear power they will become a threat to the world. This advanced missile program is just another of their long list of rogue state behaviors. They use mercenary proxies to butcher Syrians and Yemenis and to control Iraq and Lebanon. Their economy is a corrupt mess that has large portions stolen by the IRGC (revolutionary guard). The currency is in free-fall and the black market rate is 50% higher than the official rate. The Iranians hate the regime--75%+ want regime change. There have been riots in several major cities and they will continue as the economy worsens. If they get nuclear weapons they have threatened to use them against Israel and the U.S. and will use these long range rockets to launch them. The way to stop Iran is to keep the pressure on and push for regime change.
6
Don't you think it's about time that the New York Times did an extensive series of articles on Israeli and United States cooperation in the development of tank warfare, anti-tank warfare, anti-missile defense, ballistic missile development, cyber warfare, political destabilization, propaganda, economic warfare, etc.
16
How does that have anything to do with Iran building weapons that can carry nukes?
3
A whole lot, because this kind of fear mongering takes money from social programs and direct to wasra mongering activities.
How about an in-depth investigation into Israel's nuclear program and weapons systems, their 70 years of regional belligerence including widespread assassinations against scientists, unilateral attacks against neighboring countries, ongoing occupation of an indigenous population and the myriad violations of international laws & norms enmeshed with the occupation, their increasingly violent right-wing theocratic government, and their role in attempting to interfere with the last US presidential election.
Who needs enemies with allies like this, amiright?
9
When an article points out probably incriminating facts about the rogue, murderous Islamic Replublic regime, the first reflex of some is to deflect from the evidence and turn on non-rogue,humanitarian, democratic states which shockingly protect their citizens.
4
“amiright?” No. Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map for years, and have been acting in accordance with that proposed agenda for years as well....funding and arming proxy militias and terrorist organizations on Israel’s borders while simultaneously ramping up their own arsenal in preparation for war. Iran is the bad actor in this sinister plot...and they will be the losers as well.
2
“When people show you who they are, believe them.”
- Maya Angelou
Let us not be willfully blind about Iran. We ignore them at our peril.
3
I love being cynical. First, I am being shown a picture that is supposed to be Iran. It took me a while to find this on Google Maps and it sure looks nefarious! BTW, one can get a LOT closer on Google Maps and see what is going on.
Next, someone slapped a date on the picture along with what I presume is supposed to be the name of the area -
Shahrud. Shahrud is home to the Iranian Space Agency which more than likely tests rockets like most countries that have weather satellites, communications satellites, etc.
Next, someone circled something on a map and labeled it "solid fuel test stand area".
As close as this is to an Iranian national park and popular climbing area, there should be plenty of Youtube videos by now of launching and testing of rockets, not just far away shots of someplace on the other side of the planet.
This is just more American oligarchs beating the drum for war and making up excuses. The New York Times can provide better pictures than the one posted and they should provide proof before printing stories such as this one.
20
There's NOTHING comforting about the presence of either a long-range missile capability OR the presence of Commander-in-Chief Bone Spur as president.
The so-called president just doesn't get that he's NOT in charge, that he cannot sanction, buy or lawyer his way into success.
4
That Obama sure can negotiate great sellouts. If I didn't know better I would think that he was just incompetent instead of being treacherous.
4
The missile technology of Iran, as evidenced by this report, is simply part of the plan, that is, the Obama plan. President Trump trashed the Iran deal because it did not curb Iran's pursuit of missile technology among other things. Under the Iran deal, Iran would be able to develop missiles, missiles which would be able to deliver nuclear warheads once they were able to restart their weapons program. I am so glad Trump removed America from the deal, a deal that only existed between Obama and Iran. If was so important, then why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate for approval? Why? Because he knew it would have been rejected that's why! Down with the legacy. Up with the new legacy. The legacy of Trump! Thank you.
4
Maybe it's difficult to appreciate, but nations under direct threat from other nations, let's assume both with very advanced weapon systems, would generally try to develop tools to protect their own country. Maybe they'll be bound by treaty and near constant inspection not to develop nuclear weapons, but advanced missiles? Based on what practically any other nation in the World would do, then missile development should be no surprise. Iran isn't a small Gulf Sheikdom, it's a sizable country with a long history. Continued Israeli threats and military provocations, backed up by threatening actions and verbose comments by the Trump Administration, almost dictate Iranian counter-measures. We were better served by "talk-talk" strategies than by "fight-fight" tactics that could blow up in our face!
7
Scary how some can twist cause-and-effect in any direction.
I suppose that Hitler militarized to defend his nation, just as his propaganda promoted.
This Fisher article is based on extensive research which has been reviewed by several scientific agencies. Let's focus on it.
3
Let see the USA has backed out of a deal or two or three now, so maybe no one trusts our word.
When a war mongering dictator is rattling sabers everyone around it tends make sure theirs are sharp and at the ready.
2
Technology advances may need field tests, but with all the underground facilities that Iran has developed, missile technology advances and designs are not going to be detectable. Simulations and command control centers can be developed ahead of any field test and no one has any doubt that N. Korea and Iran have shared their technologies.
All guess work by international studies (another hawkish institution : source of fake news)
Those « candle like « marks might be as well testing of mid range or short range ( like Ashura 3) that is hitting Riyad , left right and center ) Or testing of an engin that might take 10 years to develop , i would say ; Iran has already bought nuclear bombs from Russia I am sure your genius in WH will swallow that .... (;-)
1
more American propaganda in preparation for further warmongering. Iran must develop capabilities to defend itself against us and Israeli aggression. let's not forget that it was Americans who shot down an Iranian civilian airliner.
4
Are missiles considered WMD ?
1
Their purpose is not to deliver birthday greetings.
1
Iran's airforce is outdated with many aircraft from the Shah's era and forty years old. Their military budget is a fraction of their hostile neighbours. As a result they have resorted to cheaper home-made options such as missiles, similar to North Korea. In the absence of a full commercial and diplomatic deal, they are unlikely to give up their missile program.
7
I really do not understand. Iran lived strictly up to the terms of the nuclear treaty, but that was not enough for President Trump who broke with terms of the treaty, broke America's agreement, and whose administration seem bent on continually threatening and possibly going to war with Iran for no national purpose.
This article is provoking for no possible reason. Will the New York Times be supporting another needless and immoral war?
29
"lived strictly up to the terms of the nuclear treaty"? Did you not see the info unearthed by Israel? Make no mistake, Iran will never comply with anything that the West deems to be a 'deal'.
1
If the Iranians were faithfully living up the accords of the JCPOA (and it is NOT a treaty by any definition) then why are they developing a technology that the JCPOA forbade?
3
There is no "treaty". Obama never submitted this act of appeasement to the Senate because he didn't have the votes, either Dem or Repub. So, desperate to cut some sort of deal, he freelanced and did it on his own. Getting the facts straight here is important as they serve to illustrate how much of an irresponsible cowboy Obama was. Trump is accused by #Resistance enthusiasts of being an authoritarian, but in reality it was his predecessor who had no use for checks and balances.
2
Why might the whole of the Iranian populace be frustrated with a century of broken promises made by Western powers?
Never mind, that seems exceedingly rational.
6
Is this the second act to the pre Iraq war? NYT setting the ground work based on a lot of questionable and not verifiable 'details.' You would have thought we had learned our lesson on not to drum up 'be afraid, be very afraid' hysteria in order to justify a war.
18
”...a new type of satellite imagery called synthetic aperture radar”.
I would have spit out my coffee if I was drinking any. I’ve been working with radar images for over 20 years and can confirm that this technology is not new. It’s very 1970’s.
Great article otherwise!
6
Albert Einstein is the hot new physicist on the scene, too. So very retro.
1
It is definitely very scary to see breathless articles about secret "WMD" programs of ME countries popping up in the NYT again. Reminds me of 2002. Even if the think-tanks which confirmed this analysis are telling the truth, why should we as Americans be scared? We have thousands of nuclear weapons and a gdp 45 X larger then Iran. Iranians aren't suicidal, they will not attack the United States, it is absurd to hint that they might.
The NYT needs to be careful with breathless articles like these, unless it wants more American and Middle Eastern blood on their hands.
22
NYT editors would be well-advised, when publishing articles like this one, to include prominently in the article their own cautionary opinions on policy advice. Do its editors not already have enough experience to know that, without doing that, the spuriously warlike comments of readers like @Pags, @minfxpg and @Achilles will be eoked and mislead some? If so, then including details like the effort required to agree on multi-lateral sanctions such as those of the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal would help cut off neo-con hostility at the pass.
Careful beating those war drums NYT. A sensible world negotiates. An idiotic so-called president hyperventilates. So, should we just invade like with Iraq, which worked so well that only Halliburton made out in the deal? We certainly didn't then and wouldn't now.
Posturing with threats doesn't work (period). Now that we know that Trump lies about everything always and will do anything to protect himself at the cost of everything else, look out world and, I guess, the NYT will be there to tell us all about it.
14
Certainly the National Reconnaissance Office has sentinel satellites that stare at Iran at all times, including all during the nights. Therefore, U.S. intelligence has measured the spectrum of the rocket plumes at the site mentioned, so it knows, among many other things, what the chemical constituents of the missile fuel are. And of course the Iranians are using solid propellants there.
3
Beware the allure of certainty. It remains eternally elusive.
5
Speaking philosophically, ubique, I certainly agree with you.
Deep in the Desert, Iran Advances Missile Technology
By MAX FISHER
Iran’s long-range missile program was thought to be dormant, but researchers see evidence that it may have resumed.
[ Notice the self-contradictory assertions. ]
9
So let me get this right. Iran maybe working on long range missiles since 2016 and 2017 yet it will be Trump's fault if they continue to develop them. Iranians must be using that cash Obama/Kerry gave them.
13
Actually, if Trump had not abrogated the agreement, this would have been a good time to go back to Iran for a second round of talks aimed at non-nuclear matters like this. He seems to have gotten rid of the people who would have the chops to engage in such negotiations, but at least we could have gotten things rolling for the next president. As for the cash, it was Iranian funds being returned to them, not 'given' to them. I'm sure that if it had been possible to place conditions on the un-impounding of the Iranian money, we would have done so, but it probably would not fly legally.
1
You mean the cash to which Iran was legally entitled? The cash they got after Obama forced them to settle for pennies on the dollar?
3
Articles like this one are part of the conspiracy to use American power to re-colonize Iran. Iran has every right to develop missile systems, just like the US does. America's need to dominate lines of communication in order to successfully wage wars is revealed by its coveting of Iran's oil and strategic location. Americans should recognize the same lies used to start war against Iraq are being used to create popular support for aggression against Iran. They should do more than just oppose these plans through democratic processes. They should accuse their political, security, and military leadership of crimes against humanity, and insist these mass murderers be investigated, tried, punished. Sooner or later there will be a reckoning for all of the crimes Americans have allowed their warrior state to commit, and if they do not hold their leaders responsible, the rest of the world will hold Americans responsible.
34
This is not going to end well, especially with the key players being who they are. There will be some type of Military action and it will involve the Saudi Arabia, Israel as well as some other key players. It is only going to get worse before it gets better and we can wish for a different outcome but it is not going to happen, human nature.
6
Whole idea is to prevent war by squeezing the Iranian regime, not enriching it and giving it wiggle room as previously.
This article seems highly reminiscent of the lies breathily reported by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller when the neoCONs were seeking any possible false pretext to illegally invade and destroy Iraq, murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians including women and children, at a cost of trillions of dollars, and several thousand American lives, all of which they stated wouldn't happen.
But it did. And we're still paying for it.
29
Great work NYT. If you look very close at the images you can also see what appear to be mobile missile launchers hidden inside trucks. Hope you will be bring Judith Miller back on board for the coming take down of Iran. Who will play Colin Powell in the redux?
11
Obama was right to not let the US get sucked into taking sides in the power struggle between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, and the Saudis have far dirtier hands as far as sponsoring terrorism that has harmed Americans. So for the US to side with the Saudis against Iran makes no sense.
As far as the missiles, that was always a separate issue from nuclear capability. It is far easier to solve one problem at a time and the bigger one was clearly nukes. Now that Trump has torn that deal up we have two problems rather than one. Of course we all know it is the Israelis who are pulling the strings here and trying to get the US into a shooting war with Iran. Obama out maneuvered Bibi in that regard but Trump is not so clever and has let the Israelis play him like a bass fiddle.
37
None of the 9/11 hijackers were Shiite. None were Iranian. The Taliban is Wahhabi Sunni. Al Qaeda is Wahhabi Sunni. ISIS is Wahhabi Sunni.
So let's make nice with the leading exporter of Wahhabism? Don't think so.
7
The interests of the UAE and the Saudis are also a factor, I think. The list of those willing and able to make Trump their patsy is a long one.
6
Gosh, you mean the power hungry, terrorist supporting Mullahs of the Iranian theocracy really can't be trusted? This should come as no surprise to anyone, but somehow it will shock many if here who seem to believe that as long as you hope something positive about an enemy then it will be true. Even the Obama administration, its foolish nuke deal notwithstanding, recognized the extent to which Iran is a huge state sponsor of terror and instability in the region. Hopefully this will be a wakeup call for many.
17
The idea that Iran is in any way a threat to the United States is laughable. The US has a GDP of 45X Iran and thousands of nuclear weapons compared to zero.
You are being mislead by people who make the strange assumption that the US and Israel share the exact same interests.
13
I didn’t state it was a direct threat to the US (I.e., strike on the homeland), but our allies and our own military bases/personnel in the region would be at risk, as well as regional and global stability should Iran decide to really start a war on the area.
By "allies in the region" I assume you mean Israel and to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia. Many of the bases in the ME, especially those in Syria are also there to support our "allies in the region".
Why are these allies regional ambitions so important to us that we risk an extremely costly war with a country that poses no threat to us?
It seems to me that our exceptionally strong commitment to these countries is more a reflection of the power of their lobbying groups within the US rather then there actual benefit to the US at large.
Appears, Possible, Does not prove, circumstantial, etc. Mr Fisher’s alarm at Iran should not be surprising. America’s neocons as well as hardliner Israelis have had their sights on Iran for a long time—since the Iranian people toppled the US supported shah.
Perhaps the Iranians are seeking to develop long range missiles. Perhaps Tehran has read the policy papers coming from the Project for the New American Century, especially the advice given to Israel. Perhaps Iran’s paranoia has increased as it sees Hezbollah and Syria becoming targets in an every growing hostile region. Perhaps.
Paranoia is not exclusively an Iranian emotion. Pompeo’s pronouncements as well as as Netanyahu’s lecture using old information to warn of imminent nuclear Iran could also qualify.
If Israel is worried about an attack from Iran, the feeling is mutual. If the US is worried about some future time that Iran might have a long-range missile program, Iran knows we already do. If it is the duty of a nation’s leaders to protect its citizens, that obligation applies not just to us but Iran as well.
There was a deal in place, we rejected it. With drumbeats coming from DC and Jerusalem, Tehran may well feel its paranoia is quite justified.
57
Glad to see the New York Times already carrying water for another war in the Middle East. Make sure to place particular emphasis on claims that "preemptive warfare" will somehow spare lives. That seemed to work well last time.
71
"Wherever U.S forces go, nuclear weapons go with them or can be made to follow in short order. The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."
In 2004, this paper published a prescient column by noted Israeli international security expert Dr. Martin Van Creveld, who has taught at the US Naval War College. The quote above is from that article. See https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/21/opinion/sharon-on-the-warpath-is-isra.... And his statement carries more force today than it ever did.
At least W tried to follow international norms by seeking UN approval and building an international coalition. Trump ignores international norms--actually, all civilized norms on any issue--and has surrounded himself with the same hucksters who deceived us into invading Iraq--and who still today refuse to admit they made a mistake. If Iran had good reason to build nukes in 2004, it has far more reason to build nukes today.
All courtesy of Trump and his neocon and evangelical supporters. The "End Times" evangelicals praying for WW III and the neocons lusting after a chance to pull out their Iraq playbook and run it on Iran can see the day when they can crow "Mission Accomplished!"
And they don't care about the body count of dead Americans. They didn't then, and they don't now.
28
The weakness of the agreement was always the fact that it was narrowly written to allow Iran to do exactly what it is doing - continuing work on non nuclear missle development while continuing its sponsorship of terrorism eg Hezbollah and military adventurism in the region eg Yemen and Syria. By relieving sanctions we enable the money that pays for these very actions that we abhor and might literally come home to bite us.
15
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues its world-wide efforts to eradicate moderate Islam and replace it with the Wahhabism that gave rise to al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS.
And we support them?
4
I'm so very very afraid, those sneaky Iranians, leaving rocket component casting pits out for any passing spy satellite to see, it just goes to prove they're developing rockets they're allowed to under the agreement.
And I find the musings of some grad student, in California, at an institute known for being a CIA jobs placement program incredibly believable. Just as believable as similar claims made by the likes of Robert Mueller (yes the same) in early 2003.
10
There are a lot qualifiers, such as “possibly”, “maybe”, “though does not prove”.
I am waiting for Colin Powell’s presentation, where he holds up a vial of Iranian Anthrax.
20
2003 Iraq war pretext playbook repeated again. This is orchestrated like clockworks. First, pull out of the nuclear agreement, even though Iran has been abiding by it. Now start showing satellite images that shows something in the desert, we're not sure what. But it has to be an ICBM that is aiming at Europe and America. And if we do not bomb Iran now (As Netanyahu or Saudi dictator wants us to) then it'll be too late. The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud.
I think General Wesley Clark warned everyone best after his visit to the Pentagon and being told there is a plan of going to war with several countries in the region, starting with Iraq. Hopefully, we are wiser now than we were back in 2003.
51
Please explain which countries should be allowed to have missiles, and who gets to decide.
64
By rule of thumb, we try to keep them out of the hands of religious zealots who have been calling for the death of the United States for just shy of 40 years, and within two years of getting a little cash, have used it to bolster a murderous dictator. We also try to deny them to Asian dictators who, among a number of things, assassinate their brother and execute their uncle with anti-aircraft artillery.
7
The US decides. Experience counts.
Countries: NONE.
1
Thankfully, with the change in administrations, the new administration appears to be taking the Iranian problems far more seriously than the previous administration.
President Trump's first visit outside the country was to Saudi Arabia and his second to Israel. He made a clear signal to the world of the importance of these two important allies of US policy and that there will be a unifying effort with the US, Saudi Arabia (and other Sunni Arabs) and Israel.
The poor Iranian agreement were reopened because the current administration knew it was a bad deal and not only at the urging of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
15
Why was Trump's first visit outside the US to Saudi Arabia and Israel? Both supported huge exports of military weapons. Was that coincidental? Also the Kushner family has large interests in Israel. Was that coincidental?
The point of the nuclear deal was to gain ten years. It did. Those ten years were supposed to have been used constructively, to build a relationship for things to follow.
Now we hear that ten years is nothing. We hear that at the end of ten years, they'd be able to start developments to hurt us.
While making those complaints, those complaining are doing all they can to prevent the constructive use of those ten years. They are doing all they can to ensure that at the end of those ten years, we will be back where we started.
In fact, they are doing all they can to get us back to that even sooner.
It does not matter that Iran will by the end of ten years have technology to make longer range missiles, unless we go these ten years without constructive rebuilding of our relationship.
Those who protest are themselves the ones who are doing everything possible to make this a reality.
44
the deal specifically details that Iran will have to permanently avoid seeking to build nukes. Iran is also an NPT member while Israel is not
2