The same NYT who joined Obama to mock GOP proposals for maintaining Iran sanctions unilaterally are now calling for unilateral sanctions against Iran.
What a difference a few months make!
What a difference a few months make!
13
ORIGINALLY Iran's Missile Program was lumped up with its Non-existent Nuclear Weapons Program.
AS for the "Recent Assessment By The Usual Suspects At The UN", the new Lingo states "Nuclear Capable Missile", which is crafted by the same folks that manufactured "Possible Military Dimension" or PMD for Iran's Nuclear Program.
BUT now that the IAEA has closed the file on Iran's PMD, it is rather Astonishing that we are looking for new Excuses to "Harm Iran's Economy and Security" not to mention the recent Visa Fiasco.
AND That Is Going To Harm The Moderates In Iran At The Expense Of Global Peace & Security.
IS That What We Want!???
MR. Obama MUST Resist Any Temptation Or Pressure To Mess-up The JCPOA As The Alternatives Are And Will Be Tragic/Catastrophic.
AS for the "Recent Assessment By The Usual Suspects At The UN", the new Lingo states "Nuclear Capable Missile", which is crafted by the same folks that manufactured "Possible Military Dimension" or PMD for Iran's Nuclear Program.
BUT now that the IAEA has closed the file on Iran's PMD, it is rather Astonishing that we are looking for new Excuses to "Harm Iran's Economy and Security" not to mention the recent Visa Fiasco.
AND That Is Going To Harm The Moderates In Iran At The Expense Of Global Peace & Security.
IS That What We Want!???
MR. Obama MUST Resist Any Temptation Or Pressure To Mess-up The JCPOA As The Alternatives Are And Will Be Tragic/Catastrophic.
2
When I saw "scary weapons" in the headline, I was sure the editorial was about assault rifles.
5
This is all a big chess game for Iran. They invented the game too.
The possible release of the Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and other Americans held by Iran is just another carrot they will pull away unless we DON'T allow them ballistic missile testing without sanctions.
The U.S. is now in the position to give Iran the "punch in the mouth" they threatened to hit us.
The possible release of the Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and other Americans held by Iran is just another carrot they will pull away unless we DON'T allow them ballistic missile testing without sanctions.
The U.S. is now in the position to give Iran the "punch in the mouth" they threatened to hit us.
3
We need to ask ourselves, what do we owe a country that has threated to cut off the Straight of Hormuz?...hiding secret bomb factories in the mountains...has killed and maimed our US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan with their IED's, has threatened our international bases,has kidnapped former marine Amir Hekmati and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, has bombed with "plausible deniability" in Bangkok, Venezuela, Bulgaria,has attempted to assassinate Saudi diplomat on US soil...etc,etc...
9
Iran wants to exterminate Israel. This is no secret based on their words and deeds, especially with their financial and military support of terrorist goups that attack Israel almost daily. Advanced missile systems along with their nuclear program creates a imminent danger to Israel and must be addressed.
What amazes me is there are so many commentors that seem to agree with Iran's intentions, or they are truly naive enough to believe the Iranian/North Korean/Russian kabal is not a danger. I can understand the anti-Semites but the comments from some Jews are befuddling.
What amazes me is there are so many commentors that seem to agree with Iran's intentions, or they are truly naive enough to believe the Iranian/North Korean/Russian kabal is not a danger. I can understand the anti-Semites but the comments from some Jews are befuddling.
13
I am not sure why so much hand-wringing. Iran is a major regional power in a very volatile region; its neighbours are armed to the teeth (as is most of the world). Surely it is understandable. It may give grounds for concern; It may be frightening, but a bit late to close the barn doors.
3
Suppose the missile launches were precisely an attempt by hard liners in Iran to provoke a unilateral US response? Imposing sanctions would be doing exactly what they wanted.
We need to get over our Father Knows Best attitude.
We need to get over our Father Knows Best attitude.
3
Since when did the US stop testing ballistic missiles? Since when did the US stop overthrowing foreign governments and assassinating leaders it didn't like? Since when did the US stop upgrading its nuclear arsenal with $1 trillion over 30 years? Since when did the US, directly or via allies like Saudi Arabia, stop creating and assisting fundamentalist extremists? Since when has the Military Industrial Complex not seen its profits soar? Since when has the US military not acted like the global gun for hire by the wealthy corporations? Since when has the US not scapegoated one country, one leader, after the other? Since when did the New York Times editors connect their pronouncements on foreign policy to history? Such chutzpocrisy!
9
The Iranian missioe program is now threat to the US, and i ft is time for the US to quit claiming the rile of Middle East policeman.
It would indeed be unfortunate if the U.S. imposed unilateral sanctions and pushed the Iranians firmly into the Russian orbit.
The rest of the world, including our allies in Western Europe, see the U.S. as hypocritical and thuggish in our imposing sanctions and economic warfare on the Iranians, at the same time as we wink and nod and give material help to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the venal and corrupt "Kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
The Iranians have every right to develop ballistic missiles. They would be crazy not to, while we arm the Saudis and Israelis to the teeth.
The rest of the world, including our allies in Western Europe, see the U.S. as hypocritical and thuggish in our imposing sanctions and economic warfare on the Iranians, at the same time as we wink and nod and give material help to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the venal and corrupt "Kingdom" of Saudi Arabia.
The Iranians have every right to develop ballistic missiles. They would be crazy not to, while we arm the Saudis and Israelis to the teeth.
16
Just a reminder for NY times readers: Judith Miller and Iraq war!
There are some people in Iran who want conflicts and instability, fortunately they're not holding key positions in this administration right now. Attack on saudi embassy and missile test were their way of saying we're still here!
If you want a peaceful future in relations with Iran you got to lay off this carrot and stick policy or you get another Ahmadinejad!
I don't want to imagine a hardliner in office in Iran vs Clinton!
ps: pls vote for Bernie I dig that dude! #feelthebern
There are some people in Iran who want conflicts and instability, fortunately they're not holding key positions in this administration right now. Attack on saudi embassy and missile test were their way of saying we're still here!
If you want a peaceful future in relations with Iran you got to lay off this carrot and stick policy or you get another Ahmadinejad!
I don't want to imagine a hardliner in office in Iran vs Clinton!
ps: pls vote for Bernie I dig that dude! #feelthebern
9
We can handle an Ahmadinejad better than the bait and switch nonsense Iran is currently playing (blame the "hardliners.") There is only one ruler in Iran - the supreme leader/ayatollah and all decisions involving missile launches, etc., rest at his feet. Stop launching missiles and you'll get your peaceful future.
3
But wait, wasn't The Times all in favor of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Obama? Does it surprise anyone now that Iran is moving quickly to perfect its ballistic missile capabilities? In less than 15 years Iran will have nuclear weapons. And that's if it doesn't cheat on the deal and ratchet up its nuclear research sooner. With the $150 billion that Obama will also release from U.S. banks to Iran, they will have all the money needed to prepare missiles for delivering their nuclear weapons. Meanwhile they continue to threaten the U.S. forces in the area, as they did this past week by launching test rockets from their fighter jets just off the bow of American warships. Some would consider this nuclear capitulation to Iran by Obama as treasonous. and they would be correct. He has sacrificed American safety for a one sided deal that capitulates to a country which has promised to destroy both Israel and the U.S.
7
This is wildly misinformed and misleading. Or just plain 'ol incorrect.
3
I don't blame Iran for wanting missiles and nukes because the US et al. want to carve Iran like a Christmas ham.
7
Iran is an older civilization than ours. People who have been there and met people know that they are eager to open up and enjoy civil society more. Rouhani walks a tightrope, and we can do best for ourselves by discouraging extremist reaction to overweening opposition.
That said, they should free Jason Rezaian. There appears to be a deep divide between victims and the larger population, but the targeted few are in the modern equivalent of an oubliette, and that is evil in my book.
That said, they should free Jason Rezaian. There appears to be a deep divide between victims and the larger population, but the targeted few are in the modern equivalent of an oubliette, and that is evil in my book.
5
Times commenting system again, darn, this was meant to be a reply which added to my earlier remark, to add rather than replace perspective..
Please check "Readers' Picks" where the overwhelming voice is for perspective and understanding.
Please check "Readers' Picks" where the overwhelming voice is for perspective and understanding.
Do you believe left wing New York Times "readers picks" actually represent the feeling of most Americans?
5
On what basis should the U.S. impose sanction on Iran because of its missile program? The sanctions explicitly say that only missiles that are specifically "designed" to carry nuclear weapons are disallowed. Iran has no nuclear weapons and the missiles are designed to carry conventional weapons. All this nonsense is a smoke screen to keep Iran down.
The Obama administration like all its predecessors cannot be trusted to deal fairly with Iran. International agreements mean nothing to the United States. It continues to support the terrorist supporters Saudi Arabia and Turkey while continuing to beat Iran on the head.
The Obama administration like all its predecessors cannot be trusted to deal fairly with Iran. International agreements mean nothing to the United States. It continues to support the terrorist supporters Saudi Arabia and Turkey while continuing to beat Iran on the head.
2
A nation does have a right to self-defense, particularly when it is repeatedly threatened by the world's lone superpower and its enforcer in the region.
13
The Times editorial seems sensible on its face. But I am wary of lifting any sanctions against Iran when it seems all too willing to do with its free hand what it has been prevented from doing with the other.
2
Which is exactly why Obama's Iran Deal was doomed from the start.
Ironic that Barack Obama wouldn't even consider the argument you're making about Iran back when we could have STOPPED all this.
Ironic that Barack Obama wouldn't even consider the argument you're making about Iran back when we could have STOPPED all this.
4
Obama wants this one too much and it is clouding his judgement. Can anyone believe that Iran sincerely has given up the hunt for nuclear weapons when they continue to refine their capability to deliver them? So we push their breakout time out by a year, but we give them the resources that will fund the development of delivery systems that can guide them far more effectively to far more critical locations.
These guys are funding Assad who is using chemical weapons against his own people, supporting Houthi rebels that are destabilizing Yemen, supporting Hezbollah which is in a constant low grade war with Isreal, to whom Iran has also refused to acknowledge any right to exist. Death to America remains their political rallying call and they continue to develop ballistic missiles that will eventually give them the capability to strike Western Europe.
It is very possible that there is something we all don't know, but what we all do know points to this being a bad idea. Pariah states love to make nuclear deals and back out on them once they have derived the upfront benefit and Iran stands to get some enormous upfront benefits from this. Nothing in their foreign policy is indicating that they have rethought their world view, which is the only thing that will keep them from retrenching.
These guys are funding Assad who is using chemical weapons against his own people, supporting Houthi rebels that are destabilizing Yemen, supporting Hezbollah which is in a constant low grade war with Isreal, to whom Iran has also refused to acknowledge any right to exist. Death to America remains their political rallying call and they continue to develop ballistic missiles that will eventually give them the capability to strike Western Europe.
It is very possible that there is something we all don't know, but what we all do know points to this being a bad idea. Pariah states love to make nuclear deals and back out on them once they have derived the upfront benefit and Iran stands to get some enormous upfront benefits from this. Nothing in their foreign policy is indicating that they have rethought their world view, which is the only thing that will keep them from retrenching.
7
Our "friends" the Saudis export terrorism all over, and we think Iran is the problem (most of the 9/11 guys, Daesh, etc. etc.)?
We're fond of going in and ruining the neighborhood and blaming the victims.
We should look to our own house. If I were anywhere abroad I would find any of the prancing ideologues dominating the Republican stage scary as hell.
We cannot police the world, and we should stop thinking we can parachute in and use up lives, wealth, and treasure making things much worse.
(While I was writing this I thought of North Korea. Oh well, there are some really nasty people out there (Assad comes to mind too, and not much seems to be able to be done there either), but I'd say that the calculations of interference are more likely to backfire than not. Which is to say, obviously it's complicated and I'm an armchair critic.)
And about our rootin' tootin' urge to interfere, we are flying blind, whatever we do:
"Philip Gordon, the former NSC official: "In Iraq, the US intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the US intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the US neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster.""
(New Yorker, Negotiating the Whilwind, Remnick, 12/21&28/15)
We're fond of going in and ruining the neighborhood and blaming the victims.
We should look to our own house. If I were anywhere abroad I would find any of the prancing ideologues dominating the Republican stage scary as hell.
We cannot police the world, and we should stop thinking we can parachute in and use up lives, wealth, and treasure making things much worse.
(While I was writing this I thought of North Korea. Oh well, there are some really nasty people out there (Assad comes to mind too, and not much seems to be able to be done there either), but I'd say that the calculations of interference are more likely to backfire than not. Which is to say, obviously it's complicated and I'm an armchair critic.)
And about our rootin' tootin' urge to interfere, we are flying blind, whatever we do:
"Philip Gordon, the former NSC official: "In Iraq, the US intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the US intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the US neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster.""
(New Yorker, Negotiating the Whilwind, Remnick, 12/21&28/15)
8
Here we go again. The NY Times, in what has become a boring, anti-Iran rant, is quick to point out all the potential dangers of any rapprochement between the US (on behalf of its master, Israel), UK and France on one side, and Iran on the other. Let's see now. India, Pakistan, China, USA, UK, France, Israel and Russia all have ballistic missile capability in the name of deterrence. Why shouldn't Iran have the same capability and logic when Israel, etal, have been threatening it for decades? Try to be a little more objective, sort of like how we expect the Middle East to become more "democratic".
12
The Iranians have explicitly called for the destruction of Israel and support one of the most brutal dictators in the Middle East-Assad.The Ayatollah has made clear his contempt for America inspite of Obama's outstretched hand.And yet somehow Iran is more desirable now?
Obama needs to contain this threat fast.The clock is ticking.Otherwise the Saudis will use Pakistan to get what it wants and start a nuclear arms race.
Obama needs to contain this threat fast.The clock is ticking.Otherwise the Saudis will use Pakistan to get what it wants and start a nuclear arms race.
6
The United States should lift sanctions on Iran; no, it should impose new sanctions on Iran. The short answer is that the Obama administration should do both....
[ Ridiculous, both because this is a self-contradictory editorial and because of the unfailing need expressed to punish Iranians for having any concern with defense when surrounded by governments, as the Saudi government, that wish to destroy Iran. ]
[ Ridiculous, both because this is a self-contradictory editorial and because of the unfailing need expressed to punish Iranians for having any concern with defense when surrounded by governments, as the Saudi government, that wish to destroy Iran. ]
6
Paraphrasing the famous dictum about generals always ending up fighting the last war rather than the one they are faced with now, Obama has obviously decided NOT to fight the last war (Iraq) rather than deal with what he faces now.
5
After a recent 18-day stay in Iran, which gave me an opportunity to meet and talk to dozens of ordinary Iranians, I came away with a much different take on its missile program. I was constantly reminded that Aryan Shiite Iran is under constant threat from Arab Sunni Saudi Arabia. They insisted that their missile program is Iran's major defense against the Saudis, a US ally that we've armed to the teeth, ignoring the fact that this country spawned Al Quida which has morphed into ISIS. Both countries are guilty of grievous human rights abuses, but what country in the Middle East, including Israel, is innocent of this? Iran, like Israel, is surrounded by hostile neighbors, and like Israel, Iran will defend itself from an attack. The US would be wise to cooperate with Iran to defeat ISIS, end the war in Syria, and tackle sectarian divides. Iran's young, educated population is able and willing to do this, and we should take advantage of this rather than continue selling billions in arms to Saudi Arabia.
12
Yet another case of media sounding the alarm. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
5
Editorial Board wrote this?
Sounds more like Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the Israel Lobby Fascists on the Far Right.
(I am Jewish so the anti-Semite card won't fly here.)
Yet Saudi Arabia who just executed 47 people in 1 DAY mostly by beheading and a few by firing squad are our good buddy's.
Where are your morals now?
Sounds more like Sheldon Adelson and the rest of the Israel Lobby Fascists on the Far Right.
(I am Jewish so the anti-Semite card won't fly here.)
Yet Saudi Arabia who just executed 47 people in 1 DAY mostly by beheading and a few by firing squad are our good buddy's.
Where are your morals now?
21
Facism is defined as "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government." What evidence do you have that Sheldon Adelson is a "fascist" or that people who support Israel and lobby for Israel's interests are "fascists"? If you're not an anti-Semite, then why repeat tired, anti-Semitic labels like "Israel Lobby Fascists"?
And since when did being Jewish mean you can't be an anti-Semite. Self-hating Jews are some of the worst anti-Semites around. I suggest you take a good, long hard look in the mirror.
And since when did being Jewish mean you can't be an anti-Semite. Self-hating Jews are some of the worst anti-Semites around. I suggest you take a good, long hard look in the mirror.
9
So interesting to see the lack of comments.
Obama supporters, who were here in full bore defending Obama's Iran Deal, are eerily silent save a few on the far (lunatic) left who are actually defending Iran's right to have weapons and portraying Israel and anyone who criticizes Obama as the real enemy.
I've said this several times, and it falls under the category of free advice, which in my profession rarely happens if ever:
If you are an American, think twice about making a deal with someone who chants "death to America" after every speech or prayer.
Obama supporters, who were here in full bore defending Obama's Iran Deal, are eerily silent save a few on the far (lunatic) left who are actually defending Iran's right to have weapons and portraying Israel and anyone who criticizes Obama as the real enemy.
I've said this several times, and it falls under the category of free advice, which in my profession rarely happens if ever:
If you are an American, think twice about making a deal with someone who chants "death to America" after every speech or prayer.
11
I doubt you are a lawyer that ever tried and won a case. Your arguments are pathetic.
4
Why shouldn't Iran with no record of attacking other nations have a missle program. We know Israel has one and we fund it and share knowledge with them.
4
Your tag says that you're from Connecticut. Then you probably didn't know that Iranian trained and funded members of Hezbollah tortured and murdered Robert Stethem of Waterbury while they hijacked a flight full of Americans. Or perhaps you forgot that the Iranians held 60 American diplomats hostage and tortured them. No other country in the world, even the Russians during the worst moments of the Cold War have done that.
4
I knew all that but they weren't as bad as the outrages of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you know that we overthrew their democratically elected government. Perhaps you knew that Reagan and Bush made back room deals for them to hold those hostages until after the election and it evolved into us giving them arms for funds for the contras.
Everything in perspective. They haven't been invading other countries, killing 10s of thousand of people and causing milions of refugees.
We've funded and armed many more terrorists than they ever thought of funding.
Everything in perspective. They haven't been invading other countries, killing 10s of thousand of people and causing milions of refugees.
We've funded and armed many more terrorists than they ever thought of funding.
2
"The greater threat by far has always been Iran’s nuclear program, which was coming closer to producing a bomb until the agreement halted the process."
It is worrying that those supporting the Iran nuclear deal, as does the Times, now admit that Iran had been "coming closer to producing a bomb...."
For the purpose of forestalling much deserved new sanctions, and to continue to parrot the Administration's appeasement, the Times is now willing to hurry over the assessment with which it took strenuous issue when the Israelis were screaming about it, namely that Iran lied about its nuclear weapons program right until 2010, and that CIA analyses which stated that Iran's bomb program had been suspended, were simply wrong.
The Times's position here is indefensible because it is incomplete. There is no mention that this "delicate moment," as the Times put it, is also viewed that way by the Iranians, who are playing Middle East souk games with the US.
Just a few weeks ago, the Iranians shot a missile at a US warship which intentionally landed within 1500 yards of the ship. hardly a "delicate" message to the US.
When the Iranians land a missile within 500 yards of a US warship, will it then be time to suspend the nuclear deal?
It is worrying that those supporting the Iran nuclear deal, as does the Times, now admit that Iran had been "coming closer to producing a bomb...."
For the purpose of forestalling much deserved new sanctions, and to continue to parrot the Administration's appeasement, the Times is now willing to hurry over the assessment with which it took strenuous issue when the Israelis were screaming about it, namely that Iran lied about its nuclear weapons program right until 2010, and that CIA analyses which stated that Iran's bomb program had been suspended, were simply wrong.
The Times's position here is indefensible because it is incomplete. There is no mention that this "delicate moment," as the Times put it, is also viewed that way by the Iranians, who are playing Middle East souk games with the US.
Just a few weeks ago, the Iranians shot a missile at a US warship which intentionally landed within 1500 yards of the ship. hardly a "delicate" message to the US.
When the Iranians land a missile within 500 yards of a US warship, will it then be time to suspend the nuclear deal?
4
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran has been a target of covert and overt regime change war by America for over six decades.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran is not a majority European Jewish nor majority Hindu nor majority Sunni Muslim nation state.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran was the target of the P5+1.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran has been a target of covert and overt regime change war by America for over six decades.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran is not a majority European Jewish nor majority Hindu nor majority Sunni Muslim nation state.
Unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, Iran was the target of the P5+1.
5
This NYT Editorial sounds more like a campaign speech by one of GOP Presidential candidates, making Iran sound like the worst threat to America!
Come on NYT, what about Israel and Pakistan's missile programs all funded by our tax dollars!
Come on NYT, what about Israel and Pakistan's missile programs all funded by our tax dollars!
26
Hey, Jaque. Please cite just one instance of Israel threatening any nation with annihilation. Just one. Ever. And if Israel is such a threat with its missiles and nuclear weapons, how is it the Saudis and other Arab states are only worried about Iran? Please check your Israel-hate at the door. It's interfering with your neurons.
9
Iran, the much-praised country so venerated by large numbers of liberal readers of the NY Times ...
hangs gays from construction cranes in public squares in front of crowds that include children. Has sent tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to Hezbollah for the purpose of killing Jews. Has befriended Mr. Assad, the destroyer of Syria and instigator of the worst refugee crisis in modern times. Is even now in the process of advancing its nuclear program and blatantly violating its obligations under the recently concluded nuclear agreement. In company with Mr. Putin is rapidly advancing its program to dominate the Middle East. Imprisons and tortures innocent Americans and thousands of its own people who wish to see human and political rights advanced in their country.
Some country. Some greatness.
hangs gays from construction cranes in public squares in front of crowds that include children. Has sent tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to Hezbollah for the purpose of killing Jews. Has befriended Mr. Assad, the destroyer of Syria and instigator of the worst refugee crisis in modern times. Is even now in the process of advancing its nuclear program and blatantly violating its obligations under the recently concluded nuclear agreement. In company with Mr. Putin is rapidly advancing its program to dominate the Middle East. Imprisons and tortures innocent Americans and thousands of its own people who wish to see human and political rights advanced in their country.
Some country. Some greatness.
30
So Saudi Arabia beheads them and they are our ally and we can't say anythng bad about them. They even fund ISIS.
1
Perhaps true Bill, but they aren't trying to get nukes and aren't threatening us or our interests in the same way as Iran.
2
The Iranians behead even more - 700 in the past six months according to Amnesty International.
2
It seems to me that this rogue regime was desperate to have the crippling sanctions lifted, and that Obama was totally desperate to get some sort of deal.
While I agree that it is a good policy to try to negotiate with terrorist regimes to curb their efforts, I cannot understand the desperation to get a deal, any deal. To me, if the sanctions stayed in place, until they stop their both nuclear and terrorist ambitions in the region, that would have been leading from a position of strength. Instead, the Iranians know that Obama is desperate for a deal and will give into them on anything.
The deal is a terrible one in that it 'kicks the can' down the road as far as allowing development of a nuclear deal. But, worst of all it allows Iran to engage in destabilization of the region. And, it allows them to continue to call for the destruction of Israel, our greatest ally in the region, and the only one with a sane form of government.
We have only 1 year left of Obama, and hopefully not 8 more years of his policies if the 'anointed one' becomes president. A new refreshing, decisive and strong leader will hopefully be able to undo the damage Obama has done including groveling to this terrorist regimen.
While I agree that it is a good policy to try to negotiate with terrorist regimes to curb their efforts, I cannot understand the desperation to get a deal, any deal. To me, if the sanctions stayed in place, until they stop their both nuclear and terrorist ambitions in the region, that would have been leading from a position of strength. Instead, the Iranians know that Obama is desperate for a deal and will give into them on anything.
The deal is a terrible one in that it 'kicks the can' down the road as far as allowing development of a nuclear deal. But, worst of all it allows Iran to engage in destabilization of the region. And, it allows them to continue to call for the destruction of Israel, our greatest ally in the region, and the only one with a sane form of government.
We have only 1 year left of Obama, and hopefully not 8 more years of his policies if the 'anointed one' becomes president. A new refreshing, decisive and strong leader will hopefully be able to undo the damage Obama has done including groveling to this terrorist regimen.
4
Do you suppose the Iranians eagerness to develop their military has anything to do with the fact that the U.S. has troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Turkey, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan? (Look at a map to see the relative locations of these countries.)
The best way to "tame" the Iranians? Get the U.S. military out of the Middle East! Our government has neither the historical perspective nor the cultural sensitivity nor the forbearance to "fix" these countries.
The best way to "tame" the Iranians? Get the U.S. military out of the Middle East! Our government has neither the historical perspective nor the cultural sensitivity nor the forbearance to "fix" these countries.
51
Are you serious? That would be rewarding the biggest supporter of terror with a priceless gift. Who do you work for?
5
The development of a ballistic missile program by Iran is highly worrisome. That being said this home grown (and probably inefficient) program was the only way a nation of 80 million people in the middle of a hostile and over-armed region could assure its survival. As a reference Saudi Arabia's defense budget was approx $60bn last year compared to $6bn for the Iranians. The country was subject to decades long military embargoes and suffered chemical and biological attacks in its long war with Iraq.
8
If the mullahs didn't have such a stranglehold on the Iranian government, the country most likely to be a friend of the United States is probably Iran. Their people are the most educated, westernized and cosmopolitan of them all. Unfortunately, the much hated Shah has now been replaced by the much hated mullahs.
Americans need to be more understanding of the difference between ordinary Iranians and the crackpots who run the show in Teheran. There is a huge difference.
Americans need to be more understanding of the difference between ordinary Iranians and the crackpots who run the show in Teheran. There is a huge difference.
12
What's exactly the upside of this deal for the West and Israel, this deal they're already flagrantly violating by the way?
2
Some facts please. Document some violations of the agreement. It didn't cover missles.
2
As oil becomes less and less important over the next fifty years, I would suggest all the Mideast countries invest in growing other industries. That is the only path to prosperity and peace for your children and grandchildren. Missiles do one thing and one thing only. They attract other missiles.
4
Andy, google The Tehran Times (it's In English)..and you will see more reports of hundreds of foreign business in negotiations with Iranian companies. Just this week there are 4 international Fairs in Tehran.
2
Every dime spent on missiles with a range extending beyond the Mideast is a dangerous waste. There is simply no upside. Iran is not going to gain support in Europe, America or Asia by bringing all those regions into missile range. It is just expanding an arms race that it can never win. Successful ICBM development would only cause the worlds greatest powers to aim far more capable weapons right back. If economic sanctions return or worse, Iran only has its own decisions to blame. An opportunity for prosperity has opened, Iranians of good faith should not let their leaders ruin it for another generation.
1
George W. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq which he justified with the fiction that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. He did not invade North Korea which not only did have nuclear weapons but is clearly irresponsible enough to use them. Israel has nuclear weapons and is the only Middle Eastern country which would be defended by the US if the weapons were used. Why would Iran or any other country not want nuclear weapons to insure their own safety from invasion? The next George W. Bush, Trump or Cruz, apparently will be nominated by the Republican Party this summer.
11
Nice historical summary. Now, what does it have to do with President Obama and HIS actions and dealings with Iran? Bush didn't make him do it (or not do some things), so let's please stop trying to shift the focus to someone out of office for almost eight years.
4
i simply stated the facts of why Iran, among other countries over which we have direct control, is going to be difficult to deal with. I think Obama has done reasonably well under the circumstances. While I would love to see worldwide nuclear disarmament, it's not going to happen.
If you were threatened by Saudi Arabia, which paid for Pakistan's nuclear bombs and regards you as an apostate state, wouldn't you wish to defend yourself too?
14
I an only see delay, delay. The Republican Candidates don't come off as all that knowledgeable and the ones who are on board are in Committees they want to see get headlines and "wait out "the President until they get their man in. The President has shown he is no lame duck - so much for that one. What makes them so sure they are going to be in the White House except for dinner? John
2
Republicans in Congress and other supporters of Israel seem intentionally impervious to the simple truth that most of the world does not want to impose more sanctions on Iran and will not follow the US' policies in this matter. The US is no longer the ultimate arbiter in this matter. Even if the EU could be convinced to reimpose sanctions, China and Russia will not.
7
Iran is sitting in the middle of countries with billions of AMERICAN dollars supported nuclear & other weapons, whose purpose is OFFENSIVE.
Missiles are DEFENSIVE. Missiles perhaps can stop an attack from the skies..they cannot launch an attack. "Scary? " I think not..prudent is a better description.
And while I'm at it..let's unravel the term "hegemony". If by the term you mean the fact that Iran is supporting trade agreements with Iraq, Afghanistan to replace the destruction we have caused to the economies of the countries we have " invaded"..this is a good thing. Does anyone with a modicum of awareness ..really think Iranians are going to gallop into surrounding countries like Genghis Khan?
Missiles are DEFENSIVE. Missiles perhaps can stop an attack from the skies..they cannot launch an attack. "Scary? " I think not..prudent is a better description.
And while I'm at it..let's unravel the term "hegemony". If by the term you mean the fact that Iran is supporting trade agreements with Iraq, Afghanistan to replace the destruction we have caused to the economies of the countries we have " invaded"..this is a good thing. Does anyone with a modicum of awareness ..really think Iranians are going to gallop into surrounding countries like Genghis Khan?
14
well,maybe like Darius and Xerxes?
1
Can we quit picking on the Iranians already?
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, US and Israel all have Ballistic Missiles and Iran has been more responsible than the rest. Iran has never promoted Regime Change, Global Jihad or getting rid of inconvenient minorities. Not a single global terrorist incident has been traced back to Iran in recent times. True it supports Hezbollah, Basher Assad and the Houthis, but then the other side it is fighting has been worse. You cannot keep giving state of the art weapons to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan and not have the Iranians react.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, US and Israel all have Ballistic Missiles and Iran has been more responsible than the rest. Iran has never promoted Regime Change, Global Jihad or getting rid of inconvenient minorities. Not a single global terrorist incident has been traced back to Iran in recent times. True it supports Hezbollah, Basher Assad and the Houthis, but then the other side it is fighting has been worse. You cannot keep giving state of the art weapons to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan and not have the Iranians react.
81
So why does Hizbullah get involved with Argentina, many years ago? Naivete, or worse on your part?
3
not a single terrorist incident? I guess the bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center killing many Jews doesn't count. Nor does arming Hezboloah and Hamas...either Rahul you are ignorant of facts or willfully distorting the truth
4
Iran's airforce is extremely outdated with few if any modern equipment. As the U.S. continues to sell the most advanced fighter jets and bombers to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies, what should Iran do? The ballistic missile program is its only credible deterrent. Perhaps the U.S. should start by halting any further shipments of advanced weapons to dictatorships such as S.A. and UAE which continue to use these weapons in Yemen with little regard for the UN human rights conventions. Then we can ask Iranians to halt their missile program.
59
"The United States should lift sanctions on Iran; no, it should impose new sanctions on Iran. The short answer is that the Obama administration should do both."
Remember me? The Black lawyer on Capitol Hill with the degree in American History? I was the guy asking repeatedly to no avail, why even do the Iran deal?
Vindicated.
Another Obama failure.
Remember me? The Black lawyer on Capitol Hill with the degree in American History? I was the guy asking repeatedly to no avail, why even do the Iran deal?
Vindicated.
Another Obama failure.
4
Why the angst, NYT? According to this administration we can trust the mullahs and theocrats who run Iran, even though they've never even bothered to formally accept any of these great "deals"? And, hey, if they act up and pose a threat, why we can talk to them! Or have another endless discussion at the UN who will also do nothing. As long as they get their American billions, are unfettered to do what they want and get to still have "Death to America" rallies why worry and bother with editorials they must laugh at in Tehran (almost as much as they laugh at Obama and Kerry)?
5
Would anyone but a delusional person like O, not but believe Iran will build or buy a nuclear weapon shortly? The US will do nothing. Face it O has been had, big time. O has comprised US security beyond repair, all know it. Legacy? Yes, one of stupidity.
2
Only fools believe that these are separate programs. The purpose of IRBMs is to carry nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The payload capacity fo such missiles is small enough that those are the only reasonably payloads. In an effort to create a "legacy" our national leadership has chosen to wave their hands and pretend otherwise, but finalizing the missile design means that the payload design is very stable.
4
Iran's "scary" weapons program ?? That's interesting, said by a country with the most advanced nuclear arsenal and is the only country which has actually dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, twice.
47
That's RIGHT. And it better stay that way. One has to keep the dogs in check.
I think ballistic missiles are almost more of a threat than nuclear weapons. While Iranian possession of nuclear weapons would be a problem, their usability to Tehran is minimal as any use or imminent threat of use could seriously threaten the continued existence of Iran as a nation state.
It's much less likely the Iranians would face a counterattack from a conventional ballistic weapon strike as it would require the US or its allies to face a much messier conventional war. Winnable on paper, but only at levels of military force commitment beyond anything we've engaged in since Korea or maybe Viet Nam.
It's much less likely the Iranians would face a counterattack from a conventional ballistic weapon strike as it would require the US or its allies to face a much messier conventional war. Winnable on paper, but only at levels of military force commitment beyond anything we've engaged in since Korea or maybe Viet Nam.
If we treat Iran as an international pariah for its aspirations of being a major regional power - a status Israel and the US attained long ago - it should come as no surprise when Iran forms ties with other nations that are on the outs with the West.
3
We have had the ability to target and destroy an entire million-plus city with one thermonuclear missile for thirty years and, so far, have been responsible stewards of this arsenal. M.A.D.(Mutual Assured Destruction) has kept the major powers from annihilating each other because once they have the ability, they tend to tone down the rhetoric.
I was born the year Hitler and Roosevelt took power and lived through WWII and the Cold War and can't imagine a world that has a dozen countries with these weapons and delivery systems and everybody playing nice in the sand-box. Somebody has to come up with world-saving solutions.
I was born the year Hitler and Roosevelt took power and lived through WWII and the Cold War and can't imagine a world that has a dozen countries with these weapons and delivery systems and everybody playing nice in the sand-box. Somebody has to come up with world-saving solutions.
15
What is or isn't 'scary' is a matter of perspective. From Iran's point of view what is threatening is the fact that they had their democratically elected government overthrown by a CIA coup in 1953. We can only imagine what the landscape of the Middle east might have been had we allowed democracy to emerge and not intervened.
Add to that US support of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980. In that case it included access to US satellite surveillance photos so that Sadaam could make more effective use of poison gas attacks. President Bush's targeting Iran for "regime change" following the massive US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the last ten years of severe economic sanctions were clearly meant as threats to Irans sovereignty.
We instill fear on any country's that insists on using their natural resources, including oil for the benefit of the local population, not the international energy giants.
What is really scary is the not so subtle assumptions in this article that the US has a right to dictate terms of sale and ownership of all commodity resources and we have a right to use the weight of our massive military to impose terms on other nations.
This policy brought about the first war against Iraq in 92 as well as the second war in 03 and is part of the ongoing war today. It is a well settle principle of international law that a nation has a right to defend itself. So far Iran has done a better job of following the law with a purely defensive military than we have.
Add to that US support of Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980. In that case it included access to US satellite surveillance photos so that Sadaam could make more effective use of poison gas attacks. President Bush's targeting Iran for "regime change" following the massive US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the last ten years of severe economic sanctions were clearly meant as threats to Irans sovereignty.
We instill fear on any country's that insists on using their natural resources, including oil for the benefit of the local population, not the international energy giants.
What is really scary is the not so subtle assumptions in this article that the US has a right to dictate terms of sale and ownership of all commodity resources and we have a right to use the weight of our massive military to impose terms on other nations.
This policy brought about the first war against Iraq in 92 as well as the second war in 03 and is part of the ongoing war today. It is a well settle principle of international law that a nation has a right to defend itself. So far Iran has done a better job of following the law with a purely defensive military than we have.
19
We are all supposed to think that Iran, a Muslim country, should not be allowed to own ballistic missiles. Israël has its own, yet that's ok. A friend is a friend is a friend.
38
and notice that even in Israel's darkest days after being attacked on its holiest day of Yom Kippur Israel did not use its purported nuclear bomb....wonder if that woud be true of the mullahs in Iran or Pakistan?
3
It is necessary to keep the dogs in their kennels. I ran is still working on an A-bomb. Israel, thank goodness, has more than enough H-bombs to make Iran, as another reader noted, a glass covered parking lot.
2
The US cannot enable SA's military that is used is in civil wars, Yemen, and turn its head when SA exports Wahhabism in the world that encourages terrorism like ISS and Al Qaeda and others that attacks Shias, and Westerners on a daily basis. Given the Sunni war against Iran (1980-88), Iran must prepare for a fascist/bathist SA under the new king, an avowed Wahhabist. To not prepare, would lead to a 1980 scenario that led to the invasion of Iran.
Iran's missile tests are not being done in a vacuum. this a sectarian dispute that should not get the US backed into a war. Both sides are at blame here.
SA also has intentionally tanked the US oil development market and caused havoc in the oil fields. Where is the sanction on that insult?
Iran's missile tests are not being done in a vacuum. this a sectarian dispute that should not get the US backed into a war. Both sides are at blame here.
SA also has intentionally tanked the US oil development market and caused havoc in the oil fields. Where is the sanction on that insult?
5
Obama will do nothing. He's already backed off any threats he first issued regarding these missiles, just as he backed off his red lines over chemical weapons in Syria. He will not do anything that risks losing his supposed "legacy" with this Iran nuclear deal ... even if it means a future president is stuck cleaning up his mess several years from now, as Winston Churchill had to clean up Neville Chamberlain's mess. Add the $100 billion going to Iran which will be used to foment more terrorism in the Mideast and elsewhere, the closing the of the risk corridor subsidizing Obamacare losses for insurers in 2017 by taxpayers that will lead to skyrocketing health insurance premiums on his signature domestic achievement, and you've got the makings of our next historical Millard Fillmore.
4
Let me get this straight. Iran launches missiles at its neighbors who just happen to be allies of the USA. And, their desire to be a glass covered parking lot began when?
12
The US gives Israel billions to help keep the Israeli yoke on the Palestinian people and deny them basic human rights like the right of return. US sanctions have killed more than half a million children in Iraq, and the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Now the Times says the Iranians should not have rockets while the Israelis threaten them with nukes. When will the Time propose doing something for all the people the US has harmed or helped keep them penned up in a ghetto? Unless you are Christian or a Jew, the USA is just one more colonial power, threatening poverty all the time and nuclear destruction if you get out of line. How about the USA and Israel agree that they will never use nukes on a nation that lacks them? Obama backed away from such a commitment. The US and Israeli governments are colonial tyrants. As Arundhait Roy has said, the American people are fine, nobody is mad at the Rock and Roll hall of frame, but the US and Israeli government will not deal with moderate Arabs seeking justice for their people. Justice is the one thing Obama does not put on the table.
11
You are hitting the wrong country - again.
Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program for some 12 years, according to the CIA findings on this matter.
Iran has a number or delivery systems but no nuclear warheads.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has proven and reliable delivery systems, some 120 Dongfeng 3, CSSS-2) missiles, ready to use stationed at the Al-Watah ballistic missile base, some 200 km off Riyadh and the nuclear warheads to be placed onto these missiles from the Saudi funded Pakistan nuclear arms project.
Plus some 40 Dongfeng 21 missiles and an unknown number of Pakistan made Ghauri missiles.
All mobile and all capable of transporting nuclear warheads, especially the Ghauri missiles which have been developed by the Pakistan for it's own nuclear arms program.
As for the question of nuclear warheads, Saudia Arabia has, based on it's own 2013 information, access to some 40 nuclear warheads which could be transported for use from Pakistan to Riyadh within hours for use with the aforementioned delivery systems.
Perfectly fitting the Ghauri missiles.
Ohh BTW, over the past few weeks a number of Pakistan Airforce transport aircraft have been seen flying into the airspace of the Saudi missile facilities.
I Wonder what they had to deliver there?
But ohh no, the Editorial board is worried about Iran while Saudi Arabia has ready to use nuclear weapons and a missile program to match.
So when will the Editorial board demand tough sanctions against Saudi Arabia?
Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program for some 12 years, according to the CIA findings on this matter.
Iran has a number or delivery systems but no nuclear warheads.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has proven and reliable delivery systems, some 120 Dongfeng 3, CSSS-2) missiles, ready to use stationed at the Al-Watah ballistic missile base, some 200 km off Riyadh and the nuclear warheads to be placed onto these missiles from the Saudi funded Pakistan nuclear arms project.
Plus some 40 Dongfeng 21 missiles and an unknown number of Pakistan made Ghauri missiles.
All mobile and all capable of transporting nuclear warheads, especially the Ghauri missiles which have been developed by the Pakistan for it's own nuclear arms program.
As for the question of nuclear warheads, Saudia Arabia has, based on it's own 2013 information, access to some 40 nuclear warheads which could be transported for use from Pakistan to Riyadh within hours for use with the aforementioned delivery systems.
Perfectly fitting the Ghauri missiles.
Ohh BTW, over the past few weeks a number of Pakistan Airforce transport aircraft have been seen flying into the airspace of the Saudi missile facilities.
I Wonder what they had to deliver there?
But ohh no, the Editorial board is worried about Iran while Saudi Arabia has ready to use nuclear weapons and a missile program to match.
So when will the Editorial board demand tough sanctions against Saudi Arabia?
9
We (the USERs) have no allies in the middle east. Saudi Arabia is the primary creator of fanatic terrorists and would like to destroy Iran. Israel is practicing apartheid, expanding its territory into traditionally Muslim lands and creating hatred and fear on our behalf. Iran is doing what it reasons it needs to do.
6
DOES The Editorial Board Have Any Brilliant Ideas On How Iran Ought To Defend Itself As The Persian Gulf Arab Monarchies Spend Ten Times Its Military Budget, And Israel Has A Blank Cheque Courtesy Of AIPAC To Arm Itself To Teeth, While Sitting On Stockpiles Of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical Weapons!???
AS the assessments by Pentagon have established that "Iran's Military Doctrine Is Based on Defense And Deterrence" and unfortunately NY Times Editorial Board is allowing itself to fall victim to the opponents of JCPOA by drawing "False Equivalences".
AS the assessments by Pentagon have established that "Iran's Military Doctrine Is Based on Defense And Deterrence" and unfortunately NY Times Editorial Board is allowing itself to fall victim to the opponents of JCPOA by drawing "False Equivalences".
8
Israeli security expert Martin Van Creveld once wrote in the Times that, given the actions of the US, "Iran would be crazy not to want nuclear weapons." "Sharon on the Warpath" (August 2004) (since removed from the Times archive, for some reason. Gee, why?).
With a substantial part, if not outright majority, of Congress effectively calling for war against Iran regardless of whether it obeys the arms-control agreement, and its donors/puppet masters threatening to incinerate Tehran with our nukes, Iran would be crazy not to want ballistic missiles.
With a substantial part, if not outright majority, of Congress effectively calling for war against Iran regardless of whether it obeys the arms-control agreement, and its donors/puppet masters threatening to incinerate Tehran with our nukes, Iran would be crazy not to want ballistic missiles.
8
I'd hope the NYT would stop the "scary" drum beat on Iran when we're already mired in an escalating sectarian war between Sunni Saudi Arabia, which we've armed to the teeth, and Shiite Iran. We need to step back and rethink our entire Middle East policy, especially toward the Saudis and our ill-considered endorsement of their reckless military actions in Yemen and Syria, and try to formulate a comprehensive peace treaty for the region that ends the the religious civil war that is on the verge of spiraling out of control and engulfing the entire region. Piecemeal steps against one party, as you advocate here, only will exacerbate the problem further enmeshing us in the ongoing and ever-expanding war that already includes Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
43
Shia law is the scariest cult.....since it is the opiate of those converted to
Islam. And on the Sunni side of Islam....the extreme of Sunnism to defend
which means KILL all those deemed the enemy...
All excuses to destroy Islam...and to distort the Messenger of Peace who
was the prophet himself....
Time for a real review of those messengers of Peace....Jesus as well as
Mohammad...and then the peace talks can begin....
The distortion of truth....of Islam...which is brotherhood....and peace...becomes
twisted into mythical excuse to kill....as does any distortion of any religion.
even Christianity extremists ...twist the truth....
Peace Be With all Muslims...and All Christians...and All Jews...
The Message is Peace within these religions....Not Hate...
Islam. And on the Sunni side of Islam....the extreme of Sunnism to defend
which means KILL all those deemed the enemy...
All excuses to destroy Islam...and to distort the Messenger of Peace who
was the prophet himself....
Time for a real review of those messengers of Peace....Jesus as well as
Mohammad...and then the peace talks can begin....
The distortion of truth....of Islam...which is brotherhood....and peace...becomes
twisted into mythical excuse to kill....as does any distortion of any religion.
even Christianity extremists ...twist the truth....
Peace Be With all Muslims...and All Christians...and All Jews...
The Message is Peace within these religions....Not Hate...
Imagine if we had not stuck with 100 year old vehicle propulsion technology, using the oil derivative gas to move our vehicles. Somehow gas engines have remained immune from the same technological evolution that has swept the 20th and so far the 21st centuries. Can't help but suspect the oil companies of having a hand in that one.
Had propulsion technology progressed as naturally as computers, phones, furnaces, every stupid aspect of our modern lives, the warring tribes of the middle east would have not been subjugated by the west. The democratic government of Iran would not have been overthrown in 1953. We would have left the middle east alone and there would be no motivation or budgets for terrorist states to exist.
Now the US arms itself up to its teeth, supports multiple dictators throughout the world, invades countries that didn't attack us and yet we act surprised and indignant when another country does the same. A country who's government we've already toppled once and who's neighbors we've invaded, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. This is truly the practice of greed driven insanity.
I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Energy independence equals national security" Does anyone get that?
Had propulsion technology progressed as naturally as computers, phones, furnaces, every stupid aspect of our modern lives, the warring tribes of the middle east would have not been subjugated by the west. The democratic government of Iran would not have been overthrown in 1953. We would have left the middle east alone and there would be no motivation or budgets for terrorist states to exist.
Now the US arms itself up to its teeth, supports multiple dictators throughout the world, invades countries that didn't attack us and yet we act surprised and indignant when another country does the same. A country who's government we've already toppled once and who's neighbors we've invaded, killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. This is truly the practice of greed driven insanity.
I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Energy independence equals national security" Does anyone get that?
5
Saudi Arabia and Israel are huge threats to Iran-- Israel promises to attack Iran almost daily. Reduce the threats and Iran won't feel a need to develop these weapons.
Until we stop sending billions in weapons to these two countries, it's crazy to think Iran will roll over.
Until we stop sending billions in weapons to these two countries, it's crazy to think Iran will roll over.
6
The deception is complete when it comes to Iran and we don't even know that we have been deceived! Compound that with the repetitive nature, we accept additional misinformation about Iran that builds on the false premise that it is about WMD and now missiles.
Our government did not sanction Iran nor invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. If that was true we would have sanctioned Afghanistan and invaded North Korea a long time ago. We have sanctioned Iran and invaded Iraq only when they stopped accepting US Petro Dollars to sell their oil.
America's economy depends on its dollar strength, which depends on the dollar being used by the global economy to buy and sell oil. America is involved with Qatar and the Saudis to continue the flow of oil and gas out of the ME, because they will sell it for US Dollars. We support the overthrow of Assad for one reason, to get a pipeline to EU from Qatar and not Iran.
Most won't believe this, but the facts support the truth and not what we are told is the truth.
Our government did not sanction Iran nor invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. If that was true we would have sanctioned Afghanistan and invaded North Korea a long time ago. We have sanctioned Iran and invaded Iraq only when they stopped accepting US Petro Dollars to sell their oil.
America's economy depends on its dollar strength, which depends on the dollar being used by the global economy to buy and sell oil. America is involved with Qatar and the Saudis to continue the flow of oil and gas out of the ME, because they will sell it for US Dollars. We support the overthrow of Assad for one reason, to get a pipeline to EU from Qatar and not Iran.
Most won't believe this, but the facts support the truth and not what we are told is the truth.
3
Rewarding bad behavior does not improve behavior. We will live to regret the deal we have fostered among our friends and allies to accept with Iran.
2
There's nothing like a good arms race to line the pockets of US, French, British, Russian and now Chinese military contractors.
Is it any wonder why the world is full of missiles, nuclear weapons and deadly conventional weapons.
Proliferation of weapons by the security council countries is much more dangerous for the world and the American people. By focusing on today's or tomorrows bogey man the NY Times and other legitimate media continue to be tools of the military industrial complex.
I'm really disappointed that the NY Times has be coming a tool of war and proliferation.
Is it any wonder why the world is full of missiles, nuclear weapons and deadly conventional weapons.
Proliferation of weapons by the security council countries is much more dangerous for the world and the American people. By focusing on today's or tomorrows bogey man the NY Times and other legitimate media continue to be tools of the military industrial complex.
I'm really disappointed that the NY Times has be coming a tool of war and proliferation.
6
Wrong. Without nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles Iran is defenseless vs. Israel, which has both. Iran is not targeting other countries in the Middle East, in fact it is assisting America in fighting ISIL, while Israel occupies Palestine, Jerusalem the Golan Heights, and part of Lebanon in violation of international law. Moreover, unlike Iran, Israel's leader is a nutcase--where in international law is a book cover for stealing land. Jesus, even Hitler made up a phony attack to justify invading Poland.
9
The Times claims that it strives for accuracy in its reporting and opinion columns. It employs a Public Editor to correct mistakes and keep the reporting of the Times fair and impartial.
Why then has there been no effort made to correct the record regarding Mr. Netanyahu?
He came to Washington in March and warned Congress and the American people that the Iran
nuclear deal was a catastrophic mistake of epic proportions. The Times responded with repeated
editorials, op-eds and news articles that made him out to be an ogre and enemy of peace for opposing President Obama, but -- not satisfied with that --similar articles and editorials are still appearing with monotonous regularity in the Times.
Nine months have now passed since Mr. Netanyahu appeared before Congress, and the
record is already quite clear that Mr. Netanyahu was right when he told the American people that Iran could not be trusted.
Although the Ayatollah has never signed a piece of paper making the deal legally enforceable,
the record of Iran’s treachery and duplicity since verbally agreeing to it is already very abundant.
The Times itself has reported on this, but never with even a word of apology to Mr. Netanyahu.
When is the Times going to correct the record?
When is it going to admit that Mr. Netanyahu's speech to Congress was simply a plea to the American people to protect their own best interests and Israel's?
Why then has there been no effort made to correct the record regarding Mr. Netanyahu?
He came to Washington in March and warned Congress and the American people that the Iran
nuclear deal was a catastrophic mistake of epic proportions. The Times responded with repeated
editorials, op-eds and news articles that made him out to be an ogre and enemy of peace for opposing President Obama, but -- not satisfied with that --similar articles and editorials are still appearing with monotonous regularity in the Times.
Nine months have now passed since Mr. Netanyahu appeared before Congress, and the
record is already quite clear that Mr. Netanyahu was right when he told the American people that Iran could not be trusted.
Although the Ayatollah has never signed a piece of paper making the deal legally enforceable,
the record of Iran’s treachery and duplicity since verbally agreeing to it is already very abundant.
The Times itself has reported on this, but never with even a word of apology to Mr. Netanyahu.
When is the Times going to correct the record?
When is it going to admit that Mr. Netanyahu's speech to Congress was simply a plea to the American people to protect their own best interests and Israel's?
6
Which country's weapons program is more scary: Iran's or the U.S.'s? Go figure.
4
A sober but flawed editorial. Ever since the outbreak of the Islamic revolution America, Israel and Persian Gulf monarchies have been trying to find an excuse to impose sanctions on Iran and depose its government. The “nuclear weapons” was one such excuse, and it showed its potency against Iraq in 2003. As it has finally been admitted by the IAEA, Iran never had nuclear weapons and its program never diverted from NPT regulations, although Iran did some research into weapons manufacturing as is her right, without developing them.
The next excuse is Iran’s missile program. Apart from placing herself in the midst or numerous US military bases, Iran is also surrounded by hostile states such as Israel and Pakistan with nuclear weapons, and Saudi Arabia that is the biggest arms importer in the world. Iran’s conventional defense is old and dilapidated and no match for modern US weapons supplied to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Missiles are Iran’s only serious means of defense. Yet their range and sophistication are much less than Israeli, Pakistani and Saudi missiles. Iran has not threatened to attack any country while she is constantly threatened by a preemptive Israeli attack. What the Israelis and the neocons desire is for Iran to unilaterally disarm and lay itself open to an Israeli attack. Let Congress pass a sensible resolution, namely that Iran should have what Israel possesses and no more. That would create a balance in the Middle East.
The next excuse is Iran’s missile program. Apart from placing herself in the midst or numerous US military bases, Iran is also surrounded by hostile states such as Israel and Pakistan with nuclear weapons, and Saudi Arabia that is the biggest arms importer in the world. Iran’s conventional defense is old and dilapidated and no match for modern US weapons supplied to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Missiles are Iran’s only serious means of defense. Yet their range and sophistication are much less than Israeli, Pakistani and Saudi missiles. Iran has not threatened to attack any country while she is constantly threatened by a preemptive Israeli attack. What the Israelis and the neocons desire is for Iran to unilaterally disarm and lay itself open to an Israeli attack. Let Congress pass a sensible resolution, namely that Iran should have what Israel possesses and no more. That would create a balance in the Middle East.
5
No surprise here. Botched negotiations with Iran over their nuclear proliferation have really put US in a bind, not only with Iran but throughout the Middle East. The other 'players' are lining up as new allies in disgust over how Obama & Kerry leaped into this 'deal at any cost'. Saudi's & Israel tsk tsk!
Without the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon via missile, there is no nuclear threat. The missiles are a very serious problem Keep all sanctions in place.
If the Iranian missile programme violates the UN mandate let the UN take appropriate action against Iran, why the US should be perturbed about it? Or, the missile discovery with North Korean links is simply a ploy to pressurise Iran and assuage an aggrieved Saudi Arabia, the US ally, gone off balance ever since the Iranian nuclear deal?
8
There is no "UN" to "take appropriate action". There is the US or there is no one.
2
Who wrote this editorial? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu?
Reckless criticism of a nation's right to self-defense could have blowback. Iran, like other nations of the world, have a right to self-defense.
For more on self-defense go here: http://tinyurl.com/national-self-defense .
Reckless criticism of a nation's right to self-defense could have blowback. Iran, like other nations of the world, have a right to self-defense.
For more on self-defense go here: http://tinyurl.com/national-self-defense .
42
My thoughts, too. A quick "Google" of military defense budgets puts Saudi Arabia at $80 Billion and Iran at $18 Billion. And if I'm not mistaken, the chief religious mouthpiece of Saudi Arabia has called for extermination of all Shia Muslims (Iran). Apparently the NY Times had some empty space on their editorial page to fill.
4
Imagine a block in the suburbs. All the people on the block are the same religion. All-powerful aliens come and put people of a different religion and customs into one of the houses. The aliens give this house a machine gun, but the other houses on the block only have sling-shots. Fear and mistrust increase until everyone on the block wants machine guns as well.
17
newell mccarty, the sectarian violence, and virtual elimination of the various Christian sects of the middle east over the past several decades should make it obvious to you that the premise of your comment is wrong. Furthermore, Iran was in no way threatened by Israel (which you are naming in not so many words) before 1979, when the chant of "death to Israel, death to America" became a part of every Iranian government sponsored street rally.
3
Actually, in fact the people of the different religion used to live in that house when it was built, but were forced out by armed bullies and ended up living peacefully as tenants in the other houses on the block. When some other people of the different religion finally get a chance to buy their old house back (no aliens involved), the landlords on the block immediately evict their tenants (keeping their stuff) and then start a concentrated effort to once again force the newly returned people out of their original house by violence. The people in their original house get weapons to defend themselves and their children from the rest of the block.
There, I fixed it for you. {Jonathan}
There, I fixed it for you. {Jonathan}
1
Imagine the block infecting its neighborhood with a growing array of high-powered sling-shots and proxy-attacks backed up by an uncompromising ideology of domination and aggression pursuing machine guns enough to balance any effort at containing it.
If it was so easy and bloodless to take out Iranian facilities it would have been done.
War is easy if you and yours don't have to bleed.
Iran already has the largest ballistic missile inventory in the middle east.
100 conventionally armed ballistic missiles launched at a nation would do untold damage.
We could have a missile arms race in the middle east. With the stability of most of the governments in doubt, what could happen to the weapons after the governments fall?
Stop Iran and the arms race now. Or have a Caliphate have its own missile armory.
War is easy if you and yours don't have to bleed.
Iran already has the largest ballistic missile inventory in the middle east.
100 conventionally armed ballistic missiles launched at a nation would do untold damage.
We could have a missile arms race in the middle east. With the stability of most of the governments in doubt, what could happen to the weapons after the governments fall?
Stop Iran and the arms race now. Or have a Caliphate have its own missile armory.
5
Frankly Israel scares me more, kills it's neighbours without breaking a sweat and threatens with the Samson option.
5
"The greater threat by far has always been Iran’s nuclear program…"
No it is not!
Accurate ballistic missiles are more difficult to develop.
Read the article in the WSJ "Iran’s Secret Self-Inspections." A report says the IAEA won’t have access to the Parchin nuclear site.
Obama has a secret—recently exposed.
Iran will do its own inspection of their nuclear sites in this deal.
Of course Iran won't lie to us as they have done for decades.
Obama's deal won't cover ICBMs.
Do you know they are harder to develop than atomic bombs?
Why would Iran need ICBMs since Israel its enemy is just 1000 miles away?
You need them for the U.S. ("The Grat Satan") about 7000 miles away.
They are called "Intercontinental Missiles" because they can be launched at other continents (like the U.S.).
We were worried about the more limited ICRM missiles from Cuba just 90 miles away from us that almost caused WW III.
Obama is taking a risk with us and our families.
Willing to wait for Iran's nuclear launch?
6
I read the WSJ article. It says that Iran will self-inspect...under UN supervision.
Spare us hasbara, please.
Spare us hasbara, please.
2
Parchin was never about current production but verifying older, no-longer-active production of nuclear materials, and the self-inspection was based on a never-confirmed rumor. The danger isn't atomic ICBMs aimed at the United States but Iran's giving nuclear weapons materials to terrorists for use in smaller nuclear or dirty bombs. *That's* what the JCPOA Iran deal effectively addressed.
1
You must be joking. Iran and the Iranian people are not suicidal nuts like ISIS and North Koreans. If you did even the most rudimentary research into Iran, you would know it has a long history of art, science, and democracy. The fact that you think they would unilaterally launch missiles at Israel or the US is laughable--they would be vaporized and they know it. And more importantly, unlike the crazies in NK they CARE. They want to live and be part of the larger world. Let's let them.
How about curbing the fireball that is Saudi and its proxies and then expect Iran to normalize its military programs.
Just like the Jewa never forgot Hitler gas chambers so do Iranins remember Saddam gas whole Iranian villages.
Just like the Jewa never forgot Hitler gas chambers so do Iranins remember Saddam gas whole Iranian villages.
42
Now they are trying to resurrect the same threat Saddam posed only this time aimed at their former tormentors. No free lunch here. Stop the Iranian aggression or be swallowed by it. Simple enough.
Until they park the missiles keep the sanctions up.
You don't have to keep your word to serial liars who ignore international norms like the sanctity of embassys. Who continually fund terrorist strikes against the west. You are a damn fool if you do.
They just fired a bunch of rockets near a battle group of ours in the Persian Gulf in a recognized shipping lane. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/09/us-navy-reveals-video-of-iran-firing-rock....
If one of those struck a Navy ship, accident or not, you have a war.
And they are at war with Saudi Arabia over Yemen, a land not worth fighting over, let alone dying for. . They are one of North Korea's best trading partners, two wretched regimes keeping the other afloat.
If a god inspired Revolutionary Guards group sinks a carrier with a suicide swarm attack it will be a world war.
You don't have to keep your word to serial liars who ignore international norms like the sanctity of embassys. Who continually fund terrorist strikes against the west. You are a damn fool if you do.
They just fired a bunch of rockets near a battle group of ours in the Persian Gulf in a recognized shipping lane. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/09/us-navy-reveals-video-of-iran-firing-rock....
If one of those struck a Navy ship, accident or not, you have a war.
And they are at war with Saudi Arabia over Yemen, a land not worth fighting over, let alone dying for. . They are one of North Korea's best trading partners, two wretched regimes keeping the other afloat.
If a god inspired Revolutionary Guards group sinks a carrier with a suicide swarm attack it will be a world war.
3
The overriding question we must ask is this: Is this deal with the Iranians worth the cost? We have angered our two closest allies in the region. The deal has created more, not less, instability in the region. Has terrorist funding by Iran been addressed? No. It was set aside to make the deal. Will some of that 100 billion returned to Iran fund terrorism? Absolutely. Strange how Iran's missile development program was not part of the deal. It was a bad deal from the start and as it progresses, it seems to be getting worse. All for 10 years of a non-nuclear Iran if they abide by the agreement AFTER they get the money. I have no confidence Iran will abide.
19
Bulls-eye.
"Death to America" will soon get hundreds of billions of dollars, courtesy of Obama.
11
Members of Israel's government say the same thing, and we give them billions.
1
Please cite Israeli government members who say "Death to America."
Thank you.
Thank you.
2
We certainly DON’T know that the Iran deal halted their march toward a nuclear “break-out”. We don’t really know for certain that it even slowed it. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the indications that are causing the Obama administration to reconsider its error in trusting them in the first place – which extend well beyond their insistence on continuing development of delivery vehicles.
What’s more, the worsening state of relations between Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations on one side and Iran on the other hardly will be IMPROVED by continuing plans to go forward with lifting sanctions on Iran, since it was precisely those plans that precipitated the worsening relations in the first place. TALKING about further sanctions hardly will cause the Sunni interests to become less convinced that Iran is resolved to deploying nuclear weapons that present a direct and catastrophic threat to Sunni interests. And negotiations over release of Americans are unlikely to impress anyone, particularly when Iranians can simply capture more unwary Americans to use as negotiating leverage.
The Iranians have demonstrated precisely the contempt many warned about regarding these agreements. It’s time to seriously reconsider ALL our commitments inherent in the agreement, rather than persisting in a dream that they will be compelled to respect their obligations related to ANY of them – short, that is, of re-imposing them until they demonstrate a better respect for commitments they’ve made.
What’s more, the worsening state of relations between Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations on one side and Iran on the other hardly will be IMPROVED by continuing plans to go forward with lifting sanctions on Iran, since it was precisely those plans that precipitated the worsening relations in the first place. TALKING about further sanctions hardly will cause the Sunni interests to become less convinced that Iran is resolved to deploying nuclear weapons that present a direct and catastrophic threat to Sunni interests. And negotiations over release of Americans are unlikely to impress anyone, particularly when Iranians can simply capture more unwary Americans to use as negotiating leverage.
The Iranians have demonstrated precisely the contempt many warned about regarding these agreements. It’s time to seriously reconsider ALL our commitments inherent in the agreement, rather than persisting in a dream that they will be compelled to respect their obligations related to ANY of them – short, that is, of re-imposing them until they demonstrate a better respect for commitments they’ve made.
5
Blah blah blah. Humans are always on the brink of war. The nukes won't help them feed the Iranian people, especially with global warming cooking their country. I wish we could drop our oil addiction.
4
Why on earth did Iran launch a ballistic missile test in October 2015? It was a clear provocation, as it happened after Iran signed the nuclear deal in July. The UN Security Council Resolution 1929 banned Iran from launching ballistic missile tests and remained valid until the July nuclear deal went into effect. Then Iran will still be liable to staying away from any ballistic missile test for a period of up to eight years.
15
Iran has every right to test its missiles when the U.S., Israel and now Saudi Arabia continually threaten to attack it. You expect Iran to be just a sitting duck? Only missile designed for nukes are not allowed.
The sanctions would not imposed on Iran, but on companies which provided aid in missile development. It is not clear Russia or China would support implementing these sanctions. These sanctions would not be likely to have much impact on the missile program and provide Iran with an excuse to violate other terms of the agreement. Having destroyed a sanctions program which limited Iran's nuclear ambitions the administration now makes clucking noises toward non-Iranian companies who helped it with missiles. Was any part of this fiasco not predictable?
4
Sanctions only work when the enforcement and application of those sanctions are unilateral. It remains to be seen if this will be the case and once again we find the United States alone in this endeavor. Diplomacy is filled with innuendo and sublties. Iran may have agreed to the "deal" knowing full well that the United States would be embarrassed and a weakness exposed when they push the envelope in very small increments.
4
Living in a region with increasing dangers from both Saudi Arabia and Israel, it is no wonder Iran wants to develop missiles. Iran has never attacked another nation in modern times. Rather than focus just on them, let the U.S. and other countries stop selling weapons in the Middle East, particularly to Israel and the Gulf states.
114
Iran attacked the US when government sponsored agents attacked our embassy and took hostages. A clear act of war.
1
Depressing but not surprising that the back-ward thinking described here gets the most support from the feverish throngs of anti-West devotees who populate most of the NYT's readership. When exactly was the last time a "death to Iran" rally was held in Israel?
2
Note that they used neither nukes nor missiles.
Lack perspective much?
Lack perspective much?
I have some sympathy with Mohammed Javad Zarif because no matter what Iran does or says the country is stuck between a rock and a hard stone. The rock and the hard stone being the axis of Saudi Arabia, Israel and the GOP.
Neither Israel or Saudi Arabia want Iran back in the international community as both want hegemony over the region. Saudi Arabia is deliberately stoking the fire and Salman has a lot to lose with a slumping oil price, a costly and brutal war in Yemen and dissent at home.
Iran is no angel but neither does it want war, it can't afford a war and is a victim of American largesse to Israel and Saudi Arabia. It begs the question why Israel has two nuclear armed Dolphin Class submarines stationed within striking distance of Iran when Iran doesn't have nuclear capability and its intentions are to have the sanctions lifted and rebuild its economy.
If any country needs to protect itself it's Iran while Saudi Arabia is controlling its Sunni neighbours in marginalising and demonising Iran.
Neither Israel or Saudi Arabia want Iran back in the international community as both want hegemony over the region. Saudi Arabia is deliberately stoking the fire and Salman has a lot to lose with a slumping oil price, a costly and brutal war in Yemen and dissent at home.
Iran is no angel but neither does it want war, it can't afford a war and is a victim of American largesse to Israel and Saudi Arabia. It begs the question why Israel has two nuclear armed Dolphin Class submarines stationed within striking distance of Iran when Iran doesn't have nuclear capability and its intentions are to have the sanctions lifted and rebuild its economy.
If any country needs to protect itself it's Iran while Saudi Arabia is controlling its Sunni neighbours in marginalising and demonising Iran.
93
Israel, which shares no common border with Iran, does not seek regional hegemony, but only to ensure its own national security. If Iran initiates war on Saudi Arabia, the Saudis may not necessarily have to purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan; Israel may detonate them on Iranian targets. In a region dominated by the ethic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," circumstances often force strange "alliances of convenience." When Hitler violated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin reached out to the U.S. for military assistance. As U.N. nation-state members, both the Saudis and the Israelis retain an "inherent right to individual, or collective self-defense" as recognized under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. If Iran's "Supreme Leader (Fuhrer)" seeks to ascend to Paradise to meet the 12th Imam, he may find himself doing so in a thermonuclear cloud!
1
Iran is the traditional heavyweight in the region and has been since the Persian Empire. They see themselves in this role very clearly and not just the mullahs. The average man on the street is proud of their position of power vs Arabs and Sunnis. They will continue to pursue domination in the area because they view it as a historical norm dating back thousands of years.
Begs the question? Here's your answer, (amazing though how you are privy to highly classified IDF intelligence) but assuming what you write is so, Iran makes no secret of its ambition to rid the world of "the Zionist entity" and as such a threat actually exists - including the backing up of words with deeds, Hezbullah rockets Israel confronts the threat head on, but of course, to some, as the world's only Jewish state and anti-Jewish bigotry being a particularly stubborn strain of brain-infection, self-defense is suspect if not criminalized. The mind that accepts the preposterous and delusional notion that Israel seeks "hegemony" is in all likelihood impervious to rational thought so allow me to distill reality down to a sound-bite for whoever might be able to grasp another basic axiomatic given: "never again" means never again. Stop the deal or pay the price.
1
What exactly do you expect when the US and Europe (the US alone $92 billion) have just sold sold billions and billions of dollars of armaments to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Israel, already the best armed military outside of the US, already receives more than $3 billion in military 'aid' a year and is now asking for more in compensation for the nuclear deal.
Is Iran seriously supposed to sit quietly and allow itself to e so exposed?
If there is an arms race it is the fault of Western governments who are in the pockets of the arms industry.
Israel, already the best armed military outside of the US, already receives more than $3 billion in military 'aid' a year and is now asking for more in compensation for the nuclear deal.
Is Iran seriously supposed to sit quietly and allow itself to e so exposed?
If there is an arms race it is the fault of Western governments who are in the pockets of the arms industry.
101
We most certainly DO know that Israel has hundreds of nukes, has attacked our navy, spied shamelessly on us, sold our top-secret military secrets to the USSR and Communist China, had its agents impersonate the CIA to provoke a war with Iran, and we send them billions annually.
I'd trust Iran before I trust Israel. Israel has a proven track record of stabbing us in the back.
I'd trust Iran before I trust Israel. Israel has a proven track record of stabbing us in the back.
2
The "aid" Israel receives buys the US a friendly warm water port in the eastern Mediterranean, pre-positioned military supplies in the land nexus of three continents, access to the Sues Canal and Persian Gulf, real-time, battlefield testing of state of the art military hardware, think Iron Dome, David's Sling and drones, and finally, a subsidy to the US arms industry supplying jobs and tax revenue at home. Such a deal! From Iran Uncle Sam gets: "death to America" rallies and Bashar Assad, Russians in Syria and a destabilized Europe. Such a deal!
11
bigrobtheactor,
Those supposed benefits are used to protect Israel. America has no need for " warm water port in the eastern Mediterranean, pre-positioned military supplies in the land nexus of three continents, access to the Sues Canal and Persian Gulf ..."
With friendly Arab states, the American military would be better positioned to protect itself from its' major military and economic enemies: China and Russia.
Those supposed benefits are used to protect Israel. America has no need for " warm water port in the eastern Mediterranean, pre-positioned military supplies in the land nexus of three continents, access to the Sues Canal and Persian Gulf ..."
With friendly Arab states, the American military would be better positioned to protect itself from its' major military and economic enemies: China and Russia.
1
Ending Iran's production of ballistic missiles was part of the deal.
Violating that part shows the disdain that Iran has for the deal itself.
Overlooking it as if it is trivial is nothing other than wishful appeasement.
Violating that part shows the disdain that Iran has for the deal itself.
Overlooking it as if it is trivial is nothing other than wishful appeasement.
6
From the first time I read the agreement the explanations concerning sanctions baffled me. We will remove sanctions with respect to nukes but we can still sanction them with regard to other things that they refuse to back down on? As if a complacent Iran will accept this, treating it like a sporting event with arbitrary rules? They've already said they won't. Is there much doubt under current leadership, we will simply back down if the penalty for asserting what sanctions we can is the end of the nuclear deal? It would probably take circumstances of frightening proportions for the president to abandon what he must see as one of his signature accomplishments. In the end, it is not that it's complicated - it doesn't really make sense. Looking at what Iran has done since the deal was struck and the statements it has made, and the fact that we are relying in part on Iran itself and Russia, Iran's ally and our antagonist who stabbed us in the back on Syria, to enforce it, I can't believe it will be to our benefit. And, Kerry has already told the world, while testifying before congress, the administrations feels we have no choice.
3
Sanctions that correspond to the nuclear agreement must be lifted to consummate that agreement. Applying different sanctions on Iran to end it's ballistic missile program should be proportional. Does the United States provide ballistic missiles to the Saudis? Or other weapons of dire consequence to Iran?
6
Or how about Israel?
1
I wish we could just try and deal with them as equals. With respect. How are they supposed to deal with the U.S., the Israelis, and the Saudis constantly threatening them ?? Plus Iran knows the past history of our manipulation of their government.
58
'Undefined"? You got that right. All else backwards. Please allow me to unburden far too many readers and responders of a severely limiting and distorting notion: Israel threatens nobody. Never has.Never will. We are the people of Isaiah. Israel wants only one thing: to be left to live in peace. Full stop. End of story. The rest is commentary, mostly misbegotten.
1
Why shouldn't they?
They are surrounded by fierce religious ultras and haters, and they are just now trying to prevent being even more threatened by a Saudi/ISIL neighbourhood of Iraq and Syria. Nuclear armed Pakistan is bad enough (and I saw no sanctions). An Israel with potentially nuclear missile carrying submarines is not a comforting thought either. Not to mention that those two would not have to fear any miltary threat or sanction - or even mild rebuke - whatever they do. And the ISIL friends Saudi (who gave them the Sarin poison gas for which we then blamed Assad and used it as "WMDs" to invade Syria) can chop off heads of innocent people - I wonder: was that young blogger among them - the one who was sentenced to beheading and crucifiction? They get no criticism - but when some Iranians get furious at such barbarism, they get loads of it.
Let's be fair: After the 1953 CIA putsch against their democracy, and all the terror and torture that went around afterwards, they would have the right to the best defense in the world.
They are surrounded by fierce religious ultras and haters, and they are just now trying to prevent being even more threatened by a Saudi/ISIL neighbourhood of Iraq and Syria. Nuclear armed Pakistan is bad enough (and I saw no sanctions). An Israel with potentially nuclear missile carrying submarines is not a comforting thought either. Not to mention that those two would not have to fear any miltary threat or sanction - or even mild rebuke - whatever they do. And the ISIL friends Saudi (who gave them the Sarin poison gas for which we then blamed Assad and used it as "WMDs" to invade Syria) can chop off heads of innocent people - I wonder: was that young blogger among them - the one who was sentenced to beheading and crucifiction? They get no criticism - but when some Iranians get furious at such barbarism, they get loads of it.
Let's be fair: After the 1953 CIA putsch against their democracy, and all the terror and torture that went around afterwards, they would have the right to the best defense in the world.
73
Wow.. That's a lot of sympathy for the devil. Left out (as usual) is the Cold War, the Soviet Union, the takeover of the Iranian revolution against the Shah by religious fanatics practicing the same or worse brutality in the name of their god, and the 'velvet revolution' ignored by the Left) mostly against their own population who you apologists refuse to support, lies and deceptions regarding the not-so minor issue of the non-proliferation treaty they signed (IAEA) and the serial aggressions committed in the name of that Shia revolution from Buenos Aires to Beirut to Baghdad.
Please recall that Nazi Germany had a functioning (if inaccurate) ballistic missile 72 years ago. The current Iranian weapons display the same level of sophistication as US and Russian weapons developed in the 60's.
As computers, metallurgy, manufacturing and other technologies continually improve it will become easier and easier to build such weapons, and the idea that a large and relatively sophisticated state will be prevented from developing such weapons will be come less and less practical. The problem will have to be managed in another way.
In any case, the US and its allies happily sell sophisticated weapons to another absolutist theocratic state, Saudi Arabia, which it can be argued is presently a more destabilizing agent in the World than Iran.
As computers, metallurgy, manufacturing and other technologies continually improve it will become easier and easier to build such weapons, and the idea that a large and relatively sophisticated state will be prevented from developing such weapons will be come less and less practical. The problem will have to be managed in another way.
In any case, the US and its allies happily sell sophisticated weapons to another absolutist theocratic state, Saudi Arabia, which it can be argued is presently a more destabilizing agent in the World than Iran.
49
Thank you Mr. Obama as so many commenters here love to say. Of course in this case it is the Iranians who will get their bomb and missiles with which to threaten us and the world. What do you think Mrs Clinton?
6
the threats to attack seem to come much more often, more clearly, and louder from Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US. As US actions toward Libya, Iraq, and North Korea have demonstrated, a country with nukes is less likely to be attacked and destroyed than one without.
She thinks she in entitled to be president of the United States. Hopefully the Justice Department followed by the base of her party are beginning to think otherwise.
Why call for new sanctions on Iran and give its foreign imposter a platform from which to propagandize? Are we going to hear from the Saudi Arabian side next?
What is the point? I'd much rather read more detailed reporting and analysis instead.
---
www.rimaregas.com
What is the point? I'd much rather read more detailed reporting and analysis instead.
---
www.rimaregas.com
3
"...this is a delicate moment, and it may make sense to wait [with new missile - related sanctions] because is Iran is on the verge of implementing the nuclear deal..possible release of Jason Rezaian erc."
The Iranians are consummate negotiators in the true Middle Eastern sense of the process (and excuse the Orientalism).
With them, it will always be a delicate moment, they will always be on the "verge" of implementing this or that as well as of releasing people that they arrested as bargaining chips to begin with. And the general political climate of the region is always tension laden and delicate.
Thus, the US will threaten new sanctions, at best, wait for the right time, when things are no so delicate, and the Iranians will continue to push to the limits of what they can get away with in the framework of delicate.
I am sure that the Iranians can live with that pressure.
The Iranians are consummate negotiators in the true Middle Eastern sense of the process (and excuse the Orientalism).
With them, it will always be a delicate moment, they will always be on the "verge" of implementing this or that as well as of releasing people that they arrested as bargaining chips to begin with. And the general political climate of the region is always tension laden and delicate.
Thus, the US will threaten new sanctions, at best, wait for the right time, when things are no so delicate, and the Iranians will continue to push to the limits of what they can get away with in the framework of delicate.
I am sure that the Iranians can live with that pressure.
7
You may be sure but the Iranians are not sure of that.. . The Iranian economy is being hit hard by Obama's multilateral sanctions, and the Iranian government is starting to worry about public resentment against this,
2
More nasty rumor mongering.
President Obama would never have pushed rolling back sanctions if Iran had any dubious weapons program.
By the way, what was America's response to the testing of ballistic missiles by Iran a few months ago contravening an existing agreement?
Is there any question as to why the Eastern world (and perhaps a good portion of the Western world) laughs at anything the United States says.
President Obama would never have pushed rolling back sanctions if Iran had any dubious weapons program.
By the way, what was America's response to the testing of ballistic missiles by Iran a few months ago contravening an existing agreement?
Is there any question as to why the Eastern world (and perhaps a good portion of the Western world) laughs at anything the United States says.
3
Iran has a major problem with its air force. That is composed of planes bought decades ago under the shah. Due to sanctions it hasn't been able to buy newer planes. Neither has it been able to buy spare parts for those planes.
The main purpose of the missile program is to make up for this lack of an effective air force.
Given the sabre rattling from the other side of the Persian Gulf I believe we shouldn't deny Iran the right to have an effective defense.
The main purpose of the missile program is to make up for this lack of an effective air force.
Given the sabre rattling from the other side of the Persian Gulf I believe we shouldn't deny Iran the right to have an effective defense.
48
Nevertheless, the first planes and pilots who flew against ISIL came from Iran!
A good number of Iraqi pilots had flown their fighters and fighter-bombers into exile into Iran when Bush junior arrived. There were, of course, no trained Iraqi pilots available, 20 years later, but the planes were still good enough to assist Iraq - flown by Iranian and Russian pilots! [While Obama was still meditating what to do - if anything.] And we can be sure: Without that help, The new "Caliph" would, indeed, have been Al Baghdadi ("the man in Baghdad)".
A good number of Iraqi pilots had flown their fighters and fighter-bombers into exile into Iran when Bush junior arrived. There were, of course, no trained Iraqi pilots available, 20 years later, but the planes were still good enough to assist Iraq - flown by Iranian and Russian pilots! [While Obama was still meditating what to do - if anything.] And we can be sure: Without that help, The new "Caliph" would, indeed, have been Al Baghdadi ("the man in Baghdad)".
5
Ah, more of that old time, always exceptional, American hypocrisy.
The two largest recipients of US foreign aid, in this century, Israel and Pakistan are also the two largest rogue nuclear weapons proliferators.
But, after 62 years of US abuse of Iran, deposing their elected government so BP, nee Anglo Iranian, could keep stealing their oil, reinstalling a feckless, yet brutal dictator, turning the US Embassy in Tehran into the largest CIA station in the world, training the brutal Savak secret police, shooting down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children, arming Saddam Hussein, giving him chemical weapons and satellite imagery to improve his use of those WMD's on Iran, trying to starve Iran, cyber nuking Iran, the Times, like the USG is still preaching, from the supposed moral high ground what the sovereign nation of Iran can and cannot do.
The two largest recipients of US foreign aid, in this century, Israel and Pakistan are also the two largest rogue nuclear weapons proliferators.
But, after 62 years of US abuse of Iran, deposing their elected government so BP, nee Anglo Iranian, could keep stealing their oil, reinstalling a feckless, yet brutal dictator, turning the US Embassy in Tehran into the largest CIA station in the world, training the brutal Savak secret police, shooting down Iran Air 655, killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children, arming Saddam Hussein, giving him chemical weapons and satellite imagery to improve his use of those WMD's on Iran, trying to starve Iran, cyber nuking Iran, the Times, like the USG is still preaching, from the supposed moral high ground what the sovereign nation of Iran can and cannot do.
126
As usual Craig is rehashing a lot of ancient history that has nothing to do with Iran's welshing on its current agreement. The shah and Saddam Hussein are long gone. So far the Iranian apologists are running true to form about how America is really responsible for how unhappy Iran is now. Well cry me a river.
4
Who has Israel sold nuclear technology to, pray tell.
3
it sold it to the apartheid government of south africa...but that was a long time ago.
3
Well I'm truly shocked--does the Times mean to inform its readers that peace loving Iran will stop at nothing to develop all sorts of deadly weapons for nefarious purposes. I can't wait for the usual Times apologists to explain this bit of bad news away.
7
This issue is a Strawman. The parameters and specifications of any Iranian missile that was tested would be known immediately. Launching a nuclear capable missile takes extensive testing. If it posed any credible threat the U.S. and/or Israel would destroy the launching site, and manufacturing facilities immediately.Keeping the focus on the nuclear issue is paramount. We should not be sidetracked by diversions which are easily eliminated if warranted.
30
The issue is even more of a strawman than Mr. Shipp suggests. If Iran really decides to nuke us -- which would be suicide and they know it -- the best delivery system is a pre-positioned truck or ship. Missiles are slower, less accurate, more expensive, much less reliable, and more identifiable.
5
Once Iran got what they wanted from Obama, it was a matter of seconds before they would set about skirting the legalese in the deal to continue developing their weapons program.