..."A credible threat of military force.."
With Trump at the helm - are you sure???
5
All together, now: “All Brett is saying is...Give War a Chance!”
5
Perhaps Bibi could enlighten us on his 200 nuclear weapons. What are they for? Clearly he wants to dominate the Middle East.
5
The JCPOA was enacted merely as a vindication of both BHO's legacy and Nobel Peace prize. Desperate for a foreign policy achievement after Benghazi, Libya, withdrawing forces from Iraq , failure to enforce "Red Lines" in Syria, failed Pal/Israeli peace talks, failure to send offensive weapons to Ukraine while demonstrating his "flexibility to Czar Vlad, the BHO/JK team had to sweeten the pot to the Ayatollahs by sending them billion$ in ca$h. Why wouldn't Iran agree to hitting the pause button giving them time to develop their ballistic missiles and enough cash to send to Hamas, Hez, Houthi and arming thousands of fighters in Syria
The JCPOA is merely an Executive agreement between a former POTUS and foreign states lacking any imprimatur of law which a treaty would have provided.
France,Germany,UK have much to gain financially with investment and trade with Iran , while Russia can benefit by Iran spending blood and treasure to stabilize Assad in Syria.
BN/Israel/Mossad have taken all the air out of the balloon of the basis and efficacy of the JCPOA. The UN,IAEA, EU can seek to bury their heads in the sand which is what European/globalists do to preserve the fallacy of diplomacy and international cooperation with a rogue state.
Reagan once joked off mike that we begin bombing USSR in 5 minutes. Israel has already started bombing Iran in Syria. Will Trump be far behind? Stay tuned.
10
Ambling to a nuclear bomb? What do you need? hmm a whole bunch of gas centrifuges to purify the U-235 from the U-238 and a nuclear reactor or two, to convert it to P-239. I think Iran has those tools, hey no rush, just take their time, Maybe get some yellow cake from the Chinese or Russians or the Pakistanis. In fact a lot of countries without the bomb have these tools.
Are we prepared to have an Iran type deal with these countries?
4
The US right has so normalized lying that it is now comfortable both with lies its members tell and with accusing its opponents of lying.
This is a cornerstone of the yabut defence - when caught out in a lie, accuse your opponents of lying.
The proof of the yabut-lie in this column - a claim from the head of a 6 person think tank that perhaps there were parts of a long cancelled nuclear program that Iran did not disclose. Another pro-Israel think tank statement used as confirmation. All channelling the Netanyahu plot line, directly to Trump.
The IAEA never complained that its inspections had problems. The IAEA signed off on their reports. All US intelligence organizations signed off. But two small Iran-phobic think tanks and Stephens tosses out the yabut defence.
On the basis of that flimsy unsubstantiated suspicion the US must rip up the agreement - against the advice of its EU allies - and impose grievous sanctions on Iran.
This article is truly Trumpiam in its hyperbole.
Does Stephens write for the NYT because Bolton was unavailable?
6
I can't believe the Times let this op-ed run.
Well done, Mr. Stephens.
It's bracing to see someone in journalism taking a cold-eyed look at this "deal". Even one of Obama's top foreign police advisers, Ben Rhodes, said it was laughingly easy to fool most reporters, since most are in their late twenties and have hardly any experience.
8
I'd rather be lied to in order to make peace than being lied to to start a war, remember the WMD lie?
5
Another day, another pointless war.
4
Too bad, the United States government can't be trusted. If we can trust anyone we can trust the I.A.E.A , not the USA and not ISRAEL. The WMDs in Iraq were enough of a lesson.
4
Anyone who followed Mr Stephens for a while knows that facts don’t matter when it comes to Israel, it is a constant theme.
7
Is this the same guy who wrote that 1994 Agreed Framework collapsed because in 2002 North Korea restarted the program, when the Republican congress scuttled the implementation by refusing to fund it long before? Nothing to read folks, move on.
1
I do not believe Bibi at all--he wants US to take out all his enemies. We are insane to get mixed up in the Middle East conflicts. Weren't the troubles in Iraq, Libya and Syria enough?
3
Typical Bret Stephens. Despite his assertions that the was on board with the Iran Deal as soon as a story that was immediately debunked (it came from Netanyahu so no surprise) Bret takes the opportunity to proclaim this is what what he believed all along. I keep hoping that Stephens will discover integrity and then I remember he is a Republican in the mold of Brooks and Douthat.
2
Based on the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, the obvious timing of the floorshow, the hope on Netanyahu's part that the US destroy Iran or at least its military, the desperate need for Netanahu to get billions from the US via Trump, and the US policy now essentially mirroring Israel's which is to dismiss the Palestinians in toto, it' questionable at best that we just believe everything presented,
Dumping the deal entirely will convince Iran to take up the program for sure and that will put even more pressure on the world and Israel.
Sounds best imho that US keep with the deal but create new agreements which would help decrease Iran's threat to the region,
And I agree with most here, war with Iran would be a giant risky mess, even worse than the Iraq debacle which Trump called a mistake,
2
hmmm! Does any Middle East country actually have fully working nuclear weapons? If one country has them then its neighbours will want them too in order to defend themselves.
The US made them first and then Russia and UK and-----. So what should be done in the Middle East case?
2
"As for Iran’s current compliance, of course it’s complying."
Well all right then.
4
Stephens writes, "Yes, Iran is permanently enjoined from building a nuclear weapon, even after the limitations on uranium enrichment expire. But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?"
In other words, it's the same old thing: not that Iran is actually violating the agreement and building a bomb, but that it COULD do so later, and that you can't trust these guys, can't make an agreement with them. That's the same old Bibi argument: these people are BAD, doing bad stuff in lots of other places and ways, so we can't make agreements with them. We know what he wants: a war against Iran, preferably carried out by us.
2
Mr Stephens has bought Netanyahu's lies. We should worry about Israeli mendacity rather than Iran's. Instead of being willing to tolerate some uncertainty about Iran's actions, they would prefer to have the guarantee that Iran will develop nuclear weapons - that will give them the excuse to start another war.
2
Stephens is willing to send other people’s kids to war because Netanyahu says Iran didn’t tell the truth about its nuclear weapons program.
So, will Israel now tell the truth about its own nuclear program?
Up until now, Israel’s official position has been obfuscation. Which is apparently ok for Israel but not anyone else.
2
Bret Stephens' argument is wearily familiar to lawyers seeking to evade a contract on behalf of their clients - it's called "anticipatory breach" and is discredited as a legal argument in many jurisdictions. Iran has agreed not to develop nuclear weapons ever. Period. We walked them back from the brink, no doubt frustrating "Bibi" Netanyahu's plan to chance a missile exchange and divert attention from his corrupt regime. We made a deal, not an "art of the deal."
We should hold Iran accountable for its other misdeeds, but now is also the time to demonstrate our honor and who we are despite our dishonest president.
3
Mr Stevens and his handlers will not be happy till Iran is bent, broken and destroyed, the same way as Syria and Iraq. They are looking forward to a bulldozed Middle East. They also don't care about what it costs the US.
2
Funny thing about this... we didn't seem to bat an eye when Pakistan got the bomb (I may be wrong but I think North Korea helped.) Could the real issue be that after the US helped overthrow a democratically elected Iranian government and brought back the Shah, Iran doesn't bear the US a lot of love? This business of who can and who cannot have the bomb is so bogus. Maybe if diplomacy got a bit more use and the saber rattling got stuffed into the last century the fear equation that drives all of this 'stuff' would ease off.
2
The Iran deal IS a lie. It was negotiated by liberals, who have a very long and established sad history in foreign policy, going back all the way to causing WWI by appeasing...while they seem somehow bent on rectifying that horrible record by negotiating still more weak and illogical treaties without teeth or actual means to enforce and verify, because of their very failed philosophical weakness that SHOW is as good as GO, and symbolism is as good as actual achievement...so they keep making the same mistake because their very mindset is to create appearances, not substance, and that is their core philosophical view, and therefore endlessly predictable (demonstrated by long history) weakness. It is a defect of the liberal viewpoint and their big weakness. Conservative have their own constitutional weaknesses, but they are demonstratively strong in international relations/foreign policy.
5
The last time a Republican administration "confirmed" authenticity of documents proving the mendacity of a middle eastern country's government, we went to war whereby 4,424 Americans were killed and 31,952 were wounded. That confirmation about Iraqi WMD proved to be a lie and likely so will this one.
1
Who didn't expect Bret would be hypnotized by Netanyahu's smoke and mirrors? No conservative has ever uttered a truth about foreign policy in my lifetime. Bret continues to walk that path.
3
Iran was involved in a covert nuclear weapons program; admitted it; and has denounced nuclear weapons.
Israel has developed and maintained a covert nuclear weapons program; never admitted it; and considers nuclear weapons as indisposable.
Now who’s the real problem?
3
Maybe Iran is lying. I don't care.
I don't care what Israel says either.
All I care is this: if we go to war with Iran I want Mr. Bret Stephens on the front lines. If he has children I want them there.
Because NO ONE in my family will be available. NO ONE.
The war mongers should be the first in line.
4
Bret Stephens is essentially taking dictation from Tel Aviv. The fact is that Iran has complied with the agreement. What the Israelis are really worried about is not Iranian nukes so much as Iran's strength as a regional power. But they can't really get very far with that line. So they are pitching the nuclear "issue".
2
So - where is the evidence that Iran has actually violated the specific terms of the agreement? Is Mr. Stephens going to give us another prediction of a mushroom cloud rising over New York City in six months if we don't apply military force to the Iranians? Seems to me we saw those WMDs (weapons of mass deception) once before.
2
Liberal democracies are challenged when they engage with a government led by unelected fanatic Mullahs whose intellectual premises are ideological and irrational. The Ayatollah and his minions of Mullahs, have no qualm to lie in negotiating treaties in the name of a supreme being, and the Ayatollah's interpretation of what Allah's word.
Somehow, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, in their ambition to get a deal with the Mullahs, failed to do the due diligence which any business executive would have done in assuring that representations are true and correct. Given the nature of the Iranian "government", led by clerics, informed by a religious-based irrational ideology, and a threat to other allies in the region, the Obama administration had to its best to ensure that all representations of the Mullahs were true, as anyone buying a house would do.
The administration, seemingly too hot for the deal, either wilfully ignored what they knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to test what turned into material misrepresentations .
Given this history, the nature of the Iran leaders, Iran's nefarious behaviour in the Middle East, against their own people in Iran, and in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Qatar, among others, and the explicit treaty right of the western partners to not renew the deal, it would be an extension of the Obama administration's negligence if the US and western allies won't take advantage of their contractual right to call a recess and renegotiate.
5
"As for Iran’s current compliance, of course it’s complying."
Good job burying this admission in the middle of your Op piece, Bret Stephens.
2
Bret Stephens illustrates why you can never trust a neocon. Pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal will only strengthen Iran's hardliners who--like neocons and Israeli hardliners--never wanted a deal. What Stephens offers instead is brinksmanship, possibly war.
The difference is that Iran is much more formidable than Iraq. Its standing army has numbers comparable to our own, and its mountainous terrain is made for guerrilla warfare. If the goal is to further destabilize the region, nothing is more effective than another American invasion.
And for what? Are we betting that Rafsanjani will prevail over the hardliners and agree to new terms? Rafsanjani will be defeated if the deal collapses. The chances of new terms are about as likely as Russia disengaging from the Middle East.
Stephens says that the Iranians are complying with the terms of the deal since January 2016. They're submitting to regular inspections, and they've stopped their nuclear program. That seems to me to be just what we want. I don't see any compelling reason to blow everything up.
6
Dear Mr. Stephens, I invite you to visit Tehran and talk to people you meet. It will change your perspective on bombing them out of existence, I guarantee.
Write back when you have been there and seen first-hand the people and the country you want to wage war upon.
7
Even if everything Mr. Stephens said in this piece is accurate . . . it still would be academic. The alternatives are even less attractive than negotiating with less than truthful Iranians.
3
There are alternatives to the status quo and war.
2
Remember that the Iranian hard-liners were profiting during the sanctions through illegal smuggling, increasing their power relative to others in Iran.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/irans-revolutionary-guards-loved-the-sanct...
The less inflammatory rhetoric, the less the hard-liners' relative power. The Iranian hard-liners do not like the Iran deal's long-term goal of defusing tensions and building a relationship of trust between the Iranian moderates and the West. They did not like the Iran deal.
So, in effect, Iranian hard-liners are allied with neocons and Israel, in wanting to blow up the deal. Perhaps it was the anti-Iran deal Iranians who helped Netanyahu to "find" the documents to advance their mutual goal of getting Trump to back out of the deal.
4
The Iran Deal Is a Lie
[ So, this columnist as in other instances * would take us to war. Me, I will not be going along. I know that President Obama stood for peace with Iran and that is enough for me.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/opinion/kim-jong-un-korea.html
April 27, 2018
Kim Jong-un Sells a Peace Bridge
By Bret Stephens
It’s the old game of cheat and repeat. ]
3
I have come to expect better from Mr. Stephens.
3
And the reason that Americans think we should decide which countries have nukes and which do not is what?
Nukes are the "leave us alone" strategy of choice for most countries in untenable, usually geographical, situations. Iran needs them for protection from Israel. They work, we should know.
5
"the threat of military force should follow." Easy for Stephens to assert because, like so many, he has not been directly affected by our messes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria. So why not add another military action to the mess? It will help the military-industrial complex and relatively few Americans will get hurt or killed, and most of those "knew what they signed up for." This is the stuff of another "Great Power" learning nothing from history. One also wonders how credible our "threat" to use military force really is, given how much of mess we've created, with little signs of getting out it in the Middle East.
7
If Iran is to be nuclear weapons free shouldn’t Israel ? Shouldn’t the entire Middle Esst?
9
Bret, you say the Iran deal is itself a lie and that Obama lied. Others say Netanyahu lied in his TV skit the other day. Daniel Larison has a blog post today on The American Conservative saying that you are once again lying because you want the US to fight a proxy war against Iran for Israel. Who to believe, who to believe?
6
Not Bret, he wants war.
1
Your making this some kind of moral issue about the Iranians lying. Who cares. We should always go for the best deal we can. If for now we can verify that they are not building a bomb that seems better than risking war. If they don't live up to the agreement we can always go to war. But that should be the absolutely last option. The very threat of a war with the USA will keep them in line. All their rhetoric is a matter of pride.
4
Who cares? Only Europe, most of the Middle East, and the United States. Don't you get it? We obviously cannot verify they are not building a bomb. They took the cash and the lifting of sanctions because they knew they could subvert the deal. Get real.
3
Once again Mr Stephens' logic baffles one. "The Iranians lied earlier"; what a surprise. Therefore the US doesn't need to honor its end of the bargain. "Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force should follow." Whether the Iranians lied earlier is surely immaterial (and I would assume that the CIA was fully aware of their lies). As for picking a fight with Iran when it has been scrupulously observing the actual agreement seems this seems not only excessive but potentially disastrous. I notice a worrying tendency by people who have never seen combat (Trump, Bolton and now Stephens) to be eager to start a war.
7
There's a significant difference between a democracy having nuclear weapons and a terrorist theocracy which has repeatedly threatened Israel with war and destruction. Israel is constantly under threat within the region, and having nuclear weapons is one of its major deterrents against annihilation.
8
The terrorist theocracy now seems to be Israel. It has drifted far to the religious right and has commited numerous attacks on civilian populations that easily meet the definition of terrorism.
1
Iran has more than enough reasons to be afraid of and distrust the US, which has overthrown its government, worked hard against its revolution, supported Saddam Hussein in his aggressive war against Iran during the 80ies, boycotted it until today. It’s probably hard for you to be called “The Great Satan”, but “Bomb bomb Iran” (John McCain) and the Bush Plans to attack Iran after a successful “pacification” of Iraq, is far more of an existential threat, and now Bolton ("let's meet 2019 in Tehran") and Pompeo. US citizens don't realize how much fear and hatred the US sows by its never-ending wars all over the world. #blowback
Iran is surrounded by Pakistan, Russia, Israel, the US on its bases in Turkey and Arabia, all of them with the bomb. Why shouldn't they try to get nuclear arms to dissuade the US and Israel (and Saudi Arabia) from attacking it?
Israel, by the way, didn't sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the chemical weapons convention (as Iran did).
Iran as "protector state" of the Shiite minorities in the Arabic world sees it as its duty to protect them where they are oppressed. So it fights against al-Qaeda, ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the Saudi war in Yemen.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a very strange concept. There is no right to have nuclear weapons, only the right of the ruthless. The club of nuclear powers tries to stop the rest.
Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea got the bomb by not following the rules.
6
"Iran is surrounded by Pakistan, Russia, Israel, the US on its bases in Turkey and Arabia, all of them with the bomb. Why shouldn't they try to get nuclear arms to dissuade the US and Israel (and Saudi Arabia) from attacking it?"....A better question is why does the U.S. have a vested interest that Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons? Because Saudi Arabia is Iran's arch enemy. If Iran has nuclear weapons then Saudi Arabia will certainly follow. Arming the volatile Middle East with nuclear weapons is a very bad idea, not to mention that in the past Saudi Arabia has been a major sponsor of ISIS and Al Qaeda.
3
If I were Iran I would want to have a nuclear bomb or two as a deterrent to warmongers like Bush and Cheney and Trump and Bolton; and irresponsible opinion writers like Mr. Stephens.
1
Donald Trump lied about being prevented from showing his tax return, before he was elected. So shouldn't his election, this great social contract with the American People, be void and denounced?
9
there are inspections, and while their effectiveness should be a matter of great concern, without the agreement there would be no inspections whatever. The entire agreement is about whether this is preferable, keeping in mind the alternative to a negotiated agreement would have been continued sanctions in an environment where Russia and China were becoming increasingly adversarial. Without their cooperation on sanctions there is no leverage on Iran whatever. So the strength of the agreement is limited to whatever Iran views as preferable to a free hand in weapons development with LEAKY sanctions being imposed.
People should keep in mind that nuclear weapons were developed in 1945 with the technology available THEN, so any restraint on Iran is a miracle to begin with.
2
Mine Iran's harbors, to cut off their imports of refined petroleum products and exports of crude. Nothing short of that will force them to negotiate seriously.
Act of war? What were Iran's supplies of IEDs to militias killing Americans in Iraq, or blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut (241 Americans dead)? Mining harbors doesn't even kill anyone.
5
No, mining the harbors only make sure conflict will happen. Mining a harbor is an act of war.
You also don't understand that the Saudis supply weapons and money to al quada and ISIS which were used to kill americans.
The Saudis and Israel want the US to get into another war in the ME, targeting Iran. Which means more destabilizing the region.
1
Iran nuclear deal was supposed to scale back Iran's nuclear's program in exchange for sanctions relief. The truth of the matter is (1) the deal is doing what is was supposed to do: Iran gave up the major parts of it's program (e.g. enriched uranium, large number of centrifuges, and etc.), (2) people who signed it were aware that there are other issues between U.S. and it's allies on one side and Iran on the other.
Now, people like the author here or Netanyahu or Saudi Arabia are trying to discredit Obama administration, Iran deal, and etc. Motivations vary: mostly U.S. allies are unhappy to see Iran nuclear issue to be addressed without resolving other issues that they have with Iran. The problem is when U.S. pulls out of the deal, those issues will not resolve and only nuclear issue will be back. The fact is, this people want to have a military action against Iran and are just cooking the material for it.
I think U.S. has the ability to successfully conduct a military attack against Iran. The only issue is would such an action be justified? Starting another war in the Middle East against a country with about 80 million population will no doubt result in another huge humanitarian crisis.
4
Why aren’t we equally critical of Israel’s nuclear program? Israel pretends to be our ally only when it suits Israel’s needs. Remember Jonathon Pollard and the 34 American sailors murdered on the USS Liberty in June 1967.
14
Conveniently forgotten in most of the commentary are two critical points. First, in selling the nuclear plan, it’s not actually a binding agreement, President Obama and Secretary Kerry assured everyone that Irans's Supreme Leader had issued a fatwa against Iran's developing nuclear weapons. Yet, if they knew about this information, they were recycling a lie and, to top off their view of American credulity, the fatwa itself was non-existent. Second, and far more important, is that if, as everyone now agrees, Iran lied about pretty much everything, we were promised intrusive and transparent inspections to verify comokiance. What we got instead is inspections on 24 days (not hours) notice of sites or facilities that Iran agrees can be inspected. So, when the IAEA or anyone else says, as they carefully do, that they have no credible evidence of a violation, it reminds me of the proclamations by the US Atomic Energy Commission when we we’re still testing nuclear weapon safety in Nevada. The public was repeatedly assured that there’s was "no evidence" of nuclear fallout East of the Mississippi. That turned out to be a true but misleading statement as there’s were no detectors East of the Mississippi. I accept the "no violation" conclusion with similar skepticism.
If Iran were not interested in developing nuclear weapons, the agreeing to greater oversight to keep the plan otherwise in force and return to the international trade community seems a no-brainer. Why would Iran refuse?
4
Oh yeah, thank heavens for Bibi Netanyahu, the only leader to truly understand the danger posed by Iran. Everybody else is just a naive dupe who's engaged in appeasement. It's Nevill Chamberlain and Hitler all over again.
Obama was the President who successfully convinced other leaders to join in harsh sanctions against Iran. These same leaders now support the Iran agreement.
Does anyone believe that leaders like Trump and Netanyahu have the same ability to persuade other world leaders to abandon the agreement and reimpose harsh sanctions? As with the ACA, there was no alternative Republican plan in place to address the lack of healthcare for millions of Americans.
Netanyahu has no interest in there being a deal at all. Any deal that the current Iranian leadership would be willing to accept is a bad one, according to Netanyahu. This is true for the Palestinians as well.
9
Obama did not want the USA to fight Iran, not at any price.
Iran was interested in a pause in the nuclear development probably because they needed to develop a reliable delivery system which could reach the USA.
Obama got his wish, "not under my presidency", a postponement for a nominal 10 years, which can be shortened by Iran whenever they considered themselves ready.
Israel is certainly concerned, but they will not be the first target of a nuclear blackmail or strike, Israel has a lethal bite, the Ayatollahs will not risk a direst confrontation.
The Saudis are well aware that they are the first target, they are Sunni, they control big chunk of oil and they can't strike back.
The Iran agreement was a huge mistake, an act to rival Chamberlain's trip to Berlin, a sticking plaster on a gangrenous wound.
4
Iran will never attack Saudi Arabia with nukes or conventional weapons. It would immediately trigger a response from the US, nukes against nukes or conventional against their conventional.
Iran is not stupid or crazy. They know the US would protect the Saudis with our power. It is the same reason why N. Korea won't attack the South with nukes or conventional weapons.
And think about how Russia and China will react to our starting a war with the former being an ally and the latter a trading partner.
1
Just looking at the heading of this Opinion by Bret Stephens - "The Iran Deal Is a Lie", is a support to Netanyahu, who is always looking for war.
The Iran Deal, to which the US is a signatory, was put to together with several other countries. There is no evidence as of today, that Iran has violated any part of the Deal.
Netanyahu has been against the Iran Deal, from its inception, and continues to oppose it. He is fully aware of the May 12 deadline, by when the US has to make a decision whether to continue or abandon the agreement. Netanyahu is capitalizing on the timing, and trying to influence the US to decide against continuing with the Deal. What we want to tell Mr. Netanyahu is that he should fix the problems of his country, by working with his neighbors, and stop trying to drag the US into another war in the Middle East.
13
Netanyahu's show involved 15 year old information, nothing even remotely new. Bret didn't like the Iranian Deal from the start, and he still doesn't.
10
Yes, once again, we see that Netanyahu and the Republican right-wingers are eager to have the U.S. pursue the agenda of the right-wing government of Israel, right down to the last drop of American blood.
11
The whole 2015 deal WAS because Iran was lying. Their lying caused the sanctions that were in place for years prior to 2015. The deal came to be the way to address the lying. Now suddenly Bibi has a BIG surprise for us: They lied!! And the timing is so perfect! The real question is: If the parties to the deal in 2015 knew what Netanyahu just "revealed", would there have been a deal? The answer is a sure yes. Now why is Mr. Stephens so gullible???
12
He’s definitely not gullible. He works for the extemist government of Israel.
1
Bret's Bibi Mini-Me role doesn't go far enough. If we're going to dredge up past sins to argue for war, do Bret and Bibi know that the Iranians tried to nationalize their own oil resources in the 1950s to keep British and American capitalism from exploiting them? Shocking! Something should be done about that. Or that revolutionary mobs seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage for months? Let's give the launch orders forthwith!
Persian culture goes back centuries. I'm sure we can dig up more excuses for a shiny new war to take Israel's mind off of their prime minister's corruption charges.
12
Anyone curious, it is complex, but done on behalf of BP (remember the gulf oil spill). Look up Mossadegh. Stupid and dangerous. But the history goes further back, and empire has only itself to blame. Keep destroying people's homelands and watch the terrorism mount.
3
Sorry, Mr. Stephens, I'm not buying it. I believe your true aim is to advance the strategic interests of the State of Israel - in spite of the fact that most experts agree the deal is preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. Which was its intent. We've been down this road before where you and your ilk beat the drums of war to use American lives and treasure to achieve another country's strategic objectives. And you seem perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of young Americans - again - to do so. You were a relentless supporter of the invasion of Iraq because Iraq supposedly presented a "clear and present danger". To whom? And how did that work out? Thousands of American dead, trillions gone, and Iraq became an Iranian proxy state. But in spite of that fiasco, when Netanyahu says "jump" people like you still loyally reply "how high". Disgraceful
11
Bret Stephens who is now with NYT, is still where he used to be.
6
Yes. His opinion piece is very Rupert Murdoch WJS.
1
The Western powers and politicians, for good reason, are petrified by Iran, but if the Mullahs are not faced down we will see nuclear holocaust a lot sooner than we would want.
4
I would trust Iran with nuclear weapons far more than I would trust present-day Israel, or present-day USA for that matter.
1
Not only are most of the other parties to the agreement unlikely to follow the U.S. lead in reimposing sanctions, deal critics are ignoring another potential scenario, the support of the Iranian regime by Russia. Russia has already shown an ability to work with Iranians in Syria. Being able to support Iran against the U.S. (and with the blessings of Europe and China) would be an opportunity too good to be ignored by Putin and further cement the ties between Russia and Iran.
6
Bret Stephens, to his credit, has never made any secret of his deeply personal fealty to Israel. Every time he writes about Israel, he insists that, no matter how many Palestinians it kills, or how it kills them (bombing raids, snipers, assassinations) Israel is in the right. Period.
Because of this passionate loyalty, Stephens simply can't accept that not all Americans (and not even all American Jews) don't see things his way. He simply can't accept that Benjamin Netanyahu, a politician with as long a history of corruption as a viper's tongue, is so aching for war with Iran (preferably a war the US would fight) that he will tell any lie, make any promise, foul any nest to provoke it.
Iran and six nations made a deal. Iran has lived up to the deal. To argue that since Iran wasn't truthful during negotiations therefore it's now okay to go to war against Iran is to make the same argument Putin made when he invaded Ukraine.
That argument may be good for enough for Israel (a nuclear power that has, in the past 50 years invaded every one of its neighbors), and it may be good enough for Israel apologists like Stephens, but it isn't good enough for the rest of us.
14
This entire article is based upon the premise found in the 9th paragraph, "assuming the documents are authentic,...". And if they are fabricated? As Rossana Rossanadanna says on SNL," Never mind". An empty argument at best.
7
When it comes to writing op-eds about the Middle East, Bret Stephens needs to put in a disclaimer. He was the editor of the Jerusalem Post; he is Jewish; he can write a previous op-ed by standing with his family on the Golan Heights, something not generally allowed to the rest of humanity. My gripe is that when Bret Stephens writes about international affairs for the NYT or is a panelist on MSNBC weighing in about the Middle East, does he speak as an American or as an Israeli?
15
Bret Stephens is an apologist for Israel. reading his columns for years shows that his world view is that Israel always tell the truth and all Arab States always lie. I'm beginning to think that Stephens is one of those very conservative "christians" that believe that Jesus Christ will return to save the world when The Israeli/Arab disputes degenerates in to Armageddon. The Iran deal is not a lie, but Israels's continued claims are.
10
Stephens is reverting to his neocon and Israel-is-always-right past--uncritically accepting and amplifying Israeli claims. Let's remember he was editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post in 2003, when the paper named Paul Wolfowitz, its “man of the year.” Now he's in effect pushing for war with Iran.
12
The junior year debating club at my high school would pick apart Bret's rhetoric without taking notes And that is only if one dared to compliment such weak prose as possessing pretensions to rhetoric, as this fact challenged jumble of circular arguments and non sequiturs wouldn't get a passing grade in my 11th grade English class.
So why am I reading it in the NYT, the US journal of reference? Am I missing something? Perhaps I should apply for the position?
14
If my memory is correct, it was the position of the previous two administrations that, whatever it took, Iran would “never” be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.To me, that meant the US was willing to go to war with Iran (I doubt the do-nothing Congress would do anything about voting to authorize military action against an entirely new country; just further stretch/tug the Bush era authorization to continue a one size fits all scheme.) Taking Netanyahu’s UN schematic as accurate from several years ago, and the US stated “never” position, by my estimate the people of this country would now be chest deep in another all-out Middle East war, against a foe that wouldn’t collapse like Iraq, but with all the familiar attendant horrors. (Let’s give it another try and see if it turns out differently?) The agreement that is in place now has kept us at “peace” in that part of the world. Iran, by no stretch, is an honest broker. The agreement in place at this time was tailored to address nuclear weapons, not Iran’s other bad behavior. Iran’s lack of candor/honesty at the the start does not carry the same weight of the likely dire consequences of scrapping the agreement. I’m not a fortune teller, like folks of the Bolton ilk, but I’d rather take my chances down the road and see see what might develop geopolitically. God knows, the neocons will have their chance to drag us back into the quagmire when when the agreement expires.
5
If Trump flushes the Iran Nuclear Deal, North Korea will most likely cancel meeting with the President. They may not cite any reasons why, but the reason is already obvious. Why should they sign a 'deal' that may evaporate in a year, or 2 years, or whenever Trump changes his mind. Goodbye Nobel, we barely knew ye.
9
Maybe the Iran deal is a lie, and maybe the Iranians can cheat to some degree. But no viable or comparable alternative is ever presented, so there is absolutely no discernable benefit to the world from not proceeding with the agreement as drafted and ratified. Otherwise, the additional risks are enormous and do not receive proper treatment by deal detractors. And the lies from Trump exceed by several orders of magnitude the lies by any one single other nation, so the Iranians have more credibility than the US president, a sad fact.
6
The only alternative is war, which is what the neocons want, along with Bibi and the Saudis. But the latter two want the US to fight the war for them so they won't have to expend lives or money.
1
Although I do not agree with many of Bret Stephens' positions, I've always read his columns: they made me think about my own views, they brought me new perspectives.
When it comes to Israel, Steffens obviously had a blind spot, as his article on the Iran agreement demonstrates.
If he has a blind spot on this important issue, this may be true for other issues...
This will discourage me from reading any more of his columns.
7
I think It’s high time that Iran develops top-quality nuclear weapons and joins the Big Warrior Nations. Their having nukes is not a big deal - no worse than Pakistan having nukes. Meh.
4
Are you perchance suggesting that we continue to carry Israel's water based on quibbles, Mr. Stephens?
Quibbles, you say? Well then, has Iran managed to hide thousands of centrifuges and acquire fissile materials under the noses of the IAEA? Even Bibi didn't say that amidst his dog and pony show about events that occurred years ago, so I suggest you don't try.
So, in the world of Bret Stephens, Trump should "tear up" the agreement and reimpose sanctions, and Iran is then free to resume its nuclear program in whatever form it pleases.
Back to square one. Brilliant!
7
I think is painfully obvious that the Trump-Netanyahu vision is not to go to an all war with Iran which is nothing that Americans or Israelis will accept in its cost or implications. So what is the goal here? Ok , the Iranians can't be trusted completely, however the majority of the world approved and approves a treaty that is the best that could been achieved with the dubious Iranians. With no partners, no alternative policy is viable or new sanctions enforceable. So the purpose of this two hated administrations is to deflect attention from their troubles and misdeeds at home. Which finally bring the issue of Mr Stephens. He knows all this but his position is to be in the side of official Israel always, even when is does not follow logic. Is his mission , not opinion. As a jew and one who served in the Israeli army, I feel confident in saying that we are not defending the future of Israel by supporting politicians that are committed to their personal agenda, not one of peace in the region.
8
Bret Stephens is apparently unaware of the complex history of American-Iranian relations. He should spend some time reading on these issues.
8
I will be very surprised if Trump gets anything remotely this good from North Korea. And even if he does, we can always rightly say, as Stephens does here about Iran " why assume he will be faithful to his end of the deal?" The fact remains, and is acknowledged by Stephens that "Iran is permanently enjoined from building a nuclear weapon, even after the limitations on uranium enrichment expire." and that they are keeping their end of the bargain now. That is a lot to achieve, and I doubt Trump will do better.
6
The Iran Deal Is a Lie
[ No, as repeatedly confirmed by United Nations inspections, the Iran deal (Treaty) is honest and necessary and I am forever grateful to President Obama for negotiating the Treaty. ]
15
Credible military threat? I hope that you, Mr. Stephens, will be among the first to volunteer to go and fight them on their soil ( and in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen among others) if it comes to it. You are young enough to do so, and hopefully honorable enough to put your body where your mouth is. I doubt that you will see any Israelis there. They are smarter than that.
Good luck.
15
I have been making this same point about all the chickenhawks who got us into the Iraq catastrophe. Let them be in the front lines of the fighting for multiple tours of duty. No excuses will be allowed for "different priorities," as Dick Cheney put it, when it was his turn to fight in Vietnam.
1
The US really invaded the wrong country when they had the chance and the global nod to do so post-911! It should have marched into Saudi Arabia for the oil and then, because they are in the neighborhood anyways, Qatar for the natural gas. None of the 911 terrorists came from Iran or Iraq?! What 'Christmas Party Polaroids' must the Saudi's have on senior US government people that work as leverage for this not to have happened?! War with Iran will achieve little (the US could not even get involved with the Syrian conflict and Iraq has cost thousands of lives and at least a trillion dollars and is the world any safer or without 'Dictatorial Regimes'?!
10
Just as I wish I could see the reactions of people, who believe in heaven, at the moment of their death, it will be interesting to observe the consequences of ending this deal. All this right-wing propaganda puts every one of us in danger, and will blow up the Middle East. Then, there will be excuses, and apologies, as usual. It's time we turned our attention to the crimes of the Bush administration, before we start another catastrophic, costly, and unnecessary war.
10
Iran deal is an agreement for a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action. As the name applies all parties have some action items to act on. Mr. Stephens is correct that some of the previous actions of the Iranian government were less than honorable (depends on our outlook). Strangely enough he also concedes that since the signing of this plan of action Iran is in compliance. Tonnes of HEU was removed from Iran, Thousands of centrifuges were mothballed, etc.
US Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz and Dr. Ali Akbar Salehi both MIT trained Nuclear Scientists, and all our 9 Bell labs were involved in coming up with a resolution to defang Iran’s nuclear program.
Interestingly now we have neocons like Jon Bolton whose only background is raising hysteria working with an Israeli lobbyist funded Foundation for Defense of Democracy and looking after Israeli interest. It is a shame if we would walk out of this Comprehensive Plan of Action to keep Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check.
The action item on our plate included allowing Iran to buy civilian aircraft from Boeing. The President and the US congress on cue from Israel will rather kill us jobs with Boeing than to carry out their own commitment under JCPOA. Jawad Zarif may be correct when he claims that we have never complied with the agreement.
We do not want another war on behalf of Israel. Let them fight it themselves. We have enough on our plate with an illegal war creating human catastrophe supporting Saudis in Yemen.
14
Argh! We befriend a medieval state called Saudi Arabia, but demonize a modern state called Iran. Saudis, not Iranians, flew planes into the World Trade Center. Iranians, not Saudis, vote for their leaders.
You want Iran (and North Korea) to stop their nuclear programs? Then stop demonizing and threatening them. They aren’t stupid. They know an insurance policy when they see one.
Oh and how did Iran gain the power we are so afraid of? Oh yeah...the US invasion of and destruction of Iraq.
The Iran nuclear deal is not perfect but it does seem to be working as it should. Which is more than I can say for the government of Israel. It’s a first step, not a final step. President Obama was right to negotiate and finalize the deal with Iran.
Why do I read Bret Stephens? So I can see how conservatives are spreading (at best) half-truths and then using them as the basis for massive overreaction.
12
Actually a fair number of conservatives voted for Trump because he promised not to get Uncle Sam involved in the Syrian civil war and risk a confrontation with the Russians...
2
And look at that, he lied. I knew at the time that he was lying. He wants his own war like Bush had so he could be a wartime president.
Another lie was his promise that within a month the wars would stop.
His supporters are blind, deaf, and dumb about what he says he will do and then doesn't. They made a bargain with the devil and won't admit it.
Ban all nukes in the region. The UN should have the right to inspect all sites at will, including Israel. Done deal.
6
That would be too sensible and the Israelis would never agree to that. They would never sign such an agreement and never would let in inspectors.
The Israelis want to be the only ME country to have nukes so they can use them as leverage.
1
Bret Stephens has fallen for Netanyahu's tricks. It's pretty clear that his motive is to persuade trump to decertify Iran's compliance. There are several things wrong with Netanyahu's fake evidence. The first is that it was already known that Iran had a weapons program and that they scrapped it in 2003. The second is that the Iranians themselves apparently gave little importance to the archive Netanyahu boasts that Israeli agents got out from under Iranian noses; the archive was so important that it was stored in a dilapidated building with no lock on the door. Third, Netanyahu obviously intended his message for the US generally and trump in particular; his speech was in English whereas a majority of Israeli's speak only Hebrew. Netanyahu has been almost as bad as the Russians at undermining the US.
Mr. Stephens should have known all this if I know it. That makes me suspicious of his conclusions.
6
I disagree. Stephens has not fallen for anybody's tricks. He is on record as an Iran hater and regime changer. Netanyahu's latest performance is meant to give Stephens and his ilk ammunition with which to bombard their readers into supporting neoconservative/Likud goals. The absurdity of the claims made is totally irrelevant to their purpose.
7
Iran Lies? Yes. That's why the deal includes intrusive investigatory mechanisms. Netanyahu's transparently insulting performance - in English - wouldn't even fool its intended audience of one, Trump, who however has already used it and will use it again to justify the next evidence of his anti-Obama fixation. I think Stephens knows this, too, which makes his piece all the more disappointing. Does he - does anyone - think beyond the steps they advocate? In considering those, remember that "Israeli Intelligence" fully supported Bush 41's bogus claims on Iraqi WMDs, and the US paid for that with thousands of casualties and trillions of dollars. War with Iran would be much more costly - for the US. Trump lies, Netanyahu lies and, yes, Iran lies. The question is what should be done, not which liar we prefer to pretend to believe.
7
No there is no change. Iran did have a program and it was stopped before 2009. Te info our Israeli guy gave is propaganda designed to trick trump again. All recent checks show good compliance.
2
Has Stephens forgotten that most of the 9-11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia? That Bin Laden was Saudi Arabian? What is going on in the Middle East between the Sunni's and Shite's is much like the enmity still going on in places between the Protestants and the Catholics. Meanwhile, the Saudis are doing huge damage in Yemen, killing thousands, while all eyes are on Syria. It was the US that in the 1950's curtesy of our very own CIA, overthrew a democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah - who was widely despised there. Net, net - there are virtually no "good guys" there -- And, so what the Stephens propose we do -- to one of the "bad" guys? War? At what cost to the US? To our military? The Iran agreement may well not be as good as it might have been -- but it is also possible that it's actually pretty good, given the alternatives.
6
I'm afraid I am less than impressed by NY Time's columnists telling me about another ME country having WMD's. Their batting average on making this call is exactly .000.
10
Shouldn't we ALL be in favor of going to war in the middle east?
It ALWAYS works as a problem solver.
Here, your kids lead the way.
8
The Iran deal was designed to buy time. It was not a missile deal, only a nuke deal. If you want to threaten military force, then pick up a gun and head to the front.
5
As long as Israeli acts like an occupying power with nuclear weapons themselves, I find it hard to give Stephens points any credibility.
8
To quote the great Dr. House (in just about every episode), "Everybody lies."
So grow up Mr. Stephens.
Israel has been lying about its nuclear weapons program for as long as Mr. Stephens has been alive. I don't find too much fault with Israel's approach on this point as several of the nations in the region would happily wipe them off the map.
That said, I have trouble seeing a 22nd century Israel if it doesn't make some deals with these same nations. U.S. support is what has, and continues to make Israel viable. And I'll continue to cast my vote for politicians who support Israel's right to exist. But many of us who feel the USA should keep its thumb on the scales of history in Israel's favor are becoming history ourselves.
What the U.S. public supports today could be very different from what it will support in 20 years. I've known soldiers of my father's generation who liberated World War II death camps, but when we go, who will do the remembering? And, more to the point, how many Americans of 2040 will see their present with this same view of the past?
The deal with Iran might not be best for Bibi's political future, but this agreement and others like it may be the way forward for Israel itself.
6
I am very impressed that Mr. Stephens has read the Israeli trove of documents and come to his conclusion so quickly. He must be an incredibly smart speed reader and poly lingual as well.
9
There were only four options: Do nothing. Do the Deal. Bomb. Invade.
Since Mr. Stephens laments a deal that pretty much everyone knew was far from perfect – the question to Mr. Stephens is thus: Doing the "deal" did not remove the other three options from the table.
So which of the remaining three options would Mr. Stephens choose?
3
War with a side of bombing.
1
"But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?"
You could say the same thing about Trump, No?
Would we have been better off if Iran went through a complete economic collapse? That was always a premise; that sanctions would bring them to the table and that a totally destabilized Iran that had enriched uranium that could be sold or lost to other nations/organizations. That would certainly have been a worse deal than where we were wouldn't it?
We don't trust Iran. We shouldn't trust Saudi's either. They play us for their own ends, as does Israel.
Netanyahu stepped into American politics and directly worked to support the election of Trump. Let's not forget that.
7
All of this faux outrage is designed to obscure the fact that Iran halted its nascent nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not restarted it since. That is the only thing that truly matters with regard to the nuclear accord. Iran is not currently developing nuclear weapons and could not begin to do so without being detected. On the other hand, Israel possesses an estimated 300 or more nuclear weapons. It's an open secret which they refuse to acknowledge, because the double standard at play would be all too obvious.
I suggest that we insist on a single standard, nuclear free Middle East? Israel gives up its nuclear weapons and would still have the strongest military in the region by far, strong enough to deter any foreign aggression. In so doing, they would greatly reduce the incentive for any of Israel's neighbors to seek nuclear deterrence of their own. The fact is that they fear Israel at least as much as Israel fears them.
8
And Israel would still have the US as an ally to defend against any attack. Along with top grade US weapon systems.
Mr. Stephens, diplomacy is not a zero-sum issue. Which decision could bring us closer to peace?
If we stay in and work with the other participants to build a foundation for further agreements and trade, isn't that better than isolating ourselves (with Israel) in a confrontational deadlock with Iran? How else can we work toward peace in the Middle East?
If we withdraw because this president doesn't like what the last one did, why would any country bother entering into an agreement with us in the future? Some progress toward peace is infinitely better than generating a lot more distrust and hostility on all sides.
6
Bret,
Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA - it's as simple as that. Ballistic missiles and Middle Eastern geopolitics have nothing to do with a nuclear agreement under the enforcement of the IAEA.
Bringing up these unrelated issues, including Iran's past nuclear activities, actively undermines the foundation - the diplomatic opening - upon which this agreement was forged.
If the U.S. has a problem with, for example, the Iranian support for the Houthi movement in Yemen (which does not seem to be very direct or substantial), then the recourse is to enter the geopolitical arena. In fact, Saudi Arabia has done so with U.S. arms and U.S. intelligence and logistical support. The consequences of the Saudi bombardment against Yemen have been a humanitarian disaster and a boon for al-Qaeda militants.
The U.S. should enter diplomatic talks with Iran and other parties on the Yemeni crisis and on other issues of Middle Eastern geopolitics. This would only be possible if the U.S. builds on the diplomatic opening with Iran represented by the successful nuclear agreement, instead of destroying it.
10
Bret Stephens, self-defined never-Trumper, should not be supporting the monstrous John Bolton. We have spent blood and treasure making the Middle East more dangerous and helping terrorists with our recruiting poster Trump. Bolton is a dangerous fanatic. The extract below is only one of his many dangerous ideas. We are in a hurry to destroy our precious earth, aren't we. Bombs away!
"John (“Bomb Iran”) Bolton, the New Warmonger in the White House" https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/john-bomb-iran-bolton-the-new-w...
"Bolton has also long backed a cultlike Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq, or M.E.K., which has been held responsible for the murder of multiple American military personnel, the attempted kidnapping of a U.S. Ambassador, and other violent attacks in Iran before the 1979 revolution. The M.E.K. was based in Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein, who provided arms, financial assistance, and political support. In 1997, it was among the first groups cited on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. It wasn’t removed until 2012. Bolton spoke at an M.E.K. rally last year—for the eighth time—in Paris. Other speakers at M.E.K. rallies have reportedly been paid tens of thousands of dollars for their appearances. "Bolton’s policy recommendations on North Korea are also militant, and they break with the man who just hired him."
9
Hey Bret! How 'bout if Israel fights the wars it wants to start!? A thinking person knows that Israel and the aggressive USA are the greater threats to world peace. The US is NOT an honest peace broker.
Bibi wants the US military to be his gun toting valet service. Let's not go there.
War: a massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other. -Paul Valery
12
Let’s not forget that both Trump and Netanyahu are under scrutiny for possible crimes. Wag the Dog anyone? I’m sure people like Bret will be at the front of the recruitment line when the war comes. Or will they remain in their ivory towers pontificating?
10
Good move Bibi, everybody knows Trump is terrified of paper, that stack of stolen notes should have him prepping for Stephens war.
6
I love the way people, like yourself, through around the threat of war like it is an o'dourves at the Nobel Peace Prize party. Please try and remember, war has very serious consequences, when you decide life and death at your next personal gratification celebration.
7
One of Stephens' points, and I think it's new (to me anyway) is that Iran promised to restrict or cancel its work on missiles for delivery of atomic weapons. If that was in the 2015 agreement, why has it not been spoken of before now?
If it was not in the agreement, let Trump declare it to be the aim of his administration to engage Iran directly on this now. Scrapping the deal adds little or nothing to the value of what the rest of the world thought was, is in the deal: NAMELY, A HALT TO IRAN'S DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATOMIC BOMB. Is that was ever worth something, and some like Stephens believe it is/was not, then keep the deal.
I doubt that cancellation and return of sanctions would persuade Iran to negotiate about anything more .... let alone their 'adventurism' in the region.
2
Lots of comments about going to war with Iran. But that's not necessary. If we can't really verify that Iran isn't developing nukes (and we can't with the constraints Iran puts on inspections) then we should go back to the sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place. As the Netanyahu documents demonstrate, Iran lies, so taking their word on an absence of nukes is not enough.
Even without sanctions for possibly developing nukes Iran deserves to be sanctioned for its support of terrorists (Hamas, Hezbollah, et al) and its work on ballistic missiles.
1
The thing is that Iran has honored the agreement. It was specifically tailored to nuclear weapons only. All of Bibi's info comes from over a decade ago when there was no deal.
It is the rest of what Iran is doing that upsets Israel and Saudi Arabia. Most of Iran's efforts though are against the Saudis who are fighting a religious war. And nothing is said about Saudi support for ISIS and Al Quada. Who have been more dangerous to the US and western Europe.
1
No one wants war with Iran, but neither do we want a nuclear armed Iran threatening Israel. This agreement is a disgrace. We gave Iran everything it wanted in return for its "promise" not to build a nuclear weapon for ten years. It's unbelievable that an American Administration actually thought this was a deal worth making. We should have kept the sanctions in place; not given Iran its billions of dollars [hundreds of millions in cash flown there in a government jet].
Why was this "agreement" not submitted to Congress as an actual treaty binding under international law? Obviously, because Congress would never have approved such a treaty so detrimental to the interests of the United States.
2
Before pointing a finger, I'd suggest that Mr. Stephens, and Trump, et al, should take a look at US history in relation to treaties, agreements, etc. Ask any Native American about this track record. Oh, wait, you can't find one? Well, ask any Mexican about the annexation of 40% of Mexico. Or ask any Iranian about the coup that ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953. There's not enough space to list the instances of hypocrisy and outright lies here. So instead we get "narratives" in place of truth.
7
Whether Iran makes a full accounting is completely peripheral to the "deal," and the lack of it does not make "the deal" a lie. It is a nice technicality for those like Stephens and Netanyahu to embrace and blow out of proportion. Stephens reverts here to his usual Repubicanesque weak bologna. Why is it even that our own interests should be so allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, and so against Iran in the first place? I fail to see why Iran is such a huge threat. All these players have huge drawbacks, and I don't see why we have to be so involved in their regional affairs, and why we can't have reasonable diplomacy with Iran, just like we do with all the other bad kids in that neighborhood.
7
Hmmm, why is this pretext for war/withdrawal from the agreement coming out now? Hmmm.
6
Iran is my biggest worry as a US citizen contemplating the Trump Administration. Very smart people who were diligent about understanding the region have been stymied by circumstances in the Mideast. What chance do we have of getting anything right in the region with an uninterested, lazy, ego-driven, anti-intellectual like Trump as our leader? So much of Trump's craziness is annoying and frustrating, but the damage done is fixable, with consequences that don't necessarily stretch far beyond the annoyances. The damage can be undone in reasonable amounts of time. Iran is totally different. There are major serious negative implications that could extend out for decades. Care will be required to get this anywhere near correct, and even with care we may fall far short. And Netanyahu beats the drum that stokes Trump's worst impulses. This worries me immensely.
4
Mr. Stephens has been too quick here to yield to the seduction of the pen. The IAEA has already debunked Netanyahu's claims--no Iranian nuclear weapons program before 2009, they say. Other rebuttals already published say everything in the documents purloined by Israel were already known, and that most of the documents pertain to Iranian activities prior to the end of 2003. No reason for abrogating the JCPOA.
7
I concur with Mr. Stephen's overall view.
2
Would you rather have Iran in your words "amble" toward nuclear weapons, --with time for a rational response from another administration with more credibility for the ability to create diplomacy-- or "race" toward them with nothing offered so far to stop them but another war started by pre-emptive military action by an administration that cannot be trusted to to do anything but destroy, lie, etc. according to your own estimations as I read your columns, an administration more divided and even less capable of a successful outcome than in our invasion of Iraq where the outcome had a better prognosis than this situation? Would you run the risk of giving understandably fear-based Israeli hawks a free hand? Bret, of course Iran will want as much lee-way to defend itself as it can get away with, but so far you (or anyone I know of) do not have a convincing alternative that is better than this risky deal, a deal for which you or Netanyahu have yet to show evidence that it has not slowed the Iranians down.
I fear that Trump will play the “we have been succors” card, which is a more viscerally appealing “argument” than “we got the best deal we could under the circumstances to buy some time rather than precipitate calamity.”
3
REALLY?!
Please.
Do tell what country doesn't fully disclose military and nuclear development secrets?
The deal put a lid on any further progress in the wrong direction.
To kill the deal complicates on so many levels around the world, issues where the US has lead with trustworthiness and credibility. Another self-induced nail in the coffin of the USA.
Not that anyone's worried or anything...
5
Ok. Another possible war in the Middle East, something to justify our enormous military spending. Hoorah!
4
Another Neocon war monger calling other bad guys a liar. The same people who are advocating the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US as legitimate, advocated going into Iraq under the false pretense of WMD's.
The other lie is the US defeated ISIS. The Iranian militia's largely destroyed ISIS in Syria.
Here's a nuanced idea. If we accept the fact that all parties to the Iranian nuclear deal has an agenda and isn't a good guy we might actually realize how much we all have in common.
6
Bret Stephens' circular "logic" has got Iranians sounding like reasonable, level headed and rational diplomats.
#MAGA moment!
4
The Iran “Deal” benefits and protects Iran and that is all. Obama was so fixated on creating a “legacy” that he would have, and did, agree to anything to get a “deal” in place. Thinking this bogus “deal” doeas anything to protect or benefit any other country is the height of naïveté.
3
They don't have nukes, that was the only part negotiated. It is not bogus since they are per the agreement not building nukes.
If you really want another deal to be made with Iran to cover other areas, then negotiate instead of threatening to get rid of the deal. Because once the deal is ripped apart by the US, nothing stops Iran from building a nuclear weapon. And considering the threats from the US, it would be smart to build them
1
Bret: How about working with the other countries who signed on to the deal before threatening unilateral action by the US. Isn't that the purpose of a coalition? To act from combined strength and agreement? Iran lied. Surprise surprise. They were close to a weapon, it was delayed. Now what? Bomb bomb bomb Iran?
5
Who in their right mind would actually advocate nullifying a nuclear treaty proven to be in compliance?
6
Sanctions won't work without a joint effort by all of Iran's trading partners. The US can't go it alone, and no one (except Israel) seems interested in following the US into another war in the Mideast. If you want to talk about lying to the international community, let's start with WMD's and the invasion of Iraq, which, by the way, hasn't worked out that well. In fact weakening Iraq was a big boost to Iran.
2
I read the piece because I wanted to see if you presented any facts showing that Iran has lied about keeping their end of the deal. Of course you didn't
Whether the lied before the deal is really of little consequence at this point. And it doesn't make the deal a lie. Whether they keep the deal is what's important. Neither you nor Bibi have shown that they haven't.
What you both showed is that you're willing to undermine the safety of the world because you're afraid of Iran. And that's just pathetic.
6
The last person I would believe concerning Iran, would be Netanyahu. He is a war monger, a hater of Iran, Obama, and a pal of Trump.
So what would the author propose as an agreeable replacement plan? This one took years and the cooperation of another five countries to get it done. Scrap it now, and Iran is off the hook for any restrictions on it's nuclear buildup.
It was the U.S., in 1957, which gave Iran it's first nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel. In 1967, we provided them with weapons grade enriched uranium.
In 1953,, the CIA led a coup to oust the current Prime Minister and install the Shah. His human rights violations are a matter of history leading to his overthrow in 1979. We no longer have a relationship with Iran, mostly due to our own miscalculations.
We need to recognize our own shortcomings in our relations with other countries. Being the biggest bully on the block is not exercising diplomacy.
7
What a childish argument. Stephens is saying because they didn’t admit that they lied about the initial state of their program, we should throw away all of the progress we’ve made with them. Like Trump, he’s boldly ignoring the reality of diplomacy, which is that both sides need to benefit from a deal for it to move forward. The IAEA has verified again and again that the Iranians are in full compliance with the deal. They’re enrichment capabilities are dramatically reduced, and they’re not currently trying to develop nuclear weapons. I can’t believe the Times is amplifying such an idiotic and dangerous argument on such a complex topic that most of America clearly knows nothing about.
4
The deal depends on verification, not belief, not past programs. With no deal, the Iran program will resume.
With no pact, Israel and the Saudis figure the Americans will be forced to help them turn Iran into another Syria debacle. Trump agrees. The GOP Congress is his toady.
Does Netanyahu think his own ascendancy is worth the gamble even if the result is just to sit atop stinking rubble, some of which will be in Israel? That’s where he’s headed.
5
Unfortunately, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is certainly flawed, but it is better than no non-nuclear proliferation treaty at all. It is also an agreement that depends on the the honor and integrity of all the signatories.
(Who has "honor" anymore?)
1
You evaluate the cards you are holding and play your hand accordingly. That the agreement exists at all is evidence that no such credible threat existed. Netanyahu's "show and tell" has left Donald Trump with no option but to pull out and then we will eventually see to what extent the Obama administration underestimated the strength of the cards they were dealt.
Where does Stephens get his information? Nobody else involved in the Iran nuclear deal think this. The myth that somehow the Iranians were bribed to agree to the deal is obviously wrong. The Russia investigation may be a waste of time but Trump is a dangerous man. Hopefully General Mattis can somehow rein Trump in. The US constitution has allowed Trump into the office without winning the popular vote. Despite this he is allowed the full powers of the office. This is the second time recently the US has been confronted with a president that lost the popular vote and who was a ultimately failed president.
4
Why does any nation that fears the US want a nuclear weapon?
Do they fear a pre-emptive war?
Are we in the business of overthrowing regimes to protect our way of life?
We’re the good guys, right?
My cheek hurts.
6
A true Republican feeling the need and desire to punish someone. The US has nuclear weapons, we invaded Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan. We used atomic bombs on Japan. The Israelis have nuclear weapons and they have routinely invaded Palestine and Lebanon and voice threats of invading Iran. I do not support Iran's military operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq or their support of Hamas, but this needs to be dealt with as an issue by the US and its allies not by pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal.
6
There are several elephants in this room that seem to be ignored. Let me identify them.
1] n 1953, the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected Mosadegh regime replacing it with autocratic and dictatorial Shah who ran a rather merciless police state supported and trained by the US. The current Iranian theocracy is a direct result of this.
2] Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened multiple times to attack Iran to destroy its weapon sites and God knows what else.
3] At the time that the Iran Nuclear agreement was signed, Israel was apparently very close to attacking Iran's nuclear facilities and thereby launching what would almost certainly be a war far more horrendous than any previous ones in the Mid East. Thus getting the Iran Nuclear agreement in place was probably critical in preventing this terrible event.
From the Iranian perspective it would seem reasonable to assume that a nuclear armed Israel which has the strong support of the nation that overthrew the only democratically elected government that Iran ever had and which has been implacably opposed to Iran ever since, represents an existential threat that can only be countered by having its own nuclear weapons.
To me the logic of this situation is that only when Israel and the rest of the mid eastern nations, including Iran, have foresworn these weapons will the threat be resolved.
8
Agree, but first we have to introduce logic to politic.
This debate, like so many others, is unwinnable by either side. It involves a prisoner's dilemma, and there is no solution.
The only way out is to change the game.
What if we were to devote our time and treasure to being the world's best friend? What if we were to make it worth other nations' while to join with us, rather than resist us, kowtow to us, or fight us?
It's not so far-fetched. We've done it before. The Marshall Plan, for example, both befriended and mutually enriched Europe and the USA. The American Revolution and the Civil War led to a union of 50 states where armed conflict is unthinkable.
It doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen at all if we don't want it to happen.
4
Your comment has long reminded me of Jesus' parable where the guest/USA to a feast sat at the bottom of the table. Then, the host enthusiastically invited the guest/USA to sit at the most favored position.
I rarely agree with Mr. Stephens. This time, however, he is spot on.
2
Collusion but with a different suspect.
3
Another jerk of the knee from a kneejerk neocon. Next he'll be telling us human induced climate change isn't real. Oh, wait. He did that.
12
Ok, fine, you win. Iran is Satan incarnate. The are the source of all the worlds ills. They march their people to gulags in the desert. (I have photographic proof)They poison the water of all their neighbors rivers, streams, lakes and seas they share. They steal all of the caviar producing sturgeon from he Caspian. (somehow managing to do this after they pollute and poison the same Caspian Sea) They fund all terrorism throughout the world, including the white separatist and neo nazi movements here and abroad. All 19 9-11 bombers were from Iran. Wait, that's not true. None were. This is another of the countless Iran is evil and has designs on world domination pieces spewed by the Iran Is Evil Club. My suggestion, before you continue to point at Iran, look to Mecca and SA. There is your problem child.
8
The same people who gave us the lies, frauds, and deceits about Iraq's imaginary nuke program are now trying sell us the same bucket of lies, frauds, and deceits about Iran.
Do they really think we're that stupid? Evidently yes.
12
Same guy who cheerled the war in Iraq. Seems that the first $1 trillion shattering of the middle east wasn't enough.
Only in America does a record like Bret's land a cushy gig at the NYTimes.
15
This and Israel's argument (the same) against the Iran deal is extraordinarily weak. It conflates — muddles — Iran's past with Iran's present; it ignores, as best it can, the fact that Iran does not and will not possess nuclear weapons for years, because of the deal; and, by arguing to end the deal, it encourages Iran to do what it is not now doing — developing a weapons program. This is tired neoconservatism and it should be treated with the same respect as we did that ideology circa 2006.
7
Stephens is a Israel advocate who is blinded to anything not completely pro Israel.
Why shouldn't a sovereign nation not have the right to test and build missiles in this day and age of such weaponry?
We shed blood and fortune in Iraq where Israel was the only true winner. Now Israelis would like us to do the same with Iran. An emasculated Iran would leave Israel as the only real military power in the area. Saudi Arabia is an economic powerhouse and a military paper tiger. Turkey has internal, political and economic problems. Syria is a mess as is Iraq.
We devastate Iran and Israel rules supreme--for awhile.
Israelis, once again, make good use of their patsies.
8
A point which I find interesting; the nation most vocal about not allowing nuclear weapons to nations which might use them against civilians is also the only nation which has used nuclear weapons against civilians.
5
Why shouldn’t a sovereign nation not have the right to test and build missiles ? Correct, a nation should have that right.
But not when it has been threatening another nation for past decades with annihilation, and claiming that that country will disappear within 25 years. That alone should have be raising red flags for anyone with a conscience, regardless of how one feels about Israel.
And Israel has been doing the same to Iran, they have wanted to rid the world of Iran.
1st Israel has nukes and Iran would have to at least as stupid as Trump keeps appearing to be, to attack Israel.
2nd The US is an ally of Israel and any such attack would bring the US into it.
3rd Iran has seen what the US does to countries without nukes. And they also know that many neocons for a long time have been advocating destroying Iran. So the only way to make sure that they are not invaded is to have nukes.
4th Iran is not building nukes, Bibi gave info that is well over a decade ago. There was nothing to prove Iran is still trying to build a nuclear program.
5th Israel keeps threatening Iran with attacks and trying to overthrow the government. As we saw with N. Korea, threatening a country has the result for that country to threaten back.
6th The hardliners in Iran want the deal to end, it was negotiated by the moderates. Getting rid of the agreement means they can restart the nuclear program.
7th Anyone who has a conscience, should want the deal in place to stop war, not get rid of it like Israel wants. And Israel wants a war with Iran, they just want the US to foot the bill and have US soldiers die instead.
Bret, you contradict yourself. You say that Iran is compliant, but yet we shouldn't trust them in the future. There are too many people drooling over the prospect of nuclear war in the Mideast, mostly because they hate arabs; stop fueling the fire.
4
If I were Iran or North Korea I would not give up any nukes I had nor the ability to develop them if I wanted to do so. N Koreans remember being firebombed and Iran remembers their elected government being overthrown by the US.
6
That's 900 words defining diplomacy, especially diplomacy among adversaries.
You do the best you can and make agreements. Each side scores a few and each side concedes a few. Then, lo, one side is accused of lying. We're shocked. We must be outraged. Scrap the agreement. Pull out. Threaten. Attack. Shake your head in disappointment.
Bret, it has always been thus, and will be when you and I are long gone.
Are there problems? Sure. Are they insurmountable? Probably not. Might they be difficult to address and take a long time. Maybe. So what. As long as the US and its (mostly) allies have the capacity to monitor any Iranian developments of its nuclear program, then we have all the time in the world. There was no mushroom cloud on the horizon in 2003, and there is no mushroom cloud on the horizon today.
Problems? Then it's time to go back to the tableMore sanctions. More inspections. Whatever. There are lots of arrows in that quiver. Just because the Israeli PM is in a tizzy does not mean that we need to join him. The largest problem is who's running our own regime - war hawks, chicken hawks, and short-range thinkers. We saw what that got us in the oughts. Do we really want to have a repeat in the 2020s?
3
Gee, why should Iran be skeptical of anything the US says or does they have always been a fair and impartial actor when dealing with Iran. The US only orchestrated regime change in Iran that set the course to where we are today.
I am always amused by individuals that seem so concerned when countries take actions that everyone knows the US would take if the situation was reversed. The US in a so-called free society does a wide range of unscrupulous activities throughout the world that most Americans have no idea take place and then commend Iran for doing what we would do if put in their place. Iran is very likely violating the terms of the agreement, however, without the agreement Iran would have much greater freedom to do whatever it wants based on the dogma of the religious theocracy that rules the country.
5
Opposing Trumps ideas and plans is usually a reliable way to find the truth and the best path forward. Perhaps, in this situation, it would be wise to remember the stopped clock that is correct twice each day. Perhaps some thought about how to make the Iran pact stronger is in order at present, although it is difficult to see the benefit of having no deal. Mr. Stephens points out flaws in the present agreement but does not make any suggestions for the best way forward.
2
Twenty years ago Iran lied. It told the same lies as Israel. Transparent in both cases.
To make a deal, the sides just looked forward. They did not insist on rehashing old disputes and re-opening old wounds.
Now Netanyahu and Stephens want to go back to all that. Why? Because they want to re-open the wounds and prevent peace. They want Iran smashed, whatever the cost to the US, and not for the real interests of the US.
16
Disappointing column, animated by more than the evidence at-hand. I've been enjoying Bret's contributions to 'the scene' - this one appears to be an aberration. We'll see.
3
"Monday’s news is that Iran didn’t honor its end of the bargain..." The basis of this editorial, and an out and out LIE! Bibi offered no proof that Iran violated the agreement. Everything was about what they did BEFORE the agreement. Why did the WP not edit this garbage for lies, or just pull it? Sad!
6
This piece is so full of holes as to be laughable.
Buried in the middle is the concession that "of course Iran is complying with the deal." And that the deal prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The deal is therefore facially good and in America's interest.
The author's statements like "Iran didn't honor its end of the bargain" are lies and propaganda. Iran has followed every obligation of the deal. The author concedes that, but then tries to bootstrap decades-old intelligence to argue that Iran's intentions in 2003 somehow trump Iran's actions from 2015-18. The actions are what matter. There are no Iranian nuclear weapons today because of Obama and the deal.
The attempted rehabilitation of the author as an honest voice--"after [the deal] came into effect, I believed that we should honor it"--is also a palpable lie. The author concedes Iran is honoring the deal, but argues that U.S. should break its word anyway.
Saudi Arabia and Israel want the U.S. to declare war on Iran. Not because of any nuclear threat, but for their nation's own geopolitical interests and their leader's own selfish interests in rallying their own populations around armed conflict and distracting them from the leader's own troubles and crimes.
Trump and the far right in this country similarly want to use war against Iran as a distraction and for their own personal gain.
The Iranian nuclear issue is a farce, and authors like this one are either complicit or willfully blind to the truth
8
It's a shame that Mr. Stephens embraces Netanyahu's weak and dangerous argument. Let's get to the real point: if the major powers, and the countries of the Mideast, agree to negotiations with the purpose of making the region nuke-free, there might be something on which progress can be made. But we aren't going to get there if columnists like Stephens won't even mention that Israel had nuclear weapons, and that many Iranian scientists have been murdered, and its computer systems infected by malware from the West, etc....
6
Bret, it is possible that you may be correct in some of your concerns about the Iran deal but with Trump as our president how can any sane man trust what emanates from his administration? He has forced all sane people to regard everything he says as entirely false and self serving.
He despises everything Obama ever touched and lets no opportunity pass to slander an honorable man. Even if everything you say is accurate, since trump is against the Iran deal it would take far more than your list of complaints to bring me to accept your and Trumps views. Trump has filled the well with too much poison for me to accept anything he or you dredge up. So first clean the poisoned well. It will be a herculean task but it must first be cleaned.
4
Yet today’s NYT editorial board calls out Netanyhau’s “flimflam”...aka fraud. Defending Israel at all costs and regardless of the facts seems to be a Stephens focus.
9
Can someone please explain the scenario under which the Iranians wake up one day and say, “hey let’s start a nuclear war with the US and Israel that we’ll definitely lose!” Iran wants a bomb so that they don’t end up like Saddam Hussein. Which is fine with me as we would be stupid to invade them anyway.
3
I doubt that we are smart enough not to attack Iran. We have never shown such intelligence in the past.
Yeah ... Just what we need. Another Middle-East war.
How come it's O.K. for Israel to 'hide' its nuclear arms? (O.K. Israel's apartheid might not be quite the measure of human rights and terroristic disgrace as Iran's 'follies,' ... but.....)
By-the-by ... How can the U.S., with its grand arsenal of land-based, oceans-based (and space-based?) nuclear weapons demand of any nation that it 'denuclearize' -- or engage no nuclear 'program.' (I understand the desire, and ... even in the age [seems like an age -- or even ages] of trump ... I trust 'us' more than some 'others' ... surely including Iran and No. Korea, but ....)
3
Iran is not complying at all. They are hiding facts and always will. Israel's security depends on the U.S. confronting Irans duplicity. The Iran deal was pushed by a weak President Obama. U.S needs to show backbone on this and not project false hope and stupidity.
Judith Miller redux. The Times begins another strike for ME intervention.
3
I think you should be honest that you are colluding with Netanyahu. We did great by attacking Iraq and we will do even better by attacking Iran. What a waste of article space in Times.
5
Bret Stephens sounds like a lap dog for Bibi Netanyahu.
His cherry picking and outright distortion of the facts is far from honest journalism.
6
This lousy deal with Iran reminds me of the lousy deal British PM Chamberlain made with Hitler before WW2.
In both cases, Obama and Chamberlain made deals with liars.
1
Punitive actions sure, but "credible military threat" **** *** Bret Stephens!
Diplomacy is the ONLY solution for Iran, all you hawks, look at what a MESS we've made, what MESSES the West has ALWAYS made, when meddling in the middle east in particular and WIPE those fantasies of Asian military adventures in exotic places from your imagination!
The days of Rudyard Kipling's world are OVER!
5
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/north-korea-missile-test-us-1994-ag...
But on its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through.
The light-water reactors were never built. The US-led consortium tasked with constructing them was in severe debt; senators accused Clinton of understating their cost while overstating how much US allies would contribute to funding them. Hawkish Republicans in Congress derided the framework for supposedly rewarding aggressive behaviour.
Heavy fuel shipments were often delayed. Rust Deming, assistant secretary of state, told Congress that “to be frank, we have in past years not always met the fuel year deadline”. Meanwhile, Robert Gallucci, a diplomat who had negotiated the framework, warned that it could fail unless the US did “what it said it would do, which is to take responsibility for the delivery of the heavy fuel oil”.
North Korea was not removed from the state department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism until 2008, though it had long met the criteria for removal. A limited number of US sanctions were eased, but not until 2000 – six years later than pledged in the agreed framework. According to Gallucci, Congressional scepticism
about the deal led to “the minimum interpretation of sanctions lifting”. As he told a congressional committee: “the North Koreans have always been disappointed that more has not been done by the US.”
USA constantly flouts its obligations under International agreements and then accuses other countries of flouting International treaties. They never keep their end of the bargain. Read the article in the link above. This is an example of how USA blatantly flouts International agreement it had with North Korea, and rest of the world keeps mum and then keeps repeating the lie that North Korean cannot be trusted. Another article on the same subject.
North Korea and America's long history of broken promises to find peace
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/north-korea-and-americas-long-history-of-...
1
If the United States pulls out of the Iran deal and everyone else stays in, what then? China and Russia are certainly not going to sign onto new sanctions. The Europeans also will not sign on as long as they believe Iran is not producing nuclear material needed to build bombs. Iran will stick with the deal, especially if it isolates America. If Trump deals out huge new sanctions, will he enforce them by confiscating German assets? Or British assets? Or, god forbid, French assets? A sanctions war between the US and the World could be more damaging than a trade war.
So, Mr. Stephens, what's next? We drop Nukes? We send several hundred thousand troops to start a ground war? The President and any generals who follow him become International War Criminals? Honestly, what's next?
8
The conservative resistance to any solution to Iranian aggression other than 'come out with your hands up' remains puzzling. Perhaps the answer is that the conservative definition of compromise is 'you do what we want and we'll watch you do what we want." Giving up something to get something is anathema to them.
Iran is a bad actor in the region, but we took out the primary deterrent, Iraq. As Trump observed when challenged about Putin's murderous regime (to paraphrase because the exact words are irrelevant): 'You think America is so clean. We're killers, too.' Oh, but that was Putin. This conservative reticence has much more to do with former President Obama than anything practical in the Middle East. But should disdain for Democrats fuel American foreign policy?
5
Hard to believe that Obama and Kerry promoted this disaster of a deal, but they did. Trump will withdraw from it, thank goodness. Another Obama legacy bites the dust.
1
And what will replace it? The US will be the only country not honoring it. The rest of the world will not go along with sanctions again. Russia and China won't agree to intercede with what Iran does.
Iran has no nukes, it is not engaged in a nuclear program. get rid of the deal though and they are free to resume that program. And they won't negotiate away the right to build nuclear weapons with the US, who will be seen as untrustworthy.
The agreement was only for nuclear weapons and Iran has honored that agreement with not building nukes.
Bibi presents info from long before the deal was struck and presents it as evidence Iran broke the agreement. Which is a lie.
You have no decent alternative except war with Iran, which the neocons, Israelis, and the Saudis want. Ever since the evil shah of Iran was overthrown, the neocons have wanted a war to put another dictator in place in Iran.
One wonders if Bret Stephens ever thinks about "Operation Ajax" in Iran in 1953 and the consequences now? The issue then, and now was the exploitation of oil resources. Saudi Arabia got revenue concessions in the 1950's successfully and the other oil-rich countries were pressing for the same treatment. Iran was one making demands of the British Government controlled oil monopoly. The result was the CIA helping British Intelligence create a coup deposing Prime Minister Mossadegh. Then they placed the Pavlavi stooge on the throne and kept him in power with a CIA-manufactured secret police force. All this in a culture that was devoted to blood feuds carried across generations and centuries. Bret Stephens seems to want another seven trillion-dollar war in the Middle-East. I sincerely hope he has to pay for it.
6
Sorry Brett but this column is as much a lie as Netayahu's little slide show. If you had listened to our intelligence chiefs at the time the Iran deal was made -- some of whom have again been talking about it in televised interviews over the past few days -- you would have heard them admit that Kerry and the rest of the U.S. negotiating team knew full well that Iran had lied about its nuclear program in the past, which is why they insisted on such rigorous verification procedures to insure compliance in the present. I for one trust Hayden, Clapper and Brennan far more than Netanyahu, whose litany of lies is almost as long as Trump's.
6
It's a shame that Mr. Stephens embraces Netanyahu's weak and dangerous argument. Let's get to the real point: if the major powers, and the countries of the Mideast, agree to negotiations with the purpose of making the region nuke-free, there might be something on which progress can be made. But we aren't going to get there if columnists like Stephens won't even mention that Israel had nuclear weapons, and that many Iranian scientists have been murdered, and its computer systems infected by malware from the West, etc....
188
To make the region nuke-free not only Iran or any other countries should not develop nuclear arms but also Israel must clarify whether it has nuclear weapons and join the NPT.
21
Naive liberal. Israel is one of our closest allies. Iran is one of our most dangerous "frenemies". The ridiculously weak Iran deal allows Iran to continue enriching uranium using 1,000 centrifuges in their attack-proof facility built under a mountain - did you remember that? Enough capacity for a bomb every three years or so, so in ten years when sanctions end, from this facility alone they have at least three nuclear warheads, with no limits on enrichment thereafter.
5
I am not happy with Israel or its policies. But it's clear that Israel won't start a nuclear war except under existential threat (and perhaps not even then). Their nuclear capabilities are and have been used as a shield for fifty years or more. Iran is much more interested in regional hegemony than Israel is. As a realistic liberal, my view is I can tolerate Israeli power, but not the arms race an Iranian weapon would set going. That's why I don't want the easily played Trump to be manipulated by Netanyahu and Bolton into ending the current deal.
8
Mr. Stephens, you are part of the problem once again. Could you not try to be part of a solution?
Iran would have had a bomb within about a year without this deal. Their ballistic missile program would have progressed. Iran would join the nuclear club shortly therafter.
Netanyahu's solution was to bomb and destroy Iran's nuclear capacity. Knowledge cannot be eliminated with bombs. Israel's vaunted air force does not have the equipment (deep penetrating bombs and delivery capacity) to unilaterally achieve this end. Netanyahu needs the US to intervene militarily. With no agreement and Iran rapidly becoming nuclear the pressure on the US to threaten and jjoin in bombing becomes much stronger.
Let's hope there is enough information in the Netanyahu cache of information to justify a renegotiation and that Europe and Iran will view this favorably. If not, according to US law, any state that trades with Iran--allowed by the deal--will be excluded from US trade and banking networks. That means our largest and most important allies and trading partners in Europe.
Mr. Stephens, when you present one-sided arguments with incomplete information and offer no solutions to addressing the aftermath you are part of the problem. We need something very different at this point--reasonable people with reasonable ideas.
14
As it is with most critics of the Iran nuclear agreement, the alternative is to leverage them economically and/or bomb them when necessary. A better way forward is outlined in Johns Hopkins professor Vali Nasr's essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in that the U.S. lead an international diplomatic effort to broker a regional deal with Middle East countries involved that would create a framework for peace and stability in the region. This could work and is well worth the effort. But we would need a skilled negotiator. Do we have any left?
5
Journalists that unconditionally lobby for a foreign government, regardless of the rationality or morality of said government's policy, should be registered as foreign lobbyists , even opinion writers if their opinion only benefits said foriegn government to the detriment of all others.
7
We live in a world full of unqualified leaders and despots. It is unfortunate. More unfortunate is the fact that these unqualified leaders push their agenda through columns such as this.
Iran is ruled by clergies who lie under the name of God. The regime is an oppressive regime with no consideration for its citizens well being.
Israel has a crazy leader: Bibi, whose objective is nothing but to provoke yet another crazy leader, Trump, to attack Iran.
We have despots and dictators in Syria, Russia, N Korea to name a few.
As despicable as the rulers of Iran are with respect to human rights and how they deal with the Iranian people, they have entered an agreement which has stopped them from developing nuclear weapons.
Bibi already has nuclear weapons! Bibi's government to this day believes in assassination of its adversaries all over the world. At least three Iranian scientists were assassinated by remote control bombs in Tehran with all the signs pointing at Israel.
On one hand we have the crazy and unqualified world leaders and on the other hand we have unqualified opinion writers such as Bret Stephens who are practically the mercenaries to push the unqualified world leaders agenda.
Mr. Stephens, I feel sorry for humanity because of the dictators, despots, hawkish leaders and because of writers like you.
Stop pushing for a military confrontation with Iran. Just take a look at Iraq and the consequences of our military intervention. Ask Tom Friedman. He supported Iraq war.
10
Speaking of past sins.
What about the US and European countries selling raw materials and technology to Saddam Hussein to make chemical weapons that were used against Iran.
This was during President Reagan.
The chemical attacks were also against civilians and hospitals.
An estimated 20,000 deaths and 50,000 injuries.
Iran asked the UN to do something. They did not.
9
The audacity of a Republican lecturing on lying. Incredulous.
12
The Netanyahu dog and pony show reminded me of the justification for going to war in Iraq, with all the pictures of tubes, trains of yellowcake, all "sold" as evidence of WMD. How'd that pan out? Remember, there are 5 other parties to this agreement (France, UK, Russia, China, Germany) that all want to keep the deal in place. Walking away from deals is Trumps specialty, as his business career showed hundreds of times. If we walk away, we have given Iran permission to reinstate the program. What is the upside there, except for the war Israel wants???
5
From Arms Control Wonk: "Let's go through Netanyahu's dog-and-pony show. As you will see, everything he said was already known to the IAEA and published in IAEA GOV/2015/68 (2015). There is literally nothing new here and nothing that changes the wisdom of the JCPOA......"
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/991108490356649984.html
5
Iran has the same right to nuclear weapons as Pakistan, Israel, Russia or the U.S.
That the U.S, puppet, who was deposed nearly 40 years ago, signed a nuclear non-proliferation agreement is used as a pretext to impose our will on the Iranians.
As our current president is throwing out agreements made by his immediate predecessor only five years ago, why doesn't Iran have the same right to throw out decades-old agreements made by Our Man in Tehran?
We claim that a nuclear Iran destabilizes the region; they could say the same for a nuclear Trump.
2
I went on an organized overland trip from Turkey to Mongolia several years ago. My fellow travelers were thoughtful and well-educated folks from western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. Without exception, they (and the locals) saw the USA as the world’s #1 menace, the biggest bully on the world stage, who used and exploited other countries for their resources.
Americans need to get out of their nests and travel to see how we are actually perceived.
Isn’t it time for the US to be the world’s peacemakers— a country committed to peace, social and economic justice?
Reject the retrograde fear- mongering of US leadership.
8
The Iran deal is something you can read. It does not include a requirement for full disclosure of past activities.
That may mean John Kerry lied, but the thrust of this piece indicates the author is writing about a negotiated agreement that he never has read.
I don't mind the author having an unfavorable opinion. I do mind that he has an inaccurate fact.
6
Iran may be complying with the letter of the agreement, but not its intent. One specific and glaring example: The IAEA inspectors must ask -- "beg", actually -- before each and every inspection visit. The Iranians can then hold off granting access for a total of 25 days. Ample time to move their activities and cleanse the site.
They continue to design, build, and test ballistic missiles -- but claim the missiles they are testing are not prohibited by the agreement, they fall short of what the agreement prohibits. A bald faced lie -- and we do nothing.
This deal is not a deal; it was a surrender by an outgoing administration desperate for a "victory" in its legacy.
42
That applies only to military installations.
The centrifuge sites are open to inspection at any time.
And by the way, 25 days is not nearly enough time to dismantle and move the facilities needed to refine and contain nuclear materials.
39
How is denuclearization advanced if we pull out of the treaty ? Will the Middle East and the rest of the world be safer if we pull out ? I do not think so. Israel is interfering in our national politics.
34
Please tell why Iran should not have ballistic missiles when it is surrounded by hostile neighbors like Israel?
15
So, you really want to increase the number of wars the US is fighting. The money our armaments industries make as a result of widening wars is well worth the cost in the lives of our soldiers, right?
2
Interesting to see how this column is delivered in lockstep with Netanyahu's vapid and intellectually dishonest infomercial intended for an audience of one.
16
Kerry is more credible than Trump or Netanyahu.
12
If Israel wants to go to war with Iran, let them do so. No need for American blood to be spilled on the altar of religious zealots on either side.
15
Bret is drinking the swill. Lies. All designed to get us into war to start up the money making machine. The entire GOP group of voters are liars and cons.
8
Hard to get to the end of this Irresponsible, inflammatory, circular thinking, lacking proof, only supposition; why would you admit Shia Iran is in compliance if not to provoke.
This article follows the stink bomb the Prime Minister of Israel dropped on the world yesterday. A person might think this paper is being used to demand more war in the middle east.
You and Bebe blow this up and it will be war, it will be on you and your ilk. This is not 1963 Vietnam Goldwater ranting about the Domino Theory Kiddo! Choose your words wisely with the Other. They have families and homes and religion. Like the Vietnamese, Persian culture goes back longer than that and you. That didn't turn out so good, in fact looks like the beginning of decline. Now.
Just be reasonable. Supposed conservative. St Reagan: Trust but verify: Which Is What you Are Doing! Provocateur!
6
Bret, take a step back and a deep breath from your characteristic Israel apologism.
1. A lecture by Bibi Netanyahu the PM of a clandestine nuclear state, who stole and lied about its nuclear program, and is a non-signatory of the NPT, is a bit much. Its a bit like the thief lecturing on honesty.
2. Iran faces a nuclear armed Russia to its north, Israel to its West, India, Pakistan and China to its east. In what bible is it written that they need to accept permanent inferiority to their neighbours ?
3. Iran's nefarious actions in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, are they dramatically more immoral than Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians ?
The truth will set you free
14
Ridiculous and illogical. 1. America knew about Israel's nuclear programs years back. Being repeatedly threatened with annihilation, it needed this deterrence. 2. I can understand Iran being fearful of Iraq, years back. The other countries are non-issues for Iran, and it's Iran that threatens Israel repeatedly, not the other way around. Iran has poked terrorism in at least 4 countries, and now apparently with a minority group in Morocco, too. Iran has a "religious" imperative to destroy the Jewish state; Israel has an existential imperative to prevent that. 3. If you don't see that Iran's mixing into Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria-a bridge to Lebanon, and being next door to Israel on two sides-as immoral, that is stark prejudice, regardless of how neat your presentation is. The occupation, as you well know, was due to a pan Arab war against Israel, and they lost. As to 50 years ongoing, ask Abbas, with his outrageous anti-Semitic beliefs, why he won't negotiate.
1
Rosalie
1. Israel sole and lied to develop its nuclear weapons program. Then it lied again and hid the program from inspectors.
2. Israel has threatened to attack Iran countless times. Israel and the USA have actually attacked many of Iran’s neighbours. Iran supports freedom fighters (your “terrorists”).
3 There is absolutely nothing immoral in fighting for human rights in Palestine and Yemen, and against foreign regime change in Syria,
Stephens continues to spread Israeli propaganda.
Mr. Stephens perhaps you could tells us about how Isreal deceived the world when it developed it’s nuclear weapons program. About how it stole fissionable material in the US and smuggled it out of the country. About how it acquired the reactor from France based on a lie. About how it fooled the inspectors that Kennedy sent. I’m waiting but not holding my breath.
12
They also stole critical "nuclear triggers" for bombs. A guy in their embassy who played a key role in that was Bibi Netanyahu. It was one of his big claims to fame early on, getting the attention to himself that led to his present position.
6
Iran is not a threat to us.
You're a dinosaur staring fearfully into the light of an incoming meteor.
9
Gee, another chicken hawk who never served in the military or had a shot fired at him writing that we should go to war with Iran. It’s 2001-2 all over again with chicken hawks sending our children to fight and die in useless Middle East wars
10
Finally a voice of sanity at the NY Times.
5
This is the older and the wiser version of you?!
Agreeing with Stephens?
Older, maybe!
Wiser, not at all!!
7
How the mighty have fallen. Even CNN couldn't stand the lies of Netanyahu.
6
Much ado about nothing. Typical.
5
Netanyahu is no one to be believed. Put the "evidence" out there for the IAEA or the UN to veryify, then someone reasonable might take it seriously. Otherwise it's just another dog and pony show from one of the most disingenuous and dishonest slimeballs in the world.
5
Ok, scrap the deal. Then what?
6
Insist on stronger revisions; a better deal. Obama knew it wasn't an all inclusive deal, and he purposefully left out the ICBMs out of it, as well as Iranian sponsorship of terrorism, because it was too much. Well, guess what, Iran can/will provoke war even without nuclear warheads. Without the agreement, and tighter sanctions, they will be forced to retreat from Syria. Eventually, their citizens may just do us all a favor and revolt.
1
Is the NYT repeating it’s Iraq fiasco? Have you learned nothing from that misinformation campaign? Iraq was a disaster. A war with Iran would be worse. Please get real facts before you publish these warmongering opinions getting played by Trump.
6
Iran officially admitted to having a nuclear program long ago. When they signed the deal. More of Bibi's propaganda!
5
Shouldn't Israel's nuclear weapons also be on the table? Oh, have I just exposed Israeli lies?
6
Maybe your readers can take off their ideological blinkers and try to accept that the Iran business is about the balance of power in the Middle East. In terms of diplomacy, Iran has the advantage as its foreign policy is restricted to this region. The US has bigger issues with which to deal: Russia in Europe and Eurasia and China in the Far East (but with global ambitions).
Another conventional war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, is the last thing the US needs at this time. Any diversion from Korea will nip the prospect of a peace treaty in the bud as it would take pressure off NK.
The US can and should eliminate Iran from Syria, Lebanon - and Iraq - by reimposing sanctions and sanctioning any business that does not comply with them. Unfortunately, Bolton was correct in stating that the billions of Iranian funds released from escrow accounts have been used for military adventures. Cut off this financial bonus for Iranian militancy.
Even lies (jaw-jaw) can eliminate war, but "war" can be fought with many kinds of weapons.
"Any diversion from Korea will nip the prospect of a peace treaty in the bud"
It would also be proof to North Korea that a peace treaty with the US cannot be trusted, and they must keep their nuclear weapons.
2
Brett,
From your comfortable armchair, you are making judgments that lack any knowledge of this Pact. This negotiation was joined by England, France, German, USA, Russian, China, and Iran. These Countries worked in tandem with their most skilled negotiators to arrive at this Pact.
Any Agreement is always a compromise, you try to win those items that are most important and lose on others. If the deal lacks these elements, one side or the other will destroy the pact because of its very unfairness. Please remember Germany after the first world war, that was a very bad treaty for Germany, which led to the second world war. In many ways, Israel has strangled Gaza and it's citizens which denies them the ability to establish themselves as a sovereign State.
The Iranian Pact is working quite well and Iran is abiding by the contract. Which brings us back to the very ignorant trump and Netanyahu, who are acting like the two bullies they are.
Which brings us to this Pact in 2018, to destroy this Pact would indicate that our word means nothing, nothing to ourselves, nothing to our friends and nothing to our enemies. Try moving forward with that knowledge.
7
Renegotiating can be done without scrapping the agreement. Stupidity is going to war first, so you can sign a 'real' peace agreement. Is this a way to decrease the population of the world? War is a sin, in spite of the lack of its mention in the Ten Commandments. But now, war is impossibly terrible.
And America is ? Those who make guns, armaments and other implements of war, should be heavily taxed. HEAVILY!!!
5
"Renegotiating" would mean offering more. What would the US offer?
Those who want more from the deal want only more for themselves, wish fulfillment of some dream they pretend they might really get. Or else they just want war, for the US to wreck Iran too.
1
I would love to see what are actually in those documents.
Europe claims its all old news, nothing new to see here.
Netanyahu and US intelligence claims they are new, significant revelations proving the Iranians lied.
Someone is spinning, someone is truthing.
5
Beside bombing do you have a better deal to propose? Which part of the international law give the right to some countries to have an nuclear arsenal and to deny this right to other countries?
3
Obviously, Mr. Stephens opposed the deal "from the start", as he only cites peccadillos from before the start. Who are we to believe that the deal is in the interests of the world, the signatories to the pact, or Mssrs. Netanyahu and Stephens? Bret, you have not convinced me.
4
Who are you going to believe? That murdering thief Bibi, who proudly displays what he has stolen (or pretends to do so), or the Iranians, who promise on the first page of the agreement to never develop nuclear weapons? I say don’t count on believing either of them. Count on what you can verify and on what’s best for the US. None of the anti-agreement partisans offers an alternative. Except for war, what do they propose? Meanwhile we have a president who calls the leader of North Korea “honorable” (the man who not so long ago had his own brother murdered in a foreign country) and rushes to make an agreement with him. So these people want to throw out an agreement that seems to be working and verifiable and also make an agreement with another regime that has never lived up to its word. That’s right-wing extremist logic for you.
4
Mr. Stephens, why does this article say not a word about the reporting in the New York Times yesterday to the effect that the information published by Netanyahu provided nothing new; it had been known to United States years before the Iran deal was signed. How can you make your argument without addressing this matter. If you disputed the fundamental assertion in that reporting , say so. But by ignoring it, you reveal the weakness of your analysis. You are not communicating with listeners a Fox, who are more than pleased to hear selected information supportive of the narrative.
4
Can we attach any credibility to anything Netanyahu says anymore?
5
Stephens the hawk!
Since when has Iran or any other country in the middle east NOT feared "credible threat of military force" from America.
What? punitive sanctions do you suggest? You have none since it is simply easy to sit back and say you want this or that. The hard part is detailing what, and then implementing. That is what we currently have. An implemented plan. So all you're really espousing is that you want change, but other folks have to make the hard decisions as to the actual change.
It must be nice to speak without consequence. I think that is the definition of a "chickenhawk" as well.
3
Will any of these hawks go fight in the wars they seem so anxious to start? Belligerence is easy from the desk, isn't it? It's a historic curiosity that almost all America's hawks never have served in the military. Many, like Trump and Cheney, proved themselves complete physical cowards by using excuses to avoid service.
5
Very disappointed, and somewhat surprised, that Bret Stephens takes this line, direct dictation from Netanyahu, whose advice in 2002 about the Iraq situation could not have been, objectively, more incorrect. The unspoken desire, however, was to create chaos and misery in the Muslim Middle East, which must somehow be to the benefit of Israel, or Netanyahu/Stephens vision of Israel. In that, there has undoubtedly been success. Let us not follow this path which is strewn with blood and ill-will. None of our co-signers to the Iran deal are singalling Iran's non-compliance.
3
No deal is perfect, ever, Mr. Stephens. That's why it's called a deal.
Now please explain what, exactly, will be gained by terminating the Iran agreement?
And please explain what the options will be once it is terminated?
If you can't do so, you are not making any sense.
5
Stephens is an example of a smart young (I"m 71 so he's still young) man who can write an argument on two sides of any issue, thus able to reach his conclusion first, then glibly script the rationalization. He can lean a bit left sometimes, but always seems to come back to preserve the conservative tilt on life he adopted in college, probably to be unique amongst liberal peers. This column backs up a Israeli leader who's trying to influence his pal, the Don of Queens, to scrap a deal forged with the assiduous work of a coalition of nations.
2
Secretary of Defense James Mattis says the USA should not walk away from the deal. Bret Stephens says we should use the "threat of military force". I respect you Mr. Stephens but I have more respect for Mr. Mattis' extraordinarily well-informed view. He recognized that the deal anticipated cheating by Iran. And by all credible accounts, Iran has not materially violated the deal. Try to get additional promises from Iran but do not vacate the existing agreement.
3
When those who make war materiel want to continue to make war materiel — jobs, you know — such materiel must continually be used. This means the obvious: perpetual war. The military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned of in 1961 must be fed. With North Korea off the table for the moment, Mr. Stephens, and others, apparently now look upon Iran as the main course.
1
A very cleverly written article by Brett Stevens shoeing exactly where his true loyalties lie.
Let us remember that the lies that got us in to Iraq partly came from Israel and were parroted by Netanyahu on national US TV in 2002.
We are supposed to believe that the Mossad( "by way of deception we shall wage war.") managed to steal half a ton of documents conveniently left in n unguarded lock up and spirit them out of Iran. Of course we must accept this at face value! No need to verify the authenticity of these documents, Israel would never lie
!
This way lies WW III. The PNAC document called for the USA to smash the enemies of Israel in a 'crusade' to bring democracy to the middle east. Iran was to be the last domino to fall. However Syria has endured and Brett seems to be pushing the opening shots to get a new 'WMD' 45 minute warning narrative restarted.
Shameful.
4
And Netanyahu's proof was a big classroom board and past statistics???
2
Dear Mr.Stephens,
Obama is radical liberalism scared cow, & everything Obama must be believed.When Obama & the other signees to this farcical deal agreed to allow the Iranian nuclear fuel to be sent to Russia for safe keeping,they knew that Russia would build the bomb for Iran.Like North Korea, Iran never intended to shelf their nuclear projects.They received every thing they wanted,without giving up their Nuclear weapons.
I do not support Bibi, but I have no reason to doubt the Mossad.
1
Really? No reason to doubt a bunch of murdering spies?
AK,
People in glass houses should not throw stones.Iran who helped murder 500,000 Syrians that included thousands of children, with poison gas, is the last one to call others murders.
I wouldn't believe Netanyahu about anything. Ever.
7
Whoever it was inside Iran that aided Israel to obtain these documents apparently felt more secure in giving them to Mr. Netanyahu than to the New York Times Editorial Board.
2
Dont believe Bibi!
2
oh, and did the USA really uphold with their side of the bargain? however, I hate both Iran and USA government, but look what you are doing in the Middle East and look what the consequences of your hawking article would be, look what you have done in Iraq, and have you found any so-called "weapon of mass destruction" in Iraq? and look what you have done to this poor country? murder, and murder. had you just left the Middle East alone we wouldn't have had these much problems. and Iran is still suffereing from stupid meddling into our affaits before the 1979 revolution which had created a tyranny that reselted in a radical and religious revolution so just mind your own bussiness for a while please, and don't you think that Trump and his hawking fear-mongering propaganda is more pwoerful than Barack Obama blessings, he was certainlly more pwoerful than Trump in international affairs and he had a profound impact on Iranian youth, the only thing that Trump has done so far is to invoke the nationalistic sentiments of Iranians, and giving the pretext to the government of Iran in order to mobilize Iran's population, edgucate yourself with Middle East issues please
8
Look what happened when North Korea "achieved" nuclear capability. Did they start WWIII? No. They are now discussing what they really wanted all along, guarantees from the US that they will not invade. The Iranians have just as much reason to fear invasion from the US if history is any indication of what our perceived intentions are. We, after all, committed the greatest interference in their democratic process, we overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed a deadly puppet regime to oppress them for decades until they finally revolted. Now, these idiots are going to listen to Israel who have demonstrated that they are concerned with the fate of Israel to the detriment of that of the US. Hopefully they will be forced to do the right thing and and continue to observe the agreement.
3
The treasonous Trump crime family needs a war. The corrupt Bibi needs a war and the neocons like Stephens are itching to make it happen.
9
Before writing this misleading piece, did Mr Stephens even bother to read his own editorial board's critical assessment of the same speech by Netanyahu that he so relies on in making his case against the Iran deal? Advice to readers of today's editorial page: first read the board's column, then Mr Stephens's.... and then judge for yourself which is closer to the truth.
For all his huffing and puffing on television about the abuses of the Trump regime, Mr Stephens remains the uncritical conservative he has always been....Pity he has a voice on the premier editorial page in the country.
5
How do you make a deal to which you expect adherence when what you're dealing with is an illegitimate state with illegitimate, unelected, religious-fanatics dictators running it who will do and say anything to get their way.
That, by the way, is known as "Takia" in the Shia version of Islam which permits you to lie and deceive in furtherance of Shia Islamic goals.
1
Those are harsh but accurate things to say about Israel.
1
The Times is running out of columnist that can think their way through a single declarative paragraph. Stephens has yet to turn this expository trick. Saying Obama lied about verification does not make it so.
5
Will the United Sates ever learn any lessons from Vietnam and Iraq fiasco?
The hoax of WMD's was fabricated and propagated through American media to justify the invasion of Iraq which resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and displacement of millions from their homes, a world wide recession in 2008 and creation of ISIS which changed the middle east for ever.
NYT was in forefront of selling the lies of Bush White House and neocons. But hopefully through its editorial on this issue today, NYT has given an indication to stand for for truth and not become a tool of the warmongers.
1
Speaking of palaver, Mr. Stephens buys, without a wimper or a wink, the garbage from King Netanyahu, the loudest palavering mouth in the Middle East since Ahmadinejad. What great company.
But of course: with war off the table against North Korea, we need fresh meat to feed the military-industrial complex and to keep our economy humming along producing killing machines. Plowshares into swords.
War with Iran will make Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam look like childs play. Is America really that stupid?
4
Not a surprising article coming from Bret Stephens. Similar to many of his WSJ pieces, waving the pom-poms for Israel. Citing Foundation for Defense of Democracies? C'mon...
4
I'm so tired of pundits who don't know what they are talking about. He talks as if the US is the only signatory to the deal when in fact Iran signed the deal with Russia (Trump's favorite country after the USA), China, France, Great Britain and Germany. Of course Israel would have reservations and would do everything in its power to kill the deal. Let's remember that Israel and Iran are mortal enemies and do not trust each other at all. And as to all these files the Israel purportedly says it has proving Iran's untrustworthiness, has anyone other than the Israelis or the US authenticated them? Netanyahu is a war monger and a great friend to Trump. He knows how to manipulate our idiot President. It will be interesting to see what happens if Trump pulls out of the deal and the other signatories don't. Will the US sanctions be effective? The reason the Obama sanctions against the Iranian were so effective is because other countries adhered to them. Will the US be as successful in getting other countries to cooperate? All I can say, is I am not surprised by the incompetence of this administration and by conservative knee jerk reaction to Iran.
6
David Albright is nonpartisan??? Only in Bret Stephen's off little world.
2
"assuming the documents are authentic which the US has confirmed"
rigghhhtt. As if the current treaty-hater in chief would NOT confirm Israeli supplied documents?
middle east war #3 ready in 3, 2, 1.
3
Brett Stephens is a contrarian and a reactionary, posing as a neocon.
He really has no business being at the NYTimes.
2
Once a neocon, always a neocon Bret. Drinking some of that Bibi koolaid today? Is this the 4th or 5th time in 20 years that Bibi has claimed Iran is building a bomb and will have one in a few months. I put as much stock in your editorial as I do in Bibi's claims about Iranian bombs.
3
I thought I saw reporting in the NYT about the opinion of former Mossad heads about the treaty with Iran. In that reporting all of them were for a continuation of the treaty as agreed to by the west and Russia and China. Was I hallucinating?
3
This weak, desperate Op-Ed conjures memories of not just Colin Powell's infamous presentation at the U.N. (armed with satellite images, transcripts of intercepted telephone conversations and other intelligence data) but also of Netanyahu's speech in early 2000s warning the world about Saddam's weapons and intentions. The Israeli prime minister sounded so sure. "There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, is working, is advancing towards to the development of nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in 2002 testimony to U.S. Congress. "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region," Netanyahu claimed.
"I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, 'Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!”’
4
Another neocon beating the war drum. Do they do anything else?
6
So, Bret Stephens, what are we supposed to do, bomb Iran? What do you mean by a "credible threat of military force"?
This is typical war-mongering garbage. You apparently haven't learned your lesson from Iraq.
Neo-cons will continue to push their pro-war, pro-military industrial complex agenda. And the rest of the world will suffer.
4
Well, then…
Let's give up a process that keeps Iran from developing a nuke, because we don't like something they said before the process existed. Then we'll threaten war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
This may be the most twisted, bizarre rationalization The Times has ever circulated. Since Judith Miller, anyway.
2
This op-ed is frightening. It is frightening because it backs up President Trump's contention that the NYT is fake news. The contention in the op-ed has been debunked for many hours.
Haaretz has debunked the story as has most of the truth based media.
While the world questions Netanyahu's sanity or motives the NYT prints this story.
I have not questioned the need for the NYT to print right wing op-ed pieces I have questioned Mr Stephen's integrity. This op-ed is way beyond the Pale.
Maybe there is a position for Mr Stephens at FOX news.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-netanyahu-tries-but-fails-t...
4
To be clear, this isn't a "story" it's opinion. There is a difference.
To be sure, the opinion expressed in this piece (not a story) is farcically distorted and counter factual, but so is claiming it is "fake news".
Regards.
1
Is this the type of columnist that the NYT endorses, one that puts out positions of questionable integrity and ethics?
It is the United States that has failed to live up to its end of the bargain so far in the Iran deal. It is the United States that is now going back on its word and agreements when it comes to the Iran deal. It is the United States that is negatively affecting its friends and allies and making unnecessary enemies when it comes to the Iran deal.
It is the United States that is reinforcing the perception (actually, fact) that it is one of the biggest double-crossers on the planet when it comes to agreements and deals between countries.
When various governments of the United States behaves this way, when a columnist of the NYT puts out propaganda like pieces supporting such positions, why do Americans still wonder that practically NO ONE on the planet (even their allies) actually trusts the word of the United States of America?!?!
Is it that difficult to be less of a hypocrite?
4
Hmmm. You think Iran didn't honor the deal based on the flimflam of Netanyahu's so called evidence of what they were doing BEFORE the deal was struck? The word of their arch enemy? I don't buy it. Iran is a hard country to trust, and verification is necessary...but on the other hand, they are much more rational than most of the region despite their internal politics. Monday's news showed no such evidence of Iran breaking the deal, just ways in which historically they possibly could. That does not rise to the level of OUR breaking the deal, and this is a multi-country agreement in which all our partners should have a say. If we break this deal, and it turns out that Iran actually has been following the deal as written (even though some other aggressive acts not included in the deal have occurred) - when would they EVER trust to make a deal with our bad faith country again? Plus I always find it necessary to remind all those who think we "GAVE" Iran a pile of money...no its that we RETURNED their own money that we kept for over 40 years, without interest as I understand it also.
2
Thank you! Well said! I still read numerous outraged comments that think that we paid off Iran with our money. It was their money all along.
1
The important question is, what is the alternative to the Iran deal? War? Iran is a huge mountanious country with an educated population. We trained thousands of their engineers and scientists in American Universities. Do we really think we can stop them from developing the bomb if they are motivated to do so? Our only option is to take that motivation away which the Iran deal has done.
3
Stephens is right to question Iran's honesty in its assertions about its programs which formed the basis for an agreement. Lies in, lies out. Credibility is an important ingredient in accords and contracts. Violate those undermine and normally invalidates a deal.
However, the current President could say I like the deal and think we should honor it. He could also do what Obama refused to do: get it approved by the Senate and make it a treaty, not just an accord which negotiators take back to their Principals...in this Case the Senate to make it a Nation's commitment and not just a president's ideas of what he or she might want the Nation to adopt via the Senate.
Trump has the call on accepting the flawed accord negotiated by Obama or rejecting it. He also has the opportunity to renegotiate it or take other measures raised by Iran's proxies in the region.
1
A worthy justification for the deal was the hope that it would gradually embolden moderates in Tehran and encourage direct engagement with the Iranian people on not just political but cultural fronts - that it would help ease Iran into the "family of nations." Is this working? Who knows? But slamming the door on Iran so soon will only return things to the highly dangerous situation the deal was meant to defuse. Surely, not a good outcome for anyone but right-wing Israelis and the Saudis. And what do our European allies - and co-signers - say? Doesn't their opinion count as much as ours?
6
As an American, I see my country acting like a belligerent threatening force in the world. We have military bases all over the globe, an endless drive to upset power balances in various regions and an easy willingness to use violence on other nations with no respect for the consequences. So here we go with more fear mongering about Iran that overlooks reality, humanity, and sanity. Damn the hypocrisy and bang the drum for war.
7
This post completely failed to convince me that Iran is not complying with the nuclear agreement, can anyone summarize what Iran is actually doing wrong?
Nor does it outline any coherent alternative strategy. Warmongers who enjoy conflict or profit from it might conclude that war is the only alternative, but decent people worldwide will recoil in horror from that and the horror it will cause.
As fir Israel-Iran relations, lets ensure the US not get sucked in. Indeed, there is no real reason for Iran Israel conflict, they are far apart, have no conflict over resources, they would both be better off dialing down their nasty rhetoric.
4
As with any strategy in the Middle East, your damned if you do and damned if you don't. What we do know for certain is that more aggressive strategies---invading Iraq---did not end well--and Iran is fare more formidable than Iraq. Aside from stricter sanctions what options do we really have. All of our "interventions" in the region, as with our endless war in Afghanistan---drain our country of money and young women and men with little to show for it.
4
In the interest of full transparency, this column by Bret Stephens should have begun:
OK, so I and Netanyahu and Bolton and all the other neocon Republicans who want to blow up the Iran deal, and are attacking the judgement of those who choose to maintain it, are the very same people who pushed the invasion of Iraq as a good idea and attacked the judgement of those who opposed it, but why not listen to us again?
5
As I understand the Iran deal, the United States knew that Iran lied during the negotiations about its program to develop a nuclear weapon. We knew it and took that into account. Yes, Iran had been developing a nuclear weapon. We were not innocent. The important point, Mr. Stevens, is that Iran is not now developing a nuclear weapon. There are mechanisms in place for determining whether Iran resumes a weapons program; and the process shows that Iran has not resumed its nuclear program. That is our security.
But what kind of security will we have if we leave the treaty? Then Iran will, most likely, resume its program to develop a nuclear bomb. Who will be safer then?
3
Your comment is what any rational person would conclude. Unfortunately we are caught between people like Bolton who think every problem is solved by war; and Trump who thinks everything the Obama administration accomplished has to be over turned, and nothing else matters.
4
The only open question of interest here is whether Stephens will retract this essay when it becomes widely clear that there was no "raid" in Iran, that the materials were hacked, and that they were well known to everyone involved in the Iran negotiation, and indeed were a part of what motivated the US and others to move forward on the deal. Netanyahu's mendacity in 2003 in telling Congress that there "was no doubt" that Syria had (at that time) an active nuclear program pales in comparison with this stunt.
5
Mr. Stephens, even if agree with the premise that the deal was based on a lie, or two, that have repercussions to the credibility of the IAEA and to the candor of the past administration on this matter, it does not follow that the besto course of action is not to honor the deal. There are a number of questions that such possibility open for neither I have, nor you provide:
-The deal was reached with the purpose of deescalating tensions towards a conflict with very a uncertain outcome. Does its demise preclude a return to those conditions?
-Most of the international community will not believe that the US had legitimate reasons to break the deal, especially consider the reputation of the President. What effect will this have in the US standing in the world?
-Related questions: What message does it send that we are willing to enter negotiations with regimes that have already developed nuclear weapons while breaking agreements with others that have stopped developing them?
-Finally, the deal was not just a bilateral agreement between the US and Iran, but involves several European countries which have shown their resolve to respect it. What is the prize for exiting the agreement without negotiating a common strategy with them?
Got extra space to say I enjoy your column, even when I disagree with it, and your conversations with Gail Collins. Thanks!
-
4
Can we switch the debate for a few minutes? Shouldn’t the goal of the international community be a 100% denuclearization of the Middle East? And therefore shouldn’t Israel be sanctioned until it gives up its arsenal of nukes - or given the opportunity to sign an agreement similar to the one Iran signed? Put another way, why the double standard? I’f Israel can have them why not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al? Is Bret Stephens up to tackling that variation on the theme?
8
“Yes, Iran is permanently enjoined from building a nuclear weapon, even after the limitations on uranium enrichment expire. But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?”
Ideological illogic. Iran is admittedly enjoined from building a nuclear weapon. We must jettison that because we think Iran will build a weapon in the future even tho theyll have little uranium or plutonium because of the agreement. Israel is not our primary interest in the ME. Kushner and Stephens wish it were. Their logic starts from that.
6
I suspect that:
> Israel has also lied about their nuclear bomb program.
> Pres Trump has also lied from time-to-time.
> Companies have also lied in their advertisements.
So what's the big deal....?
Formal contracts and treaties exist to cut through the lies and clearly state conditions on each party. Since there is no evidence that Iran has not upheld its end of the agreement, the US should hold its end of the deal. Otherwise, the US is again demonstrating it is a rogue nation.
8
" ... combined with a credible threat of military force should follow."
Bret, I'll meet you at the Marine recruiting station.
12
IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and that they had access to all sites and locations which they needed to visit. He further stated that " “Our inspection work has doubled since 2013. IAEA inspectors now spend 3,000 calendar days per year on the ground in Iran,” he said. “We have installed some 2,000 tamper-proof seals on nuclear material and equipment. We collect and analyse hundreds of thousands of images captured daily by our sophisticated surveillance cameras in Iran — about half of the total number of such images that we collect throughout the world.”
Stephen's column is reminiscent of the column he wrote in 2013 in which he defended the Bush's invasion of Iraq by claiming that there was highly detailed evidence of WMD's which supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He completely ignore a 2008 intelligence report that stated that there was no evidence to support this claim.
Stephens is going the same thing in this column. One only has to go to the IAEA site to find out the real story. Remember Stephen was Stephens, who previously served as editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post from 2002 to 2004 (where he anointed Paul Wolfowitz “Man of the (Jewish) Year”), is essentially a neo- con
7
Mr. Stephens has not shown sufficient reasons to abandon the Iran deal. Apparently he and Netanyahu want America to fight another war for Israel just like we did in Iraq.
8
Not surprisingly, Bret Stephens is a Netanyahu clone which means that, like Netanyahu, he is willing to fight Iran right up to and including the last American soldier. They both believe that the only correct American policy is one that seeks to further Israel's narrow self-interests above all else.
7
you want to scrap the old deal instead of enforcing the present deal. Why not use the present deal to make Iran comply first. Put the pressure in them to comply before we scrap what has kept them from "racing toward a bomb instead of ambling" as you put it
Yet another attempt by the pro-Israel lobby to set the stage for military intervention. War is big business and the profits are enormous with the added benefit of war news deflecting attention away from troubled leaders. But Bret Stephens propaganda piece simply has a hollow ring to it. Diplomatic solutions are never perfect but the alternatives are often war.
8
Bret Stephens previously served as editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post from 2002 to 2004 where he anointed Paul Wolfowitz “Man of the (Jewish) Year". Kind of puts his view in better perspective.
3
Oh hey, it’s Stephens pushing Israeli interests on the pages of the Times again. As sure as the sun rises...
Here’s what’s so about the present situation:
Iran is not presently developing nuclear weapons. Period. The deal in place ensures that.
That’s it. As of now, the deal is working.
Tearing up such a deal would be rightly constituted as a hostility by the United States. The only credible deterrent against a state that has proven willing to invade and bomb countries time and again is a nuclear stockpile. Especially when that state’s national security advisor supports regime change in Iran.
Tearing up the agreement would put us closer to war, which is what the Israelis - also supporters of regime change - want. And thus what Stephens want.
If you’re calling out for war, you should come out and say so.
7
Hey Bret,
Many Iranians regard Mohammed Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history. Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of MI6, which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh, and thus started the slide toward Iran's current theocracy.
The US has never told the truth about their involvement in this crime. The US has lied for 75 years. Since you are claiming that the Iranian government can't be trusted for their lies in 2003, how far back do you want to go in the lies and trust department?
5
Why are we negotiating with the DPRK, yet neocons like Bret call for abandoning the pact with Iran, inflicting punitive sanctions, and threatening military action? If we let the likes of Bibi Netanyahu pull the wool over our eyes in a diversion, we may not like the result.
The Iranian mullahs and ayatollahs are sitting on a powder keg of dissatisfied youth who have never known anything other than a corrupt theocracy with a morality police. Unilaterally ending the deal without EU cooperation will only strengthen the grip of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard, while simultaneously weakening the hand of Rouhani and other Iranian "moderates".
We should have learned the lessons of a futile embargo of Cuba. Instead of attempting isolation, we should bring such nations into our orbit. By flooding Iran with tourists, economic/business consultants and agricultural advisers, we may find the younger Iranians asking their religious rulers and President, "Why don't we have those things?", or "Why can't we travel freely as they do?"
As Churchill said, "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."
3
Bret Stephens used to be editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post. The origin of his warmongering instincts is clear...
6
Mueller posits questions and Trump answers iran, Iran, IRAN.
2
Mr Netanyahu and Mr Trump are born liars. Mr Stephens ignores this inconvenient truth.
Both have been found by their own judicial systems to have been at best borderline with their ethics and their honesty. In Mr Trump's case, his willingness to conspire with an adversary in order to subvert our electoral process is under investigation.
So the issue is who do you believe? Iran and the other signatories or the two most disingenuous con artists ever to lead their respective nations?
Iran almost certainly did not divulge everything when it negotiated the current deal. But it apparently divulged enough to encourage the other countries to pursue it. There is no question that Iran is complying with the terms now.
There is also no question that Iran, like N Korea, like a number of other nations, is capable of developing nuclear weapons and will do so if they believe their national interests mandate it. So did and does Israel.
The real issue that world leaders have to confront is how to ensure the security of their states in the face of remorseless technological advances. Such advances will enable third world actors to inflict first world destruction.
The other real issue is why would any nation today want to conquer and occupy another people? The cost of doing so, both for the initial war and the subsequent occupation only burden the conqueror's people either through taxes or subsequent guerrilla war.
2
I smell another Iraq War cooking. Benjamin Netanyahu deserves a Tony Award for his role as Colin Powell. I'm sure Mr. Stephens will be in the front of the line to sign up, right? We'll need people to be IED fodder so defense contractors can make and sell more equipment.
11
Brett Stephens once again shows his true colors- a militant follower of the blood and soil ultra-nationalism of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky which is alien to America's highest values and traditions. These Neo-Con fanatics are not satisfied with the carnage they caused in the Iraq War of aggression and want to start an even bigger one against Iran on behalf of Netanyahu's militant and racist Likud Bloc. The question is why are they given such a hearing amongst decent American society?
9
Classic war cheerleading, right on cue, performed adequately enough by another spent loser owned by his paycheck.
5
Ha! The country with dozens of nukes is trying to get America into another war with a country that has none....oh, but they once considered developing some. Most people in the world know who the real terrorists are.
6
When will you say: "Thank God for Trump"?
2
Never.
Read this “Outside the elite, fewer and fewer people in Israel speak English, so the notion of a country’s leader supposedly addressing his compatriots in a foreign language on a matter of national security added to the weirdness of the performance.”
4
Bret Stephens lacks any credibility when it comes to writing about the Middle East. Citing an "expert" from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies - a well-known Israeli-proxy organization- further weakens his case. Mr. Stephens is little more than a shill for the government of Israel; this is a reality that the NYT should consider as it continues to publish his columns. As for the substance of his argument, Netanyahu's presentation of the other night is nothing more than the usual theatrical dog and pony show the Israeli PM is famous for doing. Netanyahu is even less credible than Stephens; to quote former French President Sarkozy, speaking to President Obama, "I don't trust Netanyahu. He lies." Israel has wanted the US to destroy Iran for the past few decades, so that Israel can maintain its strategic nuclear advantage and not have to curtail its ability to use violence to protect its position - in particular, its desire to hold onto occupied Palestine, without any need to reach a political settlement that would require it to obey international law. A strong Iran, especially one with the technical capability to make a nuclear bomb, is a danger to this goal. President Obama was correct: diplomacy and bringing Iran into the international community is the best way to deal with it. Perpetual conflict is not. Israel and Saudi Arabia need the US to be always in conflict with Iran. They will do everything to sabotage any change in the status quo.
8
Rather than lobbying for Netanyahu in the pages of the NYT, why not mention North Korea? How can anyone expect Kim to believe in any agreement with DJT if DJT feels he can walk away from any agreement?
5
A clue to this article's validity is the repeated use of the word "lie".
Netanyahu has never been a truthful man, and the little donald in his younger days has been convicted of fraud.
Those who talk war, are always the biggest cowards in their own hearts.
Show us the proof, we are tired of accusations of lies.
6
Netanyahu is the recognized world class liar. He lost credibility long ago.
2
Stephens is carrying the water for his hard right friends currently in control in Israel. Perhaps they are only slightly more acceptable in his social circles than the current hard right "dumpster fire" calling the shots in our country.
Right wing leaders in Israel want a war with Iran and they are doing everything they can to get it. I suspect they think they can use the threat to cont. to hold power for their fundamentalist religious voters.
Make no mistake though, they don't expect to fight that war themselves. Oh no, they fully expect the United States to be their proxy army and this incompetent administration is going right along for their own sad reasons. And don't even think about stopping the billions in foreign aid we shovel at Israel when the shooting starts.
5
This attitude is utter folly.
Has Iran violated the agreement?
No.
There is no excuse for the US to violate the agreement, and even Netanyahu knows it. If he can egg Trump on into violating it, he gets the US to play his game for his ends, while the US, not he, pays the price.
Folly.
6
The same people who brought you the Iraq war are now beating the drums for the Iran war.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
6
Stephans convinces me that Israel is a dangerous threat to our national security. If he wants war, let him have it. Israel is free to defend itself. The USA must have no part of this insanity.
8
This is just part of the PR buildup to fan the flames of war.
Bret, just stick to facts here, please.... leave the spin to others.
5
This column is disgraceful. It’s precisely the sort of bad-faith logic chopping that characterized the case for the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003, including versions of that case made in the editorial pages of the New York Times. Stephens blusters about Iran’s lack of transparency, as “proved” by Netanyahu’s show the other day (shades of Colin Powell before the U.N.), obscuring the fact that this lack of transparency occurred years ago, and that now in fact, thanks to the Obama deal, Iran is “of course” complying with the deal’s transparency demands. In short, Iran was progressing towards a nuclear weapon, and lying to the world about it, until the Obama administration negotiated the deal that Stephens is now dishonestly mischaracterizing and maligning.
The worst thing about his position is the answer to the question: what would you prefer to see happen? He tries to fudge by calling for sanctions, backed up by military threats, but that’s essentially the status quo ante the deal.
The awful truth is that Stephens, like David Brooks and Thomas Friedman and Bill Keller in 2002 and 2003, is giving aid and comfort to the John Boltons and Bibi Netanyahus of the world who want a war with Iran. We’ve been down this road. It’s a disgrace to see the Times going down it again.
7
The UN / IAEA says Iran is conforming. The EU says Iran is conforming. Israel's professional intelligence agencies agree not only that it is, but also that we're all better off when Iran is subject to the deal and the embedded supervision.
Who doesn't like it? The hacks (Trump, Netanyahoo, and their mouthpieces) who must have a target to demonize, since they have nothing positive/constructive to offer to the world.
Israel has suffered for too long in the hands of Bibi, and the US is suffering under Trump. How long will we let then take us all down?
4
Netanyahu says Iran lies.
... Iran lied!
We all saw: Netanyahu lies. Still lies. Lies now.
And we all know: Trump lies all the time.
And poor Bret Stephens can't tell the difference.
He'd be better off back at the WSJ. So would we.
4
parrots the Israeli politian excuse to make a pre-emptive
strike upon Iran.
The allegations that Stephen’s promotes are old news and don’t have anything to do with Iranian compliance to the present accord.
A
5
Bret Stephens is good at criticizing.
What is his solution?
Maybe Netanyahu / Israel should attack Iran?
Let them defend themselves.
And maybe we should stop giving money to Israel.
4
Iran lies. Trump lies. They all lie. There are no repercussions for their lying. We need to fix this.
I can only imagine what the majority of these readers would have said about the Munich Pact had just one country challenged the veracity of Hitler's pledge.
Iran has the nuclear playbook and the capacity to make nuclear bombs which it will do soon or later (after the sunset). What it is working on (unfettered) is its missile delivery capability.
The US and its allies cannot sit idly by while Iran does that or expands its own caliphate across the Mid-East. The lesson of Munich should not be forgotten.
Bret, that sound is your Editorial Board calling. You might want to take that.
Meanwhile, can you please explain WHY the Obama Administration would want to knowingly provide cover for an Iranian nuclear bomb program and lie about it?
Apparently, Bibi's large font, many pictures presentation meant for the entertainment of Trump snared you as well.
3
When right-wing extremists want a war to prove their manhood...when right-wing extremists want us to think they have our best interests in mind...when right-wing extremists pretend that only their designated enemies lie and obfuscate...when right-wing extremists claim war is preferable to negotiated agreements...when right-wing extremists use Orwellian language and Queen of Hearts reasoning to stoke fear and emotion...
...hold on to your wallets and hide your military-age kids -- both are in grave danger.
2
WOW. Brett is not on point here...
1
Precisely.
1
Taking his cue from Trump, Netanyahu is trying to stir things up and deflect attention from his own problems.
2
If the Iran Deal is a lie, then this "opinion' is a joke. Does the NYT permit him to serve as Netanyahu's lackey so as to provide the readers with this gobbledygook explanation of some more fake news?
The obsession of the Divided Staes and Israel with Iran is truly pathetic. The two biggest terrorist states on the planet continue to bully any and every legitimate government and are so untrustworthy in their own right as to make Netanyahu's ( and water boy, Stephen"s) accusations read like the drumbeat for another phony war based on a REAL lie.
Personally, I'm much more fearful of what the Divided Staes and Israel will do around the globe than I am of Iran and North Korea put together.
Usually, Stephens' articles have a ring of objectivity ( at least for a republican). But here he reads like the typical Trumpite pandering for support of yet Another illegal war of aggression by the Divided Staes.
Iran is indeed upholding their end of the "deal" according to intelligence agencies. And yes, I trust Them more than I trust Netanyahu, or Trump, or Stephens.
4
Based on the wild contradictions within this op-ed, one could very easily write a column titled, "Bret Stephens is A Liar," and one wouldn't be wrong.
3
"Yet it’s difficult to imagine that the I.A.E.A. can now square Iran’s 2015 declaration with what the Israelis have uncovered."
It's difficult to imagine? You conclude from the fact that this is difficult for you to imagine this, that Iran *has in fact* abrogated its treaty, and you recommend a course of action that could lead to war? Shame on you, and shame on anyone who believes you.
4
Finally, someone at the NYT writing about the way it really is, so to speak. Obama got us into a horrible agreement, with no "upside" for America or Israel.
He was the first US president to abstain, when the UN censured Israel. He bowed to the Saudi's. He showed weakness, at all times, when strength was needed.
Let us talk reality. Obama was no friend of Israel. He did everything in his power to weaken the only democracy in the Middle East, and a staunch ally. The Iran deal at the top of the list. The red line in the sand, etc.
As he said, he had a phone and a pen. Why listen to Congress or the American people.
He was a better orator than Trump. However, the worst foreign policy in decades. He gave Iran $billions, so that they could vehemently attack America and its allies.
How many really believe they will not restart their nuclear weapons program? If so, what planet are you on?
bsb writes. "Obama was no friend of Israel." Of course he was a friend of Israel, but unlike bsb he was a bigger friend of the USA. The US is far safer because of the Iran deal and if Israel, from the beginning, had respected international law and the humanity of the Palestinians, it would be safer today as well.
2
Bret, you were doing so well. And by that, I mean speaking rationally. This entire show by Netanyahu was completely organized in collusion with Pompeo. It's the " yellow cake ", for the upcoming military action in IRAN. Coming to a planet near you, before the Midterms. Nothing like a WAR to rouse the base, and stifle dissent, and delay legal proceedings.
Seriously.
3
How do you know that Iran is any more duplicitous than Netanyahu? You don't.
3
While we are talking about sins of the past.
What about the 1953 CIA and British instigated coup that ousted Mohammad Mosaddeq elected Prime Minister in 1951.
Mosaddeq wanted to nationalize the BP oil fields in Iran.
The Shah took over and Mosaddeq was put under house arrest until he died in 1967.
Ask any Iranian about this story, they all know it. Almost no Americans know it.
The Shah came back to power and it left Iranians angry at the US and UK for years and part of the history that led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that gave Iran the Ayatollah.
https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-documents-reveal-c...
Google 1953 Iranian Coup and a lot of articles will come up.
2
Stephens adds desperately needed thought provoking Opinions to the Times which is swamped by other Opinions that are repetitively mind numbing in their liberal political bias.
His Opinions are well reasoned and factual without partisan bombast.
Bombing Teheran to enable the Saudis and Israel to win the battle for dominance in the Middle East. Just to be clear what this is really all about.
2
Sadly, no...http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/01/netanyahus-informercial-for-the-iran...
1
Pundits opposed to the Iran Deal are putting "Israel First," plain and simple.
This is outrageous. Do we want to maintain good relations with the billion-plus people in Russia and China and the 500 million people in the European Union? Or do we prioritize 8.5 million people in a tiny apartheid state?
I think I know the answer.
2
Just disclosed documents from an unlocked “storage” facility - in Iran. Just like “proof” of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Can I sell you a bridge?
2
It seems Mr. Stephens is still writing for the Jerusalem Post.
6
Bret Stephens now on Netanyahu's Niveau yelling for war. What is the editorial board saying to this development?
3
The board has written an editorial titled "Netanyahu's Flimflam on Iran. Look for it.
So what if it is? Israel has nukes and can defend itself.
When are we going to demand the same nuclear constraints
on Israel that we demand on the rest of the World.Sadly it was American Jewish spies that provided Israel with the essential info to build the weapons.Even today Israel refuses to join the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty or even admits they have the nuclear arms.The overwhelming influence that
Israel exerts on Our Government has got to begin to subside.
One factor that should be stopped is allowing dual citizenship for people over 21 years old.
3
Hurry Bret and enlist and fight Trump's war. Do you still have appetite for another endless war?
3
oh, and did the USA really uphold with their side of the bargain? however, I hate both Iran and USA government, but look what you are doing in the Middle East and look what the consequences of your hawking article would be, look what you have done in Iraq, and have you found any so-called "weapon of mass destruction" in Iraq? and look what you have done to this poor country? murder, and murder. had you just left the Middle East alone we wouldn't have had these much problems. and Iran is still suffereing from stupid meddling into our affaits before the 1979 revolution which had created a tyranny that reselted in a radical and religious revolution so just mind your own bussiness for a while please, and don't you think that Trump and his hawking fear-mongering propaganda is more pwoerful than Barack Obama blessings, he was certainlly more powerful than Trump in international affairs and he had a profound impact on Iranian youth, the only thing that Trump has done so far is to invoke the nationalistic sentiments of Iranians, and giving the pretext to the government of Iran in order to mobilize Iran's population, educate yourself with Middle East issues please
Yes, by all means, lets bomb or invade Iran when we are military is way overstretched as it is AND our treasury is being drained by an alarming rate by idiotic tax cuts and these wars. Are you insane or are you suggesting a draft reinstatement AND tax hikes. You really think thats going to happen?
2
I'd like to thank Bret Stephens for being the only columnist who is not drinking the Iranian Kool-Aid. Obama just wanted to get rid of Iran so he agreed to give the Iranians whatever they wanted. The treaty merely postponed the inevitable -- Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons and a worthless piece of paper isn't going stop that.
Why would anyone believe Mr. Stephens, a conservative scribe formerly of the WSJ, who is an outspoken climate change denier, when it comes to the Iran accord?
Is he applying for a job at the E.P.A. in case the corrupt Pruitt is fired by the corrupt dear Leader?
3
"But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?"
Funny, Mr. Stephens, how you employ such incredible intellectual dishonesty as the basis of your argument here. Assuming every single point you make about the 'two lies' are correct, this does _nothing_, _zero_ to buttress your argument here. The 'lies' you so adoringly cite from PM (soon to be convict) Netanyahu pre-date the agreement. As you reluctantly point out in a brief respite of truth, Iran is currently in - and has been - compliant with the agreement.
Stop drumming for war. Remember when your conservatives went and joined in on Cheney's false pretext for blowing up the Gulf in Iraq?
Shame on you for shilling for such intellectually dishonest war promotion; shame on you for perpetuating the continuing misinformation of the public, promoting senseless, useless and costly US military intervention, and sitting back hoping your encouragement will tip us back into the cesspool of global war.
Your climate change "skepticism" is cynical and craven; your promotion of a false, globally partisan piece of propaganda is tasteless.
2
BiBi told us that Iran would have a nuke in months back in 2013. JPCOA increases that timeline to 7-12 years. Thanks Obama.
3
Mr. Stephens, I have read your Op-Eds and criticized them fiercely over the past months. None is worse than this one, which is nothing more than an echo chamber for the voice of a hilariously theatrical Netanyahu, someone claiming, continuously over the past 25 years, that "Iran is less than a year away from possessing a nuclear weapon."
1. Iran's past nuclear programme was settled in the JCPOA accord. It was mutually agreed by all signatories to omit Iran's past nuclear activities and to direct the spirit of the accord towards the future. The U.S. broke that spirit by maintaining sanctions, especially banking sanctions, despite Iran's full compliance with the accord.
2. Iran's missile programme was legally limited to those incapable of carrying nuclear warheads. No breach of this condition has been evidenced.
3. Netanyahu's revelations are 'old news' and carefully timed to maintain pressure for a U.S. withdrawal from the accord on or before May 12th.
Netanyahu's performance is typical of the theatre accompanying the ludicrously false claims of Iraqi 'anthrax' and WMD programmes that conveniently provided the false pretexts for the barbaric invasion of Iraq, cheered on by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Will you be cheering when more Neocon-Zionist lies cause bombs to rain down on Israeli cities?
Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Isn't a "Grand Bargain" between the U.S. and Iran long overdue?
3
Nice,
Did Israeli and US arms producers write this for you? Because, actually, the Iran deal (not the Iran Contra Deal of the Reagan admin but the real deal from Obama).....was a good deal for two sovereign nations. Remember, just like the USA, Iran has the right to create whatever weapon it wants. It is not the case that just because Israel does not like Shiite Iran that the USA can dictate what arms it can build. What fantasy land are you guys living in?
Yet another commercial message from the state of Israel from its paid spokesman Bret Stephens
1
You didn't give any real arguments nor alternatives going forward (fear of a strong America? Stupid) other than an implied war to help Netanyahu and Trump push their domestic problems aside.
If you are going to complain nonsensically please provide a worthy alternative to continuing/increasing inspections.
Bret -
I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with you on Iran, but I’m proud of you for sticking to your beliefs and principles in the face of certain widespread criticism.
I do wish however that Netanyahu would do a dog and pony show (exhibits, maps and all) on his plan for a two state solution, and explain why it’s reasonable, even if it’s not the one ultimately agreed upon.
How about starting that conversation?
1
This account of the Iran deal is 100% accurate.
Mr. Stephens is my favorite NYT writer.
1
No, Bret, it's really about Israel and its BIG LIE! While madman Benjamin Netanyahu (in competition with Donald Trump) trots out with ridiculous bombosity information long known prior to Iran's agreement and internationally verified cessation of its nuke program, Israel maintains its nuclear arsenal of upwards of 300 warheads amassed over the past 30 years. The whole world has long known this, but Israel continues its refusal to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran, however, is a signatory. Yet again, Israel displays the quintessential in hypocrisy!
5
The US waged an unjust war against Iraq and its military and contractors committed several war crimes (like the Haditha massacre). The US has no credibility here. Iran is right to defend itself. Don't forget also that the US shot down an Iranian passenger jet. Is it any mystery why they are weary of the US?
3
This column is a lie. It lies about the Iran deal. (Read: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-letter....
Bret Stephens has an agenda. The “bomb Iran” cabal is wed to Sunni dominance, and it fulcrum is Saudi Arabia and is so allied that America consistently calls Iran the Terrorist State, whereas Al Qaeda, Boka Haram, and ISIS originate in Saudi Arabian Wahhabism/Salafism. Our Defense and Banking industries are entwined with Saudis and they use our weapons and money to wage war on Shiites. The Saudis may not have a bomb but their client state Pakistan does and it’s “ally” Israel does and America does.
Bret and his anti Iran cabal are pushing Iran into the arms of Putin and Russia and Putin celebrates! Do Netanyahu, and Trump, and Stephens and Bolton imagine that Iran will not turn to Russia? They fight side by side in Syria against ISIS.
3
Like Korea, it is probably best to leave Iran to the Iranians. We need to honor the deal. Mr. Stephens has been peaking at Fox News again.
6
I'll just point out that at this point no one has died because of Iran's nuclear program (except those bombed by the Israelis). And that right now Iran wasn't trying to make any nuclear weapons. Where's the breach?
And are we supposed to trust the Mossad and the US government (under Trump, Pompeo and Bolton) the documents they STOLE from the nation of Iran are authentic? Really, can we rely on stolen documents in a court room--not so much?
The pliable brain and ego of Trump is getting reshaped once again by the bellicose Israelis who never ever seriously negotiate for peace--because they would have to compromise and become a nation among nations, and nothing special at that.
I'll just reiterate: no one has ever died becasue of the Iranian nuclear program, and that program is non-existent. There is no there there.
Israel is begin strategic because Iran is their only nearby military threat. But their arrogance is astounding in that they think they can manipulate our nation to fight their dirty little war. Why don't the Israelis try peace for a change? they would have the support of the world, if they did, and not just Jared Kushner.
5
Brett, what you offer as an alternative the the nuclear agreement is a big, fat nothing. "Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force" won't work. Iran is a big and proud country, with a long history and rich culture, and it also is currently ruled by religious extremists, so if you think Iran is going to bow down in the face of economic sanctions and the threat of military action, you are totally wrong. It's just not going to work.
5
Excellent strategy by your bosses and you.
Keep roping in the real News readers with these headlines.
1
Netanyahu deals with truths and facts as carefully as Trump. He is itching to be unleashed to bomb Iran. This would make Bush's bumbling into Iraq look like a garden party.
5
In 2002, following the 9/11 horror and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan (a war that could have and should have been won if not for...) the Bush administration pushed the nation to break off the Afghan effort to, instead, invade Iraq. EVERYTHING they told us about Iraq, about their "participation" in terrorism, about their having WMDs, even about them being on the brink of having a nuclear weapon, was, called out as a lie then, and later proven to TOTALLY be nothing but lies. 250,000 "weapons inspectors" (ie, NATO troops) never found a WMD more deadly than swimming-pool chlorine.
Yet Benjamin Netanyahu, and Avigdor Lieberman, both extremist right-wing pols who have undermined much is Israel's democracy, the latter being a criminal thug from Russia, have "proof" that only they (and, I guess Alex Jones) know, that Iran is lying. SOMEHOW, they have info that's better than anyone else in the Mid-East, or the West (except Alex Jones, or course--sarcasm intended), that just so happens to show up less than 2 weeks before our short-sighted, shallow, uninformed, egotistical and capricious "leader" has to make the decision that will either maintain a modicum of peace in the region, or cause it to explode. Biib was APOPLECTIC when the deal was signed!
And Mr. Stephens doesn't smell the rat in this? As Dubya himself put it "Fool me once, won't get fooled again!"
It's so blatantly garbage and a set-up that only the Trumpists and John Bolton chicken-hawks will fall for it.
4
You get to make only so many investment mistakes in life. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us 6 to 7 trillion. The US economy has been hollowed out. War with Iran....a much larger and far more unified state with masses of young testosterone fueled men with poor future life prospects (an ideal military) may be won with nukes but may need boots on the ground. We have a young male population that is overfed, undereducated and entitled (why do employers favor illegals?). Are we prepared to institute a draft? Are we prepared to sacrifice another 7 trillion? Are we prepared to move the US rapidly into a much lower standard of living and economic development? Notice how easily economic decline can be manipulated by despots....exhibit 1 is ? A war with Iran which would certainly encompass all of the mideast might end up destroying the republic by it's secondary effects.....if Iraq, Afg, Syria, Africa have not done so already.
3
So awful, this deal with Iran. Why, they might have nuclear weapons in ten years! Of course without it, they might have had a nuke by *now*. Surely better than any of that would be to start the biggest war since we bombed Nagasaki, and right this minute!
It looks like Bret Stephens just doesn't have enough excitement in his life. He should consider skydiving instead of blowing up civilization - fewer lives threatened.
4
So I guess the other signatories of the JOINT Comprehensive Plan Of Action are all uninvolved?
How do we know they are complying to the terms of the deal unless we can verify? Everyone with a stake in this says they’re complying. So we’re the ONLY ones that can see through their clever ruse?
This is either lazy, or alarmist, or you’re just trying to fulfill your role in the Op-ed pages as “the other side” I guess? No matter what this is lazy writing at best. We need to stay engaged with Iran. It’s our best chance at de-escalation of tensions in the region. You should know that.
3
Is it relevant to point out that nations arm themselves against nations that arm themselves? i.e., that Iran's nuclear aspirations are the flip side of Israel's already existing nuclear arsenal? and that correspondingly Iran's lies are the mirror image of Israel's lies? Politics is the most dismal of the dismal sciences. It would be good if the know-it-all arrogance of our pundits could be curbed in acknowledgement of at least that fact. The sharp clarity of us versus them fades once one realizes how stupidly human both sides always tend to be.
1
People were saying that Netanyahu’s ridiculous dog-and-pony presentation was intended only for Trump. But I guess he got a two-for-one, since Bret Stephens has also bought into it.
5
The best piece on this topic is Jeremy Bernstein, "If Trump Blows Up the Deal, Iran Gets the Bomb," which was published on April 5 in NYR Daily. Here's the link: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/05/if-trump-blows-up-the-deal-iran-...
1
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for again repeating the Israeli line. As Hayden and other intelligence officials, both American and Israeli, have said repeatedly, Iran is not in violation of JCPOA. The US has been in violation from the beginning (by not loosening banking restrictions).
Netanyahu peddled old stuff, nothing new and nothing relevant. It's like the "neutron trigger" memo he peddled to the Times of London in 2009. I read it. Most claim it is an amateurish fake. Sounds to me like it was written by a political science major.
Netanyahu's 25-year-long goal has been promoting war against Iran. Every 6 months Iran is 6 months away from bombing Tel Aviv.
We Americans are being tricked and pushed into another losing war, another several trillion dollar failure. When we lose this next war, I hope most Americans will call for sanctioning Israel.
4
It is impressive how the corruption-scandal-ridden Bibi pulls an obvious stunt and the neocons in the US immediately write op-eds trying to legitimize it. These warmongers never learn.
2
Bret, I have news! Everything is a lie.
And everyone is a liar.
Everyone lies.
If anything epitomizes Trumpdom, or “The Age of The Donald” (aka “The Covfefe Era”), it’s the death of a widely held logical illusion that we still call ‘objective truth’ for some reason.
Force of habit, I guess. Or emotional need.
Who could possibly illustrate that better than Sean Hannity? Or Kevin Nunez? Or Jim Jordan? Or Dana Rohrabacher (Putin’s servant)? Or Mark Meadows, Chairman of the Freedom Caucus? “Freedom Caucus”? Might as well be called the “Liars’ Caucus”, because that's what it is, and what it does.
2
this is no better option. try as you might most people in the USA do not want to fight Iran on behalf of Israel.
1
if the UK, Germany and France know it’s a shell game, why don’t they call it out?
This is why you don't give supporters of the Iraq War a platform! They never learn.
3
And we are to believe what overtly biased Stephens says? Couldn’t be further away from impartial journalism, this is just a pure replay of Iraq’s wmd lies and only fools would fall for it but, alas, there are too many of them out there.
2
Shall we soon fibd that Mr. Stephens is on the payroll of Israel's extremist right wing? Would that br any surprise at all?
It's a good thing the US never lies. It's a good thing the US never obfuscates. Itxs a good thong the US nevet acts in it's own interests. Otherwise Mr. Stephens would threaten us, the pariah those offenses would make us and and untrustworthy as those sins would prove we are, with "military options" and cripling sanctions.
When extreme right wingers unite to bully and threaten, prepare for new and ever-more-ruinous and deadly catastrophes.
4
Mr Stephens, Please do not involve US in your wars against Iran. US has had enough involvement in the Middle East.
8
If Trump tears up the Iran deal for whatever reason (hatred of Obama? Trump's innate narcissism informing him that he must start everything from scratch, his way?) it could present terminally deleterious repercussions for any deal with North Korea; if Trump is working to instigate a war with Iran to deflect attention from his personal tribulations, that would simply be an international tragedy.
4
Mr. Stephens, you really should stop calling them Netanyahu’s "revelations:" they're really just regurgitations. The Iranians didn't have a clue as to the presence of Mossad operatives, nor did they bother to LOCK the document-storage facilities? Please.
The charade (in English) was reminiscent of Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Halliburton, the U.S. industrial-military complex, and the construction companies of Trump world are licking their chops. Step one in justifying a war with Iran is complete. Stay tuned.
7
This column is warmongering nonsense. Mr. Stephens wants the U.S. military to attack Iran on behalf of Israel.
Yes, countries do lie. The Bush Administration lied to the world about Iraq. Benjamin Netanyahu lies to the world very frequently, often about Iran. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin lie to the world every day about everything.
Stop fomenting war Mr. Stephens. If you want to participate in a war, join the IDF.
10
amble toward a bomb - what is that? what type of technical term?
3
I find it impossible to believe that Bret as a conservative has any concept of what a word "lie" means.
7
It's a two for one deal: I subscribe to the New York Times, and I get the editorial page from the Jerusalem Post. If you want to fight and die for Israel, Mr. Stephens, that's your choice. But I see you dragging the US into another middle eastern war, and I don't like it. Iran is Israel's problem, not ours.
9
Donald & Bibi clearly know the people comprising their political bases and don't think much of their intelligence. Otherwise, why build a silly dog & pony show around information which Iran was not hiding, guarding or otherwise protecting for the simple reason that everyone who matters has had it for a decade or longer.
4
David Albright unblemished (by facts and integrity) record on all things WMD (with special emphasis on Middle Eastern nuclear issues) makes quoting him on the Iranian alleged nuclear subterfuge akin to quoting Mr. Bannon on the cons and pros of non-white immigration to the U.S.
As for Mr. Stephens lamenting the Iranian lie of not keeping its alleged commitment to the I.E.A.E. to reveal “the full extent of its past nuclear work”, the “work” that was so farcically revealed by Netanyahu was mostly known and published publically and, anyhow, the Mossad’s ring-binders haul doesn’t amount to much more than can be found easily on the net (and youth encyclopedias) and has not exposed even one evidence of actual nuclear bomb manufacturing activity.
And as to the “essential…test of Teheran sincerity”, the place to look for it is Iran’s full compliance, certified by the I.E.A.E., including shipping 97% of its enriched uranium and dismantling the core of its Arak reactor. Moreover, if Teheran would’ve fully revealed its pre-2003 rudimentary nuclear planning, rests assure that the Republicans and Netanyahu would’ve used it to irreversibly block the road to the agreement (a humanity-endangering move they’re about to complete now).
And for moral-historical perspective one may refer to the U.S., and the other formally recognized nuclear powers, commitment within the NPT to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
8
Bret, you've come so far in the past 2 years. Your view regarding Iran is troubling, and I fear that like those neo-cons of W's, you'll be apologizing for your opinion in a couple of years, contrite after a few hundred thousand people have been killed.
Netanyahu's news is old news. Netanyahu was against the treaty from the beginning (as were the Saudis but for very different, partisan reasons of course). Netanyahu's information was baked into the Iran deal but he, having found his pliable president, sees a path to the war he wants us to have.
You should never act in war according to the designs of your enemy, you must also never act according to the self-serving machinations of your friends and allies, and you certainly must never go to war if you're being led by a dimwitted president and a known hawk who has been looking for war with Iran for years.
You'll regret supporting the position of the Iran war mongers, but the price will be more awful than simply feeling bad about it. People will die.
6
As usual Bret Stephens promotes Israeli views and propaganda and actually seems to expect that readers either won’t see through this agenda or else will automatically support it. He’s wrong on both counts.
Americans are tired of wars for Israel and the lies and lame arguments used to promote these wars. Read the comments here!
Israel wants the US to spend American blood and treasure on defeating Israel’s enemy Iran. Yesterday Netanyahu declared to CNN that Israel was not seeking war with Iran. Seriously that is what he said. Of course it is seeking war, with the help of the US and the whole panoply of lobbyists, commentators, “journalists”, “think-tank” experts and politicians in the US who carry water for Israel.
The US’s unilateral and legally groundless breaking of the Iran deal followed by reinstatement of harsh economic sanctions intended to cripple Iran only makes war more likely.
Nothing in the material being promoted by Netanyahu and Stephens justifies another war.
Who benefits?
May 2 2018 4:36am EDT
5
Simple proposition here. Do you believe Team Obama, as supported by the IAEA, or Team Trump (featuring Bibi and John Bolton)? Give e a break.
6
Let's just kill the whole deal. Then Iranian leaders can say it's proof that America is the Great Satan out to destroy their country and build whatever weapons it wants.
Of course then the US can start bombing another country illegally, which is exactly what Trump, Bibi, and every Republican politician who finds themselves in dire political straits (blue wave coming) wants.
5
So Mr. Stephens, Is Israel a trusted State? Have they abided by their past statements? Is their leadership above reproach? Did they develop/acquire nuclear weapons and /or agree to disarm in the future? Who can say they are an honest, trustworthy arbiter of human goodness ? I am sorry this is an old story and you tell one side, aren't you a journalist?
The Iranians are full of hypocrisy , they are untrustworthy, they are repressive, ill-advised, dishonest and list goes on and on.
Wait a minute, what can we say about Republicans, Fox News, The Trump regime, The Tea Party, The Clintons etc.
Whoops-
5
This is war mongering. Netanyahu's information was from before the deal. Trump's people released a statement with the wrong tense and then claimed it was a typo.
No violations of the Iran deal have been found, and a robust system of checks was set up. Trump has lied more than 3000 times since becoming president as has been documented. His paranoia and projection lead him to call most of his political or legal enemies liars. James Comey is a good example, a man known for his integrity who has never been documented lying.
The Iran deal stopped their weapons development which would immediately begin again if Trump unilaterally reneges on a multinational deal carefully worked out across time.
One of Pres. Obama's advisors on the deal was a top nuclear physicist and former department chair at MIT who was the Secretary of Energy. Trump's Secretary of Energy has a bachelor's degree in agriculture.
Trump should stop breaking treaties, violating international negotiations and war mongering. He never fought. This should stop now. His lies, ignorance, jealousy of Obama, greed and bigotry are behind everything he does.
No more stupid wars.
6
The concern about Iran is hypocritical and “fueled” in part by Israel. In fact, Iran has more to fear from the U.S., (given past history), than we do from Iran. Moreover, Iran is helping the West by aiding Syria fight the ISIS and jihadist rebels. The Saudis have a close relationship with the U.S., but they sponsor more terrorism than the Iranians (last time I checked, 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were Saudi).
Netanyahu’s talk reminded me of Colin Powell’s WMD presentation to Congress—all of it was bull. Yet, he has the ear of Trump.
This is all about getting crude oil prices to rise. Russia wants it, the Saudis want it, US oil companies and fracking companies want it.
Bret, who's kids do you want to send to fight and die for higher oil prices?
2
Netanyahu lies as much as the Iranian government and almost as much as trump. I don't trust Iran but I don't have to. I can and do trust the inspectors. I trust them more than I trust trump to "negotiate" a better deal with lies, bluster and threats.
I can't help but notice that Bret, like many conservatives has a blind spot when it comes to Israel. You have to be for Israel completely and without reservation or you're against Israel. I often wonder what he, and others like him would do if Netanyahu them enemies of Israel? Would they advocate for their own executions? Would the cognitive dissonance simply make their heads explode?
Seriously people, Israel isn't the center of the universe. It's not the only nation worth considering. It's only been around for a little more than half a century and you're putting it's interests above those of the rest of the world? Stop this blind adulation of Israel and help find a way for them to fit in "with" and work "with" The rest of the world before before someone gets tired of their posturing and bluster and takes them down a notch or two.
2
What is a lie is not the Iran Deal. The lying, the deceit, the spin comes from the deliberately close-minded. Let us present this in another way. What if there were no restrictions re nuclear development on this rogue and aggressive nation? And will we better off if by pulling out, this multi-lateral agreement falls apart? Bret Stephens, Trump and his avid followers and Bibi can not and will not control my world. They are both corrupt and thugs and far from capable of telling us what is good or not good for our welfare. The world is already a dangerous place, and that includes this nation of ours under this administration. If anything is to be done with the Iran Deal, improve it rather than bring its destruction. Think beyond your own personal and selfish agenda, please.
1
This column is remarkably thin on both thoughtful ideas and facts. Stephens is normally more interesting.
4
Iran has been duplicitous, is that really a surprise to you? The whole reason for the Iran deal in the first place was that Iran had indeed been developing a nuclear capability. A capability which Israel also has and lies about to this day, talk about hypocrisy. So more sanctions, military threats and finally war. Forgive me if I do not have any confidence in the purity of the motivations of a US president who desperately needs a distraction to save his own hide. Not that much different from Netanyahu who has his own domestic problems. Further, your last war initiative in the Middle East, Iraq, was so poorly executed that you handed Iran a massive opportunity to fill a vacuum which they have done very efficiently. The US's, the GOP's incompetence gifted us ISIS and many other terror group off-shoots. We in Europe have paid a high price for your incompetence and complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation in the Middle East. A situation made worse by the current incompetence of the White House. As and when you start a war please do not expect any support from this European. The US has made it abundantly clear that we are no longer seen as allies and friends, you are no longer honouring your end of the bargain why on earth should we. Finally should we make every effort to improve the deal with Iran, absolutely, I am not naive about their motives or their ethics and we should use every ounce of leverage we have. I just do not think war is a great option.
1
GOP logic “they were closer to getting a nuke than we thought so it’s terrible that they aren’t now”
(Facepalm)
2
Very well orchestrated campaign. Netanyahu gave the marching orders only for his mouth pieces to follow.
It is shameful for Mr. Stephens to call anyone dishonest other than the current occupant of the white house and Mr. Netanyahu, both have a long track record of disregard for the truth, you can add to that all the war crimes committed by the Israeli army under the command of Mr. Netanyahu.
5
Netanyahu wants every Arab state within 2000 miles to be rendered defenseless against Israeli military might.
But he figures he can fool the dumb US to actually do the fighting and losses involved. So Israel risks nothing, and gains everything for free.
And we have just the Dummy to fall for it.
I'm glad the Times publishes Mr. Stephens opinions. It angers me to read them but in the end they make me happy because mostly they're so clueless.
3
Sec Kerry said that if Iran should violate the treaty, “no problem”!! The sanctions would snap back.
Time to snap back.
Israel’s terrific intelligence coup proves the need. And we all owe Israel a debt of gratitude.
I am comforted by the overwhelmingly critical comments of NYT commenters. Their profound, sceptical comments suggest they should be writing the Op-Eds and Mr. Stephens should be reading them.
3
Mr. Varzi, you are often critical of this country, and I have personally taken issue with your stance that we are very far from the egalitarian society we claim to be. As a girl who grew up poor in the fifties yet went on to obtain an Ivy League engineering degree, I dispute your claims. I had opportunities your young girls absolutely did not have in the fifties and sixties. Further, equality between the sexes is still a laughable concept in your society. Sure, young women are attending college now, but there is no real equality.
So, I don’t like your country, but a deal is a deal. I respect Barack Obama. I respect John Kerry. And I respect Dr. Ernest Moniz, the MIT nuclear physicist who was our Secretary of Energy and chief technical negotiator on the nuclear deal. These are intelligent men of integrity; none are fools.
When people deal with each other not necessarily with trust but with intelligence, we can move away from the battleground. We’re not all warmongers here, Mr. Varzi. Maybe, someday, we can come to trust each other. For now, though, there will be no trust, just verification. The way I understand it, Iran is in compliance with the agreement. Until I hear otherwise, that’s how it stands with me, and I’m sure I speak for many Americans.
1
We were lied into a war with Iraq powered in part by NYT columnists and reporters. Bret, do not help Trump, Netanyahu, Bolton and Pompeo lie us into a war with Iran. It will be disastrous for the country and tragic for the members of the military and their families who will bear the brunt of another unnecessary war.
Oh, and remember , if you lie us into war with Iran, the US goes it alone. Britain, France, Germany and others will not support the US effort. And if you expect Israel and Saudi Arabia to offer anything, you are kidding yourself.
2
Wait, we don’t trust the inspectors in Syria because we believe that the Syrian regime ‘cleans up’ before the inspection. However, we are supposed to trust the inspectors in Iran because??? Oh, I see, the Iranians will not ‘clean up’ ahead of or just for the inspection?
1
Well, thanks for showing us all the stupid and incorrectly reasons that DT will abrogate this treaty in mid-May. Evangelicals and right wingers of all stripes must be thrilled in anticipation of the Armageddon this sets up in just exactly the right area for the Second Coming. Our children and our children’s children and those as yet unborn curse us for our selfishness in all things, but cutting off a road to nuclear disarmament takes true genius.
Netanyahu's dog and pony show was meant for only one gullible person, Trump. It was very similar to his lying about Saddam to Congress and Dubya in 2001. Bibi, the neocon that he is wants us to go to war with Iran, plain and simple. Brett is just taking the bait.
3
"Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force..." ?
Wasn't that our position before the agreement?
Neo-cons poo-pooed the sanctions as ineffective then. Is that your position now?
And what do you mean by credible? Are you willing to declare war on Iran to stop them? After the complete mess we made out of Iraq et al ?
Go away and come up with a better solution.
2
Stephens' integrity as a journalist is in question in this article. His two "experts," Albright and Dubowitz have made careers out of distorting facts to attack Iran. They have been doing this for years. A cursory review of their writings will reveal that they are anything but "non-partisan."
A vigorous assessment of Iran's nuclear activities is appropriate, but Stephens has only produced a partisan screed that helps nothing.
3
These are all rehashed old arguments with no teeth.
"That’s the significance of Benjamin Netanyahu’s show and tell on Monday of what appears to be a gigantic cache of pilfered Iranian documents detailing Tehran’s nuclear work."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2015/12/01/an-unsatisfying-outcome...
There is no evidence that Iran has violated current terms of the deal. That is why this is a rehashed old argument since neocons cannot find conclusive evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons program.
The glaring hypocrisy in all of this is Bibi claiming that Iran is lying while Israel has lied and has failed to disclose full information on their nuclear weapons program.
Neocon chickenhawks are simply begging for another war.
2
Netanyahu and Stephens sound a lot like Bush, Cheney and Powell in 2002/2003 pushing the misrepresentations of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction".
The evidence? Looks like it goes back to the years of the "Magnavox Odyssey" or "Ping O Tronic"! As "Fat Man" in NK has found out, the costs of building AND maintaining a nuclear arsenal are just to high.
Iran's support of the Syrian regime is another story and pressure should be applied on that basis and that basis alone.
Old Bennie has his own prosecutorial problems at home and this is just a distraction for him to appeal to his home version of Trumpies.
1
Natanyahu will drag US into another Middle East war to achieve its strategic goal in the region.
Does anyone question Natanyahu’s nuclear arsenal that it denies possessing. Trump should not be fooled by a pile of archived papers that don’t provide any new facts!
Dear comment writers.
The leaders of Iran hate the U.S.
Fully accept that fact as a given before wasting your breath writing about the merits of "the deal".
You might not be so eager to endorse it if you were more realistic.
Dear Pono.
The people of Iram don't hate the U.S.
Fully accept that fact as a given before wasting your breath writing about the merits of war with Iran.
You might not be so eager to endorse it if you were more realistic.
2
Give it up. The Iran deal is doing what it is supposed to do.
The facts of the matter are that Iran is complying with the terms of the agreement and the USA's spokesperson in the form of Donald the Trump is unhinged by Iran's refusal to be the Reality TV villain in his show.
This is absurd and the USA's administration is being shown to be absolutely ignorant and defiantly obtuse.
It would be funny if it weren't planetly threatening.
1
Not surprising that Bret should believe Netanyahu. Two super hawks, super suspicious.
Bush 43 refused to believe the no-nukes inspections of the IAEA in the run-up to Iraq. Now Stevens does the same.
All here is based on what your friends say. So what do you actually know? -- Nothing. Based on the same info., I've seen the opposite conclusion drawn. What do I know? A war with Iran would make all the disasters people like you got us into since 2001 look like a picnic on a fine day. I don't trust those you listen to. They have a bad history and track record. They love the Saudis. I'll take the Iranians over the Saudis any day. 5000 years of culture versus 100 years of oil-filled puritanical plutocracy and state sponsored terrorism. Iran was a democracy until the likes of you overthrew Mossadegh. We are directly responsible for Khomeini as a reaction against the brutal kleptocracy of the Shah, whose secret police was instructed in torture by the Mossad. Who produced bin Laden et al? It was not Iran. It was US and Saudi. Or have you had too much milk of amnesia?
2
The liar is Netanyahu. By all accounts, Iran has honored the deal, and Bret Stephens is engaging in hasbara on behalf of Israel.
Israel (which unlike Iran has nuclear weapons) wants to dominate the region, and its Lobby continues to try and drag in the US to do its dirty work. Not with my taxes, and not with American lives! Enough already.
1
The Israeli Prime Minister was in front of 4-foot tall font: "Iran lied". You said it yourself, Mr Stephens, it was "show and tell".
Gary Samore, Obama's White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, said on Amanpour tonight that Iran not admitting to their pre-deal nuclear program was "a concession" to make the deal.
Mr Stephens offers "Iran didn’t honor its end of the bargain". The OBJECT is the Iran Deal. Americans deserve chapter and verse PROOF from the American intelligence community on those violations.
Americans still have a VERY bad taste in their mouth from the last Republican President and his administration's representations to us. George W's two endless wars can only be graded as FAILURES.
So forgive me, Mr Stephens, if I don't jump to your immediate conclusions. "Yellow cake" on Netanyahu's slide or my President thinking he's John Bolton on Fox New ... is not an A-plus rating.
CHAPTER AND VERSE PROOF from the American intelligence community of violations to the OBJECT in question, Mr Stephens.
1
'A credible threat of military force'
Good luck with that one. Amazed to see this in the New York Times.
No doubt the 'credible threat of military force' will segue into a disaster even larger than the Iraq war.
Way to go America.
1
And we all know how trustworthy Netanhahu's - now under criminal investigation for corruption - words have been, not to mention Isreal's as they shoot unarmed protesters virtually every day. I don't see much in the Times about that by the way. There simply isn't enough evidence in this article for me to believe all the European powers are lying. Kerry's words are clearly taken out of context. This paper is a D-. Please discuss, research and rewrite. Show me some real evidence.
I ask myself "what are the alternatives?"
Netanyahu was most certainly talking directly to Trump. That is certain. The information he presented isn't exactly new news.
So what does Netanyahu want? Chances are to fight a war with Iran and why not? It is not likely that Israel will invade Iran. But Netanyahu would most likely welcome US military forces to go after the Ayatollah. That would be a blood bath and I can't imagine a positive outcome without a great deal of bloodshed.
The alternative is in place right now. Bret Stephens assertions that backing out of the current agreement will be better. But he provides no linear thinking regarding what "better" involves.
Does that include American boots on the ground? An invasion? A full attack on Iran? The death of Iranian citizens let alone American troops?
I get that there will always be a better deal out there somewhere. But old news doesn't make a current deal "bad".
The sad fact is that ever since we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy on Japan, the ability to recreate that type of weapon has only become easier and cheaper resulting in a weapon of significantly greater destructive power.
Slowing down any regime in delivering this level of lethality is not exactly a bad thing. I have hopes that the threat of sanctions continues to deter Tehran and will cause Kim to reverse his program.
1
It is simply to fuel Trump's anti-Iran bias and prepare him to cancel soon the Iran nuclear deal as already hinted by him that Netanyahu is raising the scare of Iran nuclear threat citing old apprehensions and distorting facts.
1
Wars are expensive and obviously destructive to life and property. If Israel wants to try to knock off their neighborhood enemy, then they should be prepared to pay the price.
Iran is not an imminent or existential threat to the US. There is no justification for the US to go to war with Iran.
This is right wing Israel's dream baby and they can do it on their own.
Any nation that thinks Iran is going to be an easy pushover are seriously mistaken. They will retaliate viciously.
3
The GOP are irresponsible and routinely put party over country. No single idea beneficial to the US is coming from the Republicans, ergo - get outta here with this column, Stevens.
1
What I have failed to hear is "what are the alternatives to a deal with Iran and how do we get another deal if we kill this one". For some reason Mr Stephen seems to beleive Mr. Netanyahu even with his old facts and pictures.
The US policy with Iran does not need to be poerfectly aligned with Isreal, There are overlaping goals yes, but I would rather have any agreement in place rather than let Iran do what it wants out in the open.
2
It takes monumental chutzpah and hypocrisy for the Neocons to complain of Iran's "lies" after its own WMD fabrications which led us into the greatest foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States, -and that a mere 15 years ago. Hypocrisy is the last resort for cowards and criminals. The former in fear that they may be compelled to act on accordance with their professed principles, and for the latter in fear that their professed principles will expose their acts. Methinks these neocons are both.
3
Gareth Porter's book, "Manufactured Crisis," is a good antidote to this nonsense.
4
I don't get it in the eyes of Stephens , Trump etc its okay for Israel to have a nuclear arsenal to attack Iran but not for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent to stop them.
Pompeo states , doing Netanyahus bidding that Iran is the worlds biggest State sponser of terrorism.
He irresponsibly overlooks , ISIS and Al Quaeda , Sunni organizations inspired by Wahibism tolerated by Saudi Arabia.
What about Russia in the Ukraine, cyber attacks around the world.
At least Iran helped defeat ISIS in Iraq where was Israel and Saudi Arabia.
All countries lie Mr Stephens remember WMD in Iraq, no justification for isolating 70 million Iranians , let's stick to the hard fought multilateral agreement and bring Iran into the world economy.
Let's stop letting Netanyahu dictate our Middle East policy
3
If you swallow Stephens’ thinking, then it would be impossible for the U.S. to ever negotiate a deal with a hostile nation. Their past actions would forbid it. Your sins will forever be held against you.
His stance would take off the table a possible accord with North Korea. We could never come to terms on anything significant with China, the Russian Federation or Venezuela. It is this thinking that has the U.S. retreating to Cold War status with Cuba.
Not what I would call a rational foreign policy. More like a vendetta.
3
So, Bret, given that in dealing with Iran we have whole slew of bad options ranging from awful to horrible, which one do you pick?
Should we try to force Iranian zealots to back off nuclear weapons by using sanctions to kill their economy in the hope that people will blame their own leadership and catapult them? Or will we just achieve the kind of resistance that builds support for the cleric's goals?
Do we invade? All our other invasions have gone so smoothly.
The Obama administration was trying to gives us a decade for the clerics to grow old and the urban class to come to power. It is risky too, because we still have the clerics and their dangerous regional interference causing strife.
I don't trust Iran. I don't trust Netanyahu either. I don't trust Saudi Arabia. I don't trust Russian, or Assad, or a fair number of opposition leaders in Syria either. I don't trust the governments in Iraq, or ISIS or the Taliban. I don't trust the Palestinian leadership.
When everyone in a leadership position that you are dealing with has an agenda that may lead to regional destruction, what is your good option?
1
May 12, 2018, will be the day the United States of America pulls out of the faked Iranian nuclear agreement, May 13, 2018, or shortly thereafter, will see North Korea commit to verifiable nuclear disarmament.
Iran will quickly come to understand that the charade is over, and also agree to verifiable nuclear disarmament, because in the end, as previous escalations of paltry military might in other nations has shown, failure to comply will result in economic disaster within less than one year of an Israeli/American military intervention.
As I've said before, with respect to North Korea's nearly but sure to occur total capitulation, the Iranian regime is neither stupid nor suicidal, and given the disastrous alternative, they will quietly negotiate, behind the scenes, something leading to full compliance, so they can continue their rapidly escalating economic growth and acceptance into the community of nations focused on strength through pursuit of capitalist ideals.
Nuclear conflict will never deliberately occur between any adversaries, and if some foolish terrorist group should get close to acquiring such a cataclysmic weapon, adversaries will unite in ending any such threat to their economic wellbeing.
It's as obvious, and as simple, as that.
2
Why is Israel's reprehensible behavior met with a shrug from the American right? Bret, how do you feel about the recent murder of a Palestinian journalist by IDF soldiers? This is not behavior we can accept from a nation purported to be a close ally -- and yet Israel is seemingly immune to criticism in mainstream American politics.
If Trump makes the decision to pull out of the Iran deal it will be for populist political reasons. Trump doesn't care about violations, or practical concerns. For him it's always just been another applause line, like 'lock her up' or 'build the wall'.
2
Is Iran to be our enemy forever? Are they crazier than Russia who was not crazy in the 1960's and gave up its only wild card. Israel has nukes, but won't admit it. Is Netanyahu crazy? There are the questions we need to ask. The Iran deal would give an olive branch and time for Iran to join the world. Perhaps they will stop being enemies, perhaps not. But I don't trust Netanyahu to tell me and I don't trust Trump to do anything that doesn't make him feel like he won. So, what is your point?
Any deal with North Korea is also a lie. People are already talking Peace prize, when they should be talking about about how Kim, China and Russia are running circles around Presidents Moon and Trump.
If the Iran deal is so terrible, what does success for a North Korea deal look like? Does anyone seriously believe theyre just gonna hand their weapons over? Or be transparent?
I have not heard a single thing out of a conservative that makes any reasonable sense in this regard, besides pure hypocrisy (or possibly irony). I wish someone would tell me why it's OK for conservatives to make deals with our enemies, but just another example of impotence when Democrats do it.
I don't believe Netanyahu because he's a corrupt war hawk, who doesn't understand belligerence leads to more violence. He's been crying about his pet peeves for years, and nothing he has ever done has amounted to a hill of beans ... just more deaths, more walls, and more illegal possession of land. He complained about Obama's handling of Syria, too, and I haven't heard a peep about it since 2017 even though our strategy hasn't changed.
We should look to real intelligence, provided by non partisan sources, who have an interest in global security. And we should define success in these types of agreements, so partisan knuckle heads can quit playing with our mutual security.
1
Conservatives continue to expose themselves as witting partners to Trump/Netanyahu bellicose nonsense on Iran. Why? Why does this continued, inaccurate reporting continue?
Mr Stephens is intelligent, obviously. But, as Sen Ted Cruz proves daily, intelligence alone does not the man make.
Mystified here.
1
Bibi' show was an awful reminder of Bush's WMDs...and just as meaningful. Hopefully this nothing-burger will not become a pretext for war. The WH is itching for it...such a nice distraction from the various scandals and not so well hidden money laundering.
Hey Bret, you sir are a dangerously easy sale. This is nothing short of a dangerous and complicate issue. Ya, Bibi put on a good show sharing graphs and the like but, Brett what about the vetted documentation that support the what, where and how of his statements? I am not saying Bibi is lying, I saying" the proof is on the pudding".
This is nothing short of a very complicated issue and I do understand the prime minsters grave concern that Iran is not meeting this agreement at every turn as promised. He's got Syria at his country's door step with the support of Russia and Iran. The military build up by Iran and it's ally Hezbollah along the Syrian-Israeli border is frightening and does indeed threaten his country.
Yes, the deal is nor perfect but it is a foundation which to build on. If the prime minster" gigantic cache of pilfered Iranian documents detailing Tehran’s nuclear work" is in fact all true, here is where renegotiations begin.
I agree with Mr. ElBaradei's warning, a former director of the IAEG;
"rather than signal that the United States "is fickle in its agreements & capricious in its diplomacy," the administration should use the nuclear accord as a "building block for a balanced & stable regional security structure.""Mutual demonization & destroying [the] entire temple could have disastrous consequences!"
People who think war with Iran would be straight forward, justified, moral, and even remotely worth what it will cost us, are the dictionary definition of Cluelessly Deluded. Iran is one of the World most advanced military powers. It’s got 1st grade weaponry, and seriously trained personnel - all in an environment where they have had YEARS to prepare for a war with the US. They have the location advantage, and the might to more than adequately defend all local waters, and their land.
Just remember: this war has been modeled for years. Even under some of the most optimistic scenarios, the US still takes crushing losses. In others, we lose - badly.
Are we prepared to nuke Iran... for not being totally clear about their nuclear aspirations? Aspirations driven by a fear of Israel’s war eagerness, and ours too, ever eager as we are to find an excuse to blow Iran back to the Stone Age! So ironic! The moment the first bomb drops, the US permanently lose all Moral Authority, as we will be the aggressors - in a war that ultimately proves Iran was right to seek nukes for its own defense. Recent History showed the top aggressor in the Mideast to be... the US. Moral Authority about Nukes and Peaceful Intentions indeed!
To what end? Are we prepared for losses unlike any seen since WWII? Do we want to lose a couple dozen of ships? A Carrier Group or two? Thousands of lives - all in a couple of weeks or less? That’s what’s at stake here! Why are we so eager for such folly?
213
Iran is right to seek nukes? All it wants to do is destroy Israel. Perhaps that is your motivation as well. Remember, the US first armed and trained Iran. Only later, when Iran decided to fight proxy wars of genocide through Hezbollah and Hamas, especially after that revolution of reactionary middle age clerics, did they also go shopping for Russian arms and supports, which brought their interest away from the US because those clerics now were ready to make war on Sunni. By that time the US knew it might need to make nicer with someone else, which forced the US into more friendly terms with the Saudis. So really the author of much of this problem is Iran.
5
Moral Authority and Donald Trump is an oxymoron.
24
Remember also that the US and European nations supplied Saddam Hussein with the technology and raw materials to build chemical weapons during the Reagan years.
Saddam used those chemical weapons against Iran, both soldiers and civilians and hospitals.
20,000 people died. 50,000 were injured.
Iran asked the UN to stop Iraq. With the US and Europeans on the Security Council, the UN did nothing.
30
"Yet it’s difficult to imagine that the I.A.E.A. can now square Iran’s 2015 declaration with what the Israelis have uncovered."
What does Mr. Stephens' imagination (or anyone else's) have to do with anything? Clearly Mr. Stephens cannot point to any actual deceit by Iran so out comes his "imagination."
Get back to us when you've got something you haven't imagined.
1
What I cannot understand is what Netanyahu's game is here. Does he really want Iran to restart its nuclear program? Why would he want that? Yes, Bibi is an ethically-challenged right-wing hawk and political survivor but how does that explain his actions, which appear suicidal?
My guess, perhaps far-fetched, is that it would give him a pretext for a wag-the-dog war against Iran to destroy the formerly-mothballed nuclear facilities along with the Iranian armed forces, thus weakening Iran's ability to influence Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Bibi must be playing his version of the long game, something he'll never personally win at because he'll be in prison long before the Middle East erupts in flames.
1
Are you crazy?
You are suggesting war because you have concluded Iran only respects military power. Besides being inadequate reasoning,
military options directed at Iran would be essentially breaking the JCPOA.
I agree, Iran is a bad actor. Just as Russia and North Korea are bad actors. Iran has ties to both countries. How do you think these countries with nuclear weapons will react? Russia has delivery systems that can reach the US.
You are suggesting a unilateral engagement based on Iran being a bad actor in the region. No sane ally would support such a war. Iran has lived up to JPCOA so far. There is no valid, just, reasoned argument for the US to start a war with Iran.
Even if Iran did not live up to its end of the nuclear non-proliferation bargain, the consequences would be reinstating sanctions, not war. If the US pulls out of the JCPOA, it would have no power over international sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.
The US has gone overboard with military thinking the past few decades. We need to balance this thinking with consistent foreign policy and diplomatic efforts.
As for the Middle East, I doubt there will be any relief to the religious war that has raged for more than a thousand years until the principles end it.
1
"Monday’s news is that Iran didn’t honor its end of the bargain and neither need the United States now. Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force should follow."
The first sentence is an outright lie piled on a page full of distortions.
The second sentence is both the reason nuclear programmes exist and the reason allies and foes alike can no longer trust the word of any American to honour any treaty ever again.
Now that's quite the MAGA Triumph!
1
The only important issue in the Iran Nuclear Treaty is whether Iran has the capacity to enrich weapons grade nuclear fuel and achieve breakout capability. It does not, based on evidence harvested by regular extensive inspection by expert international teams. The issue of Iran's support of terror, its toxic meddling in the affairs of other sovereign states, and its threats to Israel's existence are issues that must be addressed with diplomatic, economic, and military pressure, but not at the expense of disabling the current constraints on its nuclear capability. As the well respected author, Ken Pollack, titled his book on just this subject, the alternative to an effective nuclear deal would be "Unthinkable". Trump has to avoid impulsively withdrawing from this carefully negotiated treaty with, as is his trademark, no plan for dealing with the consequences of his actions.
1
Just what we Americans need. A belligerent, bully president stirring up the Middle East even more. And when chaos ensues, billions more of our tax dollars will follow. We, of course, will need to beef up our own military to prepare for war with Iran and Israel will need more military aid. Please follow our money, NYT. Who is getting richer off of this fear-mongering, deal-busting campaign of Trump and Netanyahu?
Iran's senior leadership, ideologically depraved, but obviously crafty vs. the US executive, ideologically vacant, impulsive and volatile. If what is written about your launch codes is true, that there really is some kind of bizarre channel that goes directly from the president to the nuclear arsenal, the actual nuclear threat is your own leader, tenuous deal between Germany, China, France, the UK, Russia, the US and Iran.
1
Mr. Stephens reminds me of the so-called Congressman shouting at President Obama during the State of the Union, "you lie". ... What characterizes this Trump administration and the policies that the policies are driven by a deep hatred of African-Americans (and Africans for that matter) and Muslims. Mr. Stephens would prefer a war with a country 20 times more populated than Afghanistan and with a military twice as sophisticated as Iraq's. In the words of Cicero, "Quo usque tandem abutere patientiam nostram?" How many wars will our children have to die in for useless causes driven by hatred and fear?
Why would European Countries continue to support the Iran Deal if it is a 'Lie' ? I doubt Trump even knows where Iran is on a Map.
2
It's called a "deal" for a reason Mr. Stephens. Both sides get something, to their mutual benefit, and neither side gets everything it wants.
Your article seems like it was written by Mr. Trump, who still thinks he can get everything he wants in every situation, or else he vows to burn it down. This is not just a ridiculous standard, but sets a dangerous expectation as well. I refer to you the Freedom Caucus, nee Tea Party, who won't settle for anything other than complete and total victory all things, and who think compromise is a dirty word. This "I win, you lose" mentality is destroying your country already, and now you want to export it around the world?
4
The bottom line is that we don't have the stomach for a fight and the Iranians know that from how we folded in Iraq and are near folding in Afghanistan. Need we remind ourselves of Vietnam? The only other use of force would be to bomb or nuke them. Are any of these viable options, considering that Putin is siding with Iran? Why do we have to do all the saber rattling!!
Mr. Stephens is capable of writing a competent column. But when the subject of Israel comes up, and when Netanyahu has spoken, you should guard your henhouse. He is so blindly, and ardently, an Israel advocate (a right wing Israeli advocate), that his positions on anything related to Israel should either be ignored or taken with an outsized, and unhealthy, grain of salt. One of the great problems after the creation of Israel, unwise and immoral as that event was, was the distortion of U.S. foreign policy in the MiddleEast to the extent that we are in the situation that we are in now. We have supported for domestic political reasons the expulsion and later the occupation of the indigenous people of Palestine, and for that have been reviled in the region. And then throwing over their elected governments , Iran more to the point, has not helped our situation either. We have here an agreement designed to halt the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, and our own government's assessment is that Iran is in compliance since the agreement was signed. If we renege on this we will seriously damage our relations with our allies and destroy any potential to be taken seriously in negotiations in the future.
2
Has anyone considered the possibility that this trove of documents may be a Trojan horse? Surely Iran watches Mossad agents operating in Iran; why not subtly offer them a lure they will pounce on like a trout on a fisherman's artificial fly? After Netanyahu and Trump have swallowed the lure, Iran can decide when to reveal phase two of its strategy.
Have analysts determined that the paper documents are really printed on paper more than ten years old? Likewise, do the data files on the CD's have non-falsified date stamps at least ten years old? That is a lot of material to analyze for authenticity. Let's wait for expert opinions before we launch our bombs.
Here we go again. The same old propaganda and PR dance by the intelligence agencies and foreign countries to get us into another war for their benefit. Gulf War One: Incubator babies. Gulf War Two: Weapons of mass destruction. Syria: Chemical weapon attacks on civilians by Assad. Libya: Bad man.
The Gulf States and Israel and our own intellegence-military-industrial-political complex goes all in for it, all at the expense of the American taxpayer and the lives of our youth. We've seen this movie before folks. Same plot and same disastrous ending.
1
I suspect that Iran was hedging their bets in this deal. They were keeping their options open. I also suspect that Iran has little stomach for the type of crippling sanctions that precipitated the deaths a reported half a million kids in Iraq--see Madeline Albright's response to Leslie Stahl on May 12, 1998 in a "60 Minutes" interview. I also suspect that Iran does not want a real war on its turf; this would seriously compromise their arc of power and influence in the region and beyond. They have only to look at Iraq and all those dead kids and the current political chaos. They can also take a gander at North Korea, the petulant child who has been in its room for so long that, regardless of its AR-15 in the corner, everything else is in the room is suffering and dying.
So, it boils down to American resolve to stomach another landfill of dead kids and/or another wholesale slaughter across age, gender and political affiliation boundaries. Unless, of course, we can convince Iran that this is counter to their interests and we are not bluffing.
Republicans and conservatives are yearning for war with Iran. This country can’t afford another unfunded and unneeded war. The war on Iraq was based on lies, I will never trust Israel or conservatives again. Let them pay for this war with their tax cuts.
1
After manufacturing false evidence and lying our way into the Iraq war the United States has no credibility in this matter. As long as Europe feels that Iran is honoring the agreement the US will be unsuccessful and unsupported should we try to justify yet another unnecessary war. Obama negotiated the best deal possible and a 10 year delay is better than nothing.
When was the last time Iran attacked another country. Oh right, its been a few centuries. As for their proxy wars, hello have we looked in the mirror lately.
Trump may think that being a war president will save his presidency but I'm tired of my country being in unnecessary wars and I suspect that there are others like me. If yet another GOP president drags us into yet another stupid war I will never vote Republican again. Enough is enough.
2
Let me see the US invades Iran's next door neighbour on false charges of a weapons of mass destruction program and the need for a regime change. And one wonders why Iran wants a nuclear weapon. Conservatives just seem impossible of stepping out of the only little world into someone else's.
2
It’s far too early to conclude that Iran is in violation of the agreement. The “SnapBack” re-imposition of sanctions should only happen when we have actual proof of centrifuges spinning or plutonium or enriched uranium facilities up and running or new construction of such facilities.
Netanyahu sincerely believes in the threat to Israel posed by Iran. So why would he not attempt to prove that they are violators of the agreement?
I would take Netanyahu’s evidence seriously and our intelligence services should study it in disinterested objectivity. But who can trust the Babe Ruth of Confirmation Bias to be objective? Not only does he worship all things Israel—he’s already poisoned the well by throwing our intelligence services under the bus whenever it suits him. He’s got half the nation buying into his “deep state” conspiracy theories, while he indulges in his man-crushes on Bibi, Xi, and any other leader who is “tough”.
There is no nuclear crisis with Iran. Brett Stephens ought to consider the above before he helps to create one.
The deal includes a dispute resolution framework if there were any genuine concerns, people who are blindly following the chickenhawks should ask themselves why it is so important to walk away rather than use the dispute mechanisms in place.
1
"Monday's news..." was a lot of binders, which no doubt have as much real information as the folders of blank paper that DJT's accountant presented to the American people.
"Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force should follow."
Define" credible threat of military force." What would you have Mr. Trump do... go on Twitter and warn the Iranian's we have BIG, BIG, BIG bombs to kill you with? Do you want the nation to invade another county, Mr. Stephens? Do you think lobbing the mother of all bombs is going to bring Iran to heal?
IN 1953 United States assisted Great Britain in a coup d'état of a Democratic elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The Iran you see today, is of Great Britain and United States making.
Could it be Iran thought they should have a nuclear bomb because like the rest of the world they witnessed President Bush continuously lying about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?
I know that's different... :)
1
Stop with this 'now we have evidence of what everyone already knew therefore the deal must be scrapped' thing. It's just idiotic.
Everybody knew Iran wasn't fessing up to the full details of their nuclear program. The point of the deal was to get them to proceed no further. Netanyahu steals Iranian engineering work product, OLD engineering work product, and presents it like it means something. Until there is evidence that Iran is not complying with the deal itself, not your version of the deal which seems to include a totally honest Hand-to-God declaration of how far their program had advanced, there's nothing to see here. The last I heard, Rex Tillerson had declared Iran to be in compliance, and that our issues with them were strictly political.
I await the study of his trove of documents and a determination that Iran's possession of them violates the agreement. Anything else is simply not relevant. This is not to defend Iran, but a deal is a deal.
I am grateful to Netanyahu, though. Now, perhaps we do have the full specifics of their nuclear weapons program at the time the deal was made. That's really good to know, because if the deal is cancelled, we'll all know exactly what we're up against. So, thanks, Bibi.
1
Unless all the nuclear powers disarm all this talk is just a way to justify one group of criminals with nuclear weapons trying to prevent a another group of criminals from getting them.
1
I rather believe the heads of state in the western world than the likes of Bret Stephens.
The news cycle breeds these so called "pundits" whose only authority comes from doting grandmothers or the absence of the same that prompts their self importance.
Lies come in all forms, and some of these from denial of the truth. And so we have these weave spinners of doubtful repute who invest themselves as some Delphic oracle of their family circle and nothing more.
We are at the mercy of ignorance these days...an ignorance cultivated and manipulated that raises voices of wholly unvetted provenance to gospel truth.
Brett Stephens is a pretender. He has no superior knowledge of what he is talking about and should be carried to the same dumpster or fable that seems to be what we are now governed by.
They build nukes as a deterrent to outside threats. So threatening them with military action will make them less willing to build nukes? We're still drinking the same old testosterone-laden Kool-Aid. It's unproductive to deny our enemies the option to act according to universal human nature.
1
Netanyahu needs a war now, Trump and the GOP need a war now. Trump was not able to pull off a war in Korea so it has to happen in Iran. Bolton lied about WMDs in Iraq and is part of a party that will happily do so again. These people think war and shows of force are the answer to everything, most especially lining their warmongering pockets.
Everyone involved was itching to approve the deal and do business with Iran, despite the fact that its stated goal is to destroy a sovereign nation by the name of Israel. Thanks to all the money placed in its hands, it's been taking huge steps toward achieving that goal. Additionally, its support for terrorist activity throughout the Middle East is there for everyone to see. It's about time someone stood up to Iran, and not necessarily with military force. Killing the deal and reimposing sanctions would be a good start.
Mr Stephens, please explain to the world what 'military action' you would like to see the United States threaten against Iran. When our boys march down the avenues of Tehran, will they be greeted with a ticker-tape parade?
Another middle eastern adventure in the making on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Let us hope we will not borrow money again to fight the war. Maybe Israel and the Saudis will finance it.
Great Bret. Iran will have a nuclear weapon in one year. What then. War?
We should listen to Mr. Stephens who is telling us that President Obama, John Kerry, Secretary Moniz and the entire US team who negotiated the Iran Deal in conjunction with the German, French, British, Russian and Chinese representtives ove a period of 15 months did not have a clue about what they were negotiating and now we must believe the wisdom of Donald Trum, Bibi Netanyahu, John Bolton and himself to show us the way! and then laugh like we have never laughed before!! I am all for getting rid of the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran. And yes, the World would be a better place without them. And unless Mr. Stephens has been living in a Galaxy far, far away in the past 15 years and has not witnessed our adventures in Iraq that sent some 5000 brave American soldiers to their graves and disabled some 40,000 more not to mention some one million Iraqi dead and millions displaced as refugees all at a staggering cost that nobody even dares to estimare, he should know that a military option to remove the mullahs does not EXIST. Iran is a country of 80 million people and an area which is 4 times that of Iraq. To accomplish any meaningful military campaign resulting in regime change, a full scale invasion requiring at least 300,000 boots on the ground must be executed. I am not sure if Mr. Stephens has any children of suitable age that he would volunteer to join the invading force but we are going to need everybody's children, particularly those who are heeding to Netanyahu's call.
One salient fact which never seems to be mentioned is that, er, ISRAEL, has nuclear weapons - but of course doesn't admit this. Of course, we know why the Israelis began their nuke program decades ago but there is a startling double standard here where Iran is to be stopped from possessing nukes but no critisim of Israel for having them. Yes, a nuclear Iran would be deeply worrying but...think how other nations view the West's seeming contradictory stance on Israel v. Iran.
Mr. Stephens - perhaps you have the resources available to answer a question I have. It's my understanding that the IAEA has not sent inspectors into Iran to conduct physical inspections since 2015. I believe the JCPOA agreement and process requires Iran to provide to the IAEA a quarterly report, stating that it is in compliance. But the IAEA does not actually verify on its own.
It will only send inspectors if one of the 8 countries party to the agreement provides it with evidence of non-compliance, and then, only after 5 of those countries vote to request an inspection.
In fact, no IAEA staff have inspected since 2015.
I believe there is also a disagreement between Iran and the IAEA in which the IAEA says it has the right to inspect all military installations if it chooses, while Iran disagrees with that. So even if the IAEA were asked to inspect, there are locations the Iranians would refuse access to.
Do I have that all correct?
This is my understanding based on the Reuters article below.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections-idUSKCN1BB1JC
From the beginning, Netanyahu wanted to sabotage this agreement because it wants to remain the most powerful state in the region. Israel wants to oppress everyone in the region using US military arms, money, and technological expertise. Israel is an extension of Europe whose only reason for being is to destabilize the Middle East to gain the origin of energy to feed and comfort Europe.
Stephens writes ..." But why believe this regime will be faithful to the deal at its end when it was faithless to it at its beginning?"
Well, why should we take this column seriously since Stephens wrote that " The Bush administration made a highly detailed case on Iraqi WMD, including show-and-tells by Colin Powell at the Security Council..." He was re-writing history in 2013 in order to justify his support of the Iraq War. He chose to ignore the Senate Intelligence report in 2008 which stated that evidence presented that Saddam was prepares to give WMD's was unsubstantiated by the evidence.
He is not to be trusted on this topic since he was " faithless" in his previous column about the evidence leading up to the Iraq War , how can he be judged faithful with this column?
OK, so let me get this. Stephens is more concerned about what we wanted Iran to SAY, which they didn't than he is with what we want Iran to DO, which they are.
Great, let's go to war because of a lie.
10 years gives Iran and the world the opportunity for change. Iran like the U.S. is on the cusp of the next generation taking the reins. In 10 yrs Khamenei will be 88 yrs old. We need policies which promote moderates taking power in Iran (and in Israel and here, too). Enough of all this war mongering.
When Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test occurs six to twelve months after the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, Trump will tweet how the world is better off without that awful deal that Obama and Kerry made.
Neither Trump nor Netanyahu, let alone Stephens, has offered any proof that the Iranians are not now abiding by the terms of the agreement. Stephens himself offers only the claim that Iran is in "likely breach of the agreement." Is this sufficient reason to scrap the deal and hope that Trump's bombast will keep the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons?
When Brett Stephens joins the Marines and puts his own life on the line, THEN he can be so brave as to call for war.
1
"A credible threat of military force?" Are you kidding me? Do we really want to create another Iraq? I think a comedian (John Oliver) recently put it quite well when he said "10 (years) are more than zero" re nuclear bomb development.
Under the basic laws of contract which govern this agreement, if the contract was induced by fraud or material omission, the defrauded party has the right to withdraw or renegotiate. We should choose the latter and threaten the former. The mullahs who run Iran want only to extend their power. Politically they are standing on the head of a pin. The US has leverage to demand terms. We should use it. Netanyahu's presentation merely adds additional leverage.
Not that I thought Bret Stephens had opened up a new channel of critical thinking filled with possible consequences for actions just because he actually sees Trump is dangerous and vile but here we are back to GOP Stephens. Honestly, for the most part conservatives only care about what they can jam in for themselves and some shallow analysis of most things important to the rest of us.
1
Why isn't anyone raising a fuss about Israel's nuclear weapons reactor in Dimona? I don't understand why Iran has to be subject to rigorous international inspections and threatened with sanctions if it doesn't comply while Israel gets away with possessing nuclear weapons.
Iran has been threatened with an attack from Israel and the USA for over a decade now. They were on the neocon hit list. They are entitled to self defense.
1
As long as we're talking about clandestine nuclear programs by countries in the Middle East, maybe we should take a look at Israel's nuclear program. Remember that their official policy is not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. So how's their compliance going?
1
For the sake of equal justice, Israel has the bomb and has been a belligerent middle east country. So it is not equal justice to claim that Iran should not have one. May be the majors should show the way. The goal is worthwhile for mankind, possibly even for our survival.
It's ironic to me that Conservatives don't apply their 2nd Amendment logic to national defense. That is that all nations (people) have the right to keep an bear arms. If Conservatives can't fathom restricting access to guns for American people, why don't they support other nations building nuclear arsenals?
I'm consistent...restrict arms access...for crazy nations and for crazy people.
Please read today’s Interpreter column, which provides deep context for Stephens’ — and more importantly, Netanyahu’s — technically correct but fundamentally misleading charges.
I want to know how
Israel got the information.
That is a story in itself.
Although, for Israel's security
we should never know....
but who isn't curious?
As for the nuclear deal,
all the best and brightest
wanted to believe in a fairy
tale about Iran. Even those
who believe in the sanctity
of the "deal" must know
that Iran cannot be trusted;
that Russia and Iran are building
an empire that will not be
good for world order.
If one is to believe the opposing editorial printed alongside Mr. Stephens’ opinion piece today, Iran’s efforts toward a nuclear weapon were known over a decade ago, and have not been meaningfully rejoined. To suggest that their failure to fully and publicly take accountability for their past efforts is somehow a material breach of the 2016 Iran agreement is worse than silly. It is intellectually dishonest and frankly would be unethical if there were any ethical rules about political debate. Mr. Stephens’ aping of the party line out of AIPAC and from Netanyahu is simply bad faith hokum from people who always opposed any deal with Iran.
If this is the breach to which Netanyahu alluded on Monday, there is no conceivable reason to take any action on it. My suggestion is this: let these fools who do not know the value of a human life go themselves into the breach personally and right the wrongs of which they complain. Let Netty and Bret don their camouflage, go buy some weapons and storm Iran, just the two of them. I’m tired of my tax dollars being spent to satisfy the blood lust and geopolitical aspirations of men too cowardly to put their own skin at stake.
Ok, scrap the deal, then what? Are you a combat veteran Stephens? You, much of the Republicans in office have no idea what it's like to be fired upon by an enemy. And the next war in the Middle East could make Vietnam look like a cake walk with modern technology available today, not to mention obliteration by nuclear weapons. You, and your warhawk party never thinks about that because everyone else is cannon fodder, not you or your families.
Bret, you did not write the headline, The Iran Deal Is a Lie, with the strange use of the present tense. You end the 2d paragraph with past-tense phrasing, "The deal was founded on a lie."
Thomas Zalavsky reminds you that "The issue is what has happened since. Observers and enforcers agree that Iran has lived up to it."
If we are to use your standard for judging nations then I offer you these headlines:
The Bush war on Iraq was based on a lie.
The 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossaddeq, was based on lies.
Using your standard, sanctions should have been imposed on the USA and the UK following those two events But where was the super nation to take that action and threaten military attack on the USA and the UK? There was none.
Your proposal "Punitive sanctions combined with a credible threat of military force should follow" if taken will be based on the lies of those oh so trustworthy leaders, Netanyahu and Trump.
Iran is in a sense all that is left of the Middle East, war on Iran will complete the US 65 or so years of a Plot Against the ME and end any possibility of the US being viewed as world leader..
What that will mean back home in the US, I do not want to even try to imagine.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
So what’s your “Plan B” Bret? Another Middle East military adventure?
Mr. Stephens is cheerleading for taking steps to start a war with Iran by someone who thought playing the role of president will not be more difficult than playing the role of a Billionaire on TV.
Netanyahu's performance was ridiculous at best, it feels like a bad horror movie now, every time you think it's over he resurrects another show for the believers (Trump and Mr. Stephens, and chicken hawks in congress).
If these people get their way, the nation will have to pay for the consequences of another disastrous adventure in the Middle East long after Trump has departed (possibly in disgrace).
This is hyperbole piled up upon nonsense. The agreement is focused upon enrichment to weapons grade material and other issues. It is working. It can't be negated by an incomplete confession of the"truth" of past activities. Indeed, it is stupid to think that you will complete confessions from any government about any past activity. You won't.
The biggest lie in this article is the idea that we can decide by ourselves to reimpose sanctions. We imposed sanctions in Iran in 1980 and kept them in place. They were useless. The sanctions worked because we convinced our European and Asian partner nations to impose them. They are and were Iran's major trading partners. If the U.S. does not convince these European and Asian Nations to reimpose sanctions, sanctions will not work.
These European and Asian nations think the agreement is working so they will not reimpose sanctions. Any unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. will be impotent and war upon Iran will be the only option. Having the U.S. at war with Iran was Netanyahu's goal, and it remains his goal. The U.S. has its own security needs and goals and whether there should be future U.S. wars should not be dictated by Netanyahu.
Gosh, the lovable anti Trump conservative who has those oh so funny conversations with Gail wants the US to go to war with Iran. Who ever would have seen that coming?
The fact is there is a subset of anti Trump people, most of them Iraq War supporters 15 years ago, who oppose Trump because they think he is too incompetent to handle the belligerent foreign policy they favor. They are right about that. The funny thing is they think they would be competent.
Stop pounding the drums of war with Iran: enough of us in the world see all this for what it is.
The goal of the Iran nuclear agreement was to stop development where it was in 2016, irrespective of past efforts to develop a bomb. Netanyahu's lack of trust in this or any deal with Iran surely reflects the history of Israel's bomb development. As President Kennedy push for nuclear disarmment the Israeli's hid their bomb development facility from inspectors. Is there any agreement with Iran that would be acceptable to the Israels and war mongers in the US.
As far as I know, Iran never staged a coup against us, arrested our popularly elected leader and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life,or installed a dictator who executed thousands of his subjects and tortured thousands of others. Perhaps this is the reason we do not trust Iran.
The author ignores the facts. The IAEA and the other parties to the deal were satisfied that the agreement would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
As a Zionist the author is only interested in crippling Iran so that Israel can act with impunity.
We have already seen the movie, Regime Change, and there is no reason to suppose that the sequel will be any better. The script is remarkably similar, too. WMD in the hands of bloodthirsty fanatics who succeed in pulling the wool over the eyes of spineless international inspectors before the neo-cons call off the charade and wage all out war. John Bolton even gets a bigger role than he had in Iraq, but this time there will be no mercy whatsoever. And look who is being cast in the role of Commander-in-Chief--the Donald, eager to escape his legal woes at home! Never mind that he once claimed that the war in Iraq was a disaster and fought on a false pretext. This is show biz.
170
Maybe we should mind that Trump once claimed that the war in Iraq was a disaster and fought on a false pretext. Maybe this is show biz and Trump is playing to his base and come May 12 he will find an excuse to change course. Maybe.... one can only hope!
3
Besides United States and Israel, the rest of the countries who signed the Iran deal, believe that Iran is complying and have no qualms with Iran. Netanyahu’s show and tell is obsolete and ridiculous. His mission is to use Trump in order to accomplish what he can’t do by himself, and that is to go to war with Iran. I hope, we are smarter than starting another war, while we haven’t finished the ones we started in the Middle East already.
184
Oh sure, tiny little Israel wants to invade Iran, and conquer 250 million Arabs and their vast territories. I suppose the little island of Britain seeks to re-create their worldwide empire as well. Having invaded and taken over Lebanon entirely, the real nation who wishes to invade is Iran, next target is to finish taking over Syria so there will be a continuous country from Iran to the sea. Not speculation as you do about little tiny Israel and it's great plans to take over all of Arabia, no, we have definite proof of Iran's invasion efforts.
2
marek,
Israel's size is irrelevant to its power. Remember Japan?
Israel has a world-class military force and nuclear weapons.
The O.P. said nothing about Israel invading Iran. Netanyahu, like all megalomaniacs, would love to have a war just to wreak destruction on them to shore up his own ego and political base.
@marek pyka, Israel doesn't want to invade Iran. They want US to. But that's not being fair to Israel--Benjamin Netanyahu and his hawkish allies in the Likud Party want us to invade Iraq. That's been apparent for years.
It goes to credibility, if you believe in the credibility and truthfulness of the Israel’s prime minister then his dog and pony show rings true. If on the other hand you know his long history of mendacity and willingness to say or do anything that advances his agenda then doubts abound. The problem is no one involved has clean hands, not Iran or Saudi Arabia’s
124
Does anyone remember Colin Powell at the UN just before the war in Iraq?
14
The Prime Minister is already under investigation in Israel. To me, that dents his credibility.
10
The nature of technology in general means that practically all countries on this planet are "ambling" towards some form of weapon of mass destruction. This is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. The rhetoric of conflict espoused by the like of Netanyahu, Putin, Erdogan, Khamenei, Trump and many others is intended to prevent ordinary human beings from realizing they are all part of the same community. Only by nurturing a sense of national, religious or ethnic fear can such people stay in power. Make no mistake, they will always put themselves first and their nations last.
2
Mr. Stephens quotes David Albright, "Needed access to sites was either denied or tightly controlled as to preclude adequate inspections.” If inspections cannot be carried out fairly as envisioned in the agreement, then the agreement should be considered null and void. If, however, inspections are happening in a rigorous fashion, then why give up the deal?
2
Of course Iran can't be trusted. That is why there are inspections built into the agreement.
But Netanyahu did not mention Israel's atomic weapon program or that it does not allow international inspections of it's nuclear facilities.
Wouldn't a genuine non-nuclear middle east be the real best solution?
3
I have come to read, respect and often agree with Bret Stephens, not his current assessment of Iran’s behavior.There is no objective evidence to indicate that Iran is violating the agreement.Israel is not a disinterested party in this issue.Israel has fought this agreement all along to the point of encouraging congress to reject the proposed agreement by the Obama administration .Iran has a history of greatness but also of being a subject of foreign interference in its affairs.They certainly are suspicious mistrusting and fanatical in protecting themselves.It is essential to monitor the agreement and make certain they are compliant with its terms.
The exhortations of the neocons prior to the Iraq war was in part encouraged by Israel’s intelligence agencies.Are we again drumming up another conflict in this tortured unstable area of the world?
9
Evidently, having consistently excoriated the Republican Party over its embrace of Trump, Mr. Stephens somehow finds Netanyahu -- a horse of the same color -- credible even though the timing of the latter's new "evidence" of Iran's supposed mendacity stinks to the high heavens. The truth is both Trump and Netanyahu are ensnared in corruption investigations and have proven themselves wholly untrustworthy. They both need a war to divert attention. This is a thoroughly transparent "wag the dog" scenario they are trying to set up. And you've fallen for it, Mr. Stephens. I'm disappointed. I thought you were smarter than that. At least I thought you were an honest conservative. Until now.
36
Mr. Stephens is wishy washy and lace-minded when it comes to analysis. Oh, well. I do agree with him about Trump but like most GOPers, not much else.
2
Does Iran fear America? Are we really going to start a war with Iran—with our broken military of forces not ready to deploy due to the damages I’d 17 years of failed wars and the 2011 Tea Party Tax cuts? Are we going to war with no allies—Europeans support the deal? Are we going to war with Russia vetoing all UN plans? Are we going to take on Russian SAM’s?
Tell the American public that we will have to institute a draft, that our debt will soar, that we have no allies. They will say no way
25
And that debt will be added to the tax cut debt on track to create a budget that will require debt service for that new deficit that will outstrip the military budget in about five years. We can't afford Republicans anymore.
13
I think that is is important to remember context on this. Let's not forget that the USA and the UK have rform when it comes to Iran. They played a very large part in overthrowing the Iranian Govt in 1953 and then keeping in power a despotic ruler kept in power with his SAVAK secret police
If I was an Iranian I would never forget this
In addition we now have that old war monger Bini yelling about secret bomb development. I seem to recall that it was only when Mordechai Vanunu in 1986 revealed details of Israel's development of WMDs that the world became aware of Israel's program, so it would appear that Iran is not the only one in the middle east that might be accused of "cheating".
22
It's frightening to see you, Friedman, Douthat, and R. Rubin expressing their opinions in the Times. With Bolton and Pompeo being appointed, it's shades of Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Don't these neocons ever stay dead?
The American people have loudly decried the Iraq war with all its grief and expense. We don't want another war. We vote for real diplomacy and peace; so we can spend our money on healthcare and education like the rest of the civilized world.
32
Here we go again. Stephens has his war drum out and is beating it. Will Tom Friedman be coming to the aid of the war hawks again? When the deal is sacked, what is the next action?
More chaos as we destroy Iran. The rise of a Shia Isis? For the military industrial complex that is the US, war is the answer.
War is not the answer. It is only through mutual pressure from allies that Iran can be held accountable. Israel has become the oppressor as the oppressed react to their history.
Will the world ever grow up?
19
The JCPOA is a horrible agreement that provides Iran with a path, albeit a delayed one, to become a nuclear power and accelerated Iran's hegemonic plans. We never should have agreed to it.
However, we did.
Israel has a great deal of proof that Iran lied about its pre-JCPOA nuclear program and intentions. However, they (and we) do not have proof that Iran is currently violating the agreement. This may be because the agreement severely limits where the inspectors can inspect and Iran is violating the agreement in secret locations inaccessible to the inspectors. But that is neither here nor there.
Given the above, the question isn't whether we should stick to the agreement because it is a good deal for us. (Hint: it isn't).
The question is what price will we have to pay if we walk away from an international agreement that we cannot prove the other side is violating? Will that impact our ability to enter into future international agreements? Will other countries start to walk away from existing agreements with us because they do not like the terms? Is the JCPOA so bad that it justifies taking that risk?
It might be. But even if it is, can't we find a better way to reach the same objective?
3
It’s quite simple.
If you support the Iran deal in its current form, then you de facto are comfortable with giving Iran the ability to build a bomb quickly after 2025.
If you truly want to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear weapons, you can’t also support the current Iran deal.
8
If the U.S. backs out of the Iran deal, Iran will simply resume it's nuclear program now, as opposed to resuming it in 2025, unless the U.S. invades Iran. I don't want the U.S. to invade Iran and I don't want to allow Iran to resume it's program now. I would rather try to renew the deal in 2025.
22
Most shallow opinions begin with the premise, “It’s simple.” Often it is the person promoting it as well as the opinion that is simple.
there's a flip side: if you want to terminate the deal, then you are de facto comfortable with giving Iran the ability to build a bomb quickly after tomorrow.
We the primary nuclear state in the world believe that we have the right to deny everyone else access to the same deterrent that we enjoy. So at the same time that we continue to make a fuss over Iran & North Korea we’re “modernizing” our nuclear weapons inventories and building low yield weapons into tactical military planning. This started under Obama & carried forward under Trump will cost approximately 1.2 trillion dollars for upgrades and maintenance for these civilization destroying weapons. So do I want more nations with the capacity to render unspeakable harm to human kind? Obviously not, nor do I want our nation to continue to pour enormous resources into perpetuating our role in this madness. America’s long running tendency to militarize every conflict and diminishing diplomacy’s role in conflict avoidance and mitigation is unwise and ultimately self-defeating. Or does anybody really think that our forever wars are making the world safe for democracy much less simply safer for us? In many parts of the world the cycle of violence has spun out of control and building bigger and better weapons will not address the underlying causes of the conflicts nor end them. We can not kill our way out of this, its madness to think otherwise.
29
Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970 and received consideration for doing so. By attempting to create a nuclear weapons program, it was breaching an agreement for which it had already been paid.
2
It's 2018, not 1970. Do you have a solution or just something 48 years ago?
If Iran is complying with the agreement there is no reason to act for the USA.
Trump is engaging the USA on a dangerous path...a deal is a deal ,it should be respect by the US and any of its president.
Trump is well known for lying and cheating; there is a reason why he is currently involved is so many litigations.
The USA, like any other countries, shall abide by the agreements in place no matter who is actually in power.
13
I don't know what planet you live on, Bret, when it comes to this issue, but, like other advocates of scrapping the deal, you conveniently omit that: (i) the US still has plenty of sanctions on Iran - only the UN sanctions concerning Iran's nuclear activity were removed; and (ii) even more importantly, the sanctions that finally drove Iran to agree to the deal that you wish to scuttle were imposed not just by the US, but more importantly by Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK as well. So we reimpose sanctions and all of those other countries continue to trade with Iran. Where exactly does that get us? What I find most maddening about diatribes like yours and Netanyahu's and Trump's is that no clear and rational and workable alternative is ever articulated. Rather, there is always some underlying, unstated assumption that a better mousetrap can be built that would make us more secure than we are today from an Iranian nuclear threat. But as a former US presidential candidate once famously said, where's the beef?
24
A nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran would be a complete horror. On the other hand, we now have a president who once questioned why we couldn’t use nuclear weapons, and as recently as last year brought us within a whisker of nuclear detonations in North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and Guam. And he’s got over 1,500 at his disposal. So which is more horrifying?
8
Re-litigating Iran's earlier dissembling using Israel's very old pictures to call the deal a lie despite its doing exactly what it was intended to do since it was put in force.
What are you thinking Bret Stephens?
So you want a "nice little non-nuclear war" to punish Iran for their pre-agreement misstatements, or their post-agreement out-of-scope offenses--against Iran, a nation vastly more capable than Iraq, or Vietnam or Afghanistan--with no US allies. A war that will teach every nation in the world that the US can't be trusted, so they better get a bomb ASAP. A war that can't end because Iran will develop nuclear capabilities expeditiously the moment an overwhelming US presence is lessened--with help from Russia and Pakistan.
Iran has not broken the agreement. The agreement includes aggressive testing precisely because of the earlier cheating--and is designed to defeat that cheating--and does.
I agree with Kerry--what is important is an enforceable agreement with a highly capable foe that denuclearizes a very dangerous region of the world. Not some silly, always "not good enough" confession of sins past.
17
"what is important is an enforceable agreement with a highly capable foe that denuclearizes a very dangerous region of the world."
Pakistan and India are that "very dangerous region of the world" and both have nuclear weapons. Are we going to force them to be rid of their nuclear weapons as well?
Why would Iran back down?
Faced with US threats, what would most countries do? It's working for the North Koreans after all.
Meanwhile, the US's only alternative to the nuclear agreement is a military conflict with Iran that would set the entire region alight, costing probably hundreds of thousands of lives, including Americans.
Face it: the Iranians hold most of the good cards on this one.
6
Saddam was seen as lying about WMDs so Cheney made up intel to justify the military invasion of Iraq (leaving Afghanistan in chaos). It is universally acknowledged that destruction of Iraq both fertilized Sunni based AlQuaeda then ISIS and made Iran and Shiite power dominant in the region.
Unintended consequences- yes- but catastrophicfor stable democracies as the disruption of the region, especially Syria, has destabilized Europe and...America.
In a wholly different context, Iran may have tried to keep secrets which could be called a failure to comply to the letter with the accord. Israel also favored toppling Saddam who was lobbing missiles at them. Much like now, Israel saw the US and her neocon allies as their sword against enemies.
Of course slowing nuclear proliferation is worth some compromise; of course destroying this pause with no alternative plan is foolish- not a show of true strength.
If Stephens is on the neocon bandwagon, he must provide a new plan. There is none other than threatening to repeat the Iraq quagmire and disastrous outcome...military action.
9
We have to, for the sake of our own credibility, stop embracing nonsense like declaring that a rigorous inspection system of Iranian nuclear sites could leave out the military bases that the Iranians refused to have inspected. Iran is supporting rebels in Yemen who shoot missiles at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, is dictating to the government in Iraq (where America seems to have handed Iran hegemony), swaggering through Syria, where it is busy building missile bases, and on into Lebanon, where it will support Hezbollah's thuggish take over of the government. The Iran deal was always nonsense; we don't have to bomb them right now if we leave the Iran Deal: nobody of any sense or good will towards peace ever thought it was preventing Iran from developing nuclear armed missiles.
America does, however, have to stop Iranian mischief making across the MidEast, by assisting Saudi Arabia, Israel, and any other nation of the MidEast that wants a future outside of a return to the Persian Empire. That is, if we have any interest in a stable MidEast in which America can have some influence, although we've unhappily reached the point where it would also be a good idea to reach some agreement with Mr. Vladimir Putin about his notions of a future MidEast. Better that than the Sassanid Empire run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
2
I’m sure that out of respect of our current leader’s wisdom and temperament the other members of the agreement will do whatever we tell them.
5
Sweden is ready to abide to the Wisdom of DT.
(if it can be found)
You make much of the fact that Iran has never admitted that they had a nuclear weapons program. Governments don't like to admit to the lies they've told. Has the US government ever admitted that we invaded Iraq under false pretexts?
You acknowledge that Iran is currently abiding by the terms of the agreement but insist we should abrogate it because they haven't fully disclosed their prior activities which they seem to have ceased.
And what would you replace the agreement with? Sanctions. President Obama persuaded Europe, Russia & China to join with us in imposing very tough sanctions on Iran. We ourselves have been sanctioning Iran for quite some time. It's clear that unilateral US sanctions won't get the job done. Perhaps we can bully the Europeans into going along but Russia & China? Fat chance.
So after tearing up the accord & seeing Iran resume its nuclear program we'll try sanctions but they won't work. Then you, Mr. Stephens, will tell us we have no choice but to start a new war. Is it possible that you can't see this? Or have you never seen a middle eastern war you don't love?
7
I understand Mr. Stephen's irritations, but there are reasons to suspect him--and quite a few others--of hyperbole: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/25/the-5-worst-treaties-the-united-stat... ("The 5 Worst Treaties the United States Ever Signed," Aug. 2015). From that essay:
"Pundits with short memories, prone to hyperbole, are nothing new in American political discourse. The deal between the P5+1 and Iran has brought out some of the big guns of rhetorical overstatement. But next time it occurs to a columnist to take to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal or the National Review to write off the Iran deal as the worst diplomatic blunder in U.S. history, she or he should ask: Does it condemn the world to the bloodiest war in history? Is it a flimsy front for genocide? Does it divide up an entire continent along poorly drawn lines? The experts FP talked to urge us to remember: Some U.S. diplomatic agreements were truly terrible, and millions paid the price."
This does not defend all elements of the Iran deal, but the guy in the White House is as, or more, gullible than many with respect to his preferred pundits.
There are reasons why we have to rely on experts for these decisions. I do not have adequate background detail to comfortably denounce the agreement. There are reasons to be skeptical of Netanyahu's presentation. He is not exactly a neutral observer (if such a person exists).
4
I do not trust the opponents of the Iranian deal. I do not trust Benjamin Netanyahu. And I certainly do not trust the current White House administration. I do trust the IAEA, which is responsible for confirming that Iran sticks to the agreement, just as I trusted I trusted them in the run up to the Iraq war when they insisted that Hussein had no nuclear arms. If other parties to the agreement, such as France or Germany, changed positions I might reconsider. (I would not reconsider if England changes position.) I absolutely would not reconsider supporting the deal based on a columnist's opinion.
12
Stephens is a well known neo con propagandist for Israel. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq debacle when writing at the WSJ and has long advocated starting a similar pre-emptive attack on Iran.
What else needs to be said about the credibility of this piece of propaganda?
13
This article is a reminder that self-proclaimed "moderates" are sometimes more dangerous than the most rabid extremists. The argument presented here should be studied by all political science students as a case study in how prominent voices in our media can mislead the nation into colossal, historic mistakes like the 2003 Iraq invasion.
What is the argument here, exactly? It's impossible to track the logic. Perhaps this is by design. Mr. Stephens does not want readers to analyze his argument, but to fall hypnotized under a spell of confusion, fear, and self-righteous anger, unsure later what they have read, but knowing somehow that Iran must be crushed.
The headline promises revelations. When they come, they are underwhelming. He seems to be saying that Iran had made more progress toward nuclear weapons technology, prior to the deal, than it acknowledged at the time. If anything, that shows the deal was more valuable than we knew then. Mr. Stephens claims this knowledge is somehow foundational to the deal, and thus the deal is "null and void." This seems implausible, and demands extensive supporting argument for why this should be "essential", but he gives none. He obviously feels that even the name "Iran" is an obscenity, and that we should develop a taste for blood when we hear it.
The US is declining rapidly enough under Trump, and still reeling from the Iraq war. We cannot afford a needless war with Iran, and should not trust those who want one.
11
Monday night, a local TV station did it's quick national news roundup, and it included the dramatic Netanyahu uncovering (of information that everyone knew already about Iran's behavior before the agreement) but like Netanyahu and the White House, they conflated past and present in a way that irresponsibly mislead the public. Here we go again. I screamed at the TV in frustration and had a deja vu of Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Powell making carefully parsed statements that were misleading about Iraq, in the lead up to that debacle, and the press regurgitating it uncritically.
The Saudis comprised fifteen of the nineteen 911 hijackers and have fueled the religious extremism and terror that has hurt most of the world including the West. Not the Iranians. Not the Iraqis. Mr. Trump, the only people laughing at us are the Saudis.
Yes, the Iranians also cannot be trusted. That's why we brought all the major world players together to forge a deal to monitor their activities. Killing the deal leaves our allies in this deal with no choice but to ignore our sanctions. This could cause a great unraveling of our alliances.
Oops, I was wrong. Mr. Trump, the only people laughing at us are the Saudis...... and Putin.
3
It's refreshing that so many Tmes readers have shown that they have a more responsible attitude towards consequences than does Mr. Stephens.
I only want to add that aside from the irrelevance of the papers Netanyahu has acquired from Iran, his forces broke international and Iranian law in sneaking into another sovereign nation and stealing its property.
That makes Netanyahu a criminal, deserving of censure by the UN and the United States. I'd like to see if Stephens is honest enough to address that.
5
If Mr. Stephens and Mr. Netanyahu want to go to war with Iran, they should do so----in their role as private citizens. However, they should carefully note: After more time spent at war in the past two decades than at any prior time in US history, we are far less safe and secure, specifically because we made war that benefitted only Israel, Saudi Arabia, military contractors and suppliers, all at the expense of every other American. This madness must stop, but there is far too much profit to be made---and we have distressingly become a nation in which profits are more important than truth.
11