The NYT's self-delusional attack on Netanyahu

The New York Times, predictably, has attacked Netanyahu's speech to Congress with some fairly unoriginal and false talking points:

Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program.

There was nothing new - except it was perhaps the first time that the American people have had the opportunity to hear, in one brilliant speech, the arguments against the deal now being negotiated. Any sane person would be alarmed at how much Obama has caved to a genocidal, terrorist Iran over the years.

But not the NYT.

His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.

Ah, don't argue against what he said, argue against what you believe he really meant. That way you can ignore what he actually said.

Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction.

The sort of thing that the US has done in the past.

Notice that the Times doesn't bother to mention Iran's aggression against other countries, only Israel, as if Bibi is being unreasonably hostile to a perfectly normal regime whose only forgivable crime is to be aggressive against Israel. News flash: They hate America too, and not because of Israel.

While no Iranian facilities are expected to be dismantled, critical installations are expected to be reconfigured so they are less of a threat and the centrifuge machines used to enrich uranium would be reduced. Iran would be barred from enriching uranium above 5 percent, the level needed for power generation and medical uses but not sufficient for producing weapons-grade nuclear fuel. Absent a negotiated agreement, Iran will continue with its program without constraints.

Yet it is obvious that 6000 first generation centrifuges are useless for power generation and overkill for medical research. Which means that they have only one purpose - to build a bomb. The New York Times is effectively saying that there is no problem with Iran keeping a nuclear weapons program as long as people are watching it happen.

If Iran's program was for peaceful purposes, then there are alternatives - alternatives that Iran has rejected in the past. This by itself is proof that Iran's program is not peaceful, but the NYT chooses to ignore that little elephant in the room.

They are saying to let Iran have a nuclear weapons program, just slow it down a little. Because a terror-supporting genocidal regime will never agree to dismantle it, and we have to be reasonable with them.

Much better is the Washington Post's op-ed:

Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide. The White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection; has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he offers no alternative to President Obama’s policy. Such rhetoric will not satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu’s legitimate questions.

His speech singled out “two major concessions” he said would be part of any deal the United States and its partners conclude with Iran. The first is the acceptance of a large Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including thousands of centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The second is a time limit on any restrictions, so that in as little as a decade Iran would be free to expand its production of nuclear materials. Consequently, Mr. Netanyahu said, the deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

The Israeli prime minister’s most aggressive argument concerned the nature of the Iranian regime, which he called “a dark and brutal dictatorship” engaged in a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.” Saying that the regime’s ideology is comparable with that of the Islamic State, he asserted that it could not be expected to change during the decade-long term of an agreement. He proposed that controls on the nuclear program should be maintained “for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.”

In essence, this was an argument that Iran must be sanctioned and contained while its clerical regime remains in power. That has been the explicit or de facto U.S. policy since 1979, but Mr. Obama appears to be betting that detente can better control Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, perhaps, produce better behavior over time. Yet he has shied from explicitly making that case; instead, his aides argue that the only alternative to his approach is war.

Mr. Netanyahu strongly disputed that point. “Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime,” he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.

Yes, Netanyahu's arguments aren't new. But the White House has never answered them to begin with.