in Iran, has been very accurate in the past in its assessments of Iran's nuclear program.
So what is the reaction of the New York Times editorial page?
Nobody knows whether Iran is really ready to give up its ambitions to have nuclear weapons, but its commitment on Monday to freeze all uranium enrichment work and invite back international inspectors is a welcome step toward nuclear sanity.Actually, its very clear to anyone who wants to see it that Iran is continuing its development of nuclear weapons, and that no agreement with Europe will stop them. The NYT, as well as most of Europe, want to rely on a foreign policy of hope. To think that Iran will actually abide by any agreement is lunacy. We have some pretty clear examples of how rogue states honor nuclear agreements - North Korea leaps to mind. And in fact, the deal that Europe proposes to Iran is basically the same as the one that Jimmy Carter worked out with North Korea - the one that brought "peace in our time".
The New York Times of course has a solution of what should be done if Iran violates the agreement.
If Tehran backslides on this agreement, as it did on a previous one, Europe should be prepared to impose tough economic penalties, possibly including a ban on investments in Iran's oil industry.And perhaps, we should let the UN administer those sanctions. Iran, it seems, is begging to be slapped with sanctions.
Europe continues to throw roadblocks in the way of the necessary and inevitable reckoning with Iran, despite the fact that Iranian missiles will endanger them long before they endanger us. Hopefully, the US will not go along with this sham; otherwise we will soon be living with Iranian nuclear missiles pointed at Europe.
No comments:
Post a Comment