NYT Rips Israel's 'Extremist' Opposition to Iran Deal

"No one can seriously argue that it doesn’t make the world safer.”

On Sunday, the New York Times editorial board predictably rubber-stamped the Obama administration’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, calling it “an important step toward resolving the increasingly dangerous dispute over Iran’s progress on production of a nuclear weapon.” Furthermore, the Times added, “no one can seriously argue that it doesn’t make the world safer.”

Despite the fact that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and critics of the Iranian regime have argued just that – and the fact that the deal carries virtually no requirements for the Iranians to achieve sanctions reductions, maintains weak enforcement standards, and allows Iran to continue enriching uranium – the Times is gung-ho about the agreement: “President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran deserve credit for resisting fierce domestic opposition and a 30-year history of animosity between the two countries to get to this point.”

Shockingly, the Times does not attack the Iranian government for its extremism. Instead, it rips the Israeli government: “A negotiated solution is unquestionably better; it is alarming to hear Israeli politicians reject it in extremist terms and threaten unspecified unilateral action.”

And this, of course, was President Obama’s entire goal: to isolate the state of Israel by creating a faux agreement that will eventually result in an easier path to nuclear weaponry for the Iranian government.

The Times, naturally, called for more negotiations: “The deal buys time to work on a long-term solution that constrains Iran’s nuclear program and guarantees that it is put to peaceful use. That will be even harder to achieve, and the risks will be even greater, if negotiations fail. It is crucial that talks on the next phase begin very soon since the next six months will fly by.”

Those months will fly by. Time flies when you’re building nuclear weaponry with the tacit approval of the United States government.