Only a week ago, the New York Times launched an attack on Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in a staff editorial, accusing him of generating “hysterical opposition” to an Iranian nuclear deal. It seems that the NY Times just can’t let go.
In a fresh attack, the NY Times’ latest editorial concludes with the following:
President Obama deserves more time to work out a negotiated settlement with Iran and the other major powers. If the deals falls through, or if inspections by the United Nations unearth cheating, Congress can always impose more sanctions then. But if talks fail now, Mr. Netanyahu and the hard-line interest groups will own the failure, and the rest of us will pay the price.
So according to the NY Times, if the Iranians cheat, then the West can impose sanctions after the event. Maybe even after the Iranians have reached nuclear weapons capability. Does the NY Times consider the possibility that imposing more sanctions at that point might be too late?
But worse, the NY Times places all of the blame for any failure of negotiations on Netanyahu. To be clear, the Israeli PM is not opposed to the talks. He is opposed to a bad deal while the NY Times appears to be hell-bent on accepting any deal. If talks do indeed fail, perhaps this may be influenced by Netanyahu’s lobbying. Ultimately, however, the results of talks with the Iranians will be down to those sitting around the table and certainly dependent upon the credibility of Iranian intentions.
For the NY Times to single out Netanyahu twice in the space of a week would indicate a personal vendetta. How sad that the paper of record has descended to this level.
As for “the rest of us” paying the price, who do the members of the NY Times editorial board think they are? If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it won’t be the editorial board paying the price but it might just be Israel.