Frighteningly Naive on Iran

1) "Mr. Obama and Iran," A22, Editorial
2) "Iran's China Option," A23, Column by Roger Cohen

1) Editorial

In both an editorial and a Roger Cohen column, the Times demonstrates that for all the apparent concern it expresses at the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the paper ignores Iran’s recent moves indicating an utter lack of interest in diplomacy.

The editorial lauds Obama’s “refreshing humility,” and his “constructive new tone” towards Iran. Yet Iran’s hostility towards the US has been more pronounced since this apparent change in tone.

Iran will now only agree to direct talks if the US pulls its forces out of the Middle East, abandons Israel as an ally, does nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

While the editorial praises the choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy since he “has a reputation for never giving up,” Iran has announced that it will refuse to deal with him. Perhaps that inconvenient truth wasn't known to the Times staff. Perhaps.

The editorial laments Bush’s failed policies. It’s “certain that the Bush administration never tried to find” the right mix of incentives or sanctions. Apparently the Times editorial staff sat in on the 28 direct meetings the administration held with the Iranians, as well as the strategy sessions held with European allies.

On one hand, the Times depicts Iranian nuclear capability as “frighteningly close,” and states “we’re not going to minimize the difficulties”. On the other hand, the paper never really elaborates on those difficulties, nor counsels an approach once diplomacy proves useless. The Times can only write vaguely of “carrots and sticks” and “persuasive diplomatic incentives,” while disavowing any military action, which it calls “a disastrous course”.

What the editorial fails to convey is the problem of Iran drawing out negotiations to give the regime more time to complete its program. If Obama’s diplomacy fails, will his proclamation about a nuclear Iran being “unacceptable” mean that military action [either from the US or from Israel] is inevitable? This question was worth asking.

The editorial need not advocate for military action or not talking with Iran, but it must convey, citing Iran’s recent rejection of Obama’s overtures, just how difficult diplomatic success will be and that there may turn out to be no ideal solution to this crisis.

******

2) Roger Cohen:

Before the upcoming Iranian election in June, Obama “should clarify that America wants an ‘honest broker’ role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supplant Bush’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.”

Cohen just doesn’t get it. Nothing short of abandoning Israel and advocating its demise will placate the Iranian regime. Iranian threats toward Israel aren’t a result of a stalled peace process, but of Israel’s existence.

The sooner Cohen, and other commentators grasp this, the better informed will be the public.