Inventing Obama's Iran Timetable

"Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has an Iran Timetable"
A12, Tuesday 5/19/09,
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

If there was a story here about an Iran timetable, it's that Obama doesn't have one.

Netanyahu has been looking for a deadline on U.S. engagement with Iran, but came away empty from his first meeting with the President. Yet right there in the headline, the implication is that Netanyahu got from Obama what he was looking for.

Obama stated that by the end of this year, the U.S. would reassess the productivity of talks with Iran. This is the most specific Obama was on this point -- in reality and as reported in this article. Stolberg even seems to soften the headline's point when she rights in the 11th paragraph that "the exchange was the first time Mr. Obama had seemed willing to set even a general timetable for progress in talks with Iran". (emphasis mine)

It's unclear how "general" a timetable can actually be. A timetable is by definition a schedule (with more than one item), and Obama's vague reference to a year end evaluation should not be confused as one.

Stolberg makes another misstatement that Netanyahu got what he wanted. She writes "the more hawkish Mr. Netanyahu thanked Mr. Obama for keeping 'all options on the table' with respect to Iran. This is language that Mr. Obama rarely uses."

This is language that Obama rarely uses and did not use here, notwithstanding Stolberg's implication. Stolberg quotes Obama saying if diplomacy with Iran fails, he "did not intend to foreclose 'a range of steps'." The implication is that military action is part of this range. Interestingly, though, Stolberg shortened Obama's quote. The President had intoned something different when he said "we are not foreclosing a range of steps...including much stronger international sanctions." (emphasis mine)

Netanyahu may have spun what he wanted the press, and notably Iran, to hear. The Times either fell for the spin, or is set on framing the meeting as one in which Netanyahu got what he wanted.