Responding to “The Iran Nuclear Talks Explained” in the New York Times

Source: CBs News

In a straight NY Times news article, not analysis, “The Iran Nuclear Talks Explained,” Steven Erlanger writes:

“They (the signers of the JCPOA) want to restore compliance with an agreement that put strict controls on Iran’s nuclear enrichment, to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

“Trump pulled the United States out of the accord in May 2018…restored and then enhanced harsh economic sanctions against Iran, trying to force it to renegotiate….Iran responded…by acting more aggressively in support of allies in the Middle East, like Hezbollah, Hamas, Shia militias in Iraq and the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.”

Sounds correct, right? Nope.

It is entirely misleading to say Iran responded to Trump’s withdrawal by acting aggressively. The implication is that they were restrained and compliant since the agreement was signed during the Obama administration.

Yet, from the summer of 2015, when the deal began to go into effect, until President Obama left office in January 2016, Iran never paused in ramping up its support of its terrorist proxies. It knew that no matter what it did, the Obama administration would not impose any sanctions or consequences for their expansionism, terrorism, missile development, or human rights abuses despite promises to the contrary. It was nearly three years later, two years into Trump’s term, before the US left the JCPOA, so the article is at best misleading, with facts out of context.

The claim that the JCPOA is “to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon” is not correct. In fact, the JCPOA allows Iran to legally begin a full-scale nuclear industrial program in 2030, with the blessing of the signers of the JCPOA.

Facts are inconvenient for supporters of the JCPOA, but when they are disguised as news in the NY Times, they perpetuate a fraud on the public. Buyer beware if you read the NY Times and nothing else for comparison.

By mepin