Iranian Nuclear Program Framework Deal Postmortems
by Stephen Lendman
Next to Russia, Iran is the West's favorite punching bag.
Demonizing the Islamic Republic is longstanding - with no just cause whatever. Fake reasons are invented.
Tehran's nuclear program and other policies aren't what matter. Its sovereign independence arouses Western ire - mainly America's.
Israel wants unchallenged regional hegemony. Iran is its main rival.
Israeli policy aims to eliminate it one way or another - by war if other alternatives fail. Washington's agenda is no different.
Framework agreement terms reached in Lausanne guarantee nothing ahead toward normalizing relations with Iran.
It takes a giant leap of faith to believe ongoing talks (if produce positive results by June 30) will end 36 years of virulent anti-Iranian sentiment.
Supporters of framework agreement terms reached hailed a historic achievement. Critics expressed far different views.
New York Times
editors praised a "promising deal" while bashing Iran irresponsibly at the same time.
Framework terms agreed on make "it more likely Iran will never be a nuclear threat," they said.
It never was before. It deplores nuclear weapons. It's the region's leading proponent of abolishing them altogether.
Don't expect Times editors to explain. While endorsing Lausanne's achievement, they lied about a nonexistent Iranian threat in Syria and elsewhere regionally.
They turned truth on its head saying "(t)here is good reason for skepticism about (Tehran's) intentions."
Iran was one of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's (NPT) first signatories.
It fully observes its provisions. America violates them egregiously - like virtually all other treaties, conventions and agreements it accepted.
Israel refuses to sign NPT or let its known nuclear weapons facilities be inspected.
It's not at all clear whether Obama wants a final deal short of virtual Iranian surrender on issues mattering most.
Or if he'll observe whatever may be agreed to ahead or find ways to sabotage things - irresponsibly blaming his wrongdoing on Iran.
Neocon Washington Post
editors headlined "Obama's Iran deal falls far short of his own goals."
They want Iran denied the right to produce peaceful nuclear energy.
They ignore US and Israeli intelligence assessments saying it has no military component - or any evidence suggesting it wants one.
They're silent about Israel being nuclear armed and dangerous. Its illegal chemical and biological weapons complement its nuclear arsenal.
"Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain intact," WaPo editors bemoaned.
When terms agreed to expire in 10 years, "the Islamic Republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state."
It never was before throughout the entire post-WW II nuclear era. Israel began developing nuclear weapons in the 1950s with US help.
Don't expect WaPo editors to explain. Instead they absurdly claim terms agreed to let Iran "wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region."
Iran deplores war. It's done more regionally promoting peace and stability than any of its Arab neighbors.
Israel wages permanent war on Palestine. It's the greatest threat to world peace along with America.
Don't expect WaPo or other Western editors to explain. Big Lies substitute for hard truths.
Wall Street Journal
editors bashed Obama's deal. Framework terms are preliminary toward trying to reach final agreement by June 30.
Journal editors admitted "some useful limits on Iran, if it chooses to abide by them."
"All this would be somewhat reassuring if the US were negotiating a nuclear deal with Holland or Costa Rica - that is, a law-abiding state with no history of cheating on nuclear agreements. But that’s not Iran," Journal editors disingenuously claimed.
No nation's nuclear program is more intensively monitored than Iran's. No credible evidence suggests it fails (earlier or now) to observe NPT provisions agreed to.
Nothing indicates it threatens its neighbors, Israel or any other country.
It hasn't attacked another nation in centuries. It deserves proper treatment it's been denied for decades. Don't expect media scoundrels to explain.
It cited a so-called expert ludicrously claiming Iran can sprint to the bomb in three weeks.
It said Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies head Efraim Inbar urges Israel to "seriously consider" bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
He sounds like neocon lunatic John Bolton saying "I hold the view that the only way to stop Iran in its journey to a nuclear bomb is through military means."
"Israel needs to seriously consider striking a number of important nuclear facilities" to prevent a nonexistent threat.
Israel should have bombed Iran two years ago, he added.
Israeli security and intelligence officials met on Friday. They unsurprisingly rejected framework agreed on terms.
"This deal would legitimize Iran's nuclear program, bolster (its) economy, and increase (its) aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond," Netanyahu blustered.
"Such a deal would not block Iran's path to the bomb. It would pave it."
Israel is the region's only nuclear armed and dangerous country.
Iran's longstanding record shows it abhors nuclear weapons. It wants them abolished altogether.
It supports world peace and security. It bears repeating. No two nations threaten it more than America and Israel.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.