- Sign Up
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 27 July 2015 - 1:53pm
On July 23, the New York Times published an op-ed by Shmuel Rosner, political editor at Tags:
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 14 July 2015 - 2:10pm
The deal on curbing Iran's nuclear program and lifting sanctions is done.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 30 June 2015 - 12:17pm
Sign the petition at MoveOn or use the widget below.
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 16 June 2015 - 8:01am
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 9 June 2015 - 10:58am
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 4 June 2015 - 2:15pm
On Sunday, in the course of an article about Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders attracting huge crowds in Iowa, the New York Times told us that
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 16 May 2015 - 6:33pm
[This piece originally appeared at Huffington Post.]
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 16 April 2015 - 10:35am
[In what follows, I have redacted email addresses, phone numbers, and the names of people who were copied in the exchange but did not participate in it. These are replaced by “X.” When the identity of a participant in the exchange was identified by their email address, the name follows the redacted email address in brackets. -RN]
The key problematic statement in Grayson’s email claiming that critics of his position on the Iran talks are “concocting a conflict that doesn’t exist” is this [my emphasis]:
"As I said, I think that the final agreement should include a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program and its ICBM program, and an end to Iran supplying missiles to terrorist groups."
The reasons this statement from Grayson is so problematic are: 1) no reasonable informed person thinks that "a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program" is a remotely realistic goal for diplomacy, so Grayson's statement is setting up an impossible "unicorns and ponies" standard for a "good deal" (which Grayson, as an informed person, surely knows); 2) the other issues are outside the scope of the talks, and attempts by opponents of the framework deal to add these issues to the talks or argue that these issues are standards by which the comprehensive deal should be judged are a key point of dispute between supporters and opponents of the framework deal. Indeed, language in the original Corker Congressional review bill which the Administration and Senator Cardin successfully removed using the Administration’s veto threat concerns exactly this issue. As the New York Times reported [my emphasis]:
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 20 March 2015 - 10:20am
Submitted by Robert Naiman on 17 March 2015 - 10:26am
Congressional Republicans who are trying to blow up U.S.-European diplomacy with Iran would desperately like Americans to believe that they have some alternative besides war to the administration's multilateral efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement with Iran.