The Washington Post’s editorial board slammed the Obama administration Thursday evening over the framework for additional negotiations with Iran concerning its nuclear program that “fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration” and would allow Iran to “instantly become a threshold nuclear state.”
Set to run in the Friday print edition of the newspaper, the editorial also pointed to numerous examples of hypocrisy on the part of the President from previous moments in his presidency when he called for a deal far tougher than the one being discussed.
The 526-word piece began by ripping numerous parts of the agreement in addition to the President’s hypocrisy on the topic [emphasis mine]
The “key parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic Republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.
Next, the paper noticed that Obama “argued forcefully – and sometimes combatively” in his Rose Garden remarks on Thursday afternoon and expressed hope that the administration “will respond substantively to legitimate questions” instead of mock or belittle those expressing any skepticism to a deal.
On the topic Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, the Post predicted that the reduction in sanctions “will provide Iran a huge economic boost” to further those efforts and cause further tension in the region. Turning to the claims from negotiators that Iran will be constantly monitored so they don’t cheat, the paper called those promises “vague” and then simply asked: “Exactly what steps would Iran have to complete, and what would the verification consist of?”
In its conclusion, the lead editorial continued to blast the agreement and its proponents [emphasis mine]:
The agreement is based on a theoretical benchmark: that Iran would need at least a year to produce fissile material sufficient for a weapon, compared with two months or less now. It remains to be seen whether the limits on enrichment and Iran’s stockpile will be judged by independent experts as sufficient to meet that standard.
Both Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry emphasized that many details need to be worked out in talks with Iran between now and the end of June. During that time, the administration will have much other work to do: It must convince Mideast allies that Iran is not being empowered to become the region’s hegemon; and it must accommodate Congress’s legitimate prerogative to review the accord. We hope Mr. Obama will make as much effort to engage in good faith with skeptical allies and domestic critics as he has with the Iranian regime.
