New York Times gets it wrong again in backing Obama's atttempt to let Iran become a Nuclear Power

The NYT 11/11 editorial entitled “Iran Nuclear Talks: Unfinished, but Alive” was not unexpected in it’s analysis of the P5+1 and Iran nuclear negotiations. While I understand that the NYT has positioned itself as the voice of liberalism in America, and will defend and promote President Obama’s hap hazard social and foreign policy agenda - the sophistic argument laid out in your editorial would have been considered “malpractice” in the medical world.

President Obama and John Kerry are “rushing” to sign ANY document that would in essence tie Israel’s hand in mounting a defensive war against a brutal regime that has been at war with Israel since 1972 through it’s proxies – and has on more than one occasion said they would wipe Israel off the map.

The result of President Obama “resetting” 30 years of U.S. Mideast policy is that all of our allies there now don’t trust America under Obama. He has lost total credibility and I totally understand it. Obama threw Egyptian President Mubarak under the bus, lied about his red line in Syria and agreed to a papered over WMD agreement with Russia that has fallen apart (and looked like Swiss cheese from the start) as thousand more Syrians are brutally murdered. Now Obama wants to legitimize Israel’s greatest threat without Israel as party to the agreement – and instead must “take Kerry’s word” that Obama has their back.

The NYT stated that Israeli President Netanyahu should wait to see the agreement before criticizing it. On the contrary, there should be no agreement without Israel being party to the agreement and at the table BEFORE it is signed. It is obvious that Obama is trying to rush to sign this document for three reasons: Polish his tarnished foreign policy image after the disastrous Syria/Benghazi missteps, pressure Israel from attacking Iran before Iran goes online, and most importantly to delegitimize Israel in the event they do have to attack.

America is comfortably oceans away from Iran, with the largest and most technical logically advanced military on earth.  Iran does not pose an immediate threat to the USA, so making agreements – even BAD agreements – does not have existential consequences. On the other hand, Europe, Africa and the rest of the Mideast have a different perspective – close enough proximity to be threatened.

The loose, but vocal alliance between Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Arab countries should be a wake up call for the world: When Jews and Arabs unite against a common foe – especially a foe who has killed thousands at home, and hundreds of thousands in Syria – the world should take notice. Obviously, Obama wants his trophy agreement – an agreement that I hope this alliance will not let happen in their part of the world.