Richard Nephew
On Monday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board came to the defense of President Donald Trump’s use of force against Iran, focusing specifically on the nuclear issue. The editorial essentially called Trump’s decision to attack Iran the only option to address the festering sore of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and capabilities. To buttress its version of events, it recounted a skewed version of the history of nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
It’s possible to go point by point, arguing over the various elements that are misstated or exaggerated in this editorial. For example, the Obama administration hardly “did little” in response to Iran’s nuclear and regional activities, executing the very same sanctions that Trump claims credit for as “maximum pressure” today. In fact, his expansion of sanctions identified in the editorial was mainly just a reimposition of the aggressive sanctions imposed under President Barack Obama but suspended pursuant to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. But much ink has been spilt over these topics in the last few years and to little avail; views on topics such as the JCPOA are probably too entrenched at this point to be shifted by facts or honest debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment