Sunday, March 25th | 9 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

April 8, 2015 12:24 pm

New York Times Calls Israel’s Iran Nuclear Deal Demands ‘Unrealistic

avatar by

Email a copy of "New York Times Calls Israel’s Iran Nuclear Deal Demands ‘Unrealistic" to a friend

Tuesday's New York Times editorial on Israel's demands for a final nuclear deal with Iran. Photo: screenshot. – The New York Times editorial board wrote on Tuesday that Israel’s demands for a final agreement in the Iran nuclear deal are “unrealistic.” The newspaper, which pro-Israel advocates and media watchdog groups have long accused of bias against the Jewish state, also praised the recently reached framework nuclear deal as “potentially groundbreaking.”

On Monday, Israeli Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz laid out several specific requirements that Israel sees as necessary in any final agreement. Among the requirements, Steinitz called for an end to all research and development activity on advanced centrifuges; a more significant reduction in the number of centrifuges; the complete closing of the Fordo underground nuclear facility; the revelation of Iran’s past nuclear activities; an Iranian commitment to ship enriched uranium abroad; and “anywhere, anytime” inspections.

The deadline for a final nuclear deal between Iran and world powers is June 30. The New York Timeseditorial said that Israel’s “new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all.” The newspaper argued that Netanyahu has not offered any “workable options.”

“In any negotiation, there could never be a deal without compromise. … Ultimately, Mr. Obama had to make many judgment calls in getting a deal that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,” stated the editorial.

While calling Iran’s threats against Israel and the Islamic Republic’s involvement in terrorism “heinous and unacceptable,” the New York Times said Netanyahu’s demand that Iran recognize Israel should be dealt with separately—not as part of a nuclear deal, as the Israeli prime minister suggested. Israel’s demands “must not become an excuse to scuttle what seems to be a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal,” the editorial concluded.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • shloime

    a good starting point, for a “workable deal” just might be the security council resolution banning all uranium enrichment, all ballistic missile research, and free, unannounced inspections by the iaea. that’s what the un sanctions were imposed for, and that’s what should be done in exchange for lifting them.

    the fact that the ayatollah doesn’t like them is besides the point, the p5+1 doesn’t have to like lifting the sanctions, either.

    o’bummer has been swindled out of his underwear, and no amount of spin will explain away the emperor’s new clothes.

  • Mickey Oberman

    What did you expect from the NYT a pat on the back?

    It is such a foul publication that it is no longer fit for even wrapping fish.