During a debate I did a few weeks ago on the Iran nuclear talks, I was astonished when my far-left opponent asserted that Republican opposition to the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran was based on racism because President Obama is an African American. This absurd argument obviously did not make sense given growing bipartisan concerns that the United States has conceded too much to get a weak nuclear agreement with Iran.
I had almost forgotten this outlandish argument until I saw it in a New York Times editorial titled “A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks.” In this April 11 editorial, the Times contended that Republican attacks on Mr. Obama’s Iran policy are somehow based on subtle racism related to what it claimed were prior racist attacks on whether Mr. Obama is an American citizen and a secret Muslim.
The editorial levied other far-fetched criticisms of the president’s Republican critics, claiming that the letter by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran was a racist attack on Mr. Obama’s leadership and an effort to deny a Democratic president a policy victory.
The Times’ editorial writers tried to support these incredible charges by claiming there “was no functional difference” between the letter sent by the 47 GOP senators and if a group of Democratic senators had written to the Kremlin in 1986 to block then-President Reagan’s nuclear talks with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev. I should add the argument that Republicans are opposing the nuclear talks to deny a Democratic president a policy win appears to be a Democratic talking point since I encountered this same argument in two other debates I did over the last month on the Iran nuclear talks.
I take personal offense to the Times editorial since my criticism of the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran has been solely based on excessive U.S. concessions that I believe will lead to a weak and dangerous agreement with Iran. I have never claimed the president is not an American citizen or that he is a Muslim.
This editorial by the New York Times was an act of desperation. Mr. Obama’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran is not collapsing because of racism. It is collapsing because his Iran diplomacy is a disaster that produced an account of the nuclear framework — an outline for a final nuclear agreement with Iran — that is clearly a fraud. We now know that Iran never agreed to most of the tough provisions described last week by Obama officials. This is why top Iranian officials are claiming the Obama administration lied in a fact sheet it issued on the framework.
This includes Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stating last week that sanctions against Iran must be terminated when an agreement is signed, not lifted in phases based on Iranian compliance as Obama officials claimed. Mr. Khamenei also said Iranian military facilities will be off-limits to U.N. inspectors.
The purpose of this fraud appears to convince Democratic members of Congress – especially Senate Democrats – not to vote for legislation to give Congress a vote on an Iran nuclear agreement or to impose new sanction on Iran.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the Iranian government was not willing to play along with this subterfuge.
With the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran in deep trouble, the New York Times and other left-wing Obama supporters are prepared to do whatever is necessary to defend this initiative, including hurling charges of racism. Given the Iranian leadership’s rejection of the Obama version of the framework agreement and growing bipartisan opposition to Mr. Obama’s Iran policy, I am confident the American people are too smart to fall for the New York Times editorial board’s ridiculous claim.
Samuel Johnson once said patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Reckless claims of racism by the left, including in cases like this where race plays no role whatsoever, may merit an update to Johnson’s adage.
Fred Fleitz
Please read our comment policy before commenting.