Discover more from House of Wisdom
When woke means supporting tyrants
The New York Times wants Iran's regime off the hook, calls Arab Spring 'fantasy'
The New York Times will thrash you if you say or do anything that may be construed as unfair or unjust. The Times will thrash you if you call for the enforcement of US laws by stopping illegal cross-border immigration to America. Laws do not matter, the Times argues, when it comes to basic humanity.
The Times will also thrash you if you say any word that is deemed offensive by anyone considered to be in the minority, especially people of color. If you do not like Islamic veil, the hijab, you’re a bigot and an Islamophobe.
But for the Times, America’s humanity and justice ends where the ocean begins. If the Iranians have to live under one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships, then let it be, because there is nothing America can or should do about it.
In an editorial, the Times calls uprisings against tyrants by the people of Syria, Libya and elsewhere the “folly of rose-colored fantasies.” Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who wanted to punish Hillary Clinton for believing that she helped spread democracy and foster color revolutions in former Communist states, must be thrilled to read the Times editorial.
The Times thrashed 43 US senators for signing a petition —authored by the Democratic Chairperson of the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey — that called on Biden to keep US sanctions on Iran until Tehran agrees to an amended nuclear deal.
Meanwhile, the woke paper showered praise on the US Envoy on Iran, Robert Malley, who is desperate to rehabilitate Iran’s tyrants and make them join the global economy. Malley is so toxic that Biden did not even dare to nominate him for a position that requires Senate confirmation. But the Times seems to prefer political appointees over elected lawmakers. Remember when the paper used to make a fuss out of Trump’s political appointments?
The Times editorial presents all the talking points of the Iran regime, and these points are contradictory. First, the paper argues that Trump’s policy of Maximum Pressure on Iran has failed. Second, the paper says that Biden should end this policy by removing US sanctions on Iran and rejoining the JCPOA (the nuclear deal) with Iran. The contradiction is this: If Trump’s Maximum Pressure policy has failed, then why bother lift it? Why not just let it fizzle away on its own.
In reality, Trump’s sanctions on Iran still have a huge effect on Iran’s free falling economy, and if Tehran wants them lifted, the Iranian regime better listen and allow amendments to the deal. The current nuclear deal, signed under Obama, was terrible. It traded lifting UN sanctions on Iran for Tehran pausing its uranium enrichment for a decade or so. The deal did not even restrict Iranian experiments on ballistic missiles, the second foot on which every nuclear program stands (because a nuclear warhead is useless unless it can be loaded on a missile that delivers it).
The New York Times is biased, unfair and doing the Iran regime’s bidding. Democracy dies in darkness. Democracy also dies when the press in the free world cheers for autocrats around the globe.