Nuclear deal reached with Iran...for now.

The Wall Street Journal and New York Times ran articles today discussing the deal with Iran to freeze their nuclear programs. For once, it seems that someone at the NYT has become critical of something within the Obama administration. While they use less quotes and devote less space to the information than the WSJ, it was easier to read. Both articles are top-front page news. They both use pictures of smiling officials, hugging officials. The WSJ takes a tone that is much more factual, reporting what specifically was agreed upon and glazed over where the difficulties lay. The NYT took almost a sarcastic tone, beginning with a description of a quote from the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif. “Smiling and avuncular, he reiterated Iran’s longstanding assertion that its nuclear program was peaceful, adding that the Iranian people deserved respect from the West.”

The WSJ outline the overall achieved goal: “The agreement calls for Iran to stop its production of near-weapons grade nuclear fuel—which is uranium enriched to 20% purity—and for the removal of Tehran's stockpile of the fissile material, which is estimated to be nearly enough to produce one nuclear bomb. Iran, in return, will gain relief from Western economic sanctions that U.S. officials believe will provide between $6 billion and $7 billion in badly needed foreign exchange for Tehran over the next half-year.” 

The NYT article points out immediately the shortfalls of the idea, whereas WSJ goes into detail what all is included in the deal. “The agreement, however, does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges.”

It was interesting that WSJ quoted Obama in a statement that was clearly thought out: “the most significant and tangible progress that we have made with Iran since I took office.” I would have loved for someone to mention if there has been progress with other presidents, or where our relationship is with Iran compared to other administrations. It was so well worded that it’s hard to ignore how specific it is.

While the WSJ does give a little to the opposition; “This deal appears to provide the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with billions of dollars in exchange for cosmetic concessions," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.)” it doesn’t go into detail like the NYT. WSJ also touches on the discomfort of Israel, who believes that the concessions the US has made will damage economic and security issues overseas.

It’s also pointed out by both articles that this is a temporary, six month agreement that can either be strengthened or completely undone later. The NYT is much more critical. ‘“At the end of six months, we may see another half step and six more months of negotiations — ad infinitum,” said Gary Samore, a senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council in Mr. Obama’s first term.”

Two very interesting points were made. One by the WSJ and one by NYT. The first, by WSJ: “Tehran cites the U.N.'s nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as affording every signatory that legal right to enrich uranium, provided it is used for civilian purposes. Successive U.S. administrations have denied this right exists and have supported multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities.” If that’s not fishy, I don’t know what is. This whole article, as does the NYT article, makes the US come off as the Big Brother of the World, which is something that isn’t a surprise, but to deny a country rights from the UN Treaty seems to be crossing a line. I would like to know why the US denied Iran this right.

The second point, which is the most important, was brought to light by the NYT. “This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. I feel like, for the first time in a while, the NYT brought up an issue that the public needs to debate. Why does the President get the power to make deals with other countries without Congress? Part of me wants to say, “why not,” considering how LITTLE is accomplished through congress and the senate. But another part of me wants to know how much power this gives the president of our nation and if he/she should even have it.

Way to go, NYT.