The New York Times editorial board slammed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Tuesday for expressing skepticism of President Obama’s promises on foreign policy, even though the editorial board voiced nearly identical apprehension less than a year ago.
“Despite his commitment to negotiations [with Iran], President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning,” the Times stated in an editorial. “Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.”
Throughout the editorial, the Times faults Netanyahu, who gave a speech to Congress Tuesday critical of Obama’s negotiations with Iran, for doubting the potential for an agreement.
“His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow,” the Times ed board wrote of the hawkish Israeli leader. “He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts.”
In May of last year, however, the Times was just as skeptical of Obama and his willingness to use force overseas when diplomacy fails. Back then, theGrey Lady’s editorial board was weighing in on Obama’s handling of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Obama “bungled the Assad government’s chemical weapons attack against civilians last year (vowing there was a ‘red line’ and then allowing it to be crossed), and that has left doubts about his willingness to use force in other circumstances,” the ed board wrote.
Although Times applauded Obama at the time for making “the right choice when he went for a diplomatic solution,” the paper admonished him with the lesson that “no president should threaten military action and make a public case for it unless he plans to follow through.”
