“A Weakened Iran Still Has a Major Deterrent: the Nuclear Option,” WSJ, 10-8-24.  “In late September, a former head of Iran’s atomic agency, Fereydoun Abbasi, suggested that Tehran could start producing 90% enriched, weapons-grade uranium. U.S. officials have said it would take Iran less than two weeks to convert its current 60% nuclear-fuel stockpile into weapons-grade material. … While it claims its nuclear program is for purely peaceful purposes, Iran is the only nonnuclear weapons power that produces highly enriched uranium. It currently has enough near-weapons-grade fuel for almost four nuclear weapons, according to the most recent data from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran also has been conducting experiments with uranium metal, a key component of a nuclear weapon, and has cut back much of the international oversight granted by the nuclear deal.”

Again the NYT gets the story wrong.  Trump was right to back out of such a bad deal, an agreement that would actually lead to Iran having a nuclear program that produced a nuclear weapon.  Think of it this way—just because the U.S. backed out doesn’t mean that Iran had to decide to move toward weapons.  That is the definition of blackmail.  Or think of it this way—the Obama Administration believed in paying ransoms.  That the Trump Administration said no more ransoms was not a bad thing.  Or think of it like this—Obama’s JCPOA didn’t restrict Iran’s missiles, the same missiles it has used against the Middle East countries, against U.S. troops, and now against Israel.  And hey NYT, anytime you rely on Ben Rhodes for foreign policy advice, you’ve got a problem.  See “Iran Crisis Ignites New Debate About Trump’s Nuclear Deal Exit,” NYT, 10-8-24.

“Ex-soldier on trial accused of spying for Iran,” BBC, 10-8-24.