The ongoing toxic reporting from Huffington Post, which calls itself “the destination for news”, has once again distinguished itself with a collection of highly biased articles and a front page featured blog by David Bromwich, this time blasting Senator Chuck Schumer’s decision to vote against President Obama’s signature foreign policy ‘deal’ with Iran. One article begins with the statement, “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) preserved support from his hawkish pro-Israel base with his promise to vote down the Iran nuclear deal.”The articles about Schumer’s decision are full of innuendos about how he places his allegiance to Israel and the pressure from his Jewish constituents above his allegiance to the best interests of America. The fact that Israel stands to lose the most the fastest if Iran gets the bomb, or that Israel is a staunch American ally, doesn’t apparently enter into Huffington’s equation.
According to its editorial policy, it seems, anyone who disagrees with Obama’s ‘deal’ with Iran is on Huffington’s short list for hostile attacks. In the case of Chuck Schumer, the attacks smack of ugly, thinly-veiled prejudice.
Since the publication of objective, fact-based ‘news’ is today almost a thing of the past, it should not be surprising to see such slanted reporting. This is what now passes for news. But for those who still believe that news reporting should be objective and unbiased, Huffington Post stands at the forefront for providing dishonest, misleading content that favors liberal and socialist policies, and damns alternative opinions, however justified by our Constitutionally protected freedom of expression.
There are many sound reasons for thinking that Obama’s ‘deal’ with Iran is a bad one, reasons that thinking Americans should be considering. Among them are some of the obvious, that believing Iranian promises of compliance is unjustified, given Iran’s past behavior and the daily statements coming from Iran’s leaders that they will not abide by the ‘agreement’.
In an articulate and well-thought-out statement, enumerating the pros and cons of the ‘deal’, Schumer made a strong case for his decision. While giving full credit to the President for his efforts to achieve a meaningful agreement, he said, “I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.”
Huffington Post marginalized his thoughtful statement by highlighting Schumer’s Jewishness and his Jewish constituency, questioning his allegiance to Israel over US interests. Huffington stated that his constituents had exerted strong pressure on him to vote against the ‘deal’. Reporting on a demonstration in New York at which “an estimated 10,000 opponents to the Iran nuclear ‘deal’ rallied in front of Times Square, one article stated that the demonstrators had a clear message for Schumer: “Either sabotage the agreement, or lose a significant chunk of voter support.” In the article, written by Jessica Schulberg, one of the organizers of the rally in New York, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, was quoted as saying, “Leaders of legislative bodies, their job is to round up votes. And Chuck Schumer, you better round up those votes to kill the deal!”
To be sure, politics can sometimes get very nasty, and the choices facing legislators are frequently difficult to balance. But in the interest of informing the public about the reality of the complex events of the day, Huffington Posts has fallen far short. Rather than opting for the cheap shots at Schumer, an honest news organization would have presented both sides of the discussion and let the reader decide. There are, in fact, sound arguments to be made against the nuclear agreement, and Schumer made some of them. Here are some more:
Even if we forget the secret facilities that we know have been built inside Iran (although we don’t know where), we have ignored the fact that Iran has been developing a significant part of its nuclear program in North Korea since 2012. The two countries are collaborating on both the development of plutonium bombs and advanced MIRV deployment technology, and they are doing it deep inside North Korea, where the prying eyes of the IAEA cannot reach.
Also ignored is the knowledge that intelligence sources say that Iran already has enough fissile material to construct at least seven nuclear bombs, and that Teheran has some 300 missile silos in place inside Iran with the potential for launching of hundreds nuclear missiles.
We have also ignored the recent intelligence that Iran has made a major breakthrough in miniaturizing a nuclear warhead so that it can be mounted on their slender Shahab 3 missile. Their earlier inability to develop an effective delivery system because their warhead was too large was a key challenge that had been holding back the completion of their nuclear program. But the recent report suggests that this challenge has now been met.
Nor is that the end of it. No one seems to be watching Iran’s activities in Venezuela where Iran is a partner in a large uranium mine, from which it is removing large quantities of uranium and shipping them back to Iran labeled “aluminum” and “concrete”. This is in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which prohibits Iran from involvement in “uranium mining, production, or use of nuclear materials and technology.”
And finally, we are ignoring the blatant statements of the Ayatolla who leads huge crowds in the chants of “Death to America”; and the trip to Russia recently taken by Iran’s notorious Quds Force Commander General Suleimani, who was, among other things, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in the Middle East. With his trip, Iran has already begun flouting the terms of the new agreement before the ink on the agreement is barely dry. Suleimani was forbidden to leave Iran, and the purpose of his trip was to negotiate with Russia for the purchase of weapons, which was forbidden for five years under the terms of the ‘deal’ to which Iran agreed.
But when was Iran ever known for keeping its promises or dealing honestly with the rest of the world”?
This is only a part of a long list of compelling reasons that underscore why this is such a bad deal. They provide strong support for the argument for disapproving the ‘deal’. Whether Schumer’s decision to oppose it (despite the President’s desperate urging) will convince other Democratic senators to follow suit and thereby influence the outcome remains to be seen. But Huffington Post has already declared itself judge and jury, publishing commentary that is excessively partisan and blatantly anti-Semitic, blaming Schumer’s opposition on his Jewish constituents and his own divided loyalties.
Schumer’s decision took political courage, and he may pay dearly for it if he loses the opportunity for which he is now slated, to replace Harry Reid as the Democratic leader in the Senate. It is a high price for him to pay for standing true to his convictions and listening to the constituents whom he represents.
In six years of negotiations, our negotiators have given Iran everything it wanted and gave up every one of our own demands. In doing so, we have put ourselves, Europe, and the broader Middle East in grave danger. Even though we know that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by the agreement they have signed, our leaders in Washington were willing to move heaven and earth to get it done. With this deal, Iran can now build its nuclear arsenal without interference.
Huffington Post can rail against those who oppose the ‘deal’ and blame the Jews in Senator Schumer’s district for his ‘defection’, but it doesn’t change the facts oon the ground, and only shows how cheap and vulgar their ‘news’ reporting really is.
Hats off to Chuck Schumer. Whatever his reasons for taking a stand against the President’s ‘deal’, he showed courage and helped America take one step closer to protecting our freedom, the survival of our ally, Israel, and the safety of the world.
Ilana Freedman is a veteran intelligence analyst and advisor on counter-terrorism security solutions. She is editor of the Freedman Report.