Obama's Appeasement of Iran is... Bush's Fault (Of Course)
Mr. Shavit is right to say that Iran, not Iraq, should have been Bush's primary target after 9/11. But the central mission should have been the Iranian regime, not its centrifuges. He's also right that we didn't have to send armies into Iran, but he never once talks of supporting the vast Iranian opposition. That strategy worked against the Soviet Union, and might well have worked--indeed it might still work, even at this late hour--against the Iranian theocracy.
I don't know Mr. Shavit, so I can't decide if he's just silly, or if he's part of a desperate effort to save President Obama from the political consequences of his failed policies. Maybe it's both. At the end of his oped, Mr. Shavit dissolves into near-total incoherence.
Rather than pursuing a dangerous interim agreement, the West must insist that all the centrifuges in Iran stop spinning while a final agreement is negotiated. President Obama was right to demand a settlement freeze in the West Bank in 2009. Now he must demand a total centrifuge freeze in Iran.
Mr. Shavit thinks that negotiating with an ally--Israel--is like negotiating with an enemy pledged to destroy us. No wonder he likes Obama and blames the whole thing on Bush.
See also from Bridget Johnson: Group of 14 Senators Join Hands to Forge New Iran Sanctions