Clayton Miller | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Clayton Miller 
Member since Jul 26, 2015

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Obama takes long view


In “Obama takes long view” by Gene Lyons, the author—rather than analytically addressing the pro’s and con’s of the Obama administration’s proposed deal with Iran (which recent polling shows a majority of Americans who know of the deal oppose)—simply resorts to quoting selectively from, inter alia, President Obama and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times as empirical evidence in support of said agreement. I kid you not.

For example, midway through the op-ed, the author actually writes the following paragraph:

That’s the same reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and his U.S. congressional allies) need to cool it with the Chicken Little rhetoric. Obama thinks it’s “highly unlikely that you are going to see Iran launch a direct attack, state to state, against any of our allies in the region. They know that that would give us the rationale to go in full-bore, and as I said, we could knock out most of their military capacity pretty quickly.”

Iran has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism for over thirty years, its leaders routinely call for the destruction of Israel, and it arms and finances terrorist groups around the globe. Former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani once characterized tiny Israel as a “one-bomb country.”

Nevertheless, I am sure Israelis will sleep better knowing that Iran will not launch a nuclear attack against Israel at some point in the future because President Obama thinks it is “highly unlikely” to happen. If only the President had informed Prime Minister Netanyahu of this earlier, I am sure Netanyahu would have cancelled his March speech to both Houses of Congress!

But it gets better, or worse, depending on your point of view. Towards the end of the op-ed, the author explains that: “This deal isn’t the end. But it’s an excellent beginning — of what, it remains to be seen. Iran has essentially purchased anti-invasion insurance, while the U.S. and its allies have bought relative stability in the Persian Gulf.”

“Anti-invasion insurance”? I was not aware that the U.S., or any other country for that matter, was seriously contemplating invading a country that is about 3.75 times larger than the size of Iraq with a population over 80 million!

“Stability in the Persian Gulf”? Astoundingly, the author seems unaware of the dangerous instability we are currently witnessing in the Middle East. Iran is pursing a nuclear program (which the proposed Iran deal only delays and leaves the problem for future presidents) and vying to dominate “a Shiite crescent” currently stretching through Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. There is now a Salafi-jihadist “caliphate” in parts of Iraq and Syria, increased terrorism in the Sinai Peninsula, “Hamastan” in Gaza and a chaotic Libya and Yemen.

Notwithstanding, the author’s shaky grasp of Middle East realities, this editorial is an affront to logic. It should never have been published.

Sincerely, Clayton

1 like, 6 dislikes
Posted by Clayton Miller on 07/26/2015 at 5:26 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation