New York Times Warns of “Hard Line” Opponents of Iran’s Nukes

This however is moderate

This however is moderate

Better watch out for these folks. They’re “hard line” opponents of Iran’s moderately genocidal nuclear weapons program.

Here’s how the New York Times decided to write about United Against Nuclear Iran, a group that holds the fanciful idea that an international sponsor of terrorism probably shouldn’t be allowed to have nukes.

The highly unusual move by the Justice Department raises questions about the connections between the American government and the group, United Against Nuclear Iran, a hard-line voice seeking to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The group has a roster of prominent former government officials and a reputation for uncovering information about companies that sometimes do business with Iran, in violation of international sanctions.

We’ve now reached the topsy-turvy world of liberalism in which supporting Iran’s nuclear program is moderate but opposing it is hard-line.

Instead of investigating Iran’s nuclear program, the New York Times investigates opponents of nuclear terrorism. (Hard-line opponents, mind you.)

If they were moderate opponents of Iran’s moderate nuclear program, they would have no problem with Iran getting a few nukes. Unfortunately they’re hard liners so they’re completely opposed to Iran’s program of nuking Tel Aviv.

This latest bout of insanity has been brought to you by the letter L. L for Liberal, also Lunatic.


  • Gee

    Wow I didn’t know that it was so dangerous to legally gather information about an illegal activity.

    The New York Times is an enemy of all democracies and freedom loving people in the world

  • proReality

    This administration likes to work via proxies to attack their critics and advance their agenda. J Street is one such proxy, created in order for the administration could have “Jewish” cover to attack Israel. The NYT is another tame organization happy to be provided with “exclusives” and spin to propagate. To avoid a public backlash when the administration allows iran to get nukes, they need to first paint opposition to this as “hard line”, “unreasonable” and that ultimate of distain….”right-wing”.

  • Habbgun

    Its not as topsy turvy when you think of it as collaboration. Then it pigeonholes quite nicely. Leftists and terrorist Moslems have a nice little thing going don’t they.

  • John Barleycorn


  • ChangeIranNow

    Usually the government intervenes when it has a compelling interest. In this case, that interest might be an ongoing investigation in finances or, as has happened in other similar cases with NGOs, a release of donors might jeopardize sources of information being provided to the US government by the organization. For example, Iranian resistance groups have in the past revealed the existence of the Iranian nuclear program and identified locations of centrifuges, research labs and the identities of Iranian nuclear scientists. They often get this information from their own sources within Iran who basically conduct their own investigations, which are often paid for through donations to the organization that gets funneled back to their sources.

    The Iranian regime has in the past used civil lawsuits in an effort to find out who
    has been funding these resistance groups and then use that info to crack down
    on relatives, associates and other connections, both in Iran and without in
    attempt to silence these critics. Totalitarian regimes such as China and Russia
    have used these tactics to find out who is backing their critics.

    I’m inclined to think this is one of those instances and DOJ is afraid is the money trail gets revealed, it’s going to disclose sources and methods of intelligence gathering.

    At the end of the day, I wouldn’t put it past the Iranian regime to pull the stops
    out of any avenue available to them to get a read on who their enemies are and get a laundry list of names, addresses and banking information delivered to them.