NYT's Friedman rejects Iran nuke deal

Washington's new "group think" on Iran–that the only possible approach is a heightened confrontation followed by "regime change"–is being shaped by the same opinion leaders who charted the way into the bloody disaster in Iraq and paid no career price. On Wednesday, New York Times' columnist Thomas L. Friedman rejoined the gang of tough-guy pundits by roughing up the leaders of Brazil and Turkey for daring to negotiate an agreement with Iran that would have it ship about half its low-enriched uranium out of the country and thus spur hopes for a peaceful settlement. To Friedman, this deal was "as ugly as it gets," the title of his column. However, others might think that seven-plus years of carnage in Iraq–the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, children with limbs blown off, and the 4,400 dead American soldiers and their grieving families–might be uglier. But not Friedman, who like many of his fellow millionaire pundits cheered on the Iraq War as the only possible way to deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, just as they now are demanding "regime change" in Iran, rather than an agreement to ensure that Iran doesn't produce a nuclear bomb, which Iran vows it doesn't want anyway.