NY TIMES : Ba-ba-ba BOMB BOMB IRAN

You know that funny little parody of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann?"

It seems like The New York Times and former UN Ambassador John Bolton like singing it: BA-BA-BA, BOMB BOMB IRAN!

Catchy, huh?

You remember Iran? The ones that want to blow Israel off the face of the Earth?

You remember their psychotic Ayatollah who took Americans prisoner and held Jimmy Carter by the balls?

You remember the Ringo Starr look-alike who'd show up at the U.N. in a rumpled suit and spout his anti-Semitism and lies? The one Jay Leno jokingly called, "Aboud I'm-a-Nut-Job?"

Funny, while the assholes of social-disease media keep whining about the Palestinians, and denying the Holocaust, and ignoring the terrorists such as ISIS, Hamas and Procol Harum, the New York Times ("Libtards! Libtards! Libtards!") gives space to, oh, the FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS to state his views on destroying one of the few rogue countries it's possible to destroy.

Edited down for all our attention spans, quoth Mr. Bolton:

"For years, experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability....President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.

"In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria...Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, keystone of the oil-producing monarchies, has long been expected to move first. No way would the Sunni Saudis allow the Shiite Persians to outpace them in the quest for dominance within Islam...

"Saudi Arabia has an option to obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan...Egypt and Turkey, both with imperial legacies and modern aspirations, and similarly distrustful of Tehran, would be right behind.

"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.

"Iran is a different story...Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

"An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran...The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East."

HAPPILY...

...FOR IRAN...

Nobody reads the NY Times anymore. It just piles up in libraries. A few pages (Broadway show listings, hedge fund articles) are read by some dentists and accountants and Wall Streeters, and their rich bitch wives leaf through the ads to see what $700 shoes look interesting.

After all, there's the chief rival, THE DAILY NEWS, and that paper isn't concerned with Iran at all. They are concerned with:

And what else concerns people who read the Daily News?