The U.S., Egypt, and Iran with David Sanger

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times and WNYC contributor David Sanger joins from Cairo to discuss the latest in U.S.-Egypt relations, as well as developments between Iran and the U.S. Plus what the resignation of Bill Daley means to the Obama administration.


David Sanger

Comments [12]

jgarbuz from Queens

Obama had a Muslim father, so I can understand his hope that accommodation between Islam and a Jewish state may be possible. I think Israel has tried, and so far failed. The Muslims see no reason why they should accept a Jewish state in their midst, now or forever more. I think it will take a century or more for that to happen, assuming there is no nuclear war in between.

Jan. 10 2012 11:44 AM
john from office

I support Israel, but dont buy this Obama is anti Israel kick. And it is everywhere.

Jan. 10 2012 11:40 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To John

Admittedly, Obama has backtracked a bit and has done a lot in the last year or two to repair relations with Netanyahu. And vice versa. I believe Obama and Netanyahu came to an unwritten agreement. If Bibi curtails the settlers and stops any new settlement OUTSIDE of Jerusalem, Obama promised in exchange to stop Iran's nuclear program at any cost short of war. And so we finally have very tough sanctions on Iran, though 15 year late in the game. Bibi was warning and railing against Iran as far back as 1996, and was mostly ignored. And Netanyahu, on his part, has been risking virtual civil war in Israel over his curtailing the settlers. So both have done a lot to try to get back on even keel. But time will tell if Iran will change its evil ways, or is ready to go on come hell or high water in its plan to dominate the Middle East through its proxies, which includes the oil fields of course.

Jan. 10 2012 11:38 AM
john from office

jgarbuz, you are a one trick pony. Zion Zion Zion.

Obama has not sold out Israel, that is a big lie.

Jan. 10 2012 11:32 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Ostensibly Iran is a theocratic democracy, but all candidates for higher office must be approved as appropriate by the "Council of Experts" who are the Ayatollahs who are considered the religious higher rulers of Iran. So as long as any candidate submits to the idea that Iran is a Islamic religious state, he or she can run for office. No one can challenge the "Supreme Fuehrer" Ayatollah Khameini. Even Ahmadinejad has been under fire for daring to even question the holy rulership of the Supreme Ayatollah. He's like the Pope. His authority may not be challenged.

Jan. 10 2012 11:28 AM
Jay F.

The reason the Iranian nuclear plant is located in Qom is strategic. Qom became one of the important centers of theology in relation to the Shia Islam, and became a significant religious pilgrimage site. Any attack on Qom would be perceived to be an attack on Islam.

Jan. 10 2012 11:24 AM

In the US, the executive and judicial branches are separated. Thus, one person can be sentenced even if it hurts international relations (or at least, we hope that it works this way).

Couldn't it be the same in Iran? Or at least, there are different people and it's not a monolithic block?


Jan. 10 2012 11:21 AM
Elaine from Baltimore

When will the media stop putting a qualitative description of what is going on in the Middle East? By calling riots and overthrowing governments a "spring" presupposes a blooming of democracy which has no basis in history in the Middle East, save for Israel. What is happening is called a revolution.

Jan. 10 2012 11:19 AM

The diff betw Iran & U.S. is that in Iran you get a trial before the death sentence. In the U.S. it's the reverse.

Jan. 10 2012 11:17 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

Great Obama foreign policy! Okay, I will grant him his due. He did finally find and kill Osama bin Laden. He deserves our respect for that. But what else? Iran is almost a nuclear superpower. Egypt and Syria are in turmoil. He did manage to stop Israel from building new settlements, so those who feel that is a great thing will be happy. But the Islamization of America goes forward at a rapid clip. And so overall, I have had to leave Obama behind. I was hoping for Herman Cain, but I'd back Santorum if he should luck out. If its' Romney vs.Obama,I'll probably abstain because I don't trust Romney either.

Jan. 10 2012 11:13 AM

As the stenographer of the PTB, it's useful to listen to him to find out what the PTB are afraid to outloud themselves.

Jan. 10 2012 11:02 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Please ask Mr. Sanger why Obama opposed the Menendez bill against the Iranian banks that passed the Senate 100-0 (!) and was sponsored by NJ’s Menendez , Schumer and all the others in a rare show of bipartisanship. Then when he signed the bill, he said that he would NOT promise to honor it and would consider it only “advisory”. Mr. Bipartisan himself, eh?
He demanded that that it be suspended if oil markets get tight (and gas prices go up that would hurt his re-elect numbers (politics before security by Obama as usual)….. and the Senate included a waiver!!! (Of course, he could just approve the Keystone Pipeline if he is worried about that.) He still opposed it.

Please ask…what’s his game this time? (Is it because his new BFF Erdogan of Turkey requested it?)

What is really the White House’s reasoning here? The Obama media has not given this significant coverage.

The Iranian currency fell drastically after the vote….then rebounded after Obama’s refusal to implement it. Whose side is this guy on, anyway?

Jan. 10 2012 09:57 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.