The New York Times has always been dead wrong on nuclear deals with rogue nations, among many other things

July 14, 2015:

The final deal with Iran announced by the United States and other major world powers does what no amount of political posturing and vague threats of military action had managed to do before. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics.

[7 paragraphs of bullshit omitted]

Agreeing on the nuclear deal is just the first step. Congress gets to review and vote on it. Powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu, have vowed to defeat it, and Mr. Obama may have to make good on his vow to veto any resolution of disapproval. It would be irresponsible to squander this chance to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.

Flashback to November 21, 1993:

Nervous commentators fear that North Korea is about to develop nuclear weapons, leading them to urge immediate sanctions or even bombing raids to take out the regime's nuclear facilities. But President Clinton is adopting a sound diplomatic strategy for coaxing North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions.

[8 paragraphs of bullshit omitted]

That's why Mr. Clinton is rightly resisting pressure to get tough with Pyongyang. Instead, he's taking a calculated political risk that the North means what it says. But Pyongyang should not be under any illusion: if it continues to balk, tougher measures are sure to follow.