Obama talking tough about Iran

By: dgun
March 5th, 2012
7:52 pm

Obama talking tough about Iran

A couple of days ago, President Obama warned Iran that the US would use a military option if necessary to keep it from developing a nuclear weapon. Obama then urged Israel to drop any plan for a strike against Iran as any such attack would rally support for Iran in the region. However, President Obama stated that Israel has a right to defend itself. Netanyahu responded in part by saying:

"I appreciated the fact that President Obama reiterated his position that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and that all options are on the table. I also appreciated the fact that he made clear that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, containment is simply not an option."

Although news coming out of a meeting held today between Netanyahu and Obama has been mostly positive, differences still remain between the two on exactly what threshold Iran must cross before military force is authorized. Israel believes that once Iran has the technology to develop a nuclear weapon, military force should be used to destroy that capacity. Obama has been unwilling to commit to such a plan and instead is sticking to a more general policy of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear arms.

Meanwhile, Iran has been craw-fishing from its previous hardline position, inviting talks with European Union and indicating that it might relent to inspections. Maybe the sanctions currently in place and the new saber rattling by the US will be enough to convince Iran to change course and offer transparency to the international community. But I'm just not hopeful that Iran can be trusted to do anything in good faith. And if the signposts and all the landmarks along this road look familiar, it's because we've been down it before with North Korea.

Join the Discussion!

25 comments on "Obama talking tough about Iran"

  • Corodon
    March 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Originally Posted by bishop
    from what i have been reading and hearing in the radio, israel wanted to launch a preemptive strike with our blessing, which obama wouldn't give. instead, he's putting our military and country in harm's way..

    leading from behind is laughable imo. moving three aircraft battle carrier groups into striking position sure is some flaccid leadership if i ever saw it..
    In moving all that hardware into position, Obama is perhaps entering the parlous waters GW Bush found himself in re Saddam's Iraq.

    Our "credible military threat" then, buzzing around enforcing the no-fly zone and such, had a limited shelf life. Hans Blix was roaming Iraq, the U.N. was plying a "Food for Oil" scam, Europeans were actively working to undermine our sanctions against Iraq: It was not a stable situation, and the bottom line was, with all that hardware, we had to use it or lose it.

    So we move a lot of muscle close to Iran. They don't budge. Our move.

  • Norm dePlume
    March 5, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Originally Posted by Corodon
    In moving all that hardware into position, Obama is perhaps entering the parlous waters GW Bush found himself in re Saddam's Iraq.

    Our "credible military threat" then, buzzing around enforcing the no-fly zone and such, had a limited shelf life. Hans Blix was roaming Iraq, the U.N. was plying a "Food for Oil" scam, Europeans were actively working to undermine our sanctions against Iraq: It was not a stable situation, and the bottom line was, with all that hardware, we had to use it or lose it.

    So we move a lot of muscle close to Iran. They don't budge. Our move.
    W was never bluffing Iraq or hoping for them to back down. He invaded because he wanted to invade. The fact is, Iraq did back down and it didn't matter. We invaded anyway. Because that was the plan ever since 9/11 (even before for some of the administration).

  • bishop
    March 6, 2012 at 7:58 am

    iraq war apologists like to argue that despite having a) aggressively enforced no-fly zones on the north and south borders of iraq, b) having the country surrounded by troops in afghanistan and saudi arabia and c) having two decades of punitive sanctions and d) having extremely intrusive inspections - that iraq somehow represented a threat..

    completely agreed w/norm.. bush and company, and repbulican supporters in general, wanted to go to war one way or the other. typical whining about the food for oil scam (while ignoring much larger kickback scams when we invaded) and europe-bashing is par for the course. a whole lot of hot air, that i don't even think they believe. again - they wanted war any way they could get it.

    made for some great television too. and now the establishment is putting the same pieces in place to set up a new tv series focusing on iran..

  • dgun
    March 6, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Someone rep Bishop.

  • 80zephyr
    March 6, 2012 at 10:35 am

    Originally Posted by bishop
    iraq war apologists like to argue that despite having a) aggressively enforced no-fly zones on the north and south borders of iraq, b) having the country surrounded by troops in afghanistan and saudi arabia and c) having two decades of punitive sanctions and d) having extremely intrusive inspections - that iraq somehow represented a threat..

    completely agreed w/norm.. bush and company, and repbulican supporters in general, wanted to go to war one way or the other. typical whining about the food for oil scam (while ignoring much larger kickback scams when we invaded) and europe-bashing is par for the course. a whole lot of hot air, that i don't even think they believe. again - they wanted war any way they could get it.

    made for some great television too. and now the establishment is putting the same pieces in place to set up a new tv series focusing on iran..
    I agree that was the plan. And my guess is, it was the plan even before 9/11. IMO, we wanted to try nation building, to establish an Arab democratic government in the Mid East.

    The reality is, that if something there does not change, our great, great, great grandchildren will be embroiled in the same bullshit there that we are now. I don't agree that it should have been tried, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.

    Did the war have any impetus on the "Arab spring"? If so, it may work.

    Mark

  • Lady Marva
    March 6, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    Originally Posted by Corodon

    So Obama's challenge is to find a path somehow between the Scylla of preserving his reputation as a war ender, and the Charybdis of becoming a war starting cowboy. I suspect his lodestar will be the latest political poll, and I anticipate that Iran will proudly become a nuclear power before the new president is inaugurated.
    Unless Isreal does something so he can be the behind leader.

  • bishop
    March 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    interesting stuff out there...

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-migh...unker-busters/

    Originally Posted by
    he US might sell Israel special arms and munitions to aid in the case of a strike in Iran, an unnamed senior military source told Israel’s Army Radio Tuesday night.

    According to the report, although the two countries did not agree on specific red lines regarding Iran’s nuclear program during meetings in Washington, the US understands Israel’s position and is considering selling it weapons that could be used to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, including bunker-busting bombs and fueling planes.

    http://www.debka.com/article/21799/

    Originally Posted by
    American sources disclosed Tuesday March 6, that President Barack Obama had decided to let Israel have weapons systems suitable for long-range military operations and strikes against fortified underground targets. They include four KC-35 aerial refueling aircraft, doubling the number already in the Israeli Air Force's inventory, and GBU-31 Direct Attack Munition-JDAM bombs of the type which serve US bombers especially those based on aircraft carriers.
    cannot vouch for the accuracy of the sources, although i've personally found debka to be right more often than not.

    israel wants to launch a strike and obama is doing what he can to buy more time, and keep the leash on our most rogue ally.

  • Tanvirhasan93
    March 8, 2012 at 3:37 am

    Obama is clever person. He know what to do. But just cannot control Israel and Iran

  • penmyst
    March 8, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Obama does this a lot.

    The talking.

  • Pookie
    March 8, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    As Ron Paul said, we are payng more attention to the Afghan/Pakistan border than we are our own borders. Let them fight it out and let us pay attention to our own backyard! Enough is enough.
    Pookie



Post Reply