Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff'

[babylonsister]

Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff'
By Jeffrey Goldberg

Mar 2 2012, 7:00 AM ET

Dismissing a strategy of "containment" as unworkable, the president tells me it's "unacceptable" for the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear weapon.


At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

The 45-minute Oval Office conversation took place less than a week before the president was scheduled to address the annual convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, and then meet, the next day, with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House. In the interview, Obama stated specifically that "all options are on the table," and that the final option is the "military component." But the president also said that sanctions organized by his administration have put Iran in a "world of hurt," and that economic duress might soon force the regime in Tehran to rethink its efforts to pursue a nuclear-weapons program.

"Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested," Obama said. "It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to to be the best decision for Israel's security."

more...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

[leveymg]

1. WH communicating indirectly with AIPAC - call it international diplomacy.

Last edited Fri Mar 2, 2012, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Wouldn't be the first time that there was dual messaging, ambiguity, and signals got confused by the messenger.

On the other hand, if Obama doesn't tell Bibi that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran would be contrary to US national interests, and will be treated as such, then the Israelis will take that as a go-signal.

If there's an Israeli attack, it's only because the US President okayed it. Whether that authorization is explicit or implicit, it makes no difference as far as Iran is concerned.

[Gruntled Old Man]

2. That's something I just don't get

Israel is a sovereign state. They don't need our approval to do anything. We are also a sovereign state that can (and should) cut off all military and financial aid to Israel if they attack Iran. Simple!

[bananas]

3. It's not that hard to understand.

When Bush and the neocons were in charge, their goal was regime change, and they wanted to invade Iran.
One of the reasons they didn't invade was because they realized that the people of Iran would rally around their government, much as Americans did after 911. That's the opposite of what the neocons wanted.

And look what happened - the Green Revolution took root and had to be brutally suppressed. Do you think the Iran government likes brutally suppressing its citizens? No, of course not. They would much rather have an external threat, so that the people would support the government instead of trying to change it.

Obama isn't so interested in regime change, but he's very concerned about proliferation. So the Iranian government is doing everything they can to provoke him. From their perspective, getting bombed is a win-win situation - Obama gets to take tough action on nuclear proliferation, and they get more political power.

And don't be surprised if the Republicans emulate their hero Ronald Reagan and make a deal with Iran's government to make Obama look bad.

If you still don't understand, go read Machiavelli, or watch a few episodes of Survivor, or read the Godfather (the book explains a lot more than the movie).

[denem]

4. In 2007, Bush refused Israeli requests for access over Iraqi airspace.

The answer then was no, and it still is for the time being.

[bananas]

6. "he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail"

Obama will bomb them himself.

[leveymg]

8. I don't take Jeffrey Goldberg's account at face value, nor should you.

This is more ambiguity and posturing toward AIPAC, not a binding statement of policy by Obama.

[Hotler]

17. We should cut off all military and financial aid period. When will Israel learn to

pull its self up by its own bootstraps? Show some accountability and personal responsiblity and stop sucking at the teet of the American tax payers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. K&R

[bananas]

7. Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue? Absolutely...it would be very intentional.

GOLDBERG: Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don't think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very intentional.

[crimsonblue]

10. feel free to call me crazy

but IMO Iran has just as much international legal right to defend itself with Nuclear weapons as does the US and Israel. MAD, anyone?

Instead of fomenting war, we should be supporting protests in Iran to topple their regime.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Not according to the NPT. If they withdraw, then they can "go for it!"

[crimsonblue]

12. yeah so...

I've been out of the loop (no cable, only visit tech and sports websites). What is the NPT?

[crimsonblue]

13. n/m

figured it out. That's why I said IMO. The NPT was written by the US. Nuclear technology is not something that the US can have a monopoly on. A country has the right to defend its borders against enemies. I daresay Israel is as big a threat to global peace as Iran, especially with Netanyahu in charge.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I understand it is your opinion.

However, you are incorrect about the NPT (apologies, I thought it was a common enough acromyn). It isn't just the US which has nuclear powers based on it, so it's not a US monopoly. No one is saying a country doesn't have a right to defend its borders, well, except some who think Israel isn't entitled to do so. However, they are saying they can't do it with nuclear weapons as per the contract they willing signed.

[bananas]

15. The NPT calls for global nuclear disarmament - including the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" is not expressed anywhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as a three-pillar system, with an implicit balance among them:

1. non-proliferation,
2. disarmament, and
3. the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.[2]

<snip>

Second pillar: disarmament

Article VI of the NPT represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States.

<snip>

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued 8 July 1996, unanimously interprets the text of Article VI as implying that

"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."

The ICJ opinion notes that this obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.[13]

<snip>

And disarmament has been happening - it needs to continue - Iran is going the wrong direction and will start a nuclear arms race in the middle east - that's really bad - MAD almost happened by accident several times between the US and USSR - global abolition of nuclear weapons is essential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament



United States and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945-2006. These numbers include warheads not actively deployed, including those on reserve status or scheduled for dismantlement. Stockpile totals do not necessarily reflect nuclear capabilities since they ignore size, range, type, and delivery mode.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. The vast majority of the world has accepted the oligopoly over nuclear weapons

It's not a US Monopoly. The UK, France, China, and Russia (the states that became nuclear powers before the NPT) are also allowed to have nuclear weapons under the treaty. Yes it's hypocritical in the sense that it's not more just for one state to have them over another state. However, nearly the entire world has accepted this as the state of affairs, because it's not in the world's best interest to have nuclear weapons all over the place.

[ellisonz]

18. My theory on international nuclear diplomacy:

when a party says something in regard to a policy decision, interpret it to mean exactly the opposite for the purpose of deciding your position.