Obama Says Nuclear Iran Poses "Grave Threat"; Would take "no options off the table"

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: NYT/Reuters

SDEROT, Israel (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with the Hamas-run Gaza Strip.

He said the international community should immediately offer "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants to build atom bombs but the Islamic Republic says its aims are peaceful.

"Iranians need to understand that whether it's the Bush administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the United States," he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired by Gaza-based militants....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-iran-usa-obama.html?_r=1&oref=login

[KittyWampus]

1. And that's what he's been saying. It's barely even newsworthy.

[Baclava]

14. Of course it's newsworthy

He's saying this in Israel.

[fascisthunter]

2. Nukes in general are a threat

Deal with your own back yard Obama... for the US is the only country to have ever used them in conflict. It's pretty damn hypocritical for us to point at others and claim they are a threat when we have already proven to be a bigger threat.

Not only that, but he promotes the anti-Iranian rhetoric which is a bit irresponsible since we know the neo-cons want to pre-emptively attack that country. He may be impressing some, but he isn't impressing me with this statement.

[Dave From Canada]

5. Yeah, the US used them to end a war in which they didn't start. That doesn't make America the bad

guys. You're rhetoric is just as bad as the anit-Iranian rhetoric. And being a "fascisthunter", you'd think Iran might be at the top of your list. LOL.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WriteDown]

12. The Japanese were losing 100K people a day....

at the end of WWII and they weren't about to stop. I guess it would have been okay by your standards to let that continue though? That bombing stopped German operations as well.

[JeanGrey]

22. Nah, they were going to give up that very day, don't you know?

[Jefferson23]

16. agreed!

[nels25]

3. He has it right however

he may have much problems getting the Russians and Chinese to go along on serious sanctions or otherwise.

China and Russia are obviously not in any mood to cooperate with a GOP administration, for me the interesting question is why would they want to work with Obama??

TWISI they are accumulating more power, economic and otherwise by playing to the world and antagonizing the US.

Any way Obama will obviously be better than shrub, but that will not automatically mean that these 2 will help the west and the Us in ways we would desire.

We shall see.

[Bragi]

4. So everyone else's nukes are fine?

I'm pleased to hear this is neither new or newsworthy, but I'm left wondering if there are other nuclear powrs in the area who he would threaten with a nuclear strike, or is this threat just for Iran?

- B

[tidy_bowl]

7. Ummmm, he didn't .....

....threaten anyone with a nuclear strike. Or do you know something the rest of us don't?

[keithjx]

6. The key here is that

having Obama say "I have all options on the table" and having Bush or McCain say "I have all options on the table" have two totally different impacts. Obama is trustworthy with his finger on the button. Bush's and McCain's motivations are selfish, not aimed at what is best for us as a country or a world, coupled with the fact that they both seem to have an itchy trigger finger.

Like you say, not newsworthy simply because it is much more believable when Obama says he'll weigh that decision heavily and pursue all other options first.
KJ

[CubicleGuy]

11. It doesn't matter who says it

having Obama say "I have all options on the table" and having Bush or McCain say "I have all options on the table" have two totally different impacts. Obama is trustworthy with his finger on the button.

Yes, and had Frodo only given Boromir the One Ring, Boromir would have used it wisely and would have subdued only Sauron with it, and the rest of the world he would have allowed to live in peace, forever. Boromir was a trustworthy guy, after all.

[Spouting Horn]

17. What is the advantage of

taking *any* options "off the table?"

[superconnected]

15. Is Obama trustworthy? How do you know? Do you also trust Hillary Clinton?

I believe the war with Iran (inevitable) will be for profiteering. I believe Hillary would jump in as fast as Mccain only they wouldn't have to lie to Hillary and convince her of an Iranian threat - she'd sell out for the profiteering motive. She is a corrupt corportist. Obama is a corportist and is very likey a corrupt one too. How do we know he won't do it for the sake of defense companies getting contracts?

We don't and from how he constantly sticks his foot down his throat ala hillary, my best guess is he will - go to war to pay back all those people who funded his 200 million run for president(psst - WTO). It wasn't us.

I'll vote for him. I like him. At least I try to, but I'm not dumb enough to trust him. He's only in his postion - presidential candidate - because he's representing people who stand to gain a whole lot of money if he gets elected.

[rAVES]

8. keep your eye on the country that hasnt invaded another in 300 years!!

its always the quiet ones..

[BB1]

10. Obama is not the saint you think he is.

He will not fix healthcare, he will not cut down on military spending, he will drill in ANWR, he will support Israel whatever the cause, he will leave children behind and most of all, he will allow big oil and big pharma to continue to rob the country.

And this comes from an European Obama supporter. Don't even bother to consider what I think of McCain. Obama is like Clinton. Good for foereign public relations, but the same crook with both hands in the cookie jar, handing out taxpayers' money to his friends.

His comments about Israel were quite provoking, I thought. Israel is not a miracle, it's a pest.

[Martin Eden]

13. Statements for public consumption ...

... and actual policy are often by necessity two different things. Announcing that certain options are "off the table" can strengthen your opponent's hand and lead to undesireable results.

However, it is imperative not to cross the line between playing your cards close to the vest and misleading the American people. For Bushco, that line never existed.

[BlueIris]

18. Great. The only real reason I chose Obama was because I felt he wouldn't take us to Iran.

Hope I don't live to regret that decision.

[readmoreoften]

19. The big plus was that he wanted to shut down Gitmo. Come to find out so does McCain.

The fact that he wanted to go to Pakistan and Afghanistan made me wonder what his policies would be towards Iran. Now I know. The only thing I see Obama as better for is that he'll stop a possible overturn of Roe and be less anti-labor and less anti-gay. This election has really left me with the sense that we're a one party state with a soft and hard line.

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. Exactly like we needed to stop Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons.

[gordianot]

21. All options are off the table whenever dealing with any nation that is a nuclear power.

It is just never stated in those terms. Own a nuclear warhead you have the potential to be dealt with very harshly by other members of the club. Limited Nuclear war is not an option that leads to survival. It seems for a variety of reasons that the members of the Nuclear Weapon (Country) Club (including allies China and Russia) are not too keen on allowing Iran to join the club. Exactly what the specific objections are is not explained but the word "unacceptable" seems to crop up frequently in associating Iran and Nuclear weapons.

Iran does seem to have a carrot when they look at how North Korea brought Bush to his knees by developing an almost working dirty bomb. They may be thinking in similar terms regarding the next U.S. President.

By the way I do not advocate bombing anyone, I just understand why Barak Obama states "no option off the table".

[anonymous171]

23. By "nuclear Iran" he means "Iran with Nuclear weapons" right?