AP: Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran in AIPAC speech today in Chicago

[flpoljunkie]

Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran
By DEANNA BELLANDI

The Associated Press
Friday, March 2, 2007; 1:51 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200668_pf.html

CHICAGO -- Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush administration failings in Iraq for strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

"A consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril," according to a text of a speech Obama delivered to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The Bush administration recently altered its position, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying this week that the U.S. is willing to talk to Iran on security in Iraq.

Obama also emphasized in his speech his commitment to protecting the security of Israel, which he called "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

"Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do share this vision," Obama said.

The speech was the second time in recent months that Obama has formally addressed foreign policy in his hometown of Chicago. In November, Obama called for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

But Obama focused on Iran Friday, calling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime "a threat to all of us."

A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama said the world--not just the United States--must stop Iran's uranium enrichment program.

"While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," Obama said.

Obama said Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. I just couldn't get past "Democrat presidential candidate"

Silly me, I know, but it's a red flag every time.

[Kagemusha]

2. Just speaking off the cuff here... I like this.

I think Obama's talking sense, though I think that there is a quote in italics there which should read "Against those who do NOT share this vision" with the NOT missing. (If so the AP will be correcting that later so no problem.. the gist is clear at any rate.)

This speech won't knock the virtual halo off Obama's head, IMO.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Obama appears to be on Wes Clark's page on Iran in terms of talking to 'em......

and I'm glad of that.

However, I believe that a new arms race was set off the day that Bush included Iran and North Korea in the axis of evil....unfortunately.

[Learn2Swim]

6. i agree

FrenchieCat, and am afraid you might be right on the arms race. :(

[The Magistrate]

4. Sen. Obama Is Quite Right, Ma'am

The folly of the present administration has enabled Iran to gain a large portion of its regional goals.

This is something the next Democratic President is going to have to clean up.

[Hardrada]

5. List some of these goals if you will.

I don't know what you are referring to.

[The Magistrate]

13. Most Noteably, Mr. Hardrada

The neutralization of Iraq as a regional rival, the reduction of it to effective satillite status, and more broadly, the consolidation of the region's Shia population into a coherent block capable of direction from Tehran.

[Hardrada]

15. I'm not sure all the cards have fallen that way.

After all there is a difference in blood between the Iragis and the Persians. And you know what they say about blood. Blood and Honor and all that= national survival. In short, nationalism may trump religious ties.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Please check your inbox, Magistrate.

Thank you.

[wyldwolf]

7. he makes a great point. But...

... Presidents during the height of the cold war always had used subtle hint of force during their ""direct engagements" with the Soviets.

[ieoeja]

11. So you're complaining that Obama isn't subtle enough.

"While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," Obama said.

I guess you're right. Giving a speech in front of a pro-Israeli lobby and outright stating that you are retaining military action as an option is a pretty direct hint of force. Nothing subtle about that at all.

[CJCRANE]

8. Obama cannot "blame U.S."

he is part of the US. He is blaming Bush. There is a big difference.

[mazzarro]

10. So Obama agrees with * about Iran?

"Obama said Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race" - the fact that no proof has been shown of the so-called Iran's nuclear weapons did not stop him from mouthing the same propaganda of the neocon/AIPAC clique, says a lot about how Obama would have voted had he been the U.S. senate when IWR was debated and voted on.
I am truly disappointed that he is not much different from the rest of them - lacking the courage to blaze new trails.

[zulchzulu]

12. The fact IS that Iran having nuclear weapons would destabilize the region

Granted, that's 10 years away by many assessments.

For certain, the Middle East and the rest of the World must be de-nuclearized. I've heard Obama mention this. Yes, even Israel has to give it up... that I haven't heard from anyone on the progressive side that are in the limelight. I've written to the Obama campaign asking about that. No one dares ask Israel about their estimated 200+ nukes. I know I would if I had the chance.

I do think you may be mistaken by how Obama would have voted on the IWR based on this speech. He was spot on in 2002 and I trust his judgement would have been the same as those who saw through the fog of lies.

[The Magistrate]

14. You Will Find No Competent Student Of World Affairs, Sir

Who is not of the opinion that possession of nuclear weapons by the present regime in Iran would be a most dicey thing. You will certainly not see any candidate for President pretending otherwise.

Where there is disagreement is over when the situation will become critical, with most suspecting that juncture is many years away, and whether diplomatic and economic pressures will suffice to dissuade the nullahs from pressing through to such equipment.

[Clarkie1]

16. .

Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?

[ProudDad]

17. Now if we could just make Israel

get rid of its hundreds of nuclear weapons the rest of the Middle East wouldn't aspire to have their own...