Obama: Allowing Iran...to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take.

[oberliner]

The complete sentence reads:

Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy that supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take.

Obama's full statement can be found here:

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84DC5887-741E-4056-8D91-A389164BC94E%7D/20070719OBAMASTATEMENT.PDF

[seemslikeadream]

1. So what are we gonna do Obama? Destroy the world to stop them??

[SaveElmer]

6. Brother, did you read the letter?

Obama doesn't need me to defend him, but man, the course he advocates is right there in the first paragraph...

"To prevent this dangerous outcome we need a comprehensive Diplomatic strategy, including stronger action by the United Nations, to bring pressure to bear on Iran to reverse course."

He also advocates economic pressure should diplomacy not bear fruit...

I saw nothing about blowing up the world...

[populistdriven]

29. The World Clearly Needs Obama nt

[greyl]

2. Would Helen Caldicott endorse any of the candidates?

Sorry for the tangent, but it bugs the hell out of me that the US believes it has the right to develop nuclear weapons and also believes it has the right to apply sanctions and start wars over the issue of other countries having nuclear weapons. Nobody should have them.

[wyldwolf]

4. well, since she...

opposes nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons proliferation, she just might.

[greyl]

5. I don't understand your post. Which candidate would she endorse? nt

[wyldwolf]

7. Anyone that opposes nuke proliferation. In the context of this thread...

... and based on that criteria, why wouldn't she endorse Obama?

[greyl]

8. Her position doesn't allow for the US to have them in the first place.

I'm not sure, but I'd guess she'd only endorse a candidate whose platform included disarming the US of its nuclear weapons. Of course, that'd be a damn tough sell to much of the public.

[dugggy]

23. IMHO only democracies should possess nukes

Dictatorships, Mullahcracies, Fiefdoms, Politbureau controlled countries, etc are all extremely dangerous with WMD's, since
there is no opposition to madness possible.

[Truth2Tell]

24. So the U.S. shouldn't have them now?

Or we should? Becasue as a "democracy" we can obviously be counted on to behave in a civil way in the world?

What about democracies that don't have them yet and signed the non-proliferation treaty?

So confusing who gets to have them. But of course it's our right to decide this, right?

[Hippo_Tron]

36. When your leaders openly admit that they want to wipe Israel off the map...

And there's the potential that they don't have a policy of MAD because they think Allah will form a magical shield to protect them from any retaliation.

International politics unfortunately don't work in absolutes. You raise extremely good questions about whether it is the place of the United States to be saying who can and can't have nukes and about what happens when the most powerful country in the world elects leaders that abuse that power. There are no clear answers to either of those questions at this point.

What is clear is that Iran having nuclear weapons will not make the world any better and have the potential to make it a lot worse.

[Tom Rinaldo]

39. Iran's real leaders come off as being a lot more grounded than Iran's current President

They have skillfully pursued their long term national objectives while staying out of actual wars. They approached the U.S. seeking a diplomatic opening after 9/11 and were rebuffed by the Bush Administration. Iran's current President whips up nationalistic furor to prop up his own failing popularity with the public given that he has not been able to deliver on his promised economic program for the poor.

Iran's public is highly educated and young. They are far more inclined to look favorably on western influences than are most of America's Arab allies. If we don't push that young population directly into the arms of the conservative clerics in Iran by attacking their homeland, time is on our side.

I know of no one here saying that Iran having nuclear weapons will make the world any better. Neither would America attacking Iran.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I'm not advocating attack Iran

But there's a difference between not advocating war and saying that we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

And I do agree with you about Iran's public. I don't agree with you about Iran's government. I think Iran's real leaders are the ones that are truly batshit insane. Letting them have nuclear weapons would be about the equivalent of letting Ann Coulter have nuclear weapons.

[dugggy]

64. You are sidestepping the real issue...............can we trust nukes in the

hands of Ahmedinejad & the Mullah's? If Ahmed feels in danger of losing his grip on power and he has nukes available, be very afraid he will be
tempted to let some lose on Israel, because at that point he feels he has nothing to lose. He is ALREADY ON RECORD FOR WANTING TO WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP. Then Israel with its 100+
nuclear arsenal will be forced to retaliate and Iran will be extinct for ever. So, if you really care to save the Iranians, then you would do anything to prevent the current regime with nukes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. Ahmedinejad is not the real power in Iran

he gained his position running for President (not the supreme leader in Iran) by running as a right wing economic populist promising to uplift the poor. He was Tehran's former mayor. In Iran's most recent elections his party suffered significant losses in the voting for Parlimentary seats. He can't deliver the economic goods his support base wanted, so he positions himself as a firery nationalist leader railing against Iran's enemies including the U.S. This is nothing new in the world. What is helping him get away with spewing his rhetoric is the continuing hostile stand that the United States takes toward Iran which plays right into his hands (and I am not talking about the current Iran/U.S. impasse over Iran's nuclear program - think "Axis of Evil" and take it from there).

To call Ahmadinejad powerful now is a supreme irony and self serving for anti-Iran hard liners, because the man who held Iran's Presidency immediately before him, Mohammad Khatami, was dismised as a mere figure head by them when he held the office and tried to promote better relations with the United States which the Bush Administration rebuffed.

Here is an interesting story to help give you the flavor:

"Ex-Iranian leader blames Bush policies for terrorism"
POSTED: 9:41 p.m. EDT, September 4, 2006

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- U.S. foreign policy is furthering terrorism in the Muslim world, and negotiations are the only way to resolve the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami told CNN while on a two-week visit to the United States.

The reformist leader is widely viewed as moderate compared with new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As president, Khatami favored stronger U.S. ties.

In an interview Sunday with CNN, Khatami said American policies have "only increased, and will only increase, extremism in our region." (Watch Khatami tie Bush's policies in the Mideast to a rise in terrorism -- 2:39)

In the interview, he also broke with his hard-line successor by saying he does not call for Israel's destruction..." (I should point out that this is an editorial comment by the writer who summarizes Ahmadinejad's policy as calling for Israel's destruction, not an acknowledgement by Khatami that this is the current President's policy. Rather Khatami stated his own view here regarding Israel)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/04/iran.khatami/index.html

The United States effectively undermined Khatami in Iran by not following up on his efforts to thaw chilly Iranian U.S. relations. Consistently U.S. policy toward Iran under Bush has strengthened Iran's more hard line elements. Iran's Supreme leader now is the same guy who was Iran's Supreme leader during Khatami's Presidency, that has not changed. In fact those who follow Iran's internal power dynamics report that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is Iran's supreme leader, moved to provide a counter balence on Ahmadinejad's influence by appointing a relatively centrist former Iranian Presdient, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, to positoins of great importance inside Iran's governing structure.

Here is an interesting commentary on Rafsanjani's current positioning:

Payvand's Iran News ...

3/13/07
Iran: Ex-President Rafsanjani Becomes Leading Government Critic
By Vahid Sepehri

March 13, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Some Iranian commentators have observed a realignment of political forces in recent months, provoked by intense rhetoric from President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's government. The result could be an opposition comprising forces variously described as centrists or pragmatists, on the one hand, and radicals associated with the president on the other.

The realignment comes as reformists -- effectively excluded from power since late 2005 -- try to raise their profile as government critics.

The maneuvering could provide them an opportunity to regroup -- with a somewhat diluted or evolved agenda -- alongside centrist forces hovering around Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani is an ex-president with a penchant for liberal economics. Rafsanjani has in fact begun to do what reformers have been threatening, criticizing the government in earnest."
http://www.payvand.com/news/07/mar/1180.html


Iran has always been cautious about not crossing any heavy red lines in it's dealings with the west ever since the end of the hostage crisis. Modern Iran has no history of militarily attacking any of its neighbors. The use of suicide bombers primarily emerged out of Sunni Arab Islamic radical ranks, such as Al Qaeda, not Iran. Iran can not now be desribed as friendly to the United States, but it's government has a much more solid track record of avoiding extreme provocations, such as missile launches over Japan, than North Korea for one obvious example.

[Truth2Tell]

45. What a bunch of ignorant war-mongering gibberish.

"...because they think Allah will form a magical shield to protect them from any retaliation."

I've never, ever seen any evidence that any Iranian leader thinks any such thing.

"What is clear is that Iran having nuclear weapons will not make the world any better and have the potential to make it a lot worse."

Many things have the potential to make the world a lot worse, but are beyond our control to fix. And if the fixes we devise are ten times as damaging as the problem then we really need to reconsider what the fuck we're doing.

Here's a reality check: Unless we decide to drag the world into a nightmarish world war III holocaust, we will need to accept the reality that the Iranians are someday going to possess nukes. Our best hope is to try to change the dynamic of our relationship with Iran before that happens. This is about both them and us. And Israel. It's about the adults taking charge of the planet and taking away the reigns from the juvenile testosterone-addled nitwits running shit now (in all of the above countries). We can start by cleaning up our own house. Maybe stop supporting puppet dictatorships in the ME that are destined to eventually fall. Maybe stop coveting the resources of other nations. Maybe recognize that continuing to support Israeli expansionism at all costs is counterproductive to both them and us. Maybe accept that an Iranian-Persian-Shia power will continue to rise and that our smartest response is to make peace rather than to kamikaze it down.

Peace with Iran is there to be had. Bank it. If you can't see it, you must not want it.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Ayatollah Khomeini said that during the hostage crisis

He also said that the failure of Operation Eagle Claw was because Allah literally struck down the helicopters. Iran's current leadership may not be that crazy and they may be.

I'm not advocating war I'm advocating diplomacy and sanctions if necessary. I don't think this will get as far as war. If it is a choice between war and Iran having nukes, I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action would be.

[LeftishBrit]

69. I suspect in fact that no leader of a Middle Eastern country would use nukes in the Middle East...

not just because of retaliation, but because it's extremely likely that the nuclear fallout from nuking a nearby country would seriously endanger their own country. Not just Mutually Assured Destruction, but Self Assured Destruction.

However, I think it's best not to have to find out, as few leaders can be trusted to invariably act with common sense, and especially as once nukes exist, terrorist factions could get hold of them.

[dugggy]

63. You are confused! In USA we can elect different leaders!! Try doin it in

Iran, Pakistan, Cuba, Libya, China, Venezuela, Saudi A, etc etc. All of these have the same leadership year after year. In USA we had 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Bush (unless impeached), next 8 more years of HRC (hoping). That is not even in the same ball park as Iran. If you can't see the difference, I recommend a good shrink.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. How was I implying that Iran can elect its leaders?

BTW, they can elect their President. It's just that the Supreme Leader holds a lot of the real power and he is not elected.

[dugggy]

79. It's just that when you have an autocratic regime in charge,

there is no checks and balances on military adventures.
The main reason we gained in congress in 2006 was that
that people want Iraq war to be wrapped up and fast.

The Iranian regime has no such checks and balances. And
on top of that they are spewing out statements for annihilation
of the jewish state of Israel and their chief backer, the US.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. That is what I said in my post

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

[Imagevision]

84. In USA we can elect different leaders!?? like we did in the last two Presidential elections??

gimme me a break

[LeftishBrit]

67. But what if a democracy is overthrown by a coup; or terrorists get hold of the nukes?

I don't think any country should have nukes. However, in the real world, once a country does have nukes, one can't normally undo the fact, though one can encourage disarmament. But it's best if no new countries get nukes.

[dugggy]

80. Your's is a valid point! When a nuclear armed democracy falls to a

coup and extremists takeover, anything can happen.
That is why we have the UN to keep order in the world.

And I am all for universal disarmament, but not unilateral
disarmament.

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

3. oh well, i'm with rp now.

nt

[oberliner]

51. What is "rp" ? nt

[ripple]

57. rp is an intolerant xenophobe.

But whatever floats your boat.

Welcome to DU.

[zulchzulu]

9. I completely agree... read the entire statement...

Unfortunately, the PDF is a bitmap that's the link.

He wants to use diplomatic, multinational strategy to make sure they don't acquire nuclear weapons. Guess what... if Iran gets nukes, do you realize that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other countries in the region would also get nukes? Should we just stand back and let that happen? Should we let the region have as many nukes as they want?

I am for Israel de-nuclearizing their country as well. They have an estimated 250+ nukes that aren't allowed to be inspected. I'm also for getting rid of nukes altogether...everywhere.

The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1628146920070516) is a good first step in my view. It's not about attacking Iran. It's about making sure Iran doesn't start a trend that makes the Middle East even MORE dangerous. It's about making sure they are complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If people think that we should allow Iran to obtain nukes (which are in some views at least 10 years away), then they really don't get the implications.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Of course we should make every reasonable effort to stop more proliferation

This Administration of course isn't doing so. I am willing to assume that an Obama Administration would be willing to do so. The difference is a willingness to take "regime change" off the table and work to achieve a diplomatic opening to relations with Iran that move us all away from the current brinkmanship. There might be a comprehensive Middle East framework that grants Iran security from efforts by the United States to overthrow it's government while addressing the underlying tensions in that region which would convince Iran not to play the nuclear card.

But what most Democrats do is give lip service to the diplomacy part, with throw away lines about an openness to negotiations usually followed by comments that indicate that the negotiations being considered are a one way street whereby the U.S. explains to Iran how we expect them to behave in the future. The juicy part of the statements Democrats make always involve tough posturing. Exactly like this statement by Obama.

And that is the part that sinks in with the public. The reenforcement of fear, the labeling of Iran as a major threat to America, the litany of serious charges against Iran without any acknowledgment of how U.S. behavior has locked us into this conflict also. It helps sets the stage for Cheney to bomb Iran before Obama or any other Democrat ever gets a chance to take office.

[Truth2Tell]

46. Ahh... the crux.

"...There might be a comprehensive Middle East framework that grants Iran security from efforts by the United States to overthrow it's government while addressing the underlying tensions in that region which would convince Iran not to play the nuclear card."

The framework is Palestinian justice. A great many clues point to the notion that Iran would like to be seen as the liberators of Palestine, for reasons of national pride and yes, empire. If a comprehensive framework for ME peace could be devised that gives some credit to Iran for a just Palestinian settlement, I think we'd all be surprised at what they would be willing to offer. The trade off is the rise of a more regionally dominant Iran, with or without nukes. But such has been the historic power alignment anyhow.

Sadly there is a friendly nation in the region which would rather we not continence such an outcome. But theirs is not presently a rational outlook.

[AntiFascist]

22. They're all beating around the Bush, so to speak...

Saudi Arabia is threatening to ally with Iran. What would that mean?

[LeftishBrit]

68. Good post!

Just to point out, Obama's views are fully in line with world opinion. According to a World Service poll of citizens of many countries in September 2006, 39% thought that if Iran continues its nuclear program, this should be handled by diplomatic negotiations and 30% by economic sanctions. Only 11% supported military action and only 10% supported no action at all (the remainder presumably didn't know or didn't respond).

I think it's paranoid to think that Iran is a uniquely evil state or will have nukes tomorrow, but it's also paranoid to think that everyone. who opposes the idea of Iran having nukes, must want to blow Iran up or start WW3. Not everyone is GWB; and most people want neither a nuclear Iran or a war against Iran.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Who besides Clark and Kucinich have the courage

to talk about the risks inherent in actually attacking Iran? What has happened to this country? We once lived through 40 years of a cold war where tens of thousands of nuclear war heads were targetted at America's cities. The communist threat was played up to be every bit as dangerous (much more actually) than anything originating in the middle easts. When the United States had nukes and the Soviets didn't, and later when the U.S. had nukes and the Chinese didn't, there wasn't a bipartisan concensus that the U.S. could not afford the risk of letting China acquire nukes. Rather there was a bipartisan consensus that the risk of both predicatable and unpredictable consequences that would follow the U.S. launching a war was a risk that we could not afford to take.

Hell Kim has nukes in North Korea, but he doesn't have missles yet that can reach the U.S. So why are we living with the risk of a nuclear North Korea? Isn't it a no brainer using the same logic applied to Iran that we can not tolerate the risk of a North Korea with nukes? Shouldn't we then be attacking them now?

I understand that there may be an element of bluff involved when a Democrat like Obama makes a statement like this. The U.S. wants to give Iran incentives not to go nuclear. A promise to attack them if they do could be considered such an incentive, but it is one thing to say "all options remain on the table" and it is another to rule out any option of co-existing with Iran if they get do nukes. Creative ambiguity is one thing. This is a prescription for an increasingly likely war, and with both Democrats and Republicans mouthing the same lines, it will be almost impossible to stop the momentum toward this war.

Knock knock, is anybody home? Attacking Iran probably brings with it a much higher risk than attempting to co-exist with Iran by improving our relations with them in return for some concessions from them. Even if they do get nukes. That's called diplomacy. Setting a meeting with the sole purpose of telling someone what they have to do is not diplomacy, that's called giving orders. Iran is a reasonably stable nation state, not a failed nation safe haven for terrorists. Iran has not attacked any other nation in living memory. Israel has a very robust nuclear arsenal, Iran's leaders are not suicidal.

Pakistan already has nukes and there is nothing I can think of more likely to set in motion events that will throw control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal into the wrong hands than the United States attacking Iran.

[Gregorian]

54. Tada! Correct answer.

Forgive my incoherent post. I'm half awake. But I believe this is the other elephant in the room. Or at least the non-elephant that isn't in the room. I guess that means not Iran.

Damnit, it's all about oil. Not nukes nor terrorisisisism.

[LeftishBrit]

70. I am STRONGLY against America attacking Iran...

but I don't think Obama is suggesting this.

[quinnox]

11. Obama is right about this

and so is Hillary and John Edwards who have a similar position. Iran can't be allowed to have a nuke weapon and intense negotiations should be undertaken to make a deal. It can be done, but the Bush people don't believe in diplomacy so there hasn't been a chance for it until the Democrats win the presidency in 2008.

[oberliner]

13. Agreed

Having a Democratic president, someone who actually engages in diplomacy, will be a giant leap forward for the US and the world.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. If Democratic candiates for President play right into the fear Iran script

that the neocons are pushing all across the nation right now, by the time we have a chance to elect a Democratic President Bush/Cheney will already have attacked Iran, at which point you can forget about Democratic diplomacy. If no one on the political spectrum reminds the American people of the very real pandoras box of threats to our security that an attack on Iran will open up, it will be relatively easy for Bush/Cheney to find a pretense to attack Iran while they are still in office with substantial public support. And that I believe is exactly what they will do if they continue to get a free ride painting Iran as an arch enemy.

[calteacherguy]

42. You sound as if you are Iran's parent: "Can't be allowed"

That kind of talk automatically endorses the military option. There is no need for that kind of rhetoric.

As Obama says, we need to engage diplomatically, but we also need to understand how a U.S. strike on Iran would endager U.S. national security by inflaming sentiment against the U.S. not just in Iran (a modern country who's people are mostly sympthetic to the U.S. right now) but in the entire world.

"Can't be allowed" is a dangerous point of view to take, because it fails to consider the consequences of our actions.

We ought to be doing what we can diplomatically and with the leverage we have in concert with the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but using Bush-like rhetoric and thinking will not help in that effort.

[closeupready]

14. What are his thoughts as to nuclear disarmament?

n/t

[jmp]

16. I don't want to hear about war with Iran ...

From anyone who isn't prepared to lead our troops into battle ... in person and on the ground.

[oberliner]

17. Obama is talking about diplomacy

The statement says nothing about war.

[jmp]

73. Diplomacy cannot stop them from developing nukes. (nm)

...

[Karmadillo]

18. What if diplomacy and economic sanctions don't work? What then?

Do we go to war?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story

Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell | Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004

<edit>

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

<edit>

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Note that diplomacy is talked about as organizing pressure and sanctions

against Iran to make them change their course. No specific mention of anything that the U.S. could or should be doing to improve relations with Iran as a positive incentive. No mention at all of the need to change America's policy of "regime change" for Iran. It is almost always like this when Democrats talk about Iran.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Wow, thanks for posting that nt

[TwilightGardener]

21. Agree with Obama.

[MasonJar]

25. After being put in the Axis of Evil, they probably feel the same way about us.

[illinoisprogressive]

26. Obama says he wants to use all the tools not just one or two.

bush uses just force. You can use diplomacy, sanctions, ect. Obama thinks outside the box.

[democratsin08]

27. bravo obama

i agree with obama on this point. iran must be stopped.

[barack4prez]

28. How could you

think otherwise?

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. How?

If you really have no clue let's pick a starting point to this discussion. Describe to me exactly what you think the likely aftermath of a U.s. military attack on Iran would be, and then we can talk.

[democratsin08]

33. i see it like obama does

what are the consequences of not acting?

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. It depends on whether or not we continue to isolate Iran and treat it as an enemy

We had a far more enlightened policy toward the Soviet Union.

The U.S. faces a greater threat from dirty atomic bombs, which are not that difficult to assemble, being smuggled into American cities and exploded than we would from a small number of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government. Iran's government has over the last three decades has shown itself to be far less unpredictable and provocative in it's actual actions than has North Korea, which we allowed to gain nuclear weapons and which we still do not attack even though they as of yet do not have a weapons delivery system that can strike the United States. Iran has not begun a war with any other nation. Iran's involvement in their own geographic neighborhood in ways that run contrary to expressed American interests no more consitute an act of war against America than did U.S. military support for rebels fighting the Russians in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union invaded that nation constitute an American act of war against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not attack us over it.

When you say what are the consequences of not acting, I assume you mean not acting militarily. The consequences of not acting diplomatically are already far too apparent. And while I do believe that Obama would support real diplomacy, he is pandering with this letter. What he describes is not a full range of diplomacy. He only discusses how the United States can conduct a diplomatic campaign to convince other nations to ratchet up the pressure against Iran. There is no acknowledgement that the United States has already funded a regime destabalization campaign in Iran, or that there are numerous influential voices inside America that have been calling for an American attack on Iran for many years. There is no acknowledgement that perhaps the U.S. needs to modify our foreign policy also, not only Iran.

It makes no sense to not look at both questions; what are the consequences of not attacking Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapons AND what are the consequences of attacking Iran to stop it from getting nuclear weapons. I see lots of fear talk about the supposed consequences of not bombing Iran to stop them from getting nukes, but I see almost no discussion about what the consequences will be if the U.S. attacks Iran. Most of us on this board are familiar with all of the arguments we use against the Bush Administration about how the invasion of Iraq super charged Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts, but no one wants to face what a follow up American attack on Iran is likely to result in. And for what end?

An American air strike on Iran without a subsequent full scale invasion and occupation of that nation will not stop Iran from getting nukes, it will just delay that day by about 5 years. That's nothing. George W. Bush has already been in office for longer than 5 years. Why do I say this? Because Iran is a large cohesive and technologically advanced nation. If we manage to take out the current nuclear facilities they will be rebuilt them as deep underground as need be to protect them from renewed attacks. Just like the U.S. builds command bunker mini cities for our government and military to retreat to in time of nuclear war. Iran has the technology to do that also and unless we are going to repeatedly bomb Iran on a regular basis we can't stop them from reconstituting a nuclear program underground, not if we don't plan to occupy that nation. And that is assuming that islamic radicals in Pakistan don't manage to gain the upper hand there at which point Iran may be directly supplied with nukes by Pakistan.

But let's return to those dirty bombs for a second. The number of muslims who will be furious with the United States if we attack Iran will grow multiple times over from the numbers who feel that way now because of our invasion of Iraq. They will see us as not only not having learned our lesson, they will see us as hell bent to destroy the independence of the islamic world. It truly will become open season on Americans by suicide bombers. Wes Clark often says that the best way to ensure America's long term security is to make more friends in the world and less enemies. That seems obvious to me.

The consequences of not attacking Iran if they get nuclear weapons is a tense stand off. It's not even mutually assured destruction because the only thing that can be assured is that Israel and the U.S. have massive nuclear arsenals that can destroy Iran down to the last village, Iran will not be able to match that. Or the consequences may be an American realization that nothing more can be gained by a policy of villification, intimidation and regime change toward Iran and maybe then, finally, real diplomacy will start getting real consideration, and that just might lead to negotiated settlements to many of the flash point issues that inflame the middle east today.

But the immediate consequence of not attacking Iran at that point would be not entering into another state of war with another islamic nation. There would still be a chance for peace to prevail just like there was a chance for peace to prevail between the U.S. and the Soviet Union under the policy of containment rather than one of attacking the Soviet Union while the U.S. still thought we had the upper military hand. Once war of that nature starts, especially one in the middle east, feelings harden, hatreds grow, and retaliatory cycles take hold. Once people feel like they have nothing, then there's nothing left to lose. Revenge is a fitting enough motive to take violent action regardless of the likely consequences.

If Iran is attacked they have plans to launch missiles at multiple targets inside Israel, targets easily reached by the weapons in their arsenal which are much more advanced than any weapons Hussein had in Iraq. Then what happens next?

[Exultant Democracy]

31. Sorry, Obama, I don't even want to hear this from you. We should

be talking about the great opportunity we have to reach out to Iran right now. Sorry I'm calling bullshit, try getting better advice then Hillary is getting if you want anymore of my donations.

[jillan]

32. It just makes me sick. This whole world is so f*cked up

and I blame this administration.

The next President is going to have their hands full.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Diplomacy should work

Ahmadinejad is an immature little twit who is just looking for attention. He will probably lose the next election anyway to someone more reasonable. We'll make a deal like we did with North Korea and that will hold them off for another 5-10 years when we'll have to make another deal with them again.

The question is whether the Supreme Leader is really pulling the strings. I know very little about Iran's current Supreme Leader but I do know that Khomeini seemed to genuinely believe that Operation Eagle Claw failed because Allah made the helicopters go down. If Iran's theocratic leaders are still that batshit insane, the situation will be a lot more difficult.

[MLFerrell]

35. Yes, and let us all ignore the glaringly obvious fact...

That Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons. And that we have several thousand.

Let us also ignore the fact that Obama is in full-fledged "campaign-posturing mode".

You just lost my vote, sir. And I wager that my vote isn't the only one that is forfeit.

Hey Barack? The last thing the world needs is a Democratic candidate who is trying to emulate the unholy bastard who is inexplicably in charge of this demented three-ring-circus known as the U.S.A.

Oy vey...

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Except when push comes to shove the other leading candidates say the same

Edwards and Clinton, like Obama, like to say that they think it is essential that we pursue diplomacy (defined as confronting Iran with all the things we don't like about them to their face while we round up partners willing to help us punish Iran economically) but they too say that Iran can not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. It all ends up at the same place. All of them are quick to accuse Iran of many things and the U.S. of nothing in this gathering conflict. That is the path to war, the public is being softened up for it.

[zulchzulu]

40. Should Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE and others have nukes?

Obama is correct that Iran should not have nukes. As I said earlier, Israel needs to get rid of their nukes. So does the US and the rest of the World.

If you think that Iran should have nukes because Israel does, then you are mistaken. If Iran gets nukes (even in 10 years), Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UAE and other nations will feel they need to do so as well. Is that what we want? Should we let what is the most dangerous part of the World become infinitely more dangerous?

Kucinich thinks that we shouldn't discuss the facts about Iran and nukes because that's 10 years away... How utterly utopian and foolish. Let's just ignore the problem and it will just go away.

I know. It's cool to say we should just leave Iran alone. No sanctions...nothing. Diplomacy will only lead to war...yadda yadda yadda... meanwhile Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (loathed by a majority of Iranians) continues to play games.

:crazy:

[Nutmegger]

41. Iran has a right under the NNPT to develop a nuclear program for energy purposes.

Truth is nobody knows what is going on. Is it worth a war to find out?

[democratsin08]

49. im sorry, but

you cant let a country have nukes when that country regularly says israel should be wiped off the map. can you even imagine the worldwide howls of rage if israel regualry said the palestinians should "cease to exist"?

we dont need to invade iran, just blockade gasoline shipments.

[MLFerrell]

62. Jesus Fucking Christ...

Learn how to do some goddamn research!

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

"Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12763.htm

Ahmadinejad Did Not Say - "Wipe Israel Off The Map"

Let’s fill in the Blanks in the Speech of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad



THINK FOR YOURSELF (and welcome to DU)

:)

[Meshuga]

74. While thinking for myself

the question comes to mind... How does he plan to wipe this regime off the map? He says that while he is getting nukes.

I'm sure he was also misquoted in his Holocaust denial. :eyes:

[MLFerrell]

78. Yes, because "vanish from the page of time" means the EXACT same thing...

As "wipe off the map".

Did you even read the links? You don't have to be a fan of Ahmadinejad to be on the side of accurate translation and reporting.

[Odin2005]

43. Obama is right on, as usual.

I'm not surprised that his comment makes Iran Apologists froth at the mouth, as usual.

[calteacherguy]

44. He's not right on on this one.

He still has a ways to go; perhaps he will further elaborate his views.

What he seems to be implying is that if diplomacy fails, military action is certain and will not be questioned or debated. That's a very dangerous view to take. We need to consider what the consequences of a strike against Iran would be to U.S. national security.

The cure could be worse than disease, and we should not close off any future options prematurely. Given where this administration is taking us, we may once again be forced to choose from the least worst of the worst options.

[Odin2005]

52. No powerful country ever takes millitary action off the table as the option of last resort.

That may rackle the sensibility of naive pacifists, but it's diplomatic common sense.

[calteacherguy]

55. Agreed, but that was not my point. nt

[Colobo]

50. I like the fact that Obama likes peace, but is not a pacifist. These are dangerous times.

[Odin2005]

53. Hence my comment in post #52

I don't like war, but to take it off the table as a last resort option is ridiculously naive.

[calteacherguy]

56. I absolutely agree. Are you going to respond to my comment? nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. It's not a question of taking it off the table...

...it's a question of how one defines the point at which force becomes the last resort option, and how one defines at what point conditions warrent actually using that last option. This comment by Obama implies that point is automatically reached when it appears that Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons. That definition of moment of last resort, and that basis for attacking another nation has never been used by the United States previously during the nuclear age, unless you count the invasion of Iraq, and we all know how swell that worked out.

I can support use of creative ambiguity about our plans to keep a potential adversay guessing, but this is more like defining the set trip wire for launching war, a clear line in the sand so to speak, and it is also coupled with the same full blame to Iran talk that works to reenforces the stark negative image of Iran that the Bush Administration is peddling as a prelude to war with that nation.

[calteacherguy]

59. Exactly. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

60. Agreed. Very good statement by Sen. Obama. n/t

[Kingstree]

61. He made an excellent statement and He is correct.

[Roland99]

65. VOTE KUCINICH! Stop this one-sided, blind support of Israel and shutdown The Beast!!

Iran is a radical theocracy? Does Obama really know wtf he is talking about? Take out the "firebrand" Ahmedinejad and what do you have left? Some more moderate than was there following the 1979 revolution. The majority of Iranians want peace and enjoy relations w/America and don't want a "radical theocracy".

Shit, we have a radical theocracy in the White House right freakin' now and what's Obama doing to shut them down?!?!

[Gloria]

66. UGH. The situation is changing as we speak....

If you check out Asia Times Online, you can read the analysis about how tie IAEA is back in the saddle...that's where the action is now regarding Iran. A normal administration would build on all this, but Bushco may not want to. Developments over there are outpacing the rhetoric of most of the Presidential candidates who seem stuck in the same language...


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IG18Ak02.html

Brave new world of Iranian nuclear cooperation
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Iran's objective of getting its nuclear dossier out of the hands of the United Nations Security Council and back to its "proper forum", the International Atomic Energy Agency, was leapfrogged last week by the IAEA's high-level visit to Iran that culminated in a "serious and substantial" agreement heralding a new level of Iran-IAEA cooperation.


Heinonen, said that Iran agreed on four or five steps. "If the cooperation continues like this, we hope that the problems will be solved, not now but in a reasonable future," Heinonen has been quoted as saying.

SNIP

According to Dennis Ross, a former US envoy to the Middle East, in a recent interview with Die Welt Online, "Many Europeans are asking the US to set aside its request for the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment." Clearly, the United States and Europe are beginning to move apart on this matter, raising the prospect that the US will soon be the odd man out.

Not surprisingly, the US has given a lukewarm reaction to the news of Iran-IAEA cooperation, with State Department spokesman Tom Casey maintaining the traditional US skepticism regarding Iran's compliance with its pledges to the IAEA. Yet no matter how the US spins it, the "breakthrough" in the Iran-IAEA talks last week has taken the wind out of the sails of new UN sanctions on Iran for the foreseeable future, barring unforeseen developments.

MORE

[Vidar]

71. Nice of the asshole to echo the Publicans.

[LeftishBrit]

76. As I said in another post, he agrees with the views of most people in the world

There aren't only the two extremes of totally ignoring Iran's nuclear program, and military action. Each of these was only supported by about 10% of people in a BBC World Service Poll of people in many countries. Most people favoured either economic sanctions or diplomacy only (the last being the most popular single suggestion).

I don't think Obama wants a war. Unfortunately, Bush and his cohorts may. Hoping that they can't start one within the next year and a half, and are then replaced by a more reasonable government.

I believe in nuclear disarmament everywhere, and in no new country getting nukes. One concern that I do have, is that everyone's attention may be so focussed on Iran's nuclear program that insufficient attention may be paid to other countries that are potentially developing nukes (and by 'attention', I mean intelligence-gathering and diplomatic negotiations, NOT war!)

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. We are largely in agreement

But Democrats now have a special responsibility to not echo key elements of the anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Bush Administration, without providing proper balence and context, because that rhetoric is being pumped up now to high levels precisely to pave the way for an attack on Iran BEFORE the Bush Administration leaves office.

I understand the electoral logic some Democrats use, thinking that they have to show the public that they can stand up to America's enemies just as well as any Republican can. That logic holds that if you can't get elected in the first place you can't control policy, and to be elected Democrats have to show toughness. This was the electoral logic Democrats embraced in the lead up for the 2002 mid term elections which followed shortly after the IWR debate on Iraq. Democrats lost seats and Bush got his momentum for war.

[EndElectoral]

81. Jesus, he's sounding more like Bush and Cheny everyday

[populistdriven]

83. follow the money

What do you think the deepest oil well (Chevron) drilled in the Gulf of
Mexico (28,000 + feet)(10 kilometers) and an earthquake have in common?
Chevron Jack #2 Oil Well. Surprisingly, Chevron announced (big
announcement not quiet) info on the well on September 8, 2006 like it
was big news even though the well was completed in 2004.

September 10, 2006 - Gulf of Mexico earthquake. Can you say "bunker
busting nuke test". I have not been able to gather specific info and/or
exact location of Jack #2 oil well, but it is very close to the
epicenter of quake. The USGS puts epicenter at 270 miles southwest of
Apalachicola, FL, which is also about 270 miles southeast of Louisiana.
Articles I have read indicate Jack #2 oil well from 175 miles to 275
miles somewhere south of Louisiana. This is way out there in 7,000 feet
of water.

Estimates of costs based on economic articles I have read would put oil
at $20,000 to $30,000 per barrel and indicate an increase of American
reserves by 50 percent.?????!!! It is not financially responsible, unless...
Crazy claims like "dredging sea floor for manganese nodules". Glomar
Explorer all over again.

Maybe they are using nuke to frac the formation for better recoveries?

Follow the money