Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff'
Source: The Atlantic
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.
Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/
I really do like a man that means what he says and says what he means......
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
iandhr
(6,852 posts)
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)is what the March Hare and Alice discussed.
He's bluffing.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
harun
(11,381 posts)
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts) LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Probably contextual politics, with all its own strategies, rather than chess. I'd imagine that an analogy is only as good as the context, yet is irreverent in and of itself, as its own point or counter-point within the broader context.
But is sure does allow one to feel clever about themselves, yes?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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.
Here's an interesting comment by Obama along those lines:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don't think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very intentional.
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)Bluffing is bluffing. It's not that complicated. You don't reveal your hand, even if you act like you have. There's not a country in the world that doesn't obfuscate when it needs to.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and the hostage takers. BAM, he don't play.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)DCKit
(18,541 posts)they truly are living in Bizarro World.
It's gonna be a real bitch getting "our" oil out of the ground once the entire M.E. is a nuclear wasteland.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)People who are talented improvisers do better than average in your basic post apocalyptic nightmare scenario.
saras
(6,670 posts)That's why it's a nightmare scenario.
Otherwise, as Shimon Tzabar points out in "The White Flag Principle: How To Lose A War, (and Why)", it's just a chance to update your obsolete infrastructure.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)See how far you get..
The Marine Corps has a couple of other unofficial mottoes besides the official Semper Fidelis, Semper Gumby means always flexible and Improvise, Adapt and Overcome is another.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He can't. He wouldn't. I hope.
Smedley_3
(8 posts)Iran may not have a nuke but Israel may have 200 nukes and 5 nuclear submarines.
Behind the Aegis
(56,108 posts)That's only a popular catchphrase among those who can't stick to the subject.
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)Behind the Aegis
(56,108 posts)All the people schreeching about "hypocrisy" are merely employing the "look over there" tatic.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)The two most violent governments on earth, accusing Iran of "destabilizing" the Middle East is about as profound as hypocrisy can get.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)So, fail.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Notice the word 'map' is not used. Also, the term 'wiped off the map', in reference to the total destruction of something, is a Western idiom not found in Farsi, and the word, 'regime' refers to a government or a ruling orthodoxy, not a people or a country. In addition, Ahmadinejad was actually referencing the words of a dead cleric.
When one examines the facts regarding the hoax you are perpetuating, it quickly crumbles.
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)How many FUCKING times do they have to say it before you accept it?
Luckily there are adults in the world who don't hide behind rationalizations.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
elleng
(141,926 posts)"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."
Response to MindMover (Original post)
guyton This message was self-deleted by its author.
24601
(4,142 posts)Iraq undertook a deception program to convince others that they did.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)And we're being all rah-rah about it?
How many countries have nuclear weapons? Why is Iran different?
MindMover
(5,016 posts)
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)From the Atlantic article cited in the OP:
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
MindMover
(5,016 posts)that you make rash statements like, "unprovoked attack on another country" and people with less reading comprehension believe what you said and then we really get discombobulated......
The president also said that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a "profound" national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.
"You're talking about the most volatile region in the world," he said. "It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe." He went on to say that "the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world."
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...we are still talking about committing acts of war against a country that is not attacking us and is not a serious threat to us. There is no imminent danger that Iran is about to attack us.
If Obama wants to make the Middle East a more stable place, going to war against the biggest power in the region seems like a funny way to do it.
Perhaps if there were on an agreement on regional nuclear disarmament? Iran faces an unstable nuclear power on its eastern border and a hostile nuclear power to the West.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)it is called defensive blocking.....
Nuclear disarmament is a noble cause however unlikely at this juncture.....
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That would be our president. Maybe he should consult with your avatar.
Bruce Wayne
(692 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
lastlib
(28,264 posts)...oh, wait--a moron DID attack Iraq....sorry, my bad....
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Anyone whose shoe size matched their IQ would be more accurate.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)damage, as a result, will guarantee your defeat.
Just saying...
unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....and since we seem to have all of our eggs in the Presidents' basket, maybe you should change that to 'our' defeat....
Smilo
(2,031 posts)that they can not have nuclear weapons, but we have more than anyone.
The USA should not have "Israel's back" - it should tell them they are on their own - enough of spending billions on a country that is determined to be the bully in the playground.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)
Smilo
(2,031 posts)Look at who has caused the trouble in that area.
There are many in Israel who want peace, but the right wing will not listen to them - sound familiar?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The Arabs are sworn to Israel's destruction and will never agree to any real peace.
Smilo
(2,031 posts)It goes both ways.
There is no easy decision, but Israel should get rid of their hawks and try bringing in a few doves.
I have traveled a long road from the battlefield to the peace table.
Moshe Dayan
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.
Moshe Dayan
Israel cannot afford to stand against the entire world and be denounced as the aggressor.
Moshe Dayan
Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist.
Moshe Dayan
Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.
Moshe Dayan
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Iran has constantly said they are going to wipe out Israel. They are just waiting until they have a weapon to do it with. People ignored Hitler's threats in the 1920s and 1930s until it was too late.
flexnor
(392 posts)they said of israel 'the regime will vanish from the pages of time', much like the soviet union did
lbut last i checked, nobody 'wiped russia off the map', it's still there
the 'wipe israel off the map' is a neocon misquote that will never be true, no matter how many times it's repeated
former9thward
(33,424 posts)"October 26, 2005
"Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."
(In an address to 4,000 students at a program titled, 'The World Without Zionism')
http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_9
flexnor
(392 posts)Iran isnt going to attck Israel
I'm sick of the USA getting sucked into a war every time some other country snaps their fingers
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)The poster I was replying to said Israel was the cause of "all of the problems in the area". Given the constant attacks and terrorism by the Arabs I don't think they were are the cause of "all of the problems in the area".
SylviaD
(721 posts)Russia has a lot more than we do, almost double.
dfgrehe
(20 posts)flexnor
(392 posts)If anyone knew about war in our time, in the nuclear age, it was Robert McNamara, who engineered the WWII bombing raids reporting to Curtis Lamay (future head of SAC)
He was a key player in the cuban missle crisis, and stumbled us into vietnam. he was a flawed individual to tried to pass on what he learned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War
number one was '1.Empathize with your enemy'
the fact is, we have screwed with Iran big time for over 60 years
in 1948 we recognised a country in their region that expelled a number of people, then armed them to the teeth with over 200 nukes, that seems to be endlessly calling for the US to go to war against it's neighbors. We put nukes in their region
in 1953, we helped engineer a coup that installed a brutal puppet for over 25 years
in the 1980s, were played both sides of a war between iran and iraq that fed their young men into a meat grinder
in 2003, we attacked a neighbor in the region for non existent WMD, in response for 911, which iraq had nothing to do with
every nation that obtains a nuke, all of a sudden gets treated with kid gloves and all kinds of economic considerations, any nation that doesnt gets pushed around
i dont intend to excuse or legitimaize everything they've ever done, or claim they are nice people - i'm just saying they have their side of the story
flexnor
(392 posts)that's what triggered the 1979 hostage crisis
that's more than just hindsight, iran was a known powder keg, 'kill the shaw' was grafitti written all over in the USA, Carter gave in to Kissenger and Rockefeller to let him in and everyone paid the price
The Mideast never had a more reasoned ear than Carter, and Iran threw it away
the decision on that treatment changed the course of mideast history for the next 30 years, even the USA's history, because it ushered in Reagan
this, and Nixon's needless ordering of watergate (when he was going to win anyway) were the 2 worst decisions of the 1970s
PurityOfEssence
(13,150 posts)The beat goes on.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)Iran is not pursing a nuclear weapon. What is wrong with him? Why is falling for this crap?
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)Makes zero sense to put all the production facilities in hardened bunkers underground for a civilian program, if it's all just for the one above ground nuclear power plant they have, it's easy enough to bomb that instead, then what good would the rest be? Unless they have other plans for the uranium enrichment....
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)make money off of war.
EX500rider
(12,583 posts)...it's all UN members business....how do you know this is a repeat of Iraq instead of a repeat of N Korea?
Same MO as N Korea, stall for time, underground facilities, non-compliance with NPT inspector's.
"None of our business" is what lead to WWI & WWII.
Iran getting nukes will spur all it's neighbors to get them too, the Saudi's, the Egyptians, the Gulf States.....that sound like a good outcome?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)EX500rider
(12,583 posts)No ones talking about invading Iran.
We could bomb the needed facilities in a week with existing stocks of bombs and planes and cruise missiles. Those munitions all have a shelf life anyway.
Or let the Israeli's do it will a little help from us. Bigger threat to them anyway.
And it's telling that none of the Arab States feel they need nukes if Israel has them but would want/need them if the Iranian's get them.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)He works for the one percent who profit from the Military Industrial Complex.
All of this is predictable as hell.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Here's the quote from his official campaign document, The Blueprint For Change - Barack Obama's Plan For America:
(1) Obama’s Plan to Cover Uninsured
Obama will make available a new national health plan so all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, can buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
The Obama Plan will have the Following Features:
• Guaranteed Eligibility: No American will be turned away FROM ANY INSURANCE PLAN
because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
• Comprehensive Benefits: The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
• Affordable Premiums, Co-Pays and Deductibles.
• Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need
financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
• Simplified Paperwork and Reined in Health Costs.
• Easy Enrollment: The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
• Portability and Choice: Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
• Quality and Efficiency: Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and
administration are being met.