Obama: Iran won't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons

[vminfla]

Iran won't be allowed to reach nuclear weapons' capabilities, U.S. President Barak Obama said in a statement on Thursday, adding that Iran was isolated in the international community as a result of American efforts.

Addressing American efforts against Iran's reported attempts to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities, Obama reiterated later Thursday that "no options off the table means I’m considering all options" in regards to Iran, adding that Tehran has a choice if it wanted to end international sanctions and isolation.

Iran, Obama said, could either act "responsibly," and foreswearing the development of nuclear weapons, which would still allow them to pursue peaceful nuclear power, like every other country that's a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or they can continue to operate in a fashion that isolates them from the entire world."

"And if they are pursuing nuclear weapons, then I have said very clearly, that is contrary to the national security interests of the United States; it's contrary to the national security interests of our allies, including Israel; and we are going to work with the world community to prevent that," the U.S. president said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/obama-iran-won-t-be-allowed-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-1.400406

[melonkali]

1. What about China/Iran relations?

Hasn't China promised support for Iran if we go after Iran?

[Dodgy]

2. Clarification needed

Vminfla- just a couple of small points - what nuclear weapons and why cant they have these if the people wished so??

[vminfla]

3. Is this specifically addressed to me?

For the first point, you would have to ask Obama.

For the second point, My 5 year old wants a gun. Should I give it to him if he does not fully appreciate the consequences and repercussions of having a deadly weapon or should I simply hand a Glock over knowing full well that he will use it for illegitimate purposes and will hurt someone?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

5. Nukes are bad.

The number of nations maintaining a nuclear arsenal should be going down, not up. Instead of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, those nations maintaining an arsenal should be dismantling theirs. Only a total ban on nukes is right and proper. Of course, since the United States continues to block bans on landmines and cluster bombs, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Beyond that, I don't think there is any serious doubt that the Iranian regime is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons. The United States has been consistently threatening Iran since 2002, maintains a ring of military bases completely surrounding Iran as well as a naval presence in the Persian Gulf, and in the past decade has conducted two large-scale ground invasions of nations bordering Iran, one on either side. I think it would be very difficult for an objective observer to argue that the United States does not pose a grave military threat to Iran's security. It is a natural step for the regime to attempt to obtain the most devastating weaponry possible in self-defense. That said, I really don't think they'll ever get there. The current US President has attacked more countries than his predecessor, and the endless global conflict has continued to escalate as it did in the previous decade. I think the United States, or more likely its client Israel, will strike first. (Israel has also made more or less constant threats against Iran, and conducted a land invasion of its own in 2006.) With the unmanned aerial drone that was taken down over Iran last month, the United States is already undeniably conducting covert military operations in Iran.

[ananda]

4. I think it's a bit late in the game...

... Iran will have its nukes.