Israel Matzav

Obama calls nuclear weapons capable Iran 'inevitable'

After fifteen months of standing around doing nothing, Barack Hussein Obama has now declared a 'nuclear weapons capable' Iran to be 'inevitable.'

Q. Let me ask, on Iran specifically, we know obviously that they’re rich in uranium. Do you believe that they at this point are — have an active weapons development program, as well — they’re trying to develop a weapons capacity?

A. Rather than speculate, let’s say what we know. We know that they have involved themselves in nuclear activities that are specifically prohibited by U.N. Security Council resolutions; that they have specifically failed to disclose their activities in a timely fashion to the I.A.E.A. and relevant international bodies. We know that they have pursued nuclear weapons in the past, and that the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities.

You combine those facts, and the message that we are sending is that this behavior is unacceptable. It is outside of the rules of the road that the international community has observed. They have an opportunity to correct these — what I consider to be a misguided approach.

I’ve said publicly that we don’t begrudge any country obtaining nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes. But Iran has not considered itself bound in many ways by the basic precepts of the NPT, or has violated them on several occasions.

And so we are going to continue to try to isolate any countries that are operating outside of that approach.

But don't expect Neville Obumbler to do anything about it.

Q. Mr. President, you raise a critical question there when you said “nuclear weapons capabilities.” You have said before you could not live with a nuclear weapon state in Iran, and many members of your administration have said that. People have been less specific about whether you could live with a nuclear-capable Iran, an Iran that runs right up to the edge.

A. I’m not going to parse that right now. I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state. And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.

And a weaponizing capability is obviously significant as we evaluate whether or not Iran or any other country is serious about these issues.

So when Iran declares that it has nuclear weapons, Obama will shake his finger at them and say "Nu, nu, nu." Unless those pesky Israelis actually decide to stand up for themselves.

Q. The Israelis have a very clear view on this — they say that a weapons-capable state they also couldn’t live with. After your conversations with them over the past 15 months you’ve been in office, do you believe that if Iran stays on the current course and gets to a nuclear weapons capability, they would come to the determination that they would need to use either military action or something beyond sanctions?

A. I’m not going to speculate on Israeli decision-making. I think the United States and Israel and the P5-plus-1 and the international community generally has been very concerned about Iran’s actions and statements over the last several years. And we want to send a very strong message both through sanctions, through the articulation of the Nuclear Posture Review, through the nuclear summit that I’m going to be hosting, and through the NPT review conference that’s going to be coming up, that the international community is serious about Iran facing consequences if it doesn’t change its behavior.

In a prescient editorial on Monday, the Wall Street Journal accused Obama of being 'unserious' about stopping Iran ('Indifferent' might have been a better choice of words. 'Unserious' assumes he'd rather they not be nuclear weapons capable, but won't take serious action to stop them; indifferent means he just doesn't care). The Journal - correctly - dismissed the possibility of sanctions on Iran having any effect.

The Iranians have good reason to think they have little to lose from continued defiance. Tehran's nuclear negotiator emerged from two days of talks in Beijing on Friday saying, "We agreed, sanctions as a tool have already lost their effectiveness." He has a point.

The Chinese have indicated that the most they are prepared to support are narrow sanctions on Iran's nuclear program of the type Tehran has already sneered at. As the Journal's Peter Fritsch and David Crawford reported this weekend, the Iranians continue to acquire key nuclear components from unsuspecting Western companies via intermediaries, including some Chinese firms.

Yet the Administration still rolls the sanctions rock up the U.N. hill, in a fantastic belief that Russian and Chinese support is vital even if the price is sanctions that are toothless. French President Nicolas Sarkozy urged Mr. Obama a year ago to move ahead with sanctions even without the Russians and Chinese, but Mr. Obama insisted he needed both. A year later, everyone except apparently Mr. Obama can see who was right.

The Administration also argued upon taking office that by making good-faith offers to Iran last year, the U.S. would gain the diplomatic capital needed to steel the world for a tougher approach. Yet a year later the U.S. finds itself begging for U.N. Security Council votes even from such nonpermanent members as Brazil and Turkey, both of which have noticeably improved their ties with Iran in recent months.

The U.S. can at this point do more unilaterally by imposing and enforcing sanctions on companies that do business in Iran's energy industry. But so far the Administration has shown considerably less enthusiasm for these measures than has even a Democratic Congress.

As for the potential threat of military strikes to assist diplomacy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made his doubts about their efficacy very public. The President's two-week public attempt to humiliate Benjamin Netanyahu has also considerably lessened the perceived likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran, thereby further diminishing whatever momentum remains for strong sanctions.

The only point the Journal missed was its claim that Obama "can't or won't admit publicly" that he believes that a nuclear Iran is inevitable. He has now admitted it.

The ball is in Prime Minister Netanyahu's court. He has to decide whether when to act. He needs all Israelis to get behind him to resist the inevitable pressure that will follow a strike on Iran to allow a 'Palestinian state' to be carved out of our mid-section as a permanent danger to our survival. But an Iran with nuclear weapons will also be a permanent danger to our survival whether or not they are used. Consider this statement by Ahmadinejad on Saturday:

Ahmadinejad, referring on Saturday to escalating tensions in the Gaza Strip, said IDF action would “cost” Israel “too much.”

“I say to the Zionists and their supporters that they have already committed enough crimes,” he told an Iranian crowd. “A new adventure in Gaza will not save you, but hasten your demise.”

Soon, Hamas rockets will God forbid start raining down on Israel, with Iranian nuclear weapons that will act as a deterrent against Israeli retaliation.

There is no choice.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:21 AM