Obama says he's not bluffing
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.Persident Obama has used an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg to warn both Israel and Iran that he's not bluffing (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "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."That all sounds reassuring but this is a President who has spent the last three years trying to put 'daylight' between the US and Israel. And instead of coming clean and saying that was a mistake that he now plans to correct, Obama acts like it never happened.
...
"Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested," Obama said. "It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to to be the best decision for Israel's security."
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, "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."
The president ... seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. "Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," he told me. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"Why? There's a pretty comprehensive list of the reasons why here.
And Obama makes a huge mistake in his interview with Goldberg:
"Our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily," he said, "and the only way historically that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa."Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1981 didn't voluntarily give up nuclear weapons and never again got as close to having them as they were when Israel bombed the Osirak reactor. And Bashar al-Assad's Syria still hasn't given up on nuclear weapons but they also have not been able to rebuild the al-Khibar nuclear reactor. So who says that the only solution is to get countries to give up their weapons voluntarily?
There's much more.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:19 PM
4 Comments:
"I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are."
Well, what about the pullouts from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Is Obama saying that sometimes he engages in unsound policy, or no policy at all?
It seems to me that Obama has a slapdash leftist, pro Islamic ideology, but strategy and tactics baffle him. And, of course, he is utterly untrustworthy.
"...when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa."
Yeah, but in Libya, when the Muslim Bros, al Qaeda, al Shabaab, whoever, started drumming up trouble, Obama didn't stick with the previous path and tell the terrorists to STFU. Instead, he wielded NATO (i.e., U.S.) military assets to assure that the Caliphate people could delete the existing (horrible also) government. I don't believe a thing these Obama people say. Look at what they do instead.
Sunlight,
Nato and the Caliphate will be one, one day.
You are one deluded woman. As if the Caliphate needs Nato. We have the might of God behind us.
Have you noticed how everything your lot tried failed ;) Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, USA...Tch Tch...
Every power is powerless before the power of the Almighty, you are tools in God's hand
Chayma, you gloat at the would-be handiwork of a bully you have invented in your mind. It's all empty talk. Your need of threats is the tell.
Nomadic, America conserves its strength through withdrawal from the man-child W's illegal wars. Underestimate America at your extreme peril.
Israel is insane to even consider igniting a world war, because it will quickly escalate. The world is a seltzer bottle just now. Keep shaking and see what happens.
Post a Comment
<< Home