Barack Obama to Haaretz: Turn up the pressure on Tehran

[Ethelk2044]

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a leading Democratic candidate for U.S. president, has joined the ranks of legislators who are actively working to halt Iran's nuclear program.

"Iran continues to be a major threat," he told Haaretz yesterday in an exclusive interview, "to both the U.S. and some of our allies


Obama calls for an urgent escalation of economic pressure on Iran, and backed this up yesterday by announcing his Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. If the bill is passed, it will make it easier for investors to know which companies are economically involved with Iran and to act accordingly.

According to the latest polls, Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York are neck and neck in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Obama still supports talks with Tehran but he promises not to relent on stopping the Iranian enrichment program. "It's important to have low-level talks" with Iran even if the enrichment program is continuing, he said, but high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on enrichment.

The senator called the Bush administration's talks with Iran over the issue of Iraq a "step in the right direction" that will "establish a pattern of dialogue" with Iran, and criticized the administration for not talking with Iran in the past few years. "We need to check" whether there are Iranian leaders with "a more sensible attitude" than the one expressed by their president, he said.

Obama says the U.S. should give Iran a "clear roadmap for improved relations" if it agrees to abandon its military nuclear program. As expected, he is reluctant to discuss any measures other than diplomatic and economic ones, although he sticks to Washington's "no options are off the table" formula.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860490.html

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Obama is one deep and intellegent guy. an amazing man.

[Purveyor]

2. Indeed. A bit of sanity displayed here from the article:

While disdaining the more hawkish Republican approach to the military option against Iran, he also takes care to distance himself from the far left of his own party.

This was clear during last week's candidates' debate, where Dennis Kucinich attacked Obama for saying that all options are on the table. "It's important for people to reflect on the real meaning of that, that you're setting the stage for another war," Kucinich claimed.
Obama countered: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran. But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us that is a profound security threat for America and one that we have to take seriously."

[jefferson_dem]

3. Good for him - firm, sensible policy position coupled with open dialogue.

Go Obama. He exudes honesty, competence, and sensibility.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. this is why he has to be elected. He combines ideas with realistic and sensible

[IndianaGreen]

5. What we are hearing is the sound of Obama drinking the neocon Kool-Aid

Why not prostrate on his knees and kiss John Bolton on both cheeks when he called for war on Iran today, and thus begin his journey to the Dark Side of the Force?

This is the knee-jerk ultra-Zionist pandering that got us into Iraq in the first place!

[burrowowl]

8. Yes, I am waiting for an Haaretz op-ed on this

or a comment from Jewish Voice for Peace.
Obama is waiting for an excuse to quote McCain: Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.
Both Obama and Hiliary are DLCers and that worries me much.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Hillary understands the complexities of the Middle East, while Obama seems to have a comic book view

The problem with Hillary has always been that she does the wrong thing despite knowing better.

There isn't one shred of evidence that Iran has a military atomic weapon program. All we have so far are the hysterics from the Israel Lobby, and the unsubstantiated charges from the same cast of characters in Israel and America that sold us the WMD bill of goods on Iraq.

Hillary knows this! She is merely pandering to the Israel Lobby when she speaks of "all options on the table," because she knows that her audience are the sort of people that experience orgasm at the mere thought of millions of Muslims being incinerated. The Clinton track record on nuclear proliferation has been one of negotiations, not war. As much of a Hillary critic that I have been in DU, I seriously don't think she is an atomic cowboy like the current occupant in the White House.

The problem with Obama is that he hasn't shown that he knows the difference between pandering to war mongers, and really believing the crap one is saying. I don't think Obama has a clue about Iran, and that could be dangerous in a man or woman seeking the Presidency at a time like this.

[Odin2005]

18. Obama isn't DLC.

:spank:

[Clark2008]

33. Don't forget Edwards!

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Edwards continued, "To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats."

"Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel’s neighborhood much more volatile," Edwards said.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

P.S. And Edwards was DLC when he was a senator. I know, I know - he's trying to avoid EVERYTHING he did as a senator, but let's not forget it.

[CTLawGuy]

13. Except that Obama DIDN'T call for war on iran...

and won't at this point.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Obama is talking like an ignorant bloke, parroting neocon propaganda and presenting it as facts

There isn't one shred of evidence that Iran has a military atomic program!

[CTLawGuy]

47. Here you go

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Iran's Nuclear Threat
Saturday, Mar. 08, 2003 By MASSIMO CALABRESI The nuclear facility near Natanz, Iran

With war in Iraq looming and North Korea defiantly pursuing its own nuclear program, the last thing President Bush needs is another nuclear crisis. But that is what he may soon face in Iran. On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

-----

There's your shred of evidence. Not conclusive evidence, but a shred. Took all of 5 minutes to find.

Unless TIME magazine is part of the neo-con conspiracy...

[Odin2005]

17. Oh what a BS post

The Europeans are also worried about that Islamist wackos in Tehran getting The Bomb. Are They on the "Neo-Con kool-aid" too? Obama never said he wanted to attack Iran. :eyes:

The last sentence sounds like something from some neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist.

[Clark2008]

34. What are "Islamists?"

You DO realize that's a right-wing frame, don't you?

I don't even like it when Wes Clark uses it because it's not a freakin' real word. Call them extremist Muslims or theocrats or something that actually means something. "Islamists" just sounds, well, uniformed.

[Odin2005]

36. WYF? They call THEMSELVES "Islamists".

WTF are you smoking?

[Clark2008]

37. WTF?

Where do they call themselves this? On Wikipedia? :eyes:

Look, that terminology is relatively new and VERY Western. My ex husband is Muslim and he HATED when people used Islamic - in any of its derivatives - when referring to PEOPLE. People are Muslim. Things and ideas are Islamic. Just because something may be translated to "Islamists" in English doesn't mean it's correct, fundamentally.

It may be correct in Western terminology, but I think we shouldn't use right-wing frames when discussing fundamentalist Muslims. I just think it sounds like something Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would come up with - like "Islamofacists," which is an oxymoron.

[JNelson6563]

40. I agree

we should call 'em what they are: Fundamentalists/Fundies. Lump them in with the ones we've got here from Chrisianity since they are so similar. We should not differentiate on this. They're all lunatics.

Julie

[Clark2008]

42. Bingo!

I can completely agree with that.

Extremist/fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims are to blame for 90 percent of the foreign policy problems we currently face.

They are all lunatics. Even my NON-fundamentalist Muslim ex-husband (who I think is a jerk for other reasons, but isn't a fundie nut) would agree with that assessment. So would my NON-fundamentalist current Jewish husband. (I'm well rounded. LOL!) :)

[JNelson6563]

45. This one of them there "rare occasions" worth marking

Glad to share ths common ground with ya. :toast:

Julie

[Clark2008]

46. We have before - not often - but we have.

:toast:

[IA_Seth]

48. No, I don't think they do.

They may call themselves Jihadists (even that I believe is a Western translation gone awry)...but any true fundamentalist Muslim wouldn't call themselves an "Islamist", it doesn't even make sense in their cultural context and I highly doubt it would be used by them.

[Odin2005]

52. Doh, my bad.

Now I look like an idiot. :dunce:

[TwilightGardener]

6. Excellent--just the right tone for dealing with Iran--not too tough, not

too soft, and full of common sense. No options SHOULD be off the table, but talk and use other tactics to "persuade".

[calteacherguy]

28. This isn't Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

Obama needs to broaden his perspective.

"Cannot the world’s most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn’t it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions?"

www.stopiranwar.com

[journalist3072]

7. If this was Hillary saying Iran continues to be a threat

Many of you would be calling her a war monger.

[MrPrax]

9. I was going to post a terse one liner...

like "Dumb Warmonger; No Better than the Other Token"

-- but you know, they are BOTH kinda pathetic, utterly without merit outside of narrow world of corporate fund raising, virtually no principles that can't be bought and everything that comes out of their mouths is completely predictable.

[TwilightGardener]

19. Not me. She's sensible.

[jillan]

10. This scares me about Obama and Edwards

Neither of them have any real foreign relations experience.
I am so afraid that they will make stupid decisions from inexperience. We have someone in the WH now who relied on others in handling these countries. I want someone in the WH who knows foreign relations like the back of their hand.

sorry. I'm going for experience.

[goclark]

12. The difference is that Obama and Edwards have a Brain

It is a big difference.

They also have a World View and actually know where countries are on the map.
They would know how to properly greet the Queen of England.
They would understand that you don't give a Head of State a back rub.

It does not take a Rocket Scientist to run the White House and there are plenty of "experienced" people that would be outstanding if only chosen to serve as Secretary of State etc.

It does take vision and the ability to work with people and have a concept of JUSTICE and TRUTH.


Brainless Bush had no intelligent people in his group that were not available to be used for evil.

[zulchzulu]

16. You want lots of foreign policy experience...well... look no further than this guy...

Actually, these two people had lots of foreign policy experience...



Is that what you want?

[jillan]

23. That's exactly my point.

Out of inexperience, Obama or Edwards could appoint the wrong person to assist him with foreign relation experience.

[NCarolinawoman]

27. I have to agree with you on that.

Do the supporters of Edwards and Obama know who their current foreign policy advisors are?

[Clark2008]

35. Great question.

I think I'll research that.

[Clark2008]

41. John Edwards' chief advisor is Derek Chollet.

http://www.americanacademy.de/index.php?id=185

Doesn't sound like a "bad" sort, but is firmly rooted, much like Condi Rice, in old cold war thinking. His specialty was in Russian relations. Not awful, mind you, but not necessarily suited for the new "wars" being currently fought.

And here's Obama's team:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_inside_look_at_ob.html

Don't know much about any of them.

But, it seems that every one of the foreign policy advisors for the three "front-runners," while experienced, haven't really had to deal with - or have thought much about - the current problems we face in the Middle East. It seems everyone only looks at one side of the issue - the Israeli side - and doesn't spend a great deal of time looking at the region or gathering intel from the Arab side of the issue. BIG MISTAKE.

I have no beef with the Israeli side, I should say, but it would behoove the next president of the United States to stop always taking their side of an issue and actually learn about the Arabic and Muslim culture/side.

Nancy Pelosi, for example, actually went and spoke with the Syrians. Wow! What a novel concept! Speaking with people you normally don't get along with! Diplomacy! In any case, it sure would go a long way to improving our standing in the Middle East with the predominant force there - the Arabs. If we're to make any improvements regarding the way the United States is thought of in the Middle East, we'd better start listening to ALL sides of the equation.

[zulchzulu]

43. You've got to be kidding me...

Do you think that Obama wouldn't go through some vetting process when choosing his administration? That sounds like you're grasping for straws...

[zulchzulu]

15. I would think most progressives would not want Iran to have nukes...

Is it now cool for countries to have nukes? Is it cool for politicians to allow for countries to have nukes while, say, being isolationists as well?

I want the World to BE RID of nukes... if we can stop Iran through diplomatic means (which Obama is for doing), then I'm all for it. And as Obama has said in the past, we need to denuclearize the Middle East, including Israel. And of course, the rest of the World...

[TwilightGardener]

20. Agreed--Iran plus nukes equals bad news for somebody.

[IndianaGreen]

26. There isn't one shred of evidence that Iran has a military atomic program

Even if it did, which it doesn't, it would be irresponsible for any government to reject a nuclear deterrent to American imperialism and aggression. No one wants their country to end up like Iraq, even if that means getting nukes.

[zulchzulu]

32. Do you want Iran to have a military atomic program?

I don't.

And through diplomacy and UN inspections, I hope there isn't one in Iran...or Iraq...or Saudi Arabia...or Turkey...or (you get the drill).

Equally, I want Israel to be under the same lense of inspection. They have to come to the table and start denuclearizing their approximately 200+ nukes that we helped make.

Nukes suck...no matter what country owns them.

[dave_p]

21. Disappointing

Nothing about Iran's own security concerns (and just why should a state with a far more aggressive record - Israel - enjoy an unchallenged regional nuclear monopoly?), nothing suggesting a stronger line on Israeli progress toward justice for Palestinians, without which the entire Middle East will remain a powderkeg. It's the same old formula. I expected something more. This kind of talk doesn't offer a constructive way forward.

[calteacherguy]

25. I agree. It's really not much different than the administaration's approach.

He needs to get tutored by Wes Clark.

[dave_p]

30. Good idea

Having been easy on Obama and critical of the General in the past, I'm happy to second that.

[IA_Seth]

49. They all do.

I really worry about any of our top 3 candidates's ability to lead our country out of the foreign relations muck that Bush has us stuck in.

If Clark announces, I am all for him. If not, I really hope that our nominee picks him up as a member of their team, they will need him.

[Jillian]

22. What is the "clear roadmap' Obama?

Does he define what that roadmap is? Or does it just sound good in a Presidential campaign?

I worry about his lack of experience

[calteacherguy]

24. Obama is wrong on this, and I will have to reconsider my support.

"It's important to have low-level talks" "with Iran even if the enrichment program is continuing, he said, but high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on enrichment. "

This is wrong. We need to be having high-level talks now. He's falling into the same sort of mentality that led to the current situation we are in with North Korea.

[Tellurian]

38. I agree, Obama's ideas promote and further the Republican mentality!

no surprise there..he's hired Bush's strategist for this election and has become an adopted son of the Bush Pioneers.

[calteacherguy]

54. Obama and Hillary seem to be on the same page re: Iran.

Unfortunately.

[IA_Seth]

50. Seconded.

High level talks are what is needed. Our lack of respect toward Arab powers isn't making things any better...it's time to engage the region to form a ACTUAL coalition. They won't want what the US wants, but that doesn't mean we can find some sort of common ground.

It's either diplomacy or unending war.

[smalll]

29. Oh dear, oh dear - a major Democratic Presidential Candidate is so

bold as to suggest that he may not want to pursue a policy of %100 positive re-enforcement vis-a-vis a nation conventionally viewed as an enemy of the United States! How dare he call Iran a "threat!" How dare he call for "economic pressure" or suggest that low-level talks should not evolve into high-level talks in one possible unfolding of future events! How dare he ask for "a more sensible attitude" from the Iranian leaders, and above all, how DARE he suggest that "no options are off the table"?!?!? WAR-MONGER! ENABLER of FASCISM! Might as well change his middle name from Hussein to Genghis Khan with that unquenchable blood-lust of his!

To the Hague with him, to the Hague! After we send Bush, and Cheney, and every Repub, and Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, and every Connecticut voter who ever voted for Lieberman, and the vast bulk of the Democratic members of Congress (so many of them voted treasonously at one point or another, or have had friends/suppporters/second cousins twice removed/low-level campaign staffers say things that could be percieved as insensitive to Howard Dean supporters or some such.)

To the Hague with him, to the Hague! How on earth Belgium will fit half of the United States into its international prisons, I don't know, but that's their problem. Alls I know is, when everyone has been properly transported, and no-one's left but you, me and Cindy Sheehan, dear reader, traffic jams will be a thing of the past, and I'll FINALLY be able to afford real estate!










(Surely I don't need this: :sarcasm:)

[wyldwolf]

31. Good move for Obama... but the irony of it all just cracks me up

[acmavm]

39. Talk about using a lot of words to say nothing worthwhile...

No options off the table because Iran is a danger blah blah blah...

Reluctant to discuss measures other than diplomatic and economic (what are they by the way???)

Mistake to start a war but the threat is still there with the no options crap...

And no mention of how big a danger Israel is to the world, nope, not one word. And all this blather in an Israeli new outlet, no partisanship there?

This guy is the best I've ever seen at saying nothing but making it look like something. And his fan club thinks the guys really taking a stand.

[Spoonerian]

44. kinder and gentler

Reluctant to discuss measures other than diplomatic and economic (what are they by the way???)

You know, mass murder democratic-style. Blockades, besiegement, constant bombings from real far away so none of "our boys" are in danger. Its so much kinder and gentler than republican-style mass murder. Madelyn Albright and Wesley Clark point proudly to how they got the job of mass murder done with little if any loss of American life. They and their ilk (Obama, Clinton) will get the keys in 2008. The "boys" will be re-deployed behind the concrete barriers in the 14 permanent bases and the bombings will be run out of there.

[Javaman]

51. Turn up the pressure?

isn't it "turn up the heat" and "put the pressure on"?

who writes this crap?

[SOS]

53. Do any candidates care about the real world?

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Not a peep out of any of 'em.
Pakistan is teetering on the edge. No worry there!
Former Soviet Republics have questionably secured nukes. Who cares?
Saudi Arabia is secretly working on a nuclear weapon. Oh well....

Meanwhile the latest NIE states that Iran would not be able to complete even one nuke until 2015.

It's ridiculous. And they all ignore the actual threats we face.