Washington — President Barack Obama delivered his most explicit threat yet that the United States will attack Iran if that’s what it takes to prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb. At the same time, he warned Israelis they would only make a bad situation worse if they moved pre-emptively against Iranian nuclear facilities.
The double-barreled warning, in an interview published Friday, came before Obama’s high-stakes meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday and a speech Sunday to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israeli lobby. Obama said an Israeli strike would stir sympathy for the Islamic republic in a region where it has few allies. But he made clearer than before that Iran could face attack from the United States.
“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,” Obama told The Atlantic magazine. “I don’t bluff.”
He said Iran and Israel both understand that “a military component” is among a mix of many options for dealing with Iran, along with sanctions and diplomacy, making plain a threat to attack that had previously been more subtly implied.
The warning reveals how the threat that Iran could pose to Israel has eclipsed every other issue in the close but often contentious U.S. relationship with Israel, and raised the political stakes for Obama. Iran’s disputed nuclear ambitions dwarf the unfinished business of peace with the Palestinians and Obama’s sometimes testy relationship with Netanyahu.
Comments
Ron Holzwarth 2 years ago
This is all a terribly unfortunate situation, and if things go well, it will be resolved peacefully. I certainly hope that these three statements, in alphabetical order, are all true:
1) The citizens of Iran do not have any personal animosity towards Israeli citizens or United States citizens.
2) The citizens if Israel do not have any personal animosity towards Iranian citizens or United States citizens.
3) The citizens of the United States do not have any personal animosity towards Iranian citizens or Israeli citizens.
Maybe it's time for some changes in the governments.
This is a repeat of a comment I made on January 6, 2012. I do not think I made it clear in my comment that my aunt's visit was many years ago, and there have been quite large changes in the government of Russia since she was there. The title of the article was: 'US Navy rescues Iranian fishing boat from pirates'
Ron Holzwarth says:
National interests, policy differences, and wars are between governments, and only very rarely between the populations of the countries involved.
Of course there are some exceptions, but in almost every case a better secular education and closer contact between the populations would do a lot to alleviate those problems.
This reminds me of something one of my aunts told me about after she had spent some time working as an exchange teacher in Russia. This was several years ago, and the cold war was rather recent history. What she did was spend six months in Russia a few times teaching the high school students that were studying advanced English, and she was the very first native English speaker that any of them had ever met.
Later, a few Russian teachers came to the U.S. and taught advanced high school students to speak Russian, and in most cases, those teachers were the first native Russian speakers they had ever met.
The point of this comment: More than once she was asked this by the Russians that she met: "Why do you Americans hate us so much?"
Her answer was always the same. "We don't hate the people. It's the government of Russia that we hate."
As I understand the situation that pretty much ended those conversations, because almost all of the Russians hated it too.
pace 2 years ago
You always prefer to pretend you can speak for him, your interpretive dance is foolish. . You should get on your knees and thank god Obama is at the helm and we don't the complete fool of a Bush in that seat any more. This needs a clear head and a firm hand. Good luck to President Obama.
progressive_thinker 2 years ago
Bin Laden took him seriously.
woodscolt 2 years ago
Just keep beating your chest with your big bad wolf syndrome.
Dan Blomgren 2 years ago
Obama has NO respect from the rest of the world's leaders. When Iran captured our drone and Obama asked for it back the Iranians laughed at him and simply said 'no'! Maybe Obama will apologize for being so 'mean'.
Flap Doodle 2 years ago
His campaign folks told him to play tough for a while.
beatrice 2 years ago
upon
bad_dog 2 years ago
If you're so sick of hearing "it", stick your fingers in your ears, prance around in circles and sing "La, la, la." Can't look any sillier than your online comments. I'd be amused. Might even be able to sell tickets to raise $ for women's contraception.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
Given that he has command of the largest military machine ever assembled, I think it's safe to assume that they take him seriously, if for slightly different reasons.
(apologies to others on this forum for answering the troll's stupid question with a serious answer.)
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
Your obsession is so complete that you can't see it for all the projection you mistakenly place on others.
I can't decide if that's sad or comical.
kernal 2 years ago
Never apologize for the truth.
camper 2 years ago
The title of this article leads with "Obama". I figured this would be the token resting place for the usuals on the day of 3-3-12.
camper 2 years ago
Including myself ):
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
What problems did they "solve" in Viet Nam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Grenada?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
I wasn't bashing the military-- just the notion that its continual misuse/overuse in grandiose imperial adventures does anything to keep us either safe or free.
progressive_thinker 2 years ago
Is it my imagination, or did a whole bunch of someone's venom disappear off of this forum in the past few minutes?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago
Here's what happens, math-- once one of your silly posts comes to the attention of admin, they go to your profile, and then see dozens of posts on many topics that are equally idiotic and insulting, and they just take them all down while they're there.
But at least you're consistent.
blindrabbit 2 years ago
Watch out President Obama, getting a little too "rough", your going to urinate-off the Jewish NeoCons here in the U.S., they have much more clout than you may realize. Kristol, Wolfiwitz, Perle, Will, Cantor, Blumberg, Fleisher and about 50% of the U.S. Congress!
jhawkinsf 2 years ago
Like seeing Richard Steele, an African-American head of the Republican National Committee, Jews as neo-cons is somewhat of an anomaly. Over the past many decades, Jews have been a reliable voting bloc within the Democratic Party. But your comment suggests Jews have undo influence in government policy which begs the question, how much influence should they have? Should it be proportional to their population? Or proportional to their contribution to society? Maybe proportional to the number of votes they get if, as you suggest, 50% of Congress is Jewish? Or should it been based on how wise they are in spending their money to influence the government? Or should it be based on some other formula? BTW - I have no idea what percentage of Congress is Jewish, but if it even approached 50%, I would be very surprised.
Also, using terms like "more clout than you might realize" hints at Jewish conspiracies, a too frequent precursor to even more inflammatory anti-Semetic remarks. I have no idea if that was your intention. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. Others may not be as generous.
Flap Doodle 2 years ago
How's that blog of yours doing, ag? You know, the one everybody is ignoring... (from a source)
progressive_thinker 2 years ago
There are any number of regular posters on this forum who are conservatives and libertarians who are rarely the subject of TOU violations. While I may not always agree with their views, they generally present them in a manner that is void of insults, profanity, and maliciously untruthful content. Some persons on this forum, be they liberal, progressive, conservative, or whatever do not have a clear understanding of civil discourse. Actually, I do not mind their blithering posts because when they do so, it becomes apparent that they do not have a valid argument.
beatrice 2 years ago
How do you know what happened last time we had an election year -- aren't you a relatively new poster?
blindrabbit 2 years ago
jhawkinsf: Not anti-Semetic at all, have many Jewish friends and having worked in NYC and DC, I have worked around many Jewish co-workers. My comments are directed at the rather one-sided treatment of the MiddleEast situation by the U.S. and U.K. in particular. Had we treated many of the Moslem/Islamic states more even-handedly, not just using them as petroleum exporters, we probably could have helped avoid the situation as it now exists. Also, I did not imply that Jews were Neocons, but many neocons are Jewish (see those I listed). When dealing with Israel, and particularily the hardliners like Bebe Netanyahu, Obama needs to establish the boundaries to which the U.S. will support.
pizzapete 2 years ago
I'm happy to see Obama giving both Iran and Israel a warning as they both act like spoiled children from time to time. It's kinda like Dad driving the car on a long trip and looking to the backseat and saying if you two don't stop arguing I'm going to pull the car over and give you both a spanking. Great job Obama.
ljwhirled 2 years ago
(to the tune of The Beach Boys "Barbara Ann")
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb Iraaaaaaan.
Thats our Plaaaaaan.
Bomb Iraaaaaan.
We'll have them rockin' and a rollin'
Rockin' and a reelin'
Bomb Iran.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.