Very interesting, Senator Obama

[Elok]

Frankly, I don't care. They might be vicious and they might hate America and Israel, but they don't appear to be crazy or stupid. Actually using nukes is both crazy and stupid, especially in their position. Everyone talks about Iran like it's completely irrational, but they've done a pretty good job of manipulating events to their advantage lately. It would be better if they didn't have nuclear weapons, of course, but it's hardly a doomsday scenario. North Korea's a lot scarier.

WRT Obama: I don't know if Obama's position has changed or anything. I wouldn't blame him if it had, given how much has happened since then. But then, I don't employ the word "flip-flopper" much.

[Ramo]

I do wonder if its the same as his current position.

Substantively, I think it is. He has been saying that we should bunker down on diplomacy but in the end, all options are on the table. Which is pretty different from the Admin's policy, which (at least until recently) doesn't believe in, you know, diplomacy...

[Ramo]

From a recent interview:

KROFT: Would you talk to Iran or Syria?

OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has – that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment – is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it’s worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn’t make sense. Now I don’t think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

KROFT: Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far. And I think this is an example of where our blundering in Iraq has cost us dearly. Iran’s the big winner from the Iraq War. They have gained immeasurable strength in the Middle East, and because of the strains that it’s placed on our alliances and our leverage with other countries around the world, it’s made it more difficult for us to be able to mobilize international pressure to get them to stand down from what I believe is a process of developing nuclear weapons.

http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/obama-i-would-talk-to-iran-and-syria/

[Ramo]

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

I think this position may have changed somewhat. Or at least, I hope it has...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ramo
From a recent interview:
OBAMA: I think we should keep all options on the table, but I think that our first step should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far.

I'm not a diplomatic scholar so I'd like to know what more aggressive means and what more can be done that isn't being done. Sanctions against those countries that put roadblocks in the way of sactions against Iran? It's all well and good to say be more aggressive but what actually can be done that has not been done already? I'm just curious if Obama has offered something a little bit more concrete or has anyone else.

[Ramo]

Talking with them would be a good first step. In 2003, they came to us (through the Swiss) to negotiate on everything: their nuclear program, Hezbollah, Hamas, recognizing Israel, cooperation on Iraq, etc., etc. and Cheney rejected them out of hand (according to Powell's Chief of Staff at the time, Lawrence Wilkerson, among others).

As I said, the Admin doesn't believe in diplomacy (though the midterms may have shaken them up, given the change of heart wrt North Korea).

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If we could have prevented the Russians from getting the bomb, we should have.

Who have the Russians ever bombed?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Just about everyone, except a few of the posters here, realize that a nuclear Iran is about the world's biggest nightmare right now.

I can't believe the UN will allow that to happen. But if they don't have the spine - the US and Israel won't allow it.

Reports have Iran being in a position to produce their own nukes 10 years from now, so no, a nuclear Iran is most certainly not "the world's biggest nightmare right now." The Bush Administration rattling swords with and threatening to use nukes against a non-nuclear Iran is.

[Drake Tungsten]

Reports have Iran being in a position to produce their own nukes 10 years from now

More like four years...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Who have the Russians ever bombed?

Does everyone else understand what my point was? I'm not going to explain it just for Sloww.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Talking with them would be a good first step. In 2003, they came to us (through the Swiss) to negotiate on everything: their nuclear program, Hezbollah, Hamas, recognizing Israel, cooperation on Iraq, etc., etc. and Cheney rejected them out of hand (according to Powell's Chief of Staff at the time, Lawrence Wilkerson, among others).

As I said, the Admin doesn't believe in diplomacy (though the midterms may have shaken them up, given the change of heart wrt North Korea).

North Korea was part of a multilateral diplo process, which is the approach theyve taken with Nkor for some time.

They also used diplomacy with Libya.

They supported the EU3 talks with Iran, and Khalilzad talked with Iran wrt Iraq.

(note, my skepticism about the grand bargain per Wilkerson remains)

Now lets get back to the point raised by Rossner in the article Arrian linked to. Is Obama's position that we should talk to them even if they continue enrichment?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Reports have Iran being in a position to produce their own nukes 10 years from now, so no, a nuclear Iran is most certainly not "the world's biggest nightmare right now." The Bush Administration rattling swords with and threatening to use nukes against a non-nuclear Iran is.

what rattling of swords? Theyre trying to restore order to Baghdad, which means cracking down on some of Teherans best buddies. At the same time we do that, its not unwise to show Iran we can back up our position should they decide to retaliate for that crackdown (Which crackdown has led to dramatic decreases in sectarian killings in Baghdad, BTW) So we send in another carrier. Thats all. And we let people know what the Iranians are doing in Iraq. Why should we continue to keep quiet about that.

And, I am afraid to say, its mainly the "saber-rattling" that has kept China and Russia supportive of the sanctions process, the process that Obama supports.

We should be seeing a second sanction resolution soon. Note that the first one, far from solidifying support for Ahmadinajad, seems to be weakening his support, and leading some Iranians to question the regimes attitude to the West.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If we could have prevented the Russians from getting the bomb, we should have.

Why?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


what rattling of swords? Theyre trying to restore order to Baghdad, which means cracking down on some of Teherans best buddies. At the same time we do that, its not unwise to show Iran we can back up our position should they decide to retaliate for that crackdown (Which crackdown has led to dramatic decreases in sectarian killings in Baghdad, BTW) So we send in another carrier. Thats all. And we let people know what the Iranians are doing in Iraq. Why should we continue to keep quiet about that.

And, I am afraid to say, its mainly the "saber-rattling" that has kept China and Russia supportive of the sanctions process, the process that Obama supports.

We should be seeing a second sanction resolution soon. Note that the first one, far from solidifying support for Ahmadinajad, seems to be weakening his support, and leading some Iranians to question the regimes attitude to the West.

If you have to ask, then you don't have the remotest clue what you're talking about...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sava
Why?

Because then we might have been able to end that totalitarian regime decades earlier and saved tens of trillions of dollars wasted on Cold War defense spending.