Obama Gives Iran an Atomic Assist?

[Evilmav2]

OBAMA TO A'JAD: ATOMIC ASSIST
STIFFS UN IN NUKE NEGOTIATIONS

A'jad: Quotes Obama to refute critics at home.

By AMIR TAHERI

May 21, 2008 -- BUOYED by their modest electoral success last month, critics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's provocative foreign policy were preparing to launch a series of attacks on him in the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament. But then Ahmadinejad got an unexpected boost from Barack Obama.

Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator and now a Majlis member, was arguing that the Islamic Republic would pay a heavy price for Ahmadinejad's rejection of three UN Security Council resolutions on nukes. Then the likely Democratic presidential nominee stepped in.

Obama announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks with Ahmadinejad: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

"Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. Before starting his unconditional talks, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that Ahmadinejad doesn't like? Or would the new US president act in defiance of the United Nations - further weakening the Security Council's authority?

President Bush didn't set the preconditions that Obama promises to ignore. They were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council.

Dismissing the preconditions as irrelevant would mean snubbing America's European allies plus Russia and China, all of whom participated in drafting and approving the resolutions that Ahmadinejad doesn't like.

Such a move would make a mockery of multilateral diplomacy - indeed, would ignore such diplomacy in exactly the way that critics claim the Bush administration has.

Obama clearly hasn't asked British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy what they think of the United States' suddenly changing course and granting Ahmadinejad's key demand in advance.

Maybe Obama hasn't been properly briefed about the "preconditions" he gets so worked up about. He cites Iran's "nuclear program" as a precondition. Wrong: No one has asked, or could ask, Iran to stop its nuclear program - period. On the contrary, Iran's participation in in the Non-Proliferation Treaty gives it the right to seek help from other signatories, including the US, to access the latest technology in developing its nuclear industry - for peaceful purposes.

The Security Council isn't asking the Islamic Republic to do something dishonorable, humiliating or illegal. All it's asking Ahmadinejad to do is to stop cheating - something the Islamic Republic itself has admitted it has done for 18 years. The Security Council has invited Iran to "suspend" - not even to scrap - a uranium-enrichment program clearly destined for making bombs, in violation of the NPT.

Iran has not a single nuclear-power station and thus doesn't need enriched uranium - except for making bombs. Its sole nuclear plant is scheduled to be finished by the end of 2009. But that can't use the type of uranium that Iran is enriching; the station requires fuel of a different "formula," supplied by Russia, which is building the project, for the next 10 years. (And the Russians have offered to provide fuel for the plant's entire lifetime of 37 years.)

Another precondition asks Tehran to explain why it is building a heavy-water plant at Arak - when it has absolutely no plans for plutonium-based nuclear-power stations. The Arak plant's only imaginable use is to produce material for nuclear warheads.

Finally, the IAEA and the Security Council are asking Tehran to allow international inspectors access to all sites related to the nuclear project - access that Iran is obliged to provide under the NPT.

In short, the minimum show of goodwill on Ahmadinejad's part would be to comply with the UN resolutions before he goes to the White House for talks with President Obama on other issues.

Obama's words on "preconditions" have helped ease domestic pressure on Ahmadinejad to comply with the United Nations and the IAEA. The Iranian president is telling his domestic critics to shut up until after the US election. Why, after all, should he make concessions that a putative President Obama has already dismissed as unnecessary?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212008...819.htm?page=0

[DirkFTW]

Iran has not a single nuclear-power station and thus doesn't need enriched uranium - except for making bombs. Its sole nuclear plant is scheduled to be finished by the end of 2009. But that can't use the type of uranium that Iran is enriching; the station requires fuel of a different "formula," supplied by Russia, which is building the project, for the next 10 years. (And the Russians have offered to provide fuel for the plant's entire lifetime of 37 years.)

Another precondition asks Tehran to explain why it is building a heavy-water plant at Arak - when it has absolutely no plans for plutonium-based nuclear-power stations. The Arak plant's only imaginable use is to produce material for nuclear warheads.

Is this all true?? (If so, WTF is the UN doing?)

In short, the minimum show of goodwill on Ahmadinejad's part would be to comply with the UN resolutions before he goes to the White House for talks with President Obama on other issues.

Eh?

[wmbwinn]

Great article. This is not such a complicated issue. Obama is going to figuratively give up half of Czechoslovakia like Chamberlain did...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Evilmav2 again.

[mcsluggo]

Now I am confused. The united nation's resolutions ban TALKING with Iranian leadership until its violations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty are corrected?

really? (I am serious in this question)

Is it similarly illegal to talk to Indian and Pakistani leadership? (obviously it is not, so why not?)

[Usually Lurkin]

but, but, but, depending on which Obama you talk to, he might be willing to bypass talks to shut down the possibility of Iranian nukes (cause Iran is different that the USSR)

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"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." [....]

"With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations.... "
-Obama, '04

or wait, maybe he wouldn't (cause Iran is not the same as the USSR)

"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."
-Obama '08

or wait, maybe he would

"And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. . . .
-Obama '07

oh, except he's taking that option off the table himself

"You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist."
-Obama, same freakin interview as the last quote

to quote Ed Lasky, "What a negotiator! "
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ons_on_ir.html

[mcsluggo]

are those quotes supposed to be shocking, or inconsistent, or a "gotcha" moment in some way?

because I am just not really seeing it

[jefelump]

from mcsluggo:
are those quotes supposed to be shocking, or inconsistent, or a "gotcha" moment in some way?

because I am just not really seeing it

If you aren't seeing it, it's because your bias blinds your objectivity. And yes, I'm biased too. But take the man (Obama) at his word.

What I see in UL's quotes
#1 - "So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran." If Iran is making the weapons and Obama wants to "err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran", how is he going to do that? He would have to launch strikes.

#2 - Obama says Iran is not a threat??? And yes, I know he said "compared to the Soviet Union"... but still, Iran is not a threat??? The man is dilussional.

#3 - How do you disable a nuclear facility? With or without collateral damage, the way you disable it is to blow it up. The leader of Iran isn't just going to walk into the facility, ring the Union Bell, send his workers home, and shut it down.

#4 - Obama won't strike Iran

If you don't see it, then please provide your own analysis.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by jefelump

If you don't see it, then please provide your own analysis.

You can't control what the nuke do.

[jefelump]

Ya'll hilarious!

[wmbwinn]

It looks to me like we are seeing both Obama personalities:
1)the honest man that knows that we are going to have to hit Iran if they become nuke capable
2)the politician running for the Presidency who knows that if he admits the above, that he has no chance in He__ winning the Presidency because so many Americans are voting for him to stop war...

Obama is doing the classical dance of the politician.

And, in all seriousness, You really, really

Can't control what the Iranian Nuke do... They don't care about repercussions...

[Robillion]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Ya'll hilarious!

republicans are hilarious...

I just think it is funny how conservatives on this board keep trying to turn positives into negatives... when they have soo many negatives that really cannot be explained as anything else.

The world hates us BECAUSE we rush into war and still act as an imperialist nation. We did not have enemies out of no where... we created them! If Obama plans on helping our standing in the world, then we absolutely need to take a much different approach than the past. The world looks to us as a leader in this world... so why not lead with a better example. Instead of continuing a world of threats, initiate a world of diplomacy.

[jefelump]

from Robillion:
republicans are hilarious...

I just think it is funny how conservatives on this board keep trying to turn positives into negatives... when they have soo many negatives that really cannot be explained as anything else.

The world hates us BECAUSE we rush into war and still act as an imperialist nation. We did not have enemies out of no where... we created them! If Obama plans on helping our standing in the world, then we absolutely need to take a much different approach than the past. The world looks to us as a leader in this world... so why not lead with a better example. Instead of continuing a world of threats, initiate a world of diplomacy.

Your comments are way too general. What specifically do you think is a positive that republicans consider a negative?

The phrase "rush into war" was a concoction of the Dems, as a slam against Bush. Nobody has every said Clinton rushed into war. Nobody has ever said Bush Sr. rushed into war. Nobody has ever said Reagan rushed into war. Nobody has ever said Carter rushed into war. There are countries in this world who have hated us long before GW Bush came into office in 2000, and even longer before he "rushed into war" and invaded Iraq. So your comment that the "world hates us BECAUSE we rush into war" is humorous, at best. Supposedly France and Germany hated us for "rushing into war", but look at what happened to those leaders who hated us and defied us at the UN. They were voted out of office.

Obama can certainly try to help our standing in the world. I'm sure McCain will try too. That's no reason to vote for him.

And what is diplomacy without threats?

Obama: Iran, stop your nuclear program.
Iran: No
Obama: Stop it or else
Iran: or else what?
Obama: I'll go to the UN

Sounds like great diplomacy to me.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Robillion

republicans are hilarious...

I just think it is funny how conservatives on this board keep trying to turn positives into negatives... when they have soo many negatives that really cannot be explained as anything else.

The world hates us BECAUSE we rush into war and still act as an imperialist nation. We did not have enemies out of no where... we created them! If Obama plans on helping our standing in the world, then we absolutely need to take a much different approach than the past. The world looks to us as a leader in this world... so why not lead with a better example. Instead of continuing a world of threats, initiate a world of diplomacy.

Obama is not the "anti-war" candidate that you think he is. He has said on multiple occasions that if he is president, he will not just pull us out of Iraq.

We will continue fighting wars if Obama is president. He will continue fighting wars if Hillary is President. We will continue to fight wars if McCain is president.

It is amazing that so many people think that war is going to go away by electing Obama. Obama himself has said that is just not true...

[Ninkobei]

all that obama said is that he will talk to Iran. thats nothing new, he said he would begin talks with all countries that america has shunned. cuba included. the guy who wrote this story is a decent spin artist but he needs to go back to get his PHD in bullshit.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Robillion

We did not have enemies out of no where... we created them!

If this is your philosophy, can't you say our enemies have us because they created us? Or are we truly the center of the universe, having responsibility for creating every relationship that exists in the world?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

are those quotes supposed to be shocking, or inconsistent, or a "gotcha" moment in some way?

because I am just not really seeing it

1) Obama is not bringing a new politics, it's the same old shuck and dive. He's selling something that I think is really nothing but a fake image. Scary stuff like Wright, and political stuff like this, and the goofy stuff like "Obama the messiah" are what underpin Obama the hope for president.

2) The press does not press him like they should. The way he's been given a pass on the negotiation v. force issue is symptomatic. So are the glossing of his gaffes. He just said that he's thankful for the fallen soldiers that we celebrate on memorial day - and that he sees many of them in the crowd. And he just said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz - which was done by the Russians. He talked of the 57, and of the 48 United States of America. Will his gaffes turn into books, and calendars, and discussions of his mental capacities, as was done for Bush?

[jefelump]

Here's a great article on "Obama-isms"...

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...TUyN2FkNmMzYTc

[wmbwinn]

Former German Diplomat: Israel Readying Strike on Iran

A prominent political observer is predicting that Israel is likely to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before President Bush leaves office.

"The threat of another military confrontation hangs like a dark cloud over the Middle East," declared Joschka Fischer, who was Germany's foreign minister and vice chancellor from 1998 to 2005.

Writing in the Beirut-based English-language newspaper The Daily Star, Fischer notes that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "Israel's worst security nightmare," and the Jewish state takes Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threat to annihilate Israel very seriously.

He points to several factors that indicate Israel could be readying a strike on Iran:

When President Bush recently visited Israel as the country celebrated its 60th birthday, it was expected that Palestinian-Israeli relations would be the chief topic discussed. Instead, it was Iran.
It has been speculated that during his visit, Bush gave Israel the green light for an attack on Iran.


Political pressure is mounting in Israel for action to halt the Iranian threat.

The outgoing commander of the Israeli air force has said that the air force is capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect Israel's security.

With the Bush presidency approaching its end and uncertainty about his successor's policy toward Israel and Iran, the "window of opportunity" for an Israeli attack is potentially closing, and that window "is now, during the last months of Bush's presidency."
Fischer observes: "Although it is acknowledged in Israel that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't stand by and wait for matters to take their course."

As Newsmax reported in December, Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and senior adviser to three presidents, said after talks with Israeli officials that the Jewish state would launch an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on its own if the rest of the world does not take action.

Fischer concluded, "Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high time for serious negotiations to begin."

http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKCRXqfmQdI...emjQ16QyexJRAZ

This makes a lot of sense, unfortunately. I don't think Israel is comfortable going at least 4 years without US support for an attack. I would not be surprised to see Israel hit Iran like they hit Iraq's nuclear facility in the past. Problem with Israel hitting Iran is that Iran has separated its nuclear assets to many locations, many of which are hidden quite deep in mountain tunnels. I don't know if Israel possesses the might to take Iran's nuclear ability "out". So... I wouldn't be surprised if the attack is:
1)a partnered attack where we take a role
2)we give them the 30,000 lb bunker busters, air planes, etc. to do the job themselves. After all, their last successful attack on the Iraq nuclear facility was done with US planes and bombs...

[Robillion]

Obama at AIPAC Lobby 08
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

Look up McCain's video for contrast.. I couldnt find a full one, those that posted his on YouTube edited it greatly.

[wmbwinn]

Forty-three percent of American voters think the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, up 1% from last week, but 41% also believe America is not safer than it was before the 9/11 attacks. The latter is down 1% from the week before.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted Monday night finds that, unchanged from the previous week, 24% of voters give the winning edge to the terrorists, and 26% say neither side is winning.

Overall, the survey finds little change from last week in the perceptions Americans hold about the war on terror and the ongoing fighting in Iraq.

During the 2004 election cycle, the war on terror was consistently the number one issue for voters, and Rasmussen Reports surveyed on that topic weekly. Since then economic issues have come to the fore, with voters now identifying them as their number one concern. Polling on the war on terror has been monthly for the past two years.

Now, with John McCain running in large part on his national security credentials and Democrats criticizing his open-ended view of the war in Iraq, Rasmussen Reports will once again survey weekly on issues related to the war on terror.

In the new survey, 71% of Republican voters believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the war on terror, with 14% saying the terrorists are on top and 12% crediting neither. By contrast, while 23% of Democrats say the U.S. and its allies is winning, 35% believe the terrorists are ahead, and a near equal amount (34%) give neither side the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 42% believe the U.S. is winning, 19% credit the terrorists and 31% say it's a stalemate.

An equal number - 33% -- believe the war in Iraq will get better or worse in the next six months, and 25% say it will remain about the same.

Fifty percent (50%) believe in the long-term the war will be viewed as a failure. Twenty-eight percent (28%) disagree, with 23% undecided. The week before, 52% rated the war a long-term failure, 31% said it would be seen as a success, and 18% were unsure.

The overall findings for President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq remain unchanged. Twenty-six percent (26%) say the president has done a good or excellent job, but over half (53%) rate his performance poor. The latter includes 16% of Republicans (down from 21% the week before) and 78% of Democrats, (down 1%)

Only 39% of voters think America is safer today than before September 11, 2001, down from 41% last week.

McCain continues to be by far the most trusted of the two presidential candidates on national security issues and the war in Iraq specifically.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._terror_update

---------------------------------------

It is rather amazing how the party you identify with decides for you whether or not we are succeeding in Iraq...

Sheep, Sheep, Sheep
So easily lead...

[wmbwinn]

Bolton: Israel Will Strike Iran if Obama is Elected

Wednesday, June 25, 2008 4:32 PM

By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size




Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in November.

Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.

In an interview with FOX News, Bolton says, "I think if they are to do anything, the most likely period is after our elections and before the inauguration of the next President."

Bolton reasons Israel won’t be able to hold off a strike on Iran any longer than that given the Illinois senator's intended foreign policy toward the Islamic Republic.

"I don’t think they [the Israeli government] will do anything before our election because they don’t want to affect it,” he says, adding, “They’d have to make a judgment whether to [strike] during the remainder of President Bush’s term in office or wait for his successor."

Bolton points to Obama’s statements in which he says he would engage Iran in direct talks and take the military option for dealing with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons off the table, a position he believes will further embolden Tehran to build a nuclear bomb.

In a related interview with The Telegraph, Bolton says he believes Arab countries will support an Israeli strike, effectively ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, while publicly denouncing it.

Their reaction, he tells the British paper, "will be positive privately. I think there'll be public denunciations, but no action."

Bolton thinks Israel may consider postponing the attack, however, if Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., emerges as the victor in the presidential race. He says McCain's stance on Iran “is far more realistic than that of the Bush administration.”

Bolton doubts Iran would respond immediately with a counterstrike of its own, partially because Tehran would fear an American reprisal.

Earlier this month, Israel held a massive air force exercise over Greece that U.S., Israeli and Greek sources later confirmed was a test run for a strike on Iran's main uranium enrichment plant.








© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/bol...mo_code=64FD-1

[DirkFTW]

The French are worried about us.

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West.

According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

According to the Israeli source, Sarkozy plans to begin intensive negotiations with the new American administration, regardless of whether it is headed by Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain, even before the new president takes office in January, with the goal of persuading him to continue the current policy on Iran.

But Sarkozy's pessimism does not stem only from Obama's stance; it also stems from the overall behavior of the international community toward Iran's nuclear program, and particularly its inability to agree on a fourth round of Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic. This foot-dragging will make it impossible to effect a change in Iran's nuclear policy, Sarkozy believes.

The French intelligence community believes that Iran has already obtained about 40 percent of the enriched uranium it would need for its first bomb, and that at its current rate, it will obtain the rest of the uranium it needs in the spring or summer of 2009.

However, French agencies are divided over what Iran is likely to do once it has this uranium. One view is that the Iranians will immediately make a nuclear bomb, in order to demonstrate their capability. The other is that Iran will continue enriching uranium without making a bomb - at least until it has enough enriched uranium for several bombs.

Link