Skip to comments.The World is Misreading Obama on Iran (Obama Might Nuke Iran)
Posted on 11/08/2011 9:40:32 PM PST by nickcarraway
The government of Iran, much like many across the Middle East, believes that the Obama administration is so consumed with a desire to undo the wrongs of the Bush era and get out from under the costs of two difficult, hard-to-justify wars in the region that it would never intervene against them militarily. Iranian leaders seem to believe that the United States would not risk another war in the region just to stop their development of nuclear weapons.
The government of Israel, also worried that its number one ally has lost its appetite for complex entanglements in the region, seems to think that by playing the Iran card it can goad the U.S. into action that will restore the bonds between the two nations. Israeli leaders believe that they can translate their perception of Iran as an existential threat against them and a brazen, rising regional hegemon into a new renewed U.S. commitment to the region and closer ties with Israel.
Both are wrong.
According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, which has an extraordinary package of stories on the growing Iran risk and the escalation of that risk associated with an upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that will reveal game-changing progress by Iran in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons capabilities, even America's closest allies in Britain believe "President Obama has a big decision to make in the coming months because he won't want to do anything just before an election." Wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com ...
If only Nixon could go to China, only Obama could nuke Iran. You sort of need the Nobel Peace prize to have enough gravitas to perform such an act.
Now, having said that... I agree that only Obama COULD nuke Iran and get away with it politically. But it ain't going to happen and this analysis is simply full of crap on practically every paragraph.
BS. To nuke anyone you must have cojones, and our president has proven ... he has none. Moochell mayhap, but she is not president.
Obozo will likely resort to some kind of “Wag the Dog”.
Iran? I doubt it. He would never nuke his muzzie brothers. Especially the basis for the califit.
Zero knows only one play on the Iranian situation. It is the punt.
There will be no military action to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, there will be talk, talk, and weak, useless sanctions at the most.
Our president is a coward AND he, like all Democrats, has no interest in actually doing anything to forward American interests.
Obama bowing before the king of Saud would indicate to me, if he’s Muslim, he’s Sunni.
So yeah, it would be no problem for him turning Iran into a sea of glass.
Right, and Curtis LeMay was a Quaker pacifist.
From a domestic political perspective, right now Obama's strong suit is his national security performance.
Who but a whacked-off academic believes that? Or this...
That said, it would be a mistake to think this President would make such a cynical analysis. Should he act on an issue like this, he will do so without making any political calculus.
This President is all about making self-serving cynical political analyses.
Iran and their impending nuclear capability are a vital issue. It deserves better than this nattering drivel.
I agree. Obama is unbalanced, I can see him nuking Iran to hold onto the presidency. He got away with Libya. That didn’t do much for him in the polls. What effect does Libya have on us? Iran is a different story.
If we start seeing the media talking about the dangers of a nuclear Iran, I’d take that as a sign. Especially if Hillary looks like she’s going to replace him as the candidate for 2012.
Never happen. Not from the administration that turned the War on Terror into an “overseas contingency operation” and redefined terror attacks as “man-caused disasters”.
Then after that, we elect a Shiite president :-)
I´d like to see the Kenyan heap nuclear destruction on Iran. It would be very educational, I´m sure.
Do you know which Osama belonged to?
Just pay attention to your local Emergency Alerts. ;o)
Nick, where in this article does it suggest that 0bama might nuke Iran? I read the whole thing and saw nothing even hinting at that.
The headline is misleading.
Quite frankly, it has always been my contention that the only way to halt Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, let alone regional hegemony, is to drop one or more nukes on them. Iran is in the same grip of fanatical megalomania as were the Japanese prior to the end of World War II and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It took the atomic bombs to literally produce some old school ‘shock and awe’ to smack the Japanese out of their militarist ways.
Iran is in fact, even more fanatical in that their political leadership is seized by Islamic fantasies about the ‘Mahdi’ climbing out of whatever well he’s been hiding in, to return (with Jesus alongside him no less) to wipe out ‘Allah’s enemies, destroy Israel, whatever bullshit it is they have embraced, and being that the entire country is Islamic, even the adherents of that death cult of a ‘religion’ are easily swayed by the more radical practitioners of those beliefs.
10 megatons on Tehran, 5 on Tabriz (the Assahollah Khomeini’s hometown) and 5 on Qom. THAT is the nuclear trifecta that will permanently remove those Persian pricks as any significant force on the world stage.
Unfortunately, 0bama would never take such action. In my opinion, he is secretly hoping Iran WILL drop a nuke on Israel, and considering how recent revelations (due to an open microphone with that joker Sarkozy) have proven that 0bama effectively despises Bibi Netanyahu, the only thing we will see as the mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv is a semi-solemn 0bama before the cameras, scripted by the TOTUS as always, ‘condemning’ the Iranian action and pledging to press for further ‘sanctions’ at the U.N. (’Useless Nations’).
The “open mic” gaffe was done on purpose. Sarkosky and Obama want to distance themselves from the upcoming Israeli attack, even though they have both assisted in the preparation.
Obama is glad to have Israel take this responsibility off his hands.
The real question might be, would he nuke Iran if he thought it would get him enough support to win the 2012 election?
I would think he wants Iran to achieve a bomb to pressure Israel. But there is no telling with this guy.
Hussein will only attack Iran for votes. It will be an election year move. He embraces those who hate Israel, so it’ll be a tough call for the regime.
You’ve totally misread Obama. He was anti-war when Bush was ib charge, When Obama’s in charge, “war is good.”
He would nuke Arizona before he would nuke Iran.
Too bad so few grasp the picture.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
PS. What is with all of these pieces taht don't even contemplate the idea that Iran could be a threat to us with nukes?
If he nukes Iran, he deserves another peace prize.
I like things that go BOOOOOOOOM, silence, BOOOOOOM!
That’s the only reason I need.
Obama nuking Iran when he has a ROE stating Americans cannot fart near a muslim, hahahahahahahahahahahaa, oh great satire!
“BS. To nuke anyone you must have cojones, and our president has proven ..he has none.”
That’s right. And villains like Ahmedinejad share BHO’s idealogy of hate for his two targets - Israel and America.
And while I’m ranting, it just galls me that BHO gets all this credit for eliminating top Al Queda guys, and that he’ll probably run on that next year. A) he’s the recipient of much good groundwork laid by GWB et al, and B) he always takes the coward’s way out by using nothing but drones, killing but never capturing. He destroys MUCH valuable intel that could be gleaned for our national security, simply because he (and Holder) are political cowards on interrogation and Gitmo.
The night BHO got elected, I despaired for our country’s safety - in all aspects.
“He got away with Libya. That didnt do much for him in the polls. What effect does Libya have on us? Iran is a different story.”
If people would dare to think the (previously) unthinkable, his “foreign policy” would be easily predictable. He’s driven to get rid of leaders like Gaddafi and Mubarak because they’ve left Israel alone, then replace them with radical Muslim Brotherhood types whose primary goal is to eradicate Israel.
He’ll continue with this in all applicable ME countries, protecting tyrants, like Ahmedinejad, who openly threaten the destruction of Israel - and us.
That’s a good point. That means Obama is looking at keeping the presidency (getting reelected) vs. letting Iran proceed.
I guess we’ll find out if he really is a Muslim at heart.
“Do you know which Osama belonged to?”
Shi’ite, like the Ayatollas and Ahmedinejad.
“10 megatons on Tehran, 5 on Tabriz (the Assahollah Khomeinis hometown) and 5 on Qom.”
Don’t forget Esfahan. Back in the late 70’s when I travelled there and was going to take a two-year contract (under the Shah), that city was their equivalent of Chicago, to Tehran “New York”.
“Sarkosky and Obama want to distance themselves from the upcoming Israeli attack, even though they have both assisted in the preparation.”
Hmmm...I could half believe that, in the case of Sarkozy - his country (like a growing number of others in Europe) is experiencing increasing backlash against the Islamization currently overtaking it.
“I guess well find out if he really is a Muslim at heart.”
You haven’t already seen enough to convince you by now? He’s not only a Muslim at heart, I firmly believe he’s a Muslim in fact.
It’s my understanding that he converted. When the fishies got done with him, he became Shiite. :)
“Its my understanding that he converted. When the fishies got done with him, he became Shiite. :)”
LOL! That one took me a second (or two). Duh :-)))
I couldn’t help myself. ;)
He already got 1 of those - More like: An Oscar.
It'll all depend on "perspective" .... at the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.