Skip to comments.Obama says risky to attack Iran, wants diplomatic fix
Posted on 02/05/2012 11:53:00 PM PST by Olog-hai
President Barack Obama said on Sunday there were important risks to consider before any military strike against Iran and made clear he does not want to see more conflict in the oil-producing Gulf region.
In a television interview, Obama also said he did not believe Tehran had the "intentions or capabilities" to attack the United States, playing down the threats from Tehran and saying he wanted a diplomatic end to the nuclear standoff.
"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices. We've still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran. And so our preferred solution here is diplomatic," Obama said.
His comments echoed concerns expressed by earlier by Iran's neighbor Turkey that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.
Iran says its nuclear program is meant to produce energy, not weapons.
But its recent shift of uranium enrichment to a mountain bunkerpossibly impervious to conventional bombingand refusal to negotiate peaceful guarantees for the program or open up to U.N. inspectors have raised fears about Iran's ambitions as well as concerns about Gulf oil supplies.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Iran also says that they want to exterminate the Jews. Why do we believe some of their pronouncements, but not others?
It’s down to what liberals selectively believe.
Peace Through Weakness
The respectful diplomatic outreach to the Ayatollah worked really well for Carter the Rabbit Hunter, did it not?
Oh, c’mon! Are our leaders really so naive to believe every problem can be solved by diplomacy??? Have they ever considered the possibility that some players don’t negotiate in good faith and don’t operate from the same cultural perspective? Do they realize some people aren’t selfish western secularists who can be bought off and are entirely willing to die for their causes? Even worse, do our guys ever consider the possibility that the process of negotiation itself is the strategy used to achieve national objectives?
Carter the Rabbit Hunter...
Tim: There he is!
King Arthur: Where?
King Arthur: What? Behind the rabbit?
Tim: It *is* the rabbit!
King Arthur: You silly sod!
King Arthur: You got us all worked up!
Tim: Well, that’s no ordinary rabbit.
King Arthur: Ohh.
Tim: That’s the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
Sir Robin: You tit! I soiled my armor I was so scared!
Tim: Look, that rabbit’s got a vicious streak a mile wide! It’s a killer!
Sir Galahad: Get stuffed!
Tim: He’ll do you up a treat, mate.
Sir Galahad: Oh, yeah?
Sir Robin: You manky Scots git!
Tim: I’m warning you!
Sir Robin: What’s he do? Nibble your bum?
Tim: He’s got huge, sharp... er... He can leap about. Look at the bones!
King Arthur: Go on, Bors. Chop his head off!
Sir Bors: Right! Silly little bleeder. One rabbit stew comin’ right up!
They don't seem to understand the fundamentals of diplomacy to boot. Negotiating from a stance of weakness is not diplomacy; it's appeasement. As the quote attributed to Frederick the Great goes, "Diplomacy without force of arms is like music without instruments"and when you're on the run, your "negotiating partner" just laughs. "Peace for our time" redux.
Oh, cmon! Are our leaders really so naïve to believe every problem can be solved by diplomacy?
Omoslem indeed wants a diplomatic solution: Iran gets nukes, threatens everybody, holds Israel at arm’s length while trying to overrun it with more aggressive terror proxies than ever before.
Today I was playing a video game called Crysis 2. The villain is a mad scientist named Hargreave who sells out the human race to aliens, and manipulates everybody to help the aliens take over and melt the humans into sludge.
Hargreave keeps marveling at how “elegant” and “efficient” the aliens are at “disposing of carcasses.” Every comment of his sounds like President Omoslem marveling at how efficient the Communist Chinese are, and how elegant and tolerant totalitarian islam is.
Omoslem has indeed betrayed us, and wishes he could hand Iran nukes himself. He’s attempting the next best thing — running interference until they’re nuclear-armed.
So it’s politically the best for his survival to wait.
Events out of our control will dictate what happens. Lots of things going on in the background, Gulf states do not want a nuclear Iran—nor does Israel. There may well be a way—without the USA to take out Iran—lots of ways to do it. Obama is too much of a coward to get us into a war—the only bad thing is when the US is weak it encourages our enemies.
it’s ‘RISKY’ letting obutthead finsih his first term !
Gosh! A diplomatic fix! He’s brilliant! Why didn’t anyone think of that before!!!
Excuse me, I think I need to go pound my head against the wall a bit.
Obama I think misunderstands Teddy Roosevelts motto Speak softly and carry a big stick.
It does no good for a man to carry a big stick if all who see him laugh at him because they know that he will never use it.
The organizer doesn’t understand, war IS diplomacy.
If he’d grown up on the South side of Chicago he’d
Obama is the most dangerous person in the world. He restrains Israel and the Us military while negotiating with an enemy who is vastly smarter and determined than he is.
But then later couldn't intervene fast enough in Egypt and Libya and is now feverishly working behind the scenes to bring 'democratic reform' to Syria.
LMAO When did Obama start worrying about anything affecting oil prices?
We are paying about double what we did when he came to office and it’s going up all the time.
I have to agree with the author of the above link’s article. A shadow war (layman’s term for a USGOV term) is the most pragmatic way to deal with the Shi’a radicals of Iran. The question is, does our administration have the coconuts/desire to conduct it and the ability to enlist worthy silent allies to the cause.
We shall see. The future of our children lie in the balance.
Exclusive: New U.S. Commando Team Operating Near Iran
Tensions between the U.S. and Iran are at a high point, as the Islamic Republic threatens to close off a vital waterway and two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups sit in the seas off the Iranian coast. But across the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has a previously unacknowledged weapon in reserve: a new special operations team.
Danger Room has confirmed with the U.S. Special Operations Command that a new elite commando team is operating in the region. The primary, day-to-day mission of the team, known as Joint Special Operations Task Force-Gulf Cooperation Council, is to mentor military units belonging to the U.S. oil-rich Arab allies, who collectively are known as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Those Arab states consider Iran to be their primary foreign threat.
The task force provides highly trained personnel that excel in uncertain environments, Maj. Rob Bockholt, a spokesman for special-operations forces in the Mideast, tells Danger Room, and seeks to confront irregular threats. The U.S. military has not previously acknowledged the existence of the team, known as JSOTF-GCC for short.
The unit began its existence in mid-2009 around the time that the Iranian leadership rejected President Obamas offer of a new diplomatic dialogue and underwent a serious internal challenge to its legitimacy from Green Movement protesters. But whatever the task force does about Iran or might do in the future is a sensitive subject with the military.
D-day was risky.
Little boy was risky.
Fat man was risky.
You are several pay grades out of your league. Shut. Up.
This team is the reason there was an attempt on the life of the Saudi Ambassador in Washington DC
We have only hints at how successful their students have been with several dead scientists and two big explosions.
Drill, baby, drill
Rush Limbaugh: Obama is now into caliphate building — he believes he is the 12th Imam.
However, failing to attack Iran is suicide. If we let Iran get nukes, we will see nuclear weapons used in the near future.
That of course begs the question as to whether we should only get into wars where no risk to us is involved, then. I've never heard of a risk-free war.
Attacking Iran is risky
Now that's the greater risk of the two.
However, failing to attack Iran is suicide. If we let Iran get nukes, we will see nuclear weapons used in the near future
Not to mention the Delaware crossing to go after the Hessians in Trenton was quite risky. And what with the current president’s numerous references to Lincoln, the backhanded implication that the Civil War was risk-free is an insult to that particular forerunner.
Your examples are better than mine. :-)