Skip to comments."I Don't Bluff": Suppose the president never intended to roll back Iranís nuclear program...
Posted on 02/08/2014 10:20:57 AM PST by kristinn
"I Don't Bluff": Suppose the president never intended to roll back Irans nuclear program. How then would he proceed?
President Obama has repeatedly promised to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. If there is no other choice, he says, he will resort to force. In a March 2012 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, the president famously rejected the alternative policy, namely, allowing Iran to go nuclear and then trying to contain it. He emphasized the point dramatically: [A]s president of the United States, he said, I dont bluff.
Really? Suppose this statement was just a show of toughness, timed to keep supporters of Israel on his side during the 2012 campaign season. Suppose that, when it came to Iran, in his heart of hearts, the president actually preferred a strategy of containment to a strategy of prevention. Suppose that was actually his policy aim from the outsetbut, for obvious reasons, he couldnt say so. How would he proceed?
He would proceed exactly as he has been proceedingtrumpeting his intention to roll back the Iranian nuclear program while actually avoiding confrontation at all costs.
To gain a sense of the presidents methods, consider first the saga of Syrias use of chemical weapons that developed in 2013. Each time the situation called for a tough response, Obama telegraphed a punchhis famous red linebut then never actually delivered the blow.
The White House first realized that Bashar al-Assad had employed chemical weapons in the spring of last year. Its immediate reaction, however, was anything but a rush to enforce the presidents announced red line. On the contrary, it stalled for time. When the political pressure to respond became unbearable, the White House announced, in June, an intention to increase aid to the Syrian opposition...
(Excerpt) Read more at mosaicmagazine.com ...
Opening premise is akin to “Suppose the sun were to rise in the East.”
Thanks. Didn’t see it, didn’t search :-(
By the time this insect leaves office Iran will have The Bomb and he will have dismantled Americas nuclear deterrent.
The nuke scandals are not quite totally fabricated but will make tidy fodder as premise for disarming us.
He covered this in the single document from Columbia by him that they could track down.
“AMERICA HAS HAD IT GOOD LONG ENOUGH”
He is our Philby extraordinaire.
His strategy is to stall for time. He has no intention of confronting Iran. He favors a nuclear Iran.
His problem is walking a line between the Saudis and Iran. When forced to choose, he tries to choose both. But forced to choose he’ll side with Iran if he can. Like many US pols, the Saudis have bought a lot of influence. But unlike a lot of US politicians, the idea of a nuclear muslim state is one thing that enthuses him.
So we are seeing an odd coalition forming with Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, versus Iran and the US on the other. Odd. He’ll back the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood everywhere else, but not when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. Thats what I think, in any case.
It’s not a bluff, it’s a fold.
Of course obamaramdingdong doesn’t bluff, he’s a bullshitter not a bluffer.
He’s a “A Jew Hating, Muslim Loving Communist!
I wonder if he tried to get Bush to take care of Iran or why didn't Bush take care of Iran?
The whole thing is playing out on the Senate floor.
You got the larger group(58), composed of NeoCon republicans and Liberal Interventionist democrats who are hellbent on going to war with Iran.
The smaller group(42) composed of Realists, Isolationists, and antiwarriers, who are saying wait and let it play out.
Democrat Menendez and Republican Kirk versus Democrat Feinstein and Republicans Corker and Paul.
Search isn’t trouble-free anyway. :’)
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.