Obama on Iran, Israel and Nukes

[Admiral Yi]

I think Obama erred in making this threat.

[Jacob]

I think Obama erred in making this threat.

How so?

[Sheilbh]

What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.

I agree, but I think foreign policy always comes across as reasonably non-partisan.  There's a lot more consensus at the top, or so it seems anyway.

And to be fair they do have a foreign leader who's willing to go along with it.  One of the reasons both Obama and Clinton administrations ended up hating working with Netanyahu is his willingness to effectively play in American politics to achieve his aims.

Did you read the interview?

The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

I think Obama's point about the danger of proliferation is well made. It is not only about nuclear Iran, but about nuclear Saudi Arabia. And every other country in the region.

I agree.  The anti-proliferation point essentially says that it's in the essential national security interests of the US to stop an Iranian nuke.  That's aligning American interests with Israel's to a remarkable degree.  The question, I think, isn't whether Obama can convince Netanyahu but whether Netanyahu's willing to be convinced on this. 

[CountDeMoney]

What would be really fucking great is if the Republicans could recognize that some issues transcend partisan politics, and this is one of them.

I agree, but I think foreign policy always comes across as reasonably non-partisan.  There's a lot more consensus at the top, or so it seems anyway.

Only when planes full of people are flown into building full of more people are connected to Sunni dictators, and anything that could possibly be considered as questioning that is considered cowardice.

[Admiral Yi]

How so?

Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.

[Razgovory]

How so?

Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.

You always think that.

[Neil]

How so?

Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.

He might not think he's bluffing though.

[Lettow77]

 Why do we say the Mullahs are mad? Why is it assumed unreasoning, suicidal forces rule in Iran?

[Neil]

Why do we say the Mullahs are mad? Why is it assumed unreasoning, suicidal forces rule in Iran?

Because they're Asian (and thus have diminished capacity for reason) and Muslim (and thus lack the ability to reason).

[Admiral Yi]

You always think that.

This makes no sense Raz.

[Razgovory]

You always think that.

This makes no sense Raz.

You always make the assumption that the Democrat will not use force.

[CountDeMoney]

He's got you there, Yi.

[Zoupa]

GOTCHA MOMENT.

GOTCHA MOMENT.

GOTCHA MOMENT.

[Berkut]

The entire point was that Obama made it clear that in the scale of possible outcomes, Nuclear Iran came a distant second to US Bombs Iran. In other words, the US is pretty much stating that they will take military action if necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Yeah, he says that. Now he just has to get Netanyahu to believe it. I mean, would Obama bomb Iran if it meant losing his reelection bid? Would he do it if he thought that it would cause the situation in Iraq/Afghanistan to spiral completely out-of-control? Would he bomb Iran if he thought it would hurt US interests, even if it would help Israeli interests? Doesn't Obama have to convince Netanyahu that the answer to all of these questions (among others) is 'yes'? Obama can say all the right things, but, in the end, Netanyahu is going to have to trust him enough to put Israel's future in Obama's hands.

If Obama thought any of those things were true, he wouldn't make a very public assurance that he would attack Iran rather than allow them to get a bomb.

Is there any more effective way to convince the Israelis that he is serious than a public and unambiguous statement?

I guess you can invent scenarios and then question his resolve under those scenarios - but why? Would he bomb them if it meant losing re-election? How could he know that doing so would lose re-election?

Are you just looking for a reason to be all pissed off at the man? This makes no sense - if in fact you are of the opinion that the US should take military action as a last resort to stop Iran from going nuclear, then how could it be that the US President stating publicly and clearly that we will do so be seen as some kind of negative?

[Berkut]

How so?

Because I think he's bluffing and the mad mullahs are going to call.

If he is bluffing, then you are correct.

I don't think he is bluffing, because there is no upside to such a bluff, so why make it?

Rather, if he really feels that he would NOT be willing to attack Iran if necessary, then why even try to call Israel off?