Obama 's strategy with Iran

[TexasRules]

“It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice,” Mr. Obama said. “If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”

The administration’s policy has merely “empowered Iran,” he said, with its unmitigated hostility. As a result, it is now Iran, not Iraq, he added, that “poses the greatest threat to America and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/us...bama.html?_r=0

Just wondering what happened to this guy who said this to the American people?

It's like when Romney was laughed at for saying Russia was a threat and then they took over part of the Ukraine.

[Marooned]

We Iranians told our conservative and right wingers who were against the deal: "we are not going to wear boots of war", better settle down with the deal

[Anevers]

Really? Because it seems like Iran hasn't in the least bit empowered.

Iran has rejected any demand to hold talks in regards to it's nuclear program, the fact that an agreement was made proves that wasn't empowered in the least bit.

Iran was forced to agree to the curtailment of its programs, the destruction of valuable equipment at some of its facilities, and a drastic reduction in the number of centrifuges that will remain in operation.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...644691,00.html

Iran was forced to agree to an unprecedented regime of international supervision and monitoring of its nuclear facilities and the dismantling of critical systems. The facility in Natanz will be left with approximately 5,000 old-model centrifuges, and 1,000 new ones will be removed from the site and stored under supervision. The Arak reactor will cease production of plutonium, the original core of the reactor will be destroyed or removed from the country, and the facility will be used for research and development programs only with the approval of the superpowers.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...644691,00.html

Mind you it's the same damn people wanting to bomb and invade Iran that wanted us to invade Iraq. That turned out well didn't it?

[Flutterguy]

His deal won't amount to anything at all, much like his administration over the last six years. Lotta talk. Not a lot of action.

[Independent voter]

Both Iran and the US have to get the treaty through their governments now, until then it's just a meaningless piece of paper.

Israel and the Arab states, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc are against it. Of course Israel and the Arabs aren't working together, but they share a common interest.

I think it's a good treaty, and we should agree to it. Not sure how it will fare in Congress, logic doesn't mean much in Congress.

[Deleted]

I don't trust anything Iran says before they kick out the ayatollahs and mullahs, become secular again and stop warmongering against Israel.

People haven't learned anything since the days of Chamberlain it seems.

[Deleted]

I don't trust anything Iran says before they kick out the ayatollahs and mullahs, become secular again and stop warmongering against Israel.

People haven't learned anything since the days of Chamberlain it seems.

The Iran would be the only secular state in the region.

[Tierbook]

I don't trust anything Iran says before they kick out the ayatollahs and mullahs, become secular again and stop warmongering against Israel.

People haven't learned anything since the days of Chamberlain it seems.

Isn't turning the ME into a war zone in its entirety the current US policy? Currently Iran is one of the few countries not dealing with war/rebels on some level.... and if they go to war it's likely the others will as well.

[ringpriest]

Both Iran and the US have to get the treaty through their governments now, until then it's just a meaningless piece of paper.

Israel and the Arab states, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc are against it. Of course Israel and the Arabs aren't working together, but they share a common interest.

I think it's a good treaty, and we should agree to it. Not sure how it will fare in Congress, logic doesn't mean much in Congress.

It doesn't have to get through Congress - the final deal will be negotiated between the permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) and Iran, which (assuming that a deal can be finalized at all) makes it a slam-dunk for a Security Council Resolution. Then Obama can flip the Republicans the bird, and the right-wingnuts can rant about withdrawing from the UN Charter just in time for 2016 elections.

[Skroe]

“It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice,” Mr. Obama said. “If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”

The administration’s policy has merely “empowered Iran,” he said, with its unmitigated hostility. As a result, it is now Iran, not Iraq, he added, that “poses the greatest threat to America and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/us...bama.html?_r=0

Just wondering what happened to this guy who said this to the American people?

It's like when Romney was laughed at for saying Russia was a threat and then they took over part of the Ukraine.

Americans have spent the better part of two weeks utterly embarrassing themselves over the Iran talk. Every which way.

You know who wins the longer the US is tied down pretending a dirt poor country of 70 million with a nuclear program that is 70 years behind the curve and a ballistic missile program 60 years behind the curve it's primary military threat?

Russia and China.

They are the only winners.

Iran is a country of 70 million people. A dirt poor control of 70 million people which has engaged in hi-jinks across the middle east for three for one reason and one reason alone: we've let them. We have consistently made the decision that holding them accountable militarily - and we've had decades to do so - is for one reason or another, not something we're going to do. We could destroy their military, kill their leaders and devastate their ability to make war, any time.

People, particularly on the far right, have this ridiculous misconception that because the US negotiates with it's enemy, it is somehow legitimizing them, or it somehow brings us down to their level. Ridiculous. Militarily we could squash Iran like a bug. It wouldn't even be close. Our ear would hurt more from Russia whining and the UN talking about "proportionate force".

The point is, this is not remotely a relationship between equals.

On the list of threats to US security, China is number one, Russia is number two. Iran, maybe, is a distant number three. I'd put it closer to number six or seven, after Islamic Radicalism, Cyber-terrorism / Cyber-security, and North Korea.

Why are we treating it like a number one? That's the inherent ridiculousness of this entire affair.

Iran, the Middle East... needs to go away as an issue, and we need to stop looking for entirely pointless demons to slay in a region of the world that is less significant to our security today than it has been at any point in the last sixty years. Every warship, every attack aircraft, every intelligence asset, utilized on keeping this dirt poor country of 70 million people under lock and key is one more asset not utilized against Russia in Europe and against China in Asia-Pacific. Every hour our senior officials spend on Iran, is an hour not spent countering China.

Make no mistake about it: the Obama administration has pulled it's punches in Ukraine vis a vis Russia, because it wanted Russia's assistance on the Iran deal. The longer Iran is an issue, the longer we have to keep trading on our interests like this. He did that because he had no choice.

Or let me put it into further perspective.

In Europe, Russia seeks to keep us distracted elsewhere, so they can peel off the trouble spots of Europe, undermine the European Union, and assault the American-European democratic peace in Europe. Why? Because Vladmir Putin wants to recreate the Soviet Union minus communism one day. Regardless of means not existing to reach his ambitions, the more we are tied down elsewhere, the less we can respond here.

In Asia-Pacific, China is and has been engaging in a long term plan to supplant the US as the dominant power in the region, and eventually the world. Make no mistake about it. That's their plan. To push us out and be hegemonic in the world's most important strategic region, at our expense. Technologically, they're a decade and a half behind. Five years ago it was a thirty year gap. In a decade, there will be parity between us.

So how important is Iran to you? How important is the security of Israel to you? Is it more important than Pax Americana in Europe? Is it more important than the US being the world's only superpower? Because when we use our immense power poorly - when we EXPEND IT rather than build it up, those are the costs.

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made us relatively less powerful than we were a decade ago. That is natural and in no way permanent or anything of that nature. It is natural when powerful countries expend vast resources and suffer calamities, that there be a a period of of recovery and rebound. The US position today, for example, is the product of a post-Vietnam rebound. But if we engage in another military campaign... if we spend resources rather than use this time to build, the day will come when we will regret that we spent this time expending our finite power rather than regenerating it for the battles that lie ahead. We need to pick our battles wisely, and Iran is a stupid battle. It's as stupid as picking a fight with Saddam Hussein.

China and Russia cannot take us on today. We control all the levers of power. We have military dominance. We have a technological lead. But all of these are were in a state of decay until relatively recently (and some still are) because of fifteen years of distractions and under-investment. Rival institutions are rising. Technology is spreading. Years of neglect in building our strengths are catching up. This IS being reversed and CAN BE further reversed. Obama's military expenditures since 2012 are doing that militarily. The Trans Pacific Partnership and the EU-US Free Trade Agreement are the other mechanisms of pushing back. But make no mistake about it. China isn't going to take us on today. They're going to challenge us - and I'm not talking World War III, I'm talking old fashioned Soviet Union powerplays and influence and intimidation pushing - mid to late next decade. Russia too, is carefully biding it's time. We are being hunted. "The World's Only Superpower" is a slogan, not a strategy.

So again, how much is Iran worth to you? How much is the security of Israel at any cost to ourselves worth to you? I'll tell you what it's worth to me: the time it takes to drop the whole mess into the Gulf Arab's hands so we can get in the fight versus our actual enemies. Because I care about where the US will be in a decade and a half. Israel is not my country and frankly, is a piss poor ally who takes us for granted. Our interests are not necessarily in sync.

There is much about how Obama has gone about this deal that sickens me. But the fact is, this is the first, big step to aligning our commitment with our actual interests. If Iran goes nuclear, it truly barely effects us. We could still squash them like a bug. North Korea going nuclear changed basically nothing. If China pushes us out of the Asia-Pacific Region, or Russia turns Europe against us, tomorrow's America is today's United Kingdom. There will be no do-over, absent a concerted effort to roll China back.

Think very carefully where you want your country to spend it's vast finite power. Because our global status is being challenged, and Iran isn't the one doing the Challenging. Iran is our true enemies' weapon to wield against us. How about we stop jousting with it and go for the guys holding the lance to begin with?

Obama's foreign policy legacy will not be a nuclear deal with Iran. It will TPP and TTIP. It will be the Pacific Pivot and the revitalization of NATO focusing on European Defense. It will be a US military spending money procuring extra-long ranged advanced weaponry and breakthrough technologies for the first time in many years.

[ringpriest]

Iran, the Middle East... needs to go away as an issue, and we need to stop looking for entirely pointless demons to slay in a region of the world that is less significant to our security today than it has been at any point in the last sixty years. Every warship, every attack aircraft, every intelligence asset, utilized on keeping this dirt poor country of 70 million people under lock and key is one more asset not utilized against Russia in Europe and against China in Asia-Pacific. Every hour our senior officials spend on Iran, is an hour not spent countering China.

...

The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made us relatively less powerful than we were a decade ago. That is natural and in no way permanent or anything of that nature. It is natural when powerful countries expend vast resources and suffer calamities, that there be a a period of of recovery and rebound. The US position today, for example, is the product of a post-Vietnam rebound. But if we engage in another military campaign... if we spend resources rather than use this time to build, the day will come when we will regret that we spent this time expending our finite power rather than regenerating it for the battles that lie ahead. We need to pick our battles wisely, and Iran is a stupid battle. It's as stupid as picking a fight with Saddam Hussein.

China and Russia cannot take us on today. We control all the levers of power. We have military dominance. We have a technological lead. But all of these are were in a state of decay until relatively recently (and some still are) because of fifteen years of distractions and under-investment. Rival institutions are rising. Technology is spreading. Years of neglect in building our strengths are catching up. This IS being reversed and CAN BE further reversed. Obama's military expenditures since 2012 are doing that militarily. The Trans Pacific Partnership and the EU-US Free Trade Agreement are the other mechanisms of pushing back. But make no mistake about it. China isn't going to take us on today. They're going to challenge us - and I'm not talking World War III, I'm talking old fashioned Soviet Union powerplays and influence and intimidation pushing - mid to late next decade. Russia too, is carefully biding it's time. We are being hunted. "The World's Only Superpower" is a slogan, not a strategy.

...

Obama's foreign policy legacy will not be a nuclear deal with Iran. It will TPP and TTIP. It will be the Pacific Pivot and the revitalization of NATO focusing on European Defense. It will be a US military spending money procuring extra-long ranged advanced weaponry and breakthrough technologies for the first time in many years.

Skroe's view and mine of what the US ought to be doing are diametrically opposed, but even leaving that aside, Obama is an incompetent fool (unfortunately for the approach Skroe believes in, as well as for the people of Yemen).

U.S. agrees to refuel Saudi planes, but isn't evacuating Americans from Yemen

The United States has taken a step toward greater involvement in the Yemen war by agreeing to perform aerial refueling of Saudi and allied bombers, though the Pentagon said Monday its tankers won’t provide the help directly over the embattled Middle East country.

The U.S. military has been providing intelligence and logistics support since the March 26 start of the Saudi-led air campaign against Houthi rebels, who the United States and Saudi Arabia say are backed by Iran.

“Aerial refueling has been approved but has not yet been conducted,” Army Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters there. “It’s been authorized, assets are in place. The Saudis have not requested it. Any refueling will not take place over Yemen. Any refueling will take place over Saudi Arabia or other places.”

Warren disclosed that several days after predominately Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia and Arab allies in the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council began bombing Shia Houthi strongholds in Yemen, U.S. military forces came to the aid of a Saudi F-15 tactical fighter plane that “had mechanical difficulties.” He declined to say where the F-15 encountered problems, beyond noting that it was not “in the (Persian) Gulf.”

Warren said “a handful of (U.S.) personnel” are working in “a joint sort of fusion center” run by the Gulf Cooperation Council, which is led by Saudi Arabia and also includes the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain.

“We’re not providing targeting intelligence (for airstrikes), but we’re providing more broadly situational intelligence,” Warren said.

Islamic State Mark 2.0, here we come? Judging from the Islamic State and now Yemen, the Obama administration seems to think that sticking an appendage into a meat grinder will go better if its done it very, very slowly. Anyone care to guess how much support the US will be giving the Saudis on Yemen six months from now? Because I'll wager my sig that whatever's happened by then, Yemen will still be a clusterf*ck in action, though Saudi propaganda will doubtless claim differently. (Saudi official briefings are like watching Baghdad Bob all over again.)

White House Blog Reveals A Profound Lack Of Support For TPP

The White House has published a handful of comments from “environmental groups” implying widespread support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other corporate trade agreements. Yet these cherry-picked comments from some of the most conservative, corporate-funded environmental groups actually reveal the administration’s desperation to find any support for such deals.

Indeed, the reality is that scores of major environmental organizations including Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, 350.org, and many others oppose the TPP and have spoken out against fast-track trade authority. They recognize the TPP as a backward step for environmental protection that will help push the world over the tipping point for climate change.

The White House is having a hard time generating any momentum for fast-track trade authority for the TPP and other agreements. The Obama administration pushed to stop the Seattle City Council from opposing fast-track legislation and the TPP, but instead got a unanimous vote against them from a major port city that trades with Asia.

The same attitude seems to apply to the TPP, which is basically stuck - its unpopular, and isn't going anywhere without fast-track authority. And fast-track becomes ever less likely as election time draws closer.

Obama ought to be able to participate in a final agreement with with Iran and the P5+1 and then push it through the Security Council (and I will laugh at the Republican right-wing if he does), but I find myself wondering if he's somehow going to fail on Iran as well, and we're going to head into the end of his term with US forces (pointlessly) engaged in brushfire conflicts along an irregular 5000-mile front from the Chinese border into central Africa.

[Deleted]

I see alot of israel ppl around here ... good luck

[Bathory]

Diplomacy!? No way! We need war! WAR! Send our boys to war because "Freedom". Don't worry about how we'll pay for it, or how we'll fund the needs of returning soldiers. WAR!

[Deleted]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

[Acidbaron]

It's a good one as it means there's a line of communication and there's monitoring it beats the stalemate.

However if you are in favor of Israel and how they behave themselves in that region i can see why those people are opposed to this, as clearly they are the only "God's chosen" that are allowed to have any say in that region.

I don't see bad things coming from this only good, the paranoid behavior will remain as that's the rhetoric certain political figures can use to their advantage, regardless if several agencies including the Mossad has stated they aren't even near a bomb.

[Independent voter]

It's a good one as it means there's a line of communication and there's monitoring it beats the stalemate.

However if you are in favor of Israel and how they behave themselves in that region i can see why those people are opposed to this, as clearly they are the only "God's chosen" that are allowed to have any say in that region.

I don't see bad things coming from this only good, the paranoid behavior will remain as that's the rhetoric certain political figures can use to their advantage, regardless if several agencies including the Mossad has stated they aren't even near a bomb.

Well, it changes things in the Middle East. Iran has a decent economy with an automobile industry etc, they are probably the most advanced nation in the region.

Sunnis and Jews don't like Iran because it changes the political balance. Turkey is also involved an interested in controlling the region, Turkey is Sunni.

Even if this treaty is agreed to, we still have to get Iran to stop supporting Shiite terrorist groups.

[ringpriest]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

Because international law doesn't really matter anymore. Because NPT aside, the sanctions will not be dropped until they do negotiate (though getting the sanctions back up once they're removed won't be easy...). Or perhaps because (if you're conspiratorially minded) they need < 6 months to build their first nuclear bomb.

To be a little more grounded: Iran isn't negotiating with only the US - they're dealing with all the permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) - which is something the US Republicans don't seem able to grap, and it's not just about nukes. It's about ending Iran's almost 40-year status as a pariah state internationally. Once Iran is again a member of the community of nations in good standing, it may (or may not) come to develop reasonable relations with the United States - but it will be also be free to have full, normal trade relations with China, Russia, the EU and more.

[Deleted]

The Iraq War was a big mistake but you cant imagine how far stupider it would to attack the Iran remember this: The Iran has almost twice the population or the Iraq, never attacked anybody (openly) and
is set for a massive demografic change that could if we keep only the door open for them make them the most important ally in the region.

[GennGreymane]

Gotta look at the long run game.

[Skroe]

The Iraq War was a big mistake but you cant imagine how far stupider it would to attack the Iran remember this: The Iran has almost twice the population or the Iraq, never attacked anybody (openly) and
is set for a massive demografic change that could if we keep only the door open for them make them the most important ally in the region.

THe thing is, having them as an ally means giving up the Saudis and Gulf Arabs as allies.

The Arabs are far more valuable to us. We should maintain our alliance with them, over the Iranians.

I don't ever expect Iran and the US to have an alliance. We just need to knock it down the importance scale to be co-equal with Venezuela.

- - - Updated - - -

Skroe's view and mine of what the US ought to be doing are diametrically opposed, but even leaving that aside, Obama is an incompetent fool (unfortunately for the approach Skroe believes in, as well as for the people of Yemen).

U.S. agrees to refuel Saudi planes, but isn't evacuating Americans from Yemen

Islamic State Mark 2.0, here we come? Judging from the Islamic State and now Yemen, the Obama administration seems to think that sticking an appendage into a meat grinder will go better if its done it very, very slowly. Anyone care to guess how much support the US will be giving the Saudis on Yemen six months from now? Because I'll wager my sig that whatever's happened by then, Yemen will still be a clusterf*ck in action, though Saudi propaganda will doubtless claim differently. (Saudi official briefings are like watching Baghdad Bob all over again.)

I've made it clear many of times, I'm all for asymetric meat grinders. Syria has undeniably chewed up and spit out Iran's Quuds force and Hezbollah. The Ukrainian conflict, according to reports, has been yet another military fiasco for the Russians. If meat grinders help achieve our ends, then so be it.

The Islamic State is largely speaking, not our problem. It is infact, symptomatic of the American dysfunction of wanting to go slay lesser dragons. This is a group of thugs, a murderer army, probably around 30,000 strong, that controls largely territory ont he other side of the roads stretching from northern Syria into Northern Iraq. It looks big and scary when reporters fill in the desert where nobody lives and pretend the Islamic state rules there. But really, we're talking about a group that exists only in areas with infrastructure. The Islamic state should be the problem of Iraq, the Gulf Arabs and Turkey. They are not a military threat to the US and only a stability threat to Iraq in the sense that they are an expression of the wider dysfunction of that country. A competent, committed Iraqi Military, were such a thing exist, would crush the Islamic State. Any Western Style army would.

Support is cheap. Those air refueling missions? It's not to different from the military justification for air shows: those flights are going to be scheduled anyway, somewhere, for the sake of training of nothing else, so might as well put them to good use. Or giving them weapons? The US is eager as heck to rid itself of vintage late 1990s and early 2000s ordinance that is nearing the end of it's useful life time anyway. It's the same as how the US "gifted" Iraq hundreds of tanks, humvees and MRAPs after the end of the Iraq War - we wanted to divest ourselves of them anyway so might as well put them to good use.

I strongly doubt the US will put boots on the ground in Yemen or Syria under Obama. The danger is that the next American President will somehow not be a mature adult, and feel the need to lead this country on a dragon slaying expedition to the part of the world where our core interests no longer lie.

The good news so far though, is that everything involving Iran, ISIS and the Middle East since the end of the Iraq War, has cost us basically nothing in terms of resources. A few billion here and there, and stuff we've had stockpiled and wanted to get rid of, just like in Libya. That needs to keep being the case.

White House Blog Reveals A Profound Lack Of Support For TPP


The same attitude seems to apply to the TPP, which is basically stuck - its unpopular, and isn't going anywhere without fast-track authority. And fast-track becomes ever less likely as election time draws closer.

Obama ought to be able to participate in a final agreement with with Iran and the P5+1 and then push it through the Security Council (and I will laugh at the Republican right-wing if he does), but I find myself wondering if he's somehow going to fail on Iran as well, and we're going to head into the end of his term with US forces (pointlessly) engaged in brushfire conflicts along an irregular 5000-mile front from the Chinese border into central Africa.

TPP will pass because when push comes to shove, big business will lobby to an unbelievable degree if it looks like it won't get passed. Fast Track authority should be passed in the next month.

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-expects-congress-to-pass-fast-track-trade-bill-within-next-month-2015-4

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The United States expects the trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, which is seen as an important step to speed free trade deals, will be passed by the Congress over the next month, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

"We believe that the votes are there to move forward," Catherine Novelli, U.S. under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment, told reporters in Singapore.

"We do expect it to be passed soon, within the next month or so."

The TPA legislation allows U.S. lawmakers to set objectives for trade deals in exchange for a yes-or-no vote.

Delays in finalising the legislation are casting a cloud over a 12-nation trade pact many thought was near completion, officials close to the negotiations told Reuters last month.

Novelli said she expects negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal to be concluded in a relatively short time.

TPP would link a dozen Asia-Pacific economies by eliminating trade barriers and harmonising regulations in a pact covering two-fifths of the world economy and a third of all global trade.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-expects-congress-to-pass-fast-track-trade-bill-within-next-month-2015-4#ixzz3WeSgHV7z

You know why it'll get passed? Because it's become a security issue as much as an economic one. And that is why grassroots will fail to stop it.