Obama won’t strike Iran – only sanctions will make Iran stop its nuclear program
The Guardian 11/3/07 (“Iran: Stopping nuclear ambitions”, lexis)
Bombing Iran would be a disaster. Even if bombs busted Iran's nuclear bunkers, they would still miss their target. A military strike on the uranium-enrichment centrifuges would hasten an Iranian weapons programme, not delay it. A pre-emptive strike would turn a covert programme into an overt one, this time with the full backing of a wounded nation. Iran would leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), spelling the end of visits by international nuclear inspectors. Iran has already violated the NPT by failing to declare experiments with nuclear materials, but its formal departure from the regulatory regime would leave it free to pursue its nuclear programme unfettered by inspection. And Iran would have 154,000 US targets in Iraq to fire back at. But letting Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions would be no less cataclysmic. The arrival of the Iranian bomb would set off an arms race among the Sunni states in the Gulf unparalleled in the history of nuclear proliferation. The absence of Arab reaction to the Israeli bombing of a suspected nuclear facility under construction in the Syrian desert was a telling sign of the fear spreading in the region. Even assuming Tehran would not pass fissile material to its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas, the mere possession of a nuclear capability would give an unstable populist regime untold military and diplomatic clout. International negotiations are logjammed. A grand bargain offered four years ago, whereby Iran stops uranium enrichment in return for uranium for its fuel cycle, generous aid packages and a full return to the international stage, is still on the table. Iran has refused to comply with two previous rounds of UN sanctions and the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany were struggling yesterday in London to come up with a third round. The threat of military action does not give the diplomats more force. It muddies their efforts by dividing world opinion and allowing Iran to believe that it can stall indefinitely. If the military option can not be used, it must be removed from the table. What the Iranian regime fears is a unified international response, because only then would it face a genuine choice between the bomb and penury. Russia and China would have no choice but to support tougher economic sanctions, and Germany and Italy might even stop their export credit guarantees. The Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said he would personally negotiate with the regime if it forgoes pursuit of nuclear weapons. The desire to solve this issue needs that sort of commitment, if the west is not to find itself igniting another fire in the Middle East that it can not put out.
Obama won’t strike Iran
NPR 8/13/07 (“Obama: Iran requires direct diplomacy”, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15251928)
Sen. Barack Obama says that as president, he would use direct diplomacy to constrain Iran's role in Iraq, encouraging Iran to cooperate with the United States through non-military means. In an interview with NPR's Andrea Seabook from a campaign stop in Iowa, Obama said that he'd use whatever military force is necessary to protect U.S. citizens, but that "the military option is not the only option in the toolbox." "I think Iran understands what military threats we pose. You know, they're not surprised that we could strike them, and strike them hard," Obama said. "What we haven't suggested in any way is what advantages they would have in acting more responsibly in the region. That's been the missing ingredient." The Illinois Democrat's comments follow a week of sparring over Iran with his main rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has a commanding lead in the polls. On Thursday, Clinton said she'd meet with Iranian leaders "without preconditions" — a position she criticized Obama for taking earlier in the summer. Obama also questioned Clinton's judgment in voting for last month's Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which identified the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Obama said the amendment included language that empowers the president to attack Iran."This is a lesson that I think Sen. Clinton and others should have learned: that you can't give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it," Obama said.
Obama will not strike Iran
FOXNews.com, 7- 9, 2008 “MCCAIN, OBAMA STAKE OUT DIFFERENCES ON IRANIAN MISSILE TESTS” http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/09/obama-says-iranian-missile-tests-prove-need-for-diplomacy/
“I would want to talk to the national security team to find out whether this indicates any new capabilities on Iran’s part. At this point, the reports aren’t clear. It’s still early,” Obama told CBS’ “Early Show.” “But I think what this underscores is the need for us to create a kind of policy that is putting the burden on Iran to change behavior. And, frankly, we just have not been able to do that over the last several years. Partly because we’re not engaged in direct diplomacy,” he said. His campaign released a statement saying: “These missile tests demonstrate once again that we need to change our policy to deal aggressively with the threat posed by the Iranian regime. “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.” McCain told reporters in South Park, Pa., that the reported tests prove Iran is a threat to the surrounding region. “Channels of communication have been open and will remain open, but the time has now come for effective sanctions on Iran,” he said. “Diplomacy plays a key role … but history shows us when nations embark on paths that can jeopardize the security of the region and the world then other action besides diplomacy has to be contemplated and taken, and that’s why meaningful and impactful sanctions are called for at this time.” McCain said there is “continuing, mounting evidence that Iran is pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons,” a statement that appears at odds with a December U.S. intelligence report that concluded the country’s nuclear weapons program was halted in the fall of 2003.
Share with your friends: |