Pages

Friday, March 2, 2012

Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff'

By Jeffrey Goldberg
Mar 2 2012, 7:00 AM ET 320  

Dismissing a strategy of "containment," the president tells me it's "unacceptable" for the Islamic Republic to have a nuclear weapon.
RTR2MOEAjjg.jpg
At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming months. Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States "has Israel's back," and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

"When I say this is in the U.S. interest, I'm not saying this is something we'd like to solve. I'm saying this is something we have to solve."
The 45-minute Oval Office conversation took place less than a week before the president was scheduled to address the annual convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, and then meet, the next day, with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House. In the interview, Obama stated specifically that "all options are on the table," and that the final option is the "military component." But the president also said that sanctions organized by his administration have put Iran in a "world of hurt," and that economic duress might soon force the regime in Tehran to rethink its efforts to pursue a nuclear-weapons program.

"Without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested," Obama said. "It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to to be the best decision for Israel's security."  

The president also said that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a "profound" national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.

"You're talking about the most volatile region in the world," he said. "It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe." He went on to say, "The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world."

The president was most animated when talking about the chaotic arms race he fears would break out if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. "Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," he told me. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: "At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

He also said he would try to convince Netanyahu that the only way to bring about a permanent end to a country's nuclear program is to convince the country in question that nuclear weapons are not in its best interest. "Our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily," he said, "and the only way historically that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa."

And though broadly sympathetic to Netanyahu's often-stated fear that Iran's nuclear program represents a Holocaust-scale threat to the Jewish state, and the Jewish people, Obama suggested strongly that historical fears cannot be the sole basis for precipitous action: "The prime minister is head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously."

But when I asked the president if he thought Israel could damage its reputation among Americans with an attack on Iran -- an attack that could provoke Iranian retaliation against American targets, and could cause massive economic disruption -- he said, "I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel." President Obama also shared fascinating insights about his sometimes tension-filled relationship with Netanyahu -- and spoke at length about Syria -- but for that, you'll have to read the entire interview. Here is a transcript of our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: From what we understand, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to ask you for some specific enunciations of red lines, for specific promises related to the Iranian nuclear program. What is your message to the prime minister going to be? What do you want to get across to him?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, it's important to say that I don't know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven't gotten any indication that there is some sharp "ask" that is going to be presented. Both the United States and Israel have been in constant consultation about a very difficult issue, and that is the prospect of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is something that has been one of my top five foreign-policy concerns since I came into office.

We, immediately upon taking over, mapped out a strategy that said we are going to mobilize the international community around this issue and isolate Iran to send a clear message to them that there is a path they can follow that allows them to rejoin the community of nations, but if they refused to follow that path, that there would be an escalating series of consequences.

Three years later, we can look back and say we have been successful beyond most people's expectations. When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we've ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.

At the same time, we understand that the bottom line is: Does the problem get solved? And I think that Israel, understandably, has a profound interest not just in good intentions but in actual results. And in the conversations I've had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I've emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn't just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we're not taking any option off the table, we mean it. We are going to continue to apply pressure until Iran takes a different course.

GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, 'All options on the table.' You've probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don't entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that's been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you're going to give them?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let me describe very specifically why this is important to us.

In addition to the profound threat that it poses to Israel, one of our strongest allies in the world; in addition to the outrageous language that has been directed toward Israel by the leaders of the Iranian government -- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound. It is almost certain that other players in the region would feel it necessary to get their own nuclear weapons. So now you have the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world, one that is rife with unstable governments and sectarian tensions. And it would also provide Iran the additional capability to sponsor and protect its proxies in carrying out terrorist attacks, because they are less fearful of retaliation.

GOLDBERG: What would your position be if Israel weren't in this picture?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?

"Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it's not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel's plight and potential vulnerabilities -- that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel's potential vulnerability.

But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community. And I assure you that Europe would not have gone forward with sanctions on Iranian oil imports -- which are very difficult for them to carry out, because they get a lot of oil from Iran -- had it not been for their understanding that it is in the world's interest, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. China would not have abided by the existing sanctions coming out of the National Security Council, and other countries around the world would not have unified around those sanctions, had it not been for us making the presentation about why this was important for everyone, not just one country.

GOLDBERG: Is it possible that the prime minister of Israel has over-learned the lessons of the Holocaust?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the prime minister has a profound responsibility to protect the Israeli people in a hostile neighborhood, and I am certain that the history of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism and brutality directed against the Jewish people for more than a millennium weighs on him when he thinks about these questions.

I think it's important to recognize, though, that the prime minister is also head of a modern state that is mindful of the profound costs of any military action, and in our consultations with the Israeli government, I think they take those costs, and potential unintended consequences, very seriously.

GOLDBERG: Do you think Israel could cause damage to itself in America by preempting the Iranian nuclear program militarily?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don't know how it plays in America. I think we in the United States instinctively sympathize with Israel, and I think political support for Israel is bipartisan and powerful.

In my discussions with Israel, the key question that I ask is: How does this impact their own security environment? I've said it publicly and I say it privately: ultimately, the Israeli prime minister and the defense minister and others in the government have to make their decisions about what they think is best for Israel's security, and I don't presume to tell them what is best for them.

But as Israel's closest friend and ally, and as one that has devoted the last three years to making sure that Israel has additional security capabilities, and has worked to manage a series of difficult problems and questions over the past three years, I do point out to them that we have a sanctions architecture that is far more effective than anybody anticipated; that we have a world that is about as united as you get behind the sanctions; that our assessment, which is shared by the Israelis, is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time in which we will know that they are making that attempt.

In that context, our argument is going to be that it is important for us to see if we can solve this thing permanently, as opposed to temporarily. And the only way, historically, that a country has ultimately decided not to get nuclear weapons without constant military intervention has been when they themselves take [nuclear weapons] off the table. That's what happened in Libya, that's what happened in South Africa. And we think that, without in any way being under an illusion about Iranian intentions, without in any way being naive about the nature of that regime, they are self-interested. They recognize that they are in a bad, bad place right now. It is possible for them to make a strategic calculation that, at minimum, pushes much further to the right whatever potential breakout capacity they may have, and that may turn out to be the best decision for Israel's security.

These are difficult questions, and again, if I were the prime minister of Israel, I'd be wrestling with them. As president of the United States, I wrestle with them as well.

GOLDBERG: Could you shed some light on your relationship with the prime minister? You've met with him more than with any other world leader. It's assumed that you have a dysfunctional relationship. What is it like?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The fact of the matter is, we've gotten a lot of business done with Israel over the last three years. I think the prime minister -- and certainly the defense minister -- would acknowledge that we've never had closer military and intelligence cooperation. When you look at what I've done with respect to security for Israel, from joint training and joint exercises that outstrip anything that's been done in the past, to helping finance and construct the Iron Dome program to make sure that Israeli families are less vulnerable to missile strikes, to ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge, to fighting back against delegitimization of Israel, whether at the [UN] Human Rights Council, or in front of the UN General Assembly, or during the Goldstone Report, or after the flare-up involving the flotilla -- the truth of the matter is that the relationship has functioned very well.

GOLDBERG: Are you friends? Do you talk about things other than business?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, the truth of the matter is, both of us have so much on our plates that there's not always a lot of time to have discussions beyond business. Having said that, what I think is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions. This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this.

But one thing that I have found in working with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other. For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go. At any given moment -- as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader -- there's not going to be perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives. 

GOLDBERG: In an interview three years ago, right before he became prime minister, Netanyahu told me that he believes Iran is being run by a "messianic apocalyptic cult." Last week, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to the Iranian leadership as "rational." Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you feel that the leaders of Iran might be so irrational that they will not act in what we would understand to be their self-interest?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think you're right to describe it as a continuum. There is no doubt they are isolated. They have a very ingrown political system. They are founded and fueled on hostility towards the United States, Israel, and to some degree the West. And they have shown themselves willing to go outside international norms and international rules to achieve their objectives. All of this makes them dangerous. They've also been willing to crush opposition in their own country in brutal and bloody ways.

GOLDBERG: Do you think they are messianic?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it's entirely legitimate to say that this is a regime that does not share our worldview or our values. I do think, and this is what General Dempsey was probably referring to, that as we look at how they operate and the decisions they've made over the past three decades, that they care about the regime's survival. They're sensitive to the opinions of the people and they are troubled by the isolation that they're experiencing. They know, for example, that when these kinds of sanctions are applied, it puts a world of hurt on them. They are able to make decisions based on trying to avoid bad outcomes from their perspective. So if they're presented with options that lead to either a lot of pain from their perspective, or potentially a better path, then there's no guarantee that they can't make a better decision.

GOLDBERG: It seems unlikely that a regime built on anti-Americanism would want to appear to succumb to an American-led sanctions effort.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the question here is going to be: What exactly are their genuine interests? Now, what we've seen, what we've heard directly from them over the last couple of weeks is that nuclear weapons are sinful and un-Islamic. And those are formal speeches from the supreme leader and their foreign minister.

GOLDBERG: Do you believe their sincerity?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My point here is not that I believe the sincerity of the statements coming out of the regime. The point is that for them to prove to the international community that their intentions are peaceful and that they are, in fact, not pursuing weapons, is not inconsistent with what they've said. So it doesn't require them to knuckle under to us. What it does require is for them to actually show to the world that there is consistency between their actions and their statements. And that's something they should be able to do without losing face.

GOLDBERG: Let me flip this entirely around and ask: Why is containment not your policy? In the sense that we contained the Soviet Union, North Korea --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: It's for the reason I described -- because you're talking about the most volatile region in the world. It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe.

The only analogous situation is North Korea. We have applied a lot of pressure on North Korea as well and, in fact, today found them willing to suspend some of their nuclear activities and missile testing and come back to the table. But North Korea is even more isolated, and certainly less capable of shaping the environment [around it] than Iran is. And so the dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world.

GOLDBERG: Do you see accidental nuclear escalation as an issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. Look, the fact is, I don't think any of it would be accidental. I think it would be very intentional. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, I won't name the countries, but there are probably four or five countries in the Middle East who say, "We are going to start a program, and we will have nuclear weapons." And at that point, the prospect for miscalculation in a region that has that many tensions and fissures is profound. You essentially then duplicate the challenges of India and Pakistan fivefold or tenfold.

GOLDBERG: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With everybody pointing at everybody else.

GOLDBERG: What I'm getting at specifically is, let's assume there's a Hezbollah attack on Israel. Israel responds into Lebanon. Iran goes on some kind of a nuclear alert, and then one-two-three --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The potential for escalation in those circumstances is profoundly dangerous, and in addition to just the potential human costs of a nuclear escalation like that in the Middle East, just imagine what would happen in terms of the world economy. The possibilities of the sort of energy disruptions that we've never seen before occurring, and the world economy basically coming to a halt, would be pretty profound. So when I say this is in the U.S. interest, I'm not saying this is something we'd like to solve. I'm saying this is something we have to solve.

GOLDBERG: One of the aspects of this is the question of whether it's plausible that Barack Obama would ever use military power to stop Iran. The Republicans are trying to make this an issue -- and not only the Republicans -- saying that this man, by his disposition, by his character, by his party, by his center-left outlook, is not going to do that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Look, if people want to say about me that I have a profound preference for peace over war, that every time I order young men and women into a combat theater and then see the consequences on some of them, if they're lucky enough to come back, that this weighs on me -- I make no apologies for that. Because anybody who is sitting in my chair who isn't mindful of the costs of war shouldn't be here, because it's serious business. These aren't video games that we're playing here.

Now, having said that, I think it's fair to say that the last three years, I've shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks. And obviously, the bin Laden operation is the most dramatic, but al-Qaeda was on its [knees] well before we took out bin Laden because of our activities and my direction.

In Afghanistan, we've made very tough decisions because we felt it was very important, in order for an effective transition out of Afghanistan to take place, for us to be pushing back against the Taliban's momentum.

So aside from the usual politics, I don't think this is an argument that has a lot of legs. And by the way, it's not an argument that the American people buy. They may have complaints about high unemployment still, and that the recovery needs to move faster, but you don't hear a lot of them arguing somehow that I hesitate to make decisions as commander in chief when necessary.

GOLDBERG: Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? Talk about it as a humanitarian issue, as well. But it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran's only Arab ally.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:
Absolutely.

GOLDBERG: And so the question is: What else can this administration be doing?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, look, there's no doubt that Iran is much weaker now than it was a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. The Arab Spring, as bumpy as it has been, represents a strategic defeat for Iran, because what people in the region have seen is that all the impulses towards freedom and self-determination and free speech and freedom of assembly have been constantly violated by Iran. [The Iranian leadership is] no friend of that movement toward human rights and political freedom. But more directly, it is now engulfing Syria, and Syria is basically their only true ally in the region.

And it is our estimation that [President Bashar al-Assad's] days are numbered. It's a matter not of if, but when. Now, can we accelerate that? We're working with the world community to try to do that. It is complicated by the fact that Syria is a much bigger, more sophisticated, and more complicated country than Libya, for example -- the opposition is hugely splintered -- that although there's unanimity within the Arab world at this point, internationally, countries like Russia are still blocking potential UN mandates or action. And so what we're trying to do -- and the secretary of state just came back from helping to lead the Friends of Syria group in Tunisia -- is to try to come up with a series of strategies that can provide humanitarian relief. But they can also accelerate a transition to a peaceful and stable and representative Syrian government. If that happens, that will be a profound loss for Iran.

GOLDBERG: Is there anything you could do to move it faster?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, nothing that I can tell you, because your classified clearance isn't good enough. (Laughter.)

This is part of, by the way, the context in which we have to examine our approach toward Iran, because at a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim, and deflect attention from what has to be the core issue, which is their potential pursuit of nuclear weapons?

That's an example of factors that -- when we are in consultation with all our allies, including the Israelis, we raise these factors, because this is an issue of many dimensions here, and we've got to factor all of them in to achieve the outcome that hopefully we all want.

GOLDBERG: Do the Israelis understand that? There have been disagreements between Israel and the U.S. before, but this is coming to a head about what the Israelis see as an existential issue. The question is: In your mind, have you brought arguments to Netanyahu that have so far worked out well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that in the end, Israel's leaders will make determinations based on what they believe is best for the security of Israel, and that is entirely appropriate.

When we present our views and our strategy approach, we try to put all our cards on the table, to describe how we are thinking about these issues. We try to back those up with facts and evidence. We compare their assessments with ours, and where there are gaps, we try to narrow those gaps. And what I also try to do is to underscore the seriousness with which the United States takes this issue. And I think that Ehud Barak understands it. I think that Prime Minister Netanyahu, hopefully when he sees me next week, will understand it.

And one of the things that I like to remind them of is that every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept. I mean, part of your -- not to put words in your mouth -- but part of the underlying question is: Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?

GOLDBERG: That's a good way to phrase it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And my answer is: there is no good reason to doubt me on these issues.

Some of it has to do with the fact that in this country and in our media, this gets wrapped up with politics. And I don't think that's any secret. And if you have a set of political actors who want to see if they can drive a wedge not between the United States and Israel, but between Barack Obama and a Jewish American vote that has historically been very supportive of his candidacy, then it's good to try to fan doubts and raise questions.

But when you look at the record, there's no "there" there. And my job is to try to make sure that those political factors are washed away on an issue that is of such great strategic and security importance to our two countries. And so when I'm talking to the prime minister, or my team is talking to the Israeli government, what I want is a hardheaded, clear-eyed assessment of how do we achieve our goals.

And our goals are in sync. And historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it's also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. And the flip side of it is that, in terms of Israeli politics, there's been a view that regardless of whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we've got Israel's back. And that's something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of.

GOLDBERG: Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister -- we've got Israel's back?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That is not just my message to the prime minister, that's been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It's hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history -- not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. So that actually won't be my message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.


Image: Reuters




  • okay americans keep in mind that the object of the game is for the United States to have a big beautiful future. And the one sure damn way not to is to have those two nut jobs of a bunch of nations to start a war. so we ought to grab both of the leaders send them to a un disclosed location and have them fight to the death. if they want to cause a calamity the likes the world has never seen I say let them go first. no war. lets come home and tell the world to stick it
  • remix isrule 3 minutes ago
    AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA I've been reading this for a while now and was just WAITING for judahbenisreal or whatever the f*ck to get OWNED. TAKE NOTE OF HOW HE DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXPOSED TRUTH LOLOLOLOLOL. The poster's knowledge is based on his incredibly biased views. Again, I say OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWNED...
  • Quinterius 9 minutes ago
    Now, I know how presidents manipulate the media and the people. Goldberg just sits there and let's Obama recite all these totally nonsensical statements. Not even once does he challenge anything that Obama says. Oh, what do you think about this? What do you think about that? What kind of an interview is this?
    Let me take a few of the points made by Obama:
    1. "Tehran's nuclear program would represent a 'profound' national-security threat to the United States." What is he talking about? His own intelligence agencies said in 2007 and 2011 that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. He is talking nonsense. Is he basing his view on the recent IAEA reports on Iran? Doesn't he know that these were based on documents that are known forgeries? Doesn't he know that all events reference in these phony documents relate to events before 2004? Has anyone heard that it is now 2012?
    2. Accepting the fact that the Iranian program is completely peaceful (based on the previous point), what right does the US or Israel have to prevent continue developing its technology? It is the height of hypocrisy for the US and Israel who have thousands and hundred of nuclear weapons, respectively, to try to prevent Iran from having a peaceful nuclear program.
    3. Has Obama heard of the NPT bylaws? There is nothing in these bylaws to prevent Iran from enriching uranium. In fact, it is the "unalienable right" of Iran to enrich uranium according to its bylaws.
    4. "They've also been willing to crush opposition in their own country in brutal and bloody ways." So, does Obama still believe that Iran gunned down demonstrators in 2009? In fact, there was absolutely no shootings in the streets of Iran after the 2009 presidential election which Ahmadinejad won fairly by all polls. In contrast, Mubarak gunned down 850 people in Egypt, Bahrain is arresting, torturing and killing people every day, Yemen is slaughtering its own people and Saudi Arabia represses its people severely so that, for example, women cannot even drive there. So, why is he complaining about Iran?
    5. "I've shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions." Yes, you have Mr. President. But, how about keeping your promise of talking to your adversaries? The US has spent a total of 45 minutes in direct talks with Iran in three years that Obama has been president. The Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear bombs and we talked to it all the time. Mr. President, how about coming down from your high horse and talk to Iran like a human being instead of like a bully.
    6. The UN Charter forbids the unwarranted attack of one country on another. So, what legal justification can there be for the US or Israel to attack a country that has not attacked or threatened either one of them? Can a mis-translation of a single sentence in 2005 justify this continuous paranoia and the slaughtering of thousands or perhaps hundred of thousands of Iranian civilians?
    Obama has broken every promise he made during his election campaign in 2008 to seek a reduction of warmongering in the Middle East. He has been a disaster in his foreign policy. Iraq is finished. Afghanistan is lost. And, if he starts another war with Iran, the world economy will collapse and it will be the end of the US presence in the Persian Gulf. All because he cannot dare to say no to Netanyahu.
  • Iran has distributed its nuclear effort in a number of locations, some within an urban area.  There is no way Israel or anyone be able to hit all these sites simultaneously.  As such, a military strike by Israel or the USA are merely talk only. 
    I am sure that Israel has it sown nuclear capability even though it never advertises that.  Why don't Israel and Iran invite each other to a missile target practice so that each of them realizes the destruction power of the weapon and to their society.  Also, people need to realize that the area is so small, the radiation that will spread within the area and will have very negative consequences for these 2 countries as well as all the neighboring countries.   India and Pakistan have been nuclear capable for a long term.  It does not appear that they are using against each other. 
  • sasdigger 16 minutes ago
    Unfortunately, as my mommy used to caution----"you cry wolf enough times, then...NO ONE will believe you when a real wolf comes---and as a result you get gobbled all up!"
    The inumerable untruths concocted by our liar-in-chief day-in, day-out, from can-see to can't-see boggles the mind.
    Instantly, I do not trust what President Obama's handlers have shaken-up-and-stirred as little more than the latest campaign pablum of brushing away the repugnant blemish to his re-election chances that would ensue owing to higher gasoline prices and the attedant loss of huge blocks of voters irritably annoyed by President Carter-like too high prices at the gas pump.
    At the same time, trying to ram his finger into the bursting dike to mitigate the torrent of disaffected voters fleeing from an indifferent President avowedly hostile to our ally Israel. We have learned that your word stands for naught.
    Iran is a pressing national security threat that has festered while the Obama Administration dithered with fog and mirrors to lead from behind in Libya which had no strategic national interest value but a hope to become beloved in a country where the prospects for a quick and painless knockoput punch would reap profound political praise.
    Meahwhile, legitimate Iranians of all stripes rushed into the streets yearning for freedom and were mowed down, tortured, raped, hung and systematically murdered while America turned its back on the most genuine cry for freedom since the French and American Revolutions.
    Not one word of support from President Obama for the slaughtered freedom fighters, instead, he meekly sent a letter informing the Iranian Mullahs that America was willing to meet without ANY preconditions.
    So, now, we are faced with the critical issue of a nuclearizing radical Theocracy in Iran that in a-blink-of-an-eye will possess a nuclear bomb capable of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, as well as America by contagion as once again we are the Great Satan.
    Under President Obama and his minions we have failed to stand by our allies, embraced enemies, spent our treasure ruinously, devastated our defensive military capacity, debilitated our economy, meekly begged forgiveness at every perceived slight to a global audience and purposefully weakened the United States of America in every domestic, diplomatic and misguided foreign venture.
    President Obama has indisputably brought America to her knees. America is in decline without the financial or military means to defend ourselves.
    According to Dick Morris, President Obama has given Russia our most secret defensive missle technology to prove we are still pals. Then President Obama decides to give three American islands to Russia with all their attendant, oil, natural gas, mineral and strategic potential free of cost or advanage.
    Now, when America is basically broke and a rising zeal of militaristic frenzy is clearly evident from competitor nations that consider the US of A their number one enemy President Obama is set to unveil his reduction of our ageing nuclear stock by up to 80 percent to the acclaim of a worldwide happy, happy audience. This reduction would herald the end of a containment that has ensured peace for 60 years.
    Somehow I hope you change America's perception that you, President Obama, as a practitioner of the law, consistently manipulated the law as a tool  fraught with cultural and ideological motives for narrow parochial gain, rather than as a means of justice for all as guaranteed under our Constitution.
    I must admit that with a profound sense of loss I mourn what could have been.
    For once, prove that you are serious regarding your promise to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America to the best of your ability against all domestic and foreign threats.
  • Every comment on here is depressing. Either it's a) Obama is capitulating to the Zionist imperialist Jews, or b) Obama is going to stab Israel in the back. Do any of these people realize they're living in a cartoon, or that they're caricatures?
  • The problem is that Obama is a weakling under the control of a madman from Israel and he has his finger on the bombs. Do you understand what happens when you drop bombs on real human beings? There is a madness going on here and one needs to make every effort to stop this crazy talk.
  • Israel should deal with it's own problems, and start it's own wars. People who want another war, want to break our bank and get Americans killed for a foreign nation.
    Stating that doesn't mean anything other than what it says. Saying everyone is making your claims means you are reading into every comment and trying to find something.
  • We need to stand up to Israel and tell them to deal with their own problems. They want us to start a new war, and so do the traitors in America who love foreign nations more than their own country.
    America first. No more welfare to foreign nations. Israel can do what it wants, yet Netanyahu had better stop trying to dictate to the president. And, Obama should stop catering to that man as well.
  • curtisdacrab 33 minutes ago
    it is true, this weasel will turn his back on the jews every chance he get. i pray the jewish nation knows this and doesn't expect any help from America. when "yo_momma" is out of office, by what ever means, will help again be available to our friends in Israel.
  • Yeah, I' m sure the Israelis appreciate having a racist on their side.
  • Move to Israel if you're concerned about them. If you already live there, tell your government to stop trying to dictate to us.
  • mlang461 35 minutes ago
    That we are going to attack still another Muslim country to insure that Israel holds a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East is insane.  Our national intelligence agencies have come to the conclusion that Iran gave up its pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003.  Why do we continue to take orders from the tiny little belligerent country of Israel and let them start a war which will sink the world economy.  
  • gary angelone 40 minutes ago
    When Obama says " i don't bluff" , is he lying like he did about everything else?
    Most of you posters should check out representativepress.org to get the real truth about what Iran's leader said.
  • feralgrognard 42 minutes ago
    Hmm?
    Dear Leader's translation in real world Context and Contrast.
    Overt Context: "I do not bluff!"
    Covert Contrast: " But I do a mean B.S. Wink, Wink, Nod, Nod.

  • feralgrognard 46 minutes ago
    Hmm?
     Dear Leader's translation in real world Context and Contrast; 
    Overt Context: "I don't Bluff!" 
    Covert Contrast: But I do B.S. real good, wink, wink, nod , nod.
  • MEHDI BARATZADEH 52 minutes ago
    I'm very sorry for such a puppet of zionist bankers,called himself an American president, such a weak sole!!!, he is talking about a country with 10 thousand years of civlazation called persia a country which saved Jews and never attacked another country, not like America with 300 years of excistence,a country bombed japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanastan, koria, and other plots all over the world to place a poppet or support dictator government like Saudi, Yemen, Bahrian, Eygept, Marako, chili of pinoshehand the the list is never ending. or American zionit poppet which great all the war over the world and creat and cleansing of plastenian and other plot to bring American to such a position which hated all over the world by mass people. I'm sorry for such a peridsent to stay 4 years more in power as American president he is ready to sell his sole to zionist. the only way out of this mess which created by your previous adminstration to start diplomatic relation without pre condition as I advised your Ambassador in yemen at 1982, "American not to push Iran otherwise they go to left" , still time for your administrtion to correct the wrong, at the end you should keep in your mind that ;Iran is like a beatifull women which everyone wish to have it, so make sure not to lose it, only more carrot can help not stick.
    Pleae send a copy to Mr president
  • Governmentsuxs 52 minutes ago
    "I Don't Bluff'"  No Barry I think they call it lying.
  • That is actually what is troubling about the guy. He is too crazy to be bluffing, perhaps.
  • Jeremiah12 53 minutes ago
    What a pile of crap. Mr Goldberg interviews the president and doesn't mention the Zionist nuclear weapons. Or the treaty that prohibits the US president from discussing it publicly.  This was no doubt a condition of the interview--  a condition that should have been noted. 
  • Bob_In_texas 1 hour ago
    Perfect recipe on how to start a war - order the U.S. military to destroy Iran's nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions. For all of the posturing and hate talk from the libs about Bush starting a war in Iraq because of WMDs, Obama isn't much better. As a matter of fact he's worse, because Iran is just talking. We knew Hussein had a stockpile of weapons between 1991 and 2001. He had already gassed the Kurds and invaded Kuwait but so far the only thing Iran has done since they started their nuclear program is rattle a lot of sabers and talked trash to Israel. Bomb Iran for anything other than in retaliation for them being the aggressor, Mr. President and you'll join the ranks of lying presidents plus setting the entire Middle East and SW Asia on a collision course with WWIII.
  •  Please read the 911 Commission's findings regarding the WMD in Iraq.  You may wish to revise your comment about Saddam's stockpiles. Yes, he was a bad, bad dude, but definitely not an existential threat to the US.
    Iran is also not really an existential threat to the US at this point. That said, international relationships are complex and a certain amount of posturing is expected.  It is also possible that the posturing is intended to keep Israel from doing something that would have adverse effects on the US through Iran throttling the oil markets at the Straight of Hormuz (or elsewhere).
  • Under no circumstances do the people of the US back Obama when he says "We have Israel's back".
    We do not!  If they are stupid enough to attack Iran, they will be on their own! No more US blood for Israel. You start a fight, you finish it on your own.
    Iran is not a threat and never will be. Enough is enough. No more Jewish wars!!!
  • MEHDI BARATZADEH 1 hour ago
     I'm very sorry for such a puppet of zionist bankers,called himself an American president, such a weak sole!!!, he is talking about a country with 10 thousand years  of civlazation called persia  a country which saved Jews and never attacked another country,  not like America with  300 years of excistence,a country bombed japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanastan, koria, and other plots all over the world to place a poppet or support  dictator government like Saudi, Yemen, Bahrian, Eygept, Marako, chili of pinoshehand the the list is never ending. or American zionit poppet which great all the war over the world and creat and cleansing of plastenian and other plot to bring American to such a position which hated all over the world by mass people. I'm sorry for such a peridsent to stay 4 years more in power as American president he is ready to sell his sole to zionist. the only  way out of this mess which created by your previous adminstration to start diplomatic relation without pre condition as I advised your Ambassador in yemen at 1982, "American not to push Iran otherwise they go to left" , still time for your administrtion to correct the wrong,  at the end you should keep in your mind that ;Iran is like a beatifull women which everyone wish to have it, so make sure not to lose it, only more carrot can help not stick.
    Pleae send a copy to Mr president
  • Great interview, Jeffrey!
  • It was a lousy interview. Goldberg didn't challenge Obama on anything. A child would have done a better interview.
  • Yes, but a supergenius child who has been studying Middle East politics while drafting the blueprints of his perpetual motion machine and playing online chess with 100 grandmasters simultaneously.
  • There are 3 issues which neither of you touched on (--thank goodness, because it wasn't the right place for it--) that help explain Israel's lingering distrust of Obama's assurances:
    (1) Obama and Clinton's disavowal of the Bush-Sharon letter understanding that most major existing settlements contiguous with pre-67 would remain with Israel and building there without expanding their area was not "settlement growth" ;
    (2) the manner in which Obama abandoned Mubarak, which made many Arab leaders, including the King of Jordan (who went public), scared that Obama's foreign policy promises in long-term push-and-pull relationships were shallow -- that Obama could just brush them off as though he never made them ;
    (3) the flip-flopping statements made by Leon Panetta and other statements from high-ranking administration officials that would indicate to Iran that the President of the United States DOES sometimes bluff.
  • Certainly Obama has no quarrel with it, I'm sure.
     Softball, anyone?
  • The Obama reelection campaign begins! with the same old US/Isreal drumbeating and saber-rattling about Iran. But isn't the double standard here obvious? Israel, backed by the US ("the world's only superpower") is a fully-armed nuclear nation (with a-bombs!) & the most sophisticated (US-supplied) weaponry. Israel engages in targeted assassination of whoever's on its hit list (Iranian nuclear scientists) & treats Palestinians as second-class citizens. There 's really no serious "existential threat" to Israel. But whenever Israel succumbs to hysteria & paranoia, they threaten to attack their neighbors, under the pretext of "self-defense." With US backing... Iran, on the other hand, constantly faces threats to its existence from the most powerful nations in the world. And so Iran, understandably, reacts with a combination of paranoia & aggression. Which isn't to say that Amadinejad isn't a lunatic & Khamenei a fanatic & Iran a tyrannical theocratic state & Iranian nukes a threat to world peace. And so on... But the point is that Israel & Iran are equally threats to Middle East peace & need to be held to the same standards. Both Israel & Iran need to sign the non-proliferation treaties. Both Israel & Iran need to establish non-aggression policies. And both Israel & Iran need to show the world they are not willing to massacre & exterminate other peoples in their own self-interest. And the US (the White House & the Obama administration) needs to establish that US support for Israel has certain distinct limits that do not include defending unprovoked attacks against other nations. Or targeted assasinations of innocent civilians. Or indefinite detention or torture of detainees (all Israeli policies once condemned by the US which are now US policies). And if The White House wants to "contain" Iran & increase support for US policies in the Middle East: Why not do something to stop the slaughter in Syria? Rather than perpetrating a slaughter in Iran... Which will only push the Midle East to the brink of world war & provoke eternal hatred for Israel & the US in all Muslim nations.
  • Israel's nukes aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along...
  • Dave1461 1 hour ago
    Bacon they are liked by the sharia arabs and liked by others
    because of the Oil and because they buy weapons etc from Russia ….. They are
    idiots who would kill millions because of their beliefs with a nuke.
    (Edited by author 1 hour ago)
  • Clearly we must kill millions of them first!
  • According to Middle East polls:
     In several countries, the difference in perceptions of Iran and the United States as positive forces was sizable (e.g., in Lebanon, where 57 percent see Iran as a positive influence, compared to 16 percent who see America that way, or in Egypt, where 32 percent see Iran as a positive influence, compared to 10 percent who view America in those terms).
    In an open question the two counties that pose the biggest threat to them, the vast majority of those polled identify Israel first, the United States second, and Iran third-by far.
    At the end of the day, the Arab public is not only not concerned about Iran's regional strength, but thinks it would be better for the region, probably in light of America's perceived weakness vis-à-vis Israel, for that regional strength to continue - unlike the assessment of their rulers.  However, on the need to end Israel's occupation, there is unanimity between the rulers and the ruled.
    Among the key poll findings are that a majority of the Arab public now see a nuclear-armed Iran as being better for the Middle East. On Iran's potential nuclear weapons status, results show another dramatic shift in public opinion. While the results vary from country to country, the weighted average across the six countries is telling:  in 2009, only 29% of those polled said that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be "positive" for the Middle East.
    22% admire Recep Erdogan
    13% Hassan Nasrallah
    13% Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
    .............
    4% Barack Obama
    3% Fidel Castro
  • eli_feruch 1 hour ago
    I am quite suspicious of a man in a state of denial toward his own actions. Never a us Prez has been so offensive against Israel.  Either by convicition or by lack of skills. I dont know.
    That would be the first thing. The second thing is that this man has a compulsive expression: " the truth of the matter".Emphasizing the falseness of the matter. The "truth of the matter" is that this man will be out of the oval office in fours years maximum. As an Israeli, I just can not imagine a worst US President for us and probably for America the world.
    This guy is a talker.
  • He is the worst president for Israel because he follows your lunatic prime minister like sheep. Both are extremely dangerous to the well-being of Israel. Instead, he should be trying to save Israel from committing suicide. If Israel is stupid enough to attack Iran, it will be the end of Israel and the end of US presence/influence in the Middle East.
  • Don_Bacon 1 hour ago
    Israel is a little piddly-assed country the size of New Jersey, with fewer people. It's amazing how this little place with a government that doesn't even reflect the views of its own people can jerk the US chain as it does.
  • Dave1461 1 hour ago
    because they already have nuke weapons porky and that was not what the interview was about...
  • So, where is your proof. Loose talk is very easy.
  • Obama ran his presidential campaign on talking to Iran, and took flack for doing so. But he never did. Why? Why talk to a poor little country on the other side of the earth and not talk to a kingpin of the Middle East, which supposedly is a region of vital U.S. interest?
  • Don_Bacon 1 hour ago
    Why does the U.S. talk to North Korea and not to Iran, Mr.  President?
     Something to do with money for your re-election campaign, perhaps?
  • Dave1461 1 hour ago
    India are only interested in taking out the Taliban sorry i mean Pakistan...no problem there
  • It does look like India might be disappointed in Afghanistan, considering the Taliban's new assassination tactics. (I wonder where they learned that from.)
  • Don_Bacon 1 hour ago
    Obama:
    When we came in, Iran was united and on the move, and the world was divided about how to address this issue. Today, the world is as united as we've ever seen it around the need for Iran to take a different path on its nuclear program, and Iran is isolated and feeling the severe effects of the multiple sanctions that have been placed on it.

    The idea that the world is united and Iran is isolated is pure bullshit. Look at this map.
  • Dave1461 1 hour ago
    QUINTERANUS and the other idiots need to wake up and understand that the nutters in charge of Iran need to be delt with.
  • What is nuts about a country that is widely liked by Arabs in the Middle East and which has recently (thanks, Uncle Sam) gained a powerful new ally in Iraq? Iran, a country which has many other powerful friends in Asia including China, Japan and India, and also Russia? What's nuts about that?
  • earlgrey133 1 hour ago
    He doesn't bluff.  He grovels!!
  • Don_Bacon 2 hours ago
    We have a new Decider. Enjoy the continuing disregard for the Constitution, this time from a former  “constitutional law professor”    -- his words. It won't be pretty, but hey, he needs to get re-elected and it takes money.
    Senator Obama, 2008:  The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
    So what are we facing? A replay of Libya, writ large.
  • SaamSam 2 hours ago
    I made the effort to read ALL comments. I am Iranian and non practicant muslim. In fact I dislike all Abrahamic religions because all problems in the middle east comes out of purposly crafted & planned  interpretations of these 3 religions which by the way are ONE and the same.
    Having said that Mr. JehudaBenIsreal either is really ignorant (because of his deep religious convictions) OR is trying mudding the waters to cover lots of facts. I detest with all my heart the religious dictatorship of ayatollahs in Iran, but this will not prevent me to protest against Israel as the ONLY REAL APARTIDE country in the wolrd community. What are the rights of Palestinians in Palestin / Isreal? How many more generations must leave in camps? Why Isreal doesn't give a jack to US President(s) request to stop expanding jewish settelments and try to solve this problem which is the roots of all radical happening in ME? Why Isreal needs 200+ nuclear warheads? (I believe at least US Presidents knows the real facts, please ask from President Carter about), Does Isreal allows IEAE inspectors go around Isreal and freely inspect everywhere based on reports they recieved from a member state (probably read Iran)? Does President Obama beyond his needs of jewish american votes for re-election has the courage to say to Isrealies that We USA wants a REAL Nuclear free ME and WE USA will gaurantee Isreal security fvor ever? Answer thes and more that I can choose from this interview and you will see how resentments will change to understanding. People re-act to double standard they are not anti-semite they want ONE RULE for all, no body is the CHOOSEN one and previlaged one.
    By the way the persian translation of the lunitic president of Iran's speech NEVER says destruction or wipping off Isreal from the map.
  • SaamSam, most of what you think you know about the Palestinians isn't true. If it's Israel that's keeping Palestinians in camps, tell me, why do the "camps" still exist in Gaza and in Area A of the West Bank, under Palestinian self-rule for 18 years? Why do they still exist in Lebanon, in Syria, in Jordan? It is the Arab leadership that created the refugee camps, and got a special UN agency devoted to their permanent maintenance (UNWRA). Using the UN's money, not their own. The Arabs had plenty of room to resettle the refugees. But they prefer to keep them as the only multi-generational refugee population on earth, as grist for the mill.
  • Excellent. So you start by stating your ignorance (obvious) about Judaism. then you make a long bla bla on religions, consisting in equalizing everything. as usual with ignorants.
    And a liar. Do you want me to quote a dozens declaration of either your Iranain prez or its boss?
    Propaganda as usual. Does not deserve more words.
  • Yes, please quote them. So, what? Have you heard of free speech. I can quote the lunatic Netanyahu say a hundred times, "All options are on the table against Iran." That is a real threat. Ahmadinejad wishing or predicting the end of Israel is not a threat. Israelis are paranoid because of the Holocaust and think that everyone wants to kill them. See a psychiatrist instead.
  • Dave1461 2 hours ago
    Quineranus its happening thats why you hear about undercover operations happening every day....wake up....one solutions take the leaders out...   
  • You don't even know how to respond to a comment? Do you see the REPLY button on the bottom right of each comment? You seem so uneducated that you cannot put one coherent sentence together. Did you read the LA Times reference that I provided? Here it is again:
    http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

No comments:

Post a Comment