He didn't say that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime is unacceptable. He didn't express a commitment to preventing such an outcome, or confidence that the United States and international community would prevent such an outcome. He simply suggested that it wouldn't be optimal for Iran to choose that outcome. And if the rulers of the Islamic republic disagree? In the very speech in which Obama outlined his vision of a world without nuclear weapons, he weakened America's stand against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear- and missile-capable North Korea and Iran -- and a far more dangerous world.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
William Kristol On What Obama Didn't Do
Reviewing Obama's speech on Iran and North Korea, notice what he didn't do:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
To be expected.
I remember watching an interview before he was elected. He was asked about Iran's Nuclear program. His response: (emphasis mine)
"We must do everything possible, to apply pressure on Iran to step their program.
He didn't say actually do everything possible to step there program, to him what was important was that we "apply pressure" or appear to be doing something, but meanwhile they get them bomb.
Knew right then, what to expect from him as president (i.e. "Not much").
And this:
"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.
HUH?
What he didn't mention either is the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel (Dimona), although Israel is not allowed to have these (conform the non-proliferation treaty).
Obama showed his hand before the election and he continues to do so. This is a process - a process of a total shift of America's position in the world, and that includes friendships and alliances (witness the commitment to Italy - a committed allay - after the earthquake $50k and the commitment to the Palestinians $900M). America's relationship with Israel is in the process of becoming a historical relationship. And if the global economic crisis persists, America's finger will be pointed at Israel first and then at the Jew's in general. (JMIO)
Martijn, that's probably because (a) Israel & the US have not officially recognized that there are such weapons, if at all - but I do hope they are there; (b) and because Israel isn't threatening to destroy another country because they are of a different faith or national identity; and (c) I don't think that Israel is a signatory to that Treaty.
Mr. Medad,
(a) Israel & the US have not officially recognized that there are such weapons, if at all - but I do hope they are there;
If so, maybe US or UN should send inspectors and if anything is found, US should attack Israel as they attacked Iraq?
(b) and because Israel isn't threatening to destroy another country because they are of a different faith or national identity;
How about Palestine or Lebanon which israel just recently attacked with nonconventional weapons like white phosphorus. Isn't it too aggressive for attacking an enemy who doesn't even has an army?
How about Iran, as you suggested from Liebermann's statement who seeks peace will find war. Iran has never attacked another country or started a war , Israel did many many times.
(c) I don't think that Israel is a signatory to that Treaty.
That's always an excuse you can use. Maybe you should stick to that in stead of a, b BS.
Post a Comment